7.
.7 .‘ r, 1‘ .y. ,
..

THE'EFFECTS DFSUBJEGTIVE
ORGANIZATwNAL ABILITY AND THE». - g ° -f - * 3
crewman" gor MATERiALS :ou ‘ » ;
READINGCOMPREHEN-SWN: . f; _~.:
AN mmnmnowaocessmc- « j
' INTERPRETATION ‘ '

Dissertati‘en for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY '
HEHRY CALVIN fiOHNSON '
1974

.3 '~.' 21-1...» “ink-ninth V'h s - . .,, .\ ,.~ _ v” , ,
“"!.’?‘}‘fl*.i.fl‘$t'-i {uh’é‘ttL-fiS‘lf-T" " y ‘.‘ - I, .< V ,

 

v.. ::::

   
    

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

This is to certify that'the

thesis entitled

THE EFFECTS OF SUBJECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY
AND THE ORGANIZATION OF MATERIALS ON READING
COMPREHENSION: AN INFORMATION PROCESSING
INTERPRETATION

presented by

Henry Calvin Johnson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. degreeinDeEar tment of Coun-
seling, Personnel

Services, and Edu—
cational Psychology

(1W

Major p(} o ssor

 

 
     

anax amnmmn‘

DIARY BIN

 

 

 

 

 

'."' t“
in
14.!“

‘ "if; -
“N,- MECTS cw

't ww mpRUI‘.
_ ~ maxim-1
s.

- .: H5

5v.

    
   
   
   
   
   
 

The QLLffiR"
.‘J

V from; Qubjmr. i.-.--

~-; of mate: ~.,

Rd” "0 grfiitkl". .M" tR‘“

“a .r

.bt‘ mthgc ‘1“; _ N
Rm: or haw-1% t,

5‘on was measurefi L;

Q of intertriai

R W'Jlmjéct: f'.~ Jtu.»

 

and subjectiaa arflgxd’

Hood readers { Terag:

.gfigftorence Poo: Readers

\" i"

t A": 4.-

L‘.

' -1 . ‘&-c LL 5
LA'LOHaL a: .' -QJuf

. 3‘: J3; ( ff .". .

a‘LiOQ? {stamens wine-

:-2 above 'mxiezq 6915;;0'

(a. 30.13646 m duh-Wt

RM below average :a-edu»: cmwuitzwgsuas,
Mt Readers (below cavemen zeudmwsgc
‘Wcmfl. Afifitain each group, M _ .i
' 3 “either a high or M subjectintg .~"

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTS OF SUBJECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY
AND THE ORGANIZATION OF MATERIALS ON READING
COMPREHENSION: AN INFORMATION PROCESSING
INTERPRETATION
BY

Henry Calvin Johnson

The purpose of this study was to determine whether
or not subjective organizational ability and the organi-
zation of materials influence reading comprehension for
good and two groups of poor readers, Difference and
Deficit. Another purpose was to examine which test
items, fact or inference, are affected by passage organi-
zation and subjective organizational ability. Subjective
organization was measured by Bousfield and Bousfield's
(1966) measure of intertrial repetition (ITR).

The subjects (N=200) were college freshmen clas-
sified as good readers (average or above reading compre-
hension), Difference Poor Readers (average or above
vocabulary but below average reading comprehension),
and Deficit Poor Readers (below average reading compre-
hension and vocabulary). Within each group, readers

were classified as either a high or low subjective

(J

 

r R"

(l Henry Calvin Johnson

\D

Q) organizer and given either a well-organized or poorly

organized passage to read. After reading the passage,
subjects were given a reading comprehension test composed
of fact items (recall information directly from the pas-
sage) and inference items (making a deduction from infor-
mation not included directly in the passage).

The general hypothesis, derived from Cromer's
(1970) conceptualization of Difference Poor Readers and
a proposed model of reading comprehension as an infor-
mation processing activity, was that there would be a
three-way interaction.

A 3 x 2 x 2 analysis of variance design was used
to analyze reading groups by subjective organizational
ability by passage organization; each dependent variable
(total reading comprehension score, fact score, inference
score) was examined in separate univariate analyses.

The major finding was that when subjective
organizational ability was combined with reading ability
additional information was provided about the performance
of Difference Poor Readers. Difference Poor Readers who
were low subjective organizers did not perform signifi-
cantly higher than Deficit Poor Readers who were low
subjective organizers. But Difference Poor Readers who
were high subjective organizers did score significantly
higher on total reading comprehension than Deficit Poor

Readers who were high subjective organizers. When the

 

r——————

Henry Calvin Johnson

total comprehension score was analyzed by fact and
inference scores, inference items were the source of

the interaction. No interaction was found between read-
ing ability groups and subjective organizational ability
on the fact items.

The results were interpreted within an information
processing model of reading for comprehension. Subjective
organizational ability was described as one of the many
internal organizational processes which enabled readers
to transform surface structures into more abstract deep
structures, stored and retrieved from memory. The results
have implications for future research on organizational
processes that may influence reading comprehension and
support the position that readers use organizational pro-

cesses in learning as well as reading for comprehension.

Bousfield, A. K., & Bousfield, W. A. Measurement of
clustering and of sequential constancies in
repeated free recall. Psychological Reports,
1966, lg, 935-942.

 

Cromer, W. The difference model: A new explanation for
some reading difficulties. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1970, El, 471—483.

       
   
 

THE EFFECTS OF SUBJECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY

V‘ AND THE ORGANIZATION OF MATERIALS ON READING
.‘ iV.‘

A“

COMPREHENSION: AN INFORMATION PROCESSING

INTERPRETATION
BY

Henry Calvin Johnson

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

”tment of Counseling, Personnel Services, ana-
' Educational Psychology ‘

1974 R r ‘

 

 

i
0

Pen.

     

’JU“ Copyright by
HENRY CALVIN JOHNSON

1974

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to sincerely thank the many individuals
who encouraged and assisted me throughout my graduate
career. In addition, I want to especially thank the
individuals who had the endurance to critique earlier
drafts of this dissertation. A special thanks is also
due to my guidance committee for their confidence and
encouragement throughout my research and especially
Dr. Byers for his guidance as my dissertation chairman,
and to Drs. Shulman and Lezotte for coming through with
the right words at the right time which added to my
enthusiasm to complete this research.

I wish to also thank Joe Wisenbaker, a friend
and colleague, whose statistical expertise was invaluable.
Similarly, thanks are due the secretaries in the Office
of Medical Education and especially Mary Harris, for her
friendship and technical support.

Of course none of this would have been worth the
effort had it not been for the people who shaped my
direction: members of the pentecostal church; Mr. and

Mrs. Thomas Holloway; Mrs. Carrie C. Woods; Mr. and

ii

fi—_

Mrs. Harvey Orendorf; my grandparents, Georgia and Henry
Mason; my aunts and uncles, Mary, Rosa, Odell, and Sonny;
my brothers, Johnny and Cordy; and my parents, Cordy and
Odessa whose unyielding confidence and love helped me to
keep the pace.
Finally, I wish to express my deepest appreciation

to my wife, Jan, and daughter, Jill, who suffered with

me but who continued to provide the joy and inspiration

that made this undertaking worth it all.

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . 3

Purpose of the study . . . . . . . 5
Research Hypothesis. . . . . . . 6

Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Difference Poor Readers . . . 7
Information Processing Approaches . . 8

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . 18

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. . . . . . 19
Subjective Organization . . . . . . 19
Historical Perspective. . . . . . 20
Organization of Materials. . . . . . 32
Organization in Comprehension . . . . 41
Organization and Poor Readers . . . . 44
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . 53

Hypotheses of Interest. . . . . . . 54

III. METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Materials . . . . . . . . . . 59

Unrelated word list. . . . . . 59

Passages . . . . . . . . . 59

iv

 

 

Chapter Page
Measurement of Variables . . . . . 62
Reading ability groups. . . . 62
Reading comprehension test (depen-
dent measure) . . . . . . . 65
Reliability estimates . . . . . 66
Subjective Organizational Ability . . 67
Pilot Study 0 O O O O 0 O l I 69
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 69
Free recall learning task. . . . 70
Reading task . . . . . . . . 71
Design and Experimental Treatment . . 72

Reading ability groups. .

Subjective organizational ability . 73
Passage organization . . . . . 73
Dependent variables. . . . . . 73
Analysis . . . . 73
Testable Research Hypotheses. . . . 74
IV. ANALYSES AND RESULTS . . . . . . . . 76
Section I . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Total Reading Comprehension Score . . 77
Section II. . . . . . . . . . . 84
Fact Comprehension Score . . . . . 84
Section III . . . . . . . . . . 87
Inference Comprehension Score . . . 87
V. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY. . . . . . . . 99
Experiment II o e o o O I O o O O 101
Sample . . . . . . . . . 101
Analysis and Results . . . . . . 103
Discussion. . . . . . . . 108
Implications for Future Research . . . 113
Smary C I O O I U I I O U 0 118

v

 

u.’ I“ . . I. .
. v . ‘ ’ 0 I I, o o . . .
the Pu . ‘ ~~ .. r

    
     
    
 
 
 
  
 
  
   

Rmrfih‘le'tsu _-, ; . _ v a: J
cflhfilbie . . , .

. 13A (‘.{.~.;_‘T.Lj"? '5. .. a», r. .t '3 1
‘ gOr Siwb ~‘~ RIVA}; 'v! .‘7 7 ’1 '. ?'., " 2 Tr)? J A
Riiltteuflnq (1:. gtv-r, . . __ _

9f x .‘ x .« .13. 9‘} $31.-:‘.a‘s_fi'|é.'-.‘ti{>g
“more; as. the wouuzism, fazL ”is. .

..
r
,-
4
p
"I
I
v
A
4
u
n
o

oftteans am, ‘35- txrd Deviant“: is}:

key“?- Using fact {3 ' 5.—
'he tenendent VXPAIA"A

Of 505115156 95% Confldux .8 Kwulc

Simple Mean Differences for 933;:

(I. sion Scores . , . . . . .

913x2x2m'kmultnvsing " -_
.'- Scores as the Dependent Variable 4""

‘ ..‘
i.
A ‘ _ '.
R,
‘ am - ~ -
.
' If .
_.
IA .I -

 

 

Table
1.

LIST OF TABLES

Summary of Means, Standard Deviations, and
Group Sizes by Group Classification on
the Michigan State University Reading
Comprehension Test and Vocabulary Test,
and the Measure of Subjective Organi-
zation . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reliability Coefficients by Passage Organi-
zation on Total, Inference, and Fact
scores a o a o o o a o o o o 0

Summary of 3 x 2 x 2 ANOVA Results Using
Total Reading Comprehension Scores as
the Dependent Variable. . . . . . .

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for
3 x 2 x 2 ANOVA Design Using Total Reading

Comprehension Scores as the Dependent
variable 0 O o I o o I I O o 0

Summary of Scheffé 95% Confidence Intervals
for Simple Mean Differences for Total
Reading Comprehension Scores. . . . .

Summary of 3 x 2 x 2 ANOVA Results Using
Fact Scores as the Dependent Variable. .

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for

3 x 2 x 2 ANOVA Design Using Fact Compre-
hension Scores as the Dependent Variable.

Summary of Scheffé 95% confidence Intervals
for Simple Mean Differences for Fact
Comprehension Scores . . . . . - .

Summary of 3 x 2 x 2 ANOVA Results Using

Inference Scores as the Dependent Variable

Page

64

67

78

79

81

85

86

89

90

I‘D

 

Table
10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

8-1 o

3-2.

B-3I

Page

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for

3 x 2 x 2 ANOVA Design Using Inference

Comprehension Scores as the Dependent

variable 0 o o o I o I o I 0 a O 91
Summary of Scheffé 95% Confidence Intervals

for Simple Mean Differences for Inference

scores I I I o I I I o o I I I O 94
Sample Correlation Matrix of Michigan State

University Reading Test, Vocabulary and

Reading Comprehension Scores; Total

Reading Comprehension Scores (Dependent

Measure), Fact and Inference Scores . . . 96
Summary of Cell Means and Standard

Deviations I o o o I o o o o O 9 lo 4
Results of Multivariate Analysis of Variance

(MANOVA) Test on Fact and Inference

scoresI I o o o o o o I I o o 0 106
Mean Number of Words Recalled for Good and

Poor Readers. . . . . . . . . . . 146
Mean Number of Words Recalled for High and

Low Subjective Organizers . . .- . . . 146
Mean Number of Words Recalled Over Time and

Learning Strategies . . . . . . . . 148

viii

(vi

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

l.

2.

10.

An information processing model of the system

influencing reading comprehension . . .

Venn diagram of the set-subset relationships
in the reading passages . . . . . .

A comparison of paragraph ordering between
well- and poorly organized passage,
Experiment I . . . . . . . . . .

Example of syllogism used by Anderson to
represent the construction of inference
items . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean total comprehension scores for reading
groups by subjective organizational
ability. 0 O I O O I O C O O I

Mean fact comprehension scores for reading
groups by subjective organizational
ability. 0 O O O 0 O O O O O I

Mean inference comprehension scores for
reading groups by subjective organi-
zational ability. . . . . . . . .

Comparison of paragraph ordering for well-
and poorly organized passages in
Experiment II. . . . . . . . . .

Total, fact and inference scores on well-
organized and poorly organized passages .

The influence of passage organization on
answering fact and inference items. . .

ix

Page

12

60

61

65

82

88

93

102

105

108

s

i

 

no.

0'.

9|.

‘0‘

H

"A

“a

'v

‘N

‘1

 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

'The lack of adequate reading skills remains one
of the major difficulties confronting American school
children. Although volumes of research exist on the
problems associated with reading and reading comprehension,
the basic cognitive processes affecting reading compre-
hension are not understood (Simons, 1971). Until these
processes are known, the practical problems of learning
to read may not be solved. Improving reading instruction,
therefore, may depend on knowledge of the cognitive pro-
cesses and strategies influencing reading comprehension.

Traditionally, the corrective action to improve

reading has been to put more dollars into remedial read-
ing programs for "poor readers." Instead of expanding
programs that have failed initially, prior experience has
indicated that a new direction is needed (Guthrie, 1973;
Oakan, Wienar, & Cromer, 1971). That is, reading diffi—
culties should be considered from a new and different
perspective; and researchers should examine the antecedents

and consequences of these difficulties confronting poor

 

readers, thus providing a framework in which reading
research can be systematically studied. Information
processing approaches may provide the systematic means for
studying reading comprehension and are the theoretical
roots from which this study evolved.

While models have been used to study good readers,
they have not been used extensively to study the reading
comprehension of poor readers (Guthrie, 1973). Cromer
and Wiener (1967) conceptualized four models of reading
difficulties. "Each of the models implies different
assumptions about the etiology or antecedents of the dif-
ficulty and about the kinds of interventions required to
modify the difficulty (Cromer, 1968, p. 2)." Two of the
models described, the Difference and Deficit, are con—
sidered in this study. The Deficit model of poor readers
' . . .implies that reading difficulty is attributable to
the absence of some function (Cromer, 1968, p. 2)." That
is, reading difficulty occurs because some process or
factor is absent that must be added for adequate reading
(i.e., a lack of phonetics, language, or vocabulary
skills). Most remediation attempts occur within the
context of this model because the deficit is considered
reversible (Cromer, 1968).

On the other hand, the Difference model implies
that reading difficulty is due to a difference or "mis-

match" between the way individuals typically respond to

 

reading material and that necessary for adequate compre-
hension. That is, they do not respond appropriately to
the organization within the material. The Difference
model assumes that an " . . . individual would read cor—
rectly if the materials were consistent with his behavior
patterns, i.e., a change in either the materials or his
patterns of verbalization, would result in better reading
(Cromer, 1968, p. 3.)"

Further delineating the "Difference—Deficit" dis-
tinction, Cromer (1970) suggested that Difference Poor
Readers are different because they fail to effectively
organize their input materials; therefore, improved
camprehension occurs only by appropriately pre-organizing
the reading materials. The present study was derived
from Cromer's (1970) conceptualization of Difference
Poor Readers and the conceptualization of reading for

comprehension as an information processing activity.

Statement of the Problem

 

While much of the emphasis in reading has been
on the mastery of word identification skills, the
importance of organization in reading has received com-
paratively little attention (Oakan & Wiener, 1971).
Similarly, teachers have provided minimal opportunity
for students to learn organizational strategies needed

to improve comprehension (Guszak, 1972). Researchers

 

(DiVesta, Schultz, & Dangel, 1973; Frase, 1969; Friedman
& Greitzer, 1972; Schultz & DiVesta, 1972) have demon-
strated that subjects identify and use organization
within materials; similarly, subjects impose organization
(subjective organization) when it is absent from the
material. Yet research has not demonstrated that a
measure of subjective organization taken independently

of the material will influence reading comprehension.
Demonstrating that an independent measure of subjective
organization, in part, accounts for reading performance
would further support the notion that organizational pro-
cesses are similar across cognitive tasks. For example,
the processes found to influence list learning may also
influence reading comprehension.

Ineffective organizational skills were described
as the source of reading difficulty for Difference Poor
Readers (Cromer, 1970), but the inability to use these
skills was minimized by appropriately pre-organizing the
input materials. Although the organization within
materials may be important, the ability to internally
organize information (subjectively organize) may be
equally important for Difference Poor Readers, especially
when comprehension includes understanding relationships
between events or integrating the information read.

That is, some poor readers may benefit from the organi-

zation within the materials because adequate subjective

 

em.

organizational capabilities enable them to transform
surface information (i.e. meaning, words, organizational
structure, content, syntactical cues) into more abstract
deep structures (images, pictorial representations, the-
matic representation) stored in memory (Dooling & Lach-
man, 1971; Neisser, 1967; Powell, Havner, & Wiggins,
1972; Spangenberg, 1971). If surface structure and
deep structure can be represented by test items requir—
ing an inference or the recall of information directly
from the reading materials, then a comprehension test
consisting of such items could reflect the extent sub-
jective organization influences these structures.
Understanding reading comprehension requires
more knowledge of the information processing demands of
the reading materials and how these demands interact
with subjects' information processing abilities (Fried-
man & Greitzer, 1972). Combining free recall techniques
used to study organization in memory with Cromer's (1970)
conceptualization of Difference Poor Readers, this study
examines the influence of subjective organizational
ability and the organization of materials on reading

comprehension for good and two groups of poor readers.

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of this study is to determine whether
subjective organizational ability interacts with the

organization of materials differentially influencing

 

reading comprehension for good and two groups of poor
readers, Difference Poor and Deficit Poor. Since com-
prehension is evaluated by the items of a test, another
purpose is to examine which items, fact or inference,

are influenced by subjective organization.

Research Hypothesis

 

Since the hypotheses are stated more specifically
in Chapter II, only the general research hypothesis is
stated briefly below. The general research hypothesis
is that knowledge of subjective organizational ability
and the organization of material will provide additional
information about reading comprehension for some poor
readers. In addition, the following general questions

are asked:

1. Does subjective organizational ability influence
reading comprehension for poor readers defined
as having reading difficulty because they do not

organize their input effectively?

2. Does subjective organizational ability influence

inference or fact items?

3. Do good readers have higher comprehension scores
than poor readers when the reading material is

well organized?

 

4. Does passage organization and subjective organi-
zational ability interact to affect the reading

comprehension of some poor teachers?

Theory
Difference Poor Readers

Although models have been used extensively to
study reading, only recently have they been used to study
poor readers (Cromer, 1968, 1970; Guthrie, 1973; Levin,
1971-72; Wiener & Cromer, 1967). Cromer (1968), proposing
a Difference Model to describe some poor readers, found
that these readers could not comprehend traditionally
organized materials; but when given phrase-organized
materials, they comprehended as well as good readers.
Cromer (1970) concluded that an inability to organize
input information accounted for the failure of these
poor readers to comprehend the reading materials.

Levin (1971—72) suggested that an ordinal apti-
tude treatment interaction (ATI) model best accounted
for the treatment differences between good and poor
readers. He proposed that good readers would have
higher performance than poor readers across treatment
conditions, but the difference would be less under one
condition than the other. In the context of the present
study, an ATI interpretation suggests that good readers

will perform higher than poor readers regardless of

 

. 1.513;; -

reading materials; but the difference between good and
poor readers, reading the well-organized materials, is

expected to be less than when reading poorly organized

materials. An ordinal ATI interpretation rather than

the traditional disordinal " . . . simply says that the
variations in the nature of instructional materials are
not as crucial for 'good' students as they are for 'poor'
students (Levin, 1971-72, p. 22)." The hypotheses in
this study were formulated to test the ordinal ATI

assumptions.

Information Processing Approaches

 

Reading is a primary and complex information
processing activity (Geyer, in press). Information
processing approaches, a viewpoint for looking at the
interaction of cognitive processes, may help to better
understand the complex processes of reading for compre-
hension (Geyer, 1973). Although not a new interpretation
of reading (cf. Huey, 1908), information processing
models have been used more recently to explain reading
(Geyer, 1972). For example, after reviewing 48 models
of reading, Geyer (1972) suggested that the models,
although differing in schematic representation, described
similar processes. Thus he stated:

Being based on information processing, most of the
models describe one or more manifestations of
information flow: (a) the extraction and trans-

formation of the information itself, (b) the
‘-

 

 

identification of the processing systems and

their operating characteristics, and (c) the

neurological substrata [p. 582].
According to Geyer, " . . . the strength of the infor-
mation processing point of View is its strong tendency
to cut across discipline boundaries and its probable
effectiveness in moving research from laboratory to
classroom [p. 12]." That is, studying reading within
an information processing context may provide a means
of understanding the interaction of complex processes
that lead to the solution of reading inadequacies (Geyer,
1973). Since the utility of an information processing
model is its representation of the interaction of com-
plex cognitive processes, a model of reading compre-
hension as an information processing activity was a
useful means for generating hypotheses about the
organizational processes influencing reading compre-
hension in the present study.

Geyer (1972) described two information processing
models: O-type models, describing the systems operating
between input and output, and S-type models, describing
the transformation of information from symbol to meaning.
The hypotheses in this study were derived from what
approximates an O-type model. These models " . . . view
reading as a system of assoCiated components (Guthrie,
1973, p. 10)," and " . . . suggests that the reading

process requires the presence of components not identical

 

10

in function but that are interdependent (Guthrie, 1973,
p. 10)." System models have been useful for studying
the interaction of complex cognitive processes in read-
ing. For example within the context of the system model,
readers were assumed to have an interfacilitation among
their subskills; but the source of reading difficulties
for poor readers was a lack of the interrelationship
among subskills influencing reading (Guthrie, 1973).
Guthrie, defining poor readers, argued that two sources
are responsible for their general deficiency: A
deficiency in several subskill areas caused by a
deficit in one or two areas which prevent the others
from developing and a lack of interdependence among
subskills caused by the lack of positive transfer among
subskills, thus preventing other skills from increasing
normally (Guthrie, 1973). The inference that the absence
of a particular subskill would limit reading comprehension
for some poor readers provided the catalyst for including
poor readers in the present design.

Simons (1971) suggested that the construction
of theoretical models of the reading processes has been
a recent and useful approach to understanding the read-
ing comprehension processes. Furthermore, he added that
models could be used to generate testable hypotheses
which, if validated through empirical research, could

ultimately lead to a theory of reading comprehension.

 

‘W

—w-———v—

__-—-—-—-—

L _, -_--5l\‘ _

11

The basic premise of this study is that the cog-
nitive processes involved in reading are similar to the
processes found in human problem solving and other learn-
ing activities.

Newell and Simon (1972) postulated a theory of
human problem solving within an information processing
framework which they summarized by the following propo-
sitions:

l. A few, and only a few, gross characteristics
of the human IPS [Information Processing System]
are invariant over task and problem solver.

2. These characteristics are sufficient to deter-
mine that a task environment is represented (in
the IPS) as a problem space, and that problem
solving takes place in a problem space.

3. The structure of the task environment deter-
mines the possible structures of the problem
space.

4. The structure of the problem space determines
the possible programs that can be used for
problem solving.

Influenced by Newell and Simon, a model was
formulated and used to generate hypotheses in the present
study (see Figure 1). Based on the assumption that the
reading process is composed of numerOus complex components
that are "not identical in function or strength but are
interdependent," the model proposes to explain reading
for comprehension as an information processing activity.
Thus, to achieve comprehension requires an interaction

between the task demands of the materials and the infor-

mation processing abilities of the reader.

12

  

scamswnwumfioo msflomwu
mswoswsamsw mEmumhm won «0 Hopes msflmmmoonm GOHuMEH0msH :4 .H .mwm

38.1.2. zo:<~_z<o¢o « In
outings. zo:<~_z<omo u H

20—m2w1mmn—s—Oo

 

 

>mO_2wS_
5mm...
hmOIm

    

   

_ ”29242.53:

 

mmmwwnvOca

 

_ Ozamwoomn— _

3’7. _

wo<am
55400:.“—

l'll""|'l"|l >I—m8L

 

mil—subs:
OwN_2<0¢O

 

 

 

 

 
 

m . “H
m _ L.u-u--!:!.-.-

m4<Ewh<Z
OwN.z<0mO
44w;

 

 

 

 

 

9.82%... _
sews e23

NIL

13

To represent this interaction, the model proposes
that reading materials function as a task environment;
and the structure (organization) of the materials to be
read determines the organizational strategy (programs)
employed to achieve comprehension. That is, if the
material is meaningfully organized (well organized) the
internal organizational processes of the problem space
will accommodate the organization of the material. How-
ever, if the organization of the material is ambiguous
(poorly organized) the problem space will employ an
organizational strategy (subjective organization) for
purposes of recall and comprehension of the materials.
The implication of the model is that reading materials
behave as a task environment; and subjective organizational
processes serve as internal organizing functions, both
detecting and imposing structure on information to be
comprehended. In this study, the interaction between
the Organization of materials and subjective organiza—
tional ability is postulated as affecting comprehension.
F0: example, if the organization of the materials is
POOI, the organizational processes of high subjective
organizers are activated and will take charge to provide
the organization necessary for comprehension. However, if
the material is well organized the subjective organi-
zational processes will accommodate the organization

within the materials. Because of the accommodating

 

 

14

function of the subjective organizational processes to

the input materials, the influence of subjective organi-
zation may be overlooked. In contrast, low subjective
organizers are expected to have difficulty because they

are not capable of detecting or imposing organization. One
way of testing these assumptions is to construct an experi-
ment using well- and poorly organized materials crossed
with high and low subjective organizers.

According to Newell and Simon (1972), problems lie
in the objective task environment; and only information
about the task environment can be relevant in the solution.
This, they argued, is demonstrated whenever the behavior
of the subject can be described as taking place in the
problem space. For Newell and Simon, the task is to show
how structural information about the task environment is
embedded in the problem space and how this information
is used during the problem solving process. The task of
this study is to demonstrate that the organization of the
materials and the subjective organizational ability of
the reader interact to influence reading comprehension.

As diagrammed in Figure 1, the general flow of the model
is interactive; that is, communication between components
is a two-way process. Processing mechanisms (i.e.,
vision, sound, attention, and perception) synthesize and
analyze the input information and attempt to formulate

meaning within the problem space. Information flow,

15

however, is further reduced and organized by the Organi-
zational Processes before it reaches the problem space.
When materials are well organized, information is trans-
mitted to the problem space immediately. When poor
organization in materials is detected and communicated,
the organizational processes impose a structure on the
information transmitted to the problem space. Within
the problem space, programs and operators transform
surface structures into abstract structures that are
transmitted from the materials and stored in memory,
both short term and long term, as deep structures. The
result is that meaning is stored as abstract structures.
To test comprehension, these structures must be retrieved
(Powell et al., 1972).

"Experimental study of human information processing
involves observation of physical fact, the stimulus;
another physical fact, the response; and inference con-
cerning the system mediating between the two (Quastler,
1955, p. 143)." In this study the stimulus is the organi-
zation of materials and the response is performance on a
reading comprehension test.

This study extends previous research on subjective
Organization and organization of materials in that it
attempts to investigate the interaction between subjective

organizational ability and organization of reading

materials for good and poor readers. It is unique in

 

 

16

that it examines the reading comprehension processes
within a human problem-solving model of information
processing.

Basically two key questions are asked: First,
does knowing how individuals organize information in a
free recall learning task provide information about how
subjects with different reading ability will perform on
a reading comprehension task? Second, does knowing the
organization of input information and knowing the sub-
jective organizational ability of different groups of
readers reveal information about their comprehension?

By observing behavior (subjective organization)
that occurs in a learning situation and determining the
degree to which that behavior is represented in different
readers, it may be possible to determine the combined
influence of the two variables on reading comprehension.
As implied by the model, the organization of materials
and subjective organizational processes are two of
several variables that may influence reading comprehen—
sion. Since the organization within the materials may,
in part, determine the subjective organizational strate-
gies necessary for comprehension, comprehension could be
a product of the organizational processes or the organi—
zation of materials or both.

According to the system model, a positive cor-

relation would be expected among measures taken to

 

17

represent the various components: organizational pro-
cesses, short-term memory, and long-term memory. In
this study, short-term memory is represented in part by
answering fact items (information recalled directly from
the text) on a reading comprehension test. Long-term
memory is represented by answering inference items, and
in part fact items. Fact items are, therefore, expected
to be represented in both short- and long-term memory
because the information retained in long-term memory is
derived from information about content material. Organi-
zational processes are represented by a measure of sub-
jective organization.

In review, the hypotheses and formulation of
this study were derived from an information processing
interpretation of reading for comprehension. The model
proposed is that reading materials function as a task
environment; and the structure (organization) of the
materials determines the organizational strategy employed
by the reader. Consequently, if the materials are mean-
ingfully organized (well organized) then the internal
organizational processes of the reader will accommodate
the organization within the material. But if the organi-
zation of the material is ambiguous (poorly organized),
the reader will impose the organization needed for com-

prehension. Since the organization of materials was

 

18

demonstrated to influence Difference Poor Readers, they

were included as the primary group of interest.

Overview

Chapter II reviews the literature on subjective
organization, the organization of materials in learning
research, and also provides a background for the logical
inconclusion of the variables in this study; the hypotheses
of interest are also stated in this chapter. In Chapter
III, the specific procedures, analysis, and the pilot
study conducted are discussed. Chapter IV presents the
analyses and results of the hypotheses tested, and
Chapter V includes a discussion of the results and
reports the results of a second study conducted; a

summary of the study is also presented in this chapter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter, divided into four major sections,
discusses the literature relevant to the present study:
the first discusses the literature on subjective organi-
zation; the second, the literature on the organization
of material; the third, the literature on organization
in reading comprehension; and the fourth, the literature

on the influence of organization for poor readers.

Subjective Organization

Clearly, the literature on free recall learning
has supported the importance of organization (Bower, 1970;
Mandler, 1967, 1968; Postman, 1972) and subjective organi-
zation in memory (Bousfield & Bousfield, 1966; Bousfield,
Puff, & Cowan, 1964; Bower, Legold, & Tieman, 1969;
Earhard, 1967a, 1967b; Mayhew, 1967; Tulving, 1962a,
1962b). This section reviews the literature on subjec-
tive organization in free recall learning and provides
the background for its inclusion as a variable in the

Present study.

19

 

20

Historical Perspective

Organizational processes in memory are rooted
in Gestalt psycholOgy; however, within Gestalt theory,
the concept of organization failed to gain empirical
support (Postman, 1972). Cousequently, as psychologists
became more interested in empirically demonstrating the
influence of organization on memory, free recall tech-
niques became the means of studying cognitive organization
and "pre-existing associations in verbal material (Tulving,
1968)." Early interest in organization was directed
toward clustering (cf. Bousfield, 1953). According to
Shuell (1969), three models, which differed primarily in
the experimental situation used for inducing clustering,
have been developed and traditionally used; two of these
models were similar because the basis for organization

was experimenter determined:

1. Categorical clustering was used to determine the

 

extent to which subjects recalled words belonging
to the same categories. The stimulus list, com-
posed of words representing mutually exclusive
conceptual categories, was pre-structured by the

experimenter.

2. Associative clustering was similar to categorical

 

clustering; in that, the experimenter included

words in the list that were associatively

 

 

21

related. Organization was determined by the
extent to which associatively related words

were recalled together.

3. Subjective organization differed from the other

 

two models because the organization in the list
was not predetermined by the experimenter, and

the word lists were usually composed of "unrelated
words." That is, the experimenter made no attempt
to include categorical or associatively related
words. Subjective organization was determined

by the extent to which two words were recalled

together on successive trials.

In the present study, a measure of subjective
organization (intertrial repetition) was used to evaluate
organization in memory as reflected in a subject's out-
put (recall).

Subjective organization measurement differed from
the measurement of clustering in that clustering measures
generally compared the order of recall on a given trial
with the organization defined by the experimenter. In
contrast, subjective organization measurement attempted
to determine the organization imposed by the learner when
no apparent organization was defined in the materials by
the experimenter. For example, in clustering research,

subjects were asked to recall lists of words categorically

‘V
I.

.-
.‘

IV
U.

 

22

or associatively related; their recall was then compared

to the number of defined clusters. To evaluate subjective

organization, subjects were generally provided with a
list of unrelated words (in the sense that the experi-
menter did not define the organization in the list); and
their recall was judged by the pairs of words that
occurred together across trials. The measurement of
subjective organization, therefore, required two or more
trials; whereas, clustering could be measured after a
single trial. In summary, the main differences between
the approaches to studying organization were the experi-
mental procedures used and the extent to which word
relatedness was obvious to the subjects (Shuell, 1969).

Two of the most popular measures of subjective
organization have been Tulving's (1962) index of sub-
jective organization (SO) and Bousfield and Bousfield's
(1966) index of intertrial repetition (ITR). In the
present study, the index of intertrial repetition was
used to represent subjective organization in free recall
learning and is referred to as subjective organization
throughout this study.

Tulving (1962), in a classical paper on subjec-
tive organization in free recall, revitalized the
interest in the organizational approach to memory.
Deriving his conceptualization of subjective organization

from.measurement in information theory, he extended the

 

 

23

idea of recoding, and chunking, introduced by Miller

(of. 1953), to free recall learning (Postman, 1972).
Studying the implications of organization as a depen-
dent variable, Tulving examined the extent to which
subjects' recall of a list of unrelated words was
sequentially structured when the presentation of the

list was free to vary. He attempted to measure a sub-
jects' use of organization independent of the character-
istics of the materials manipulated by the experimenter.
Believing that "behaviorial manifestations" of the
organizing processes could be studied under conditions
where the order of subjects' recall was free to vary,
Tulving (1962a) hypothesized that: "Repeated occurrences
of . . . sequential patterns would indicate the existence
of the organizing process, and the extent to which this
occurs would provide an estimate of the degree of organi-
zation [p. 345]." Admitting that his measure of subjec-
tive organization constituted " . . . a rather course net
for capturing the processes or organization [p. 352],"
Tulving found that subjects imposed a sequential structure
on their recall even when none was present in input.
Furthermore, he found that subjective organization was
Positively related to performance; and subjects' recall
Organization was similar. This commonality among
reCalls, Tulving inferred, was due to subjects discovering
aIMi using the inherent sources of organization within the

material.

 

 

24

Bousfield and Bousfield's (1966) measure of inter-
trial repetition (ITR), used to represent subjective
organization in the present study, was found to be
highly correlated (r = .94) with Tulving's measure
(Bousfield, Puff, & Cowan, 1964; Puff & Hyson, 1967).
Although the measures were highly correlated and probably
"reflect the effects of common underlying processes
(Tulving, 1968, p. 30)," Tulving's measure expressed
organization as a ratio, or fraction of the maximum
organization possible. Bousfield and Bousfield's
measure expressed organization as a deviation measure;
that is, the intertrial repetitions expected by chance
were subtracted from obtained intertrial repetitions.
The measures were similar in that a unit of organization
was described as occurring whenever a pair of words was
recalled together on any pair of trials, and both
measures represented " . . . only a crude index of the
organization actually present (Shuell, 1969, p. 361)."
Since the present study required only an indication that
organization had occurred in recall, the use of the ITR
to represent subjective organization in recall seemed
justified. C

In an attempt to study the influence of an
alphabetical strategy on recall, Tulving (1962b)
instructed one group of subjects to recall as many

wotds as possible and another group to recall the words

 

 

A'I

.-

0‘

It

25

alphabetically. He found that subjects using an alpha-
betical strategy produced superior recall in contrast
to the organizational strategy adopted by other subjects.
Thus, he demonstrated that subjects could be instructed
to use an organizational strategy that would improve their
recall performance. Earhard (1967b) also demonstrated
that instructions to recall alphabetically facilitated
recall performance.

Others (Earhard, 1967a; Earhard & Endicott,
1969; Mayhew, 1967) also have supported the importance
of subjective organization on performance. Mayhew (1967),
for example, concluded that subjective organization
demonstrated that a subject's sequential order of
recalled words increased within and between experimental
sessions. He further demonstrated that subjective
organization scores and word recall were highly cor-
related. Earhard (1967a), using Tulving's method of
calculating subjective organization, was interested in
the applicability of subjective organization as an
individual difference measure. Dividing subjects into
groups of high and low subjective organizers, she con-
ducted two experiments to examine the relationship
between: a subject's tendency to subjectively organize,
preferred (lists of word pairs commonly found in recall
protocols) vs. nonpreferred sequences of presentation

(lists of word pairs not commonly found in recall

vv‘ ‘

IIv'

Ivo-

.-c

“.0

 

c'I
a

9'
v-

'0‘

 

 

26

protocols), and free vs. serial recall (memory for
serially presented lists of unrelated words). Under
instructions to free recall, high organizers learned
equally well by either order of presentation (preferred
or nonpreferred); but the recall performance of poor
organizers was highest under the preferred order of
presentation. In other words, high subjective organizers
performed well regardless of the organization of the input;
low subjective organizers performed best when the materials
were pre-organized. In contrast, these results were not
found under serial recall instructions although high
subjective organizers maintained higher performance than
low subjective organizers. Under serial recall, the
preferred order of presentation produced superior results
for both types of organizers. Earhard concluded, there-
fore, that subjective organization was a measure of
general learning ability and that the advantages of good
organizers was their ability to connect any two stimulus
items more quickly and permanently than poor organizers.
Earhard's findings were significant to the pre-
sent study because she demonstrated that high subjective
organizers were superior in recall to low subjective
organizers under both free recall and serial recall
instruction. The implication is that low subjective
organizers when given unstructured materials had diffi-

culty detecting and using the organizations within the

II-

 

27

materials but used serial order effectively as a recall
strategy. Because effective subjective organizational
strategies were expected to be limited by serial
instructions, the difference between high 505 and low 505
was not expected (Earhard, 1967).

In a similar experiment, Earhard and Endicott
(1969) also found that high subjective organizers were
superior to low subjective organizers in learning a pre-
ferred order (sequential recall preferred by free recall
learners who previously learned the words). Subjects
were provided with a list of words in serial order on a
paired associate task and the same list in random order.
Earhard et a1. expected that a comparison of the per-
formance between high and low subjective organizers under
these two conditions would indicate whether interitem
association or serial-position, or both, were necessary
for the superiority of high subjective organizers. Under
the paired associate task, high organizers learning under
both the preferred order and nonpreferred order recalled
more words than low subjective organizers. Supporting
Earhard (1967b), they also concluded that the advantage
of the good organizers over poor organizers was their
ability to more rapidly form association between verbal
items. These results supported Deese and Kaufman (1957)
who also demonstrated the influence of serial order list

learning on recall. Subjects, they concluded, will

 

28

accommodate to the organization within the list and
"reorganize their patterns of verbal behavior to con-
form with . . . habits of dealing with the sequentially
structured material of ordinary language (Deese & Kaufman,
1957, p. 186)."

Bower, Lesgold, and Tieman (1969) also studied
the role of subjective organization in free recall by
attempting to manipulate the subjective units or groups
which subjects used. They found that subjects employed
a strategy of grouping or subdividing materials into
subjective clusters which became integrated units in
recall. Furthermore, they found that input trials, with
experimenter imposed groupings, increased or decreased
recall accordingly, as the groupings were consistent
or inconsistent with subjects' subjective groupings.

Although these studies suggested the potential
of subjective organization as a measure of individual
differences, others (Gorfein & Blair, 1971; Gorfein,
Blair, & O'Neil, 1969; Gorfein, Blair, & Rowland, 1968)
have been less optimistic. Using Bousfield's measure of
intertrial repetition to represent subjective organi-
zation, Gorfein et a1. (1968, 1969, & 1971) found that
subjective organization was not a reliable individual
variable across materials. They found that recall per-
formance was a function of the ability to perform on

recall tasks in general as well as the ability to encode

u...

g __.___._4.—'—

29

and retain specific materials to be remembered. They
also found that subjective organization correlated with
meaningful materials. Thus, they concluded that a sub-
ject's ability to organize materials in free recall
depended on the kinds of materials to be remembered.
Though these studies did not support the use of subjec-
tive organization as a reliable individual difference
variable in free recall learning, several implications
are important for the present study: first, the organi—
zation of recall was found to be dependent upon the
materials to be organized; second, performance was found
to be a function of the ability to perform on recall
tasks in general, as well as the ability to encode and
retain specific material.

In summary, this section of the review discussed
the historical perspective of organization in learning.
Tulving (1962) introduced the conceptualization of sub-
jective organization; his method was modified by Bous—
field and associates who preferred to use intertrial
repetition (ITR) as an expression of subjective organi-
zation. An ITR was described as any pair of words
occurring together on successive trails. Although both
measures were highly correlated and presumably reflected
the same underlying processes, they differed. Whereas

Tulving's measure was a ratio measure reflecting a

30

fraction of the maximum organization possible, the ITR
was a deviation measure reflecting the amount over what
would be expected by chance.

Although the literature on subjective organization
indicated that recall performance was in part related to
subjective organization, the majority of the studies
relied on correlational techniques. Furthermore, the
measures of subjective organization reviewed were not
representative of all types of organization. At best
the measures represented a "crude" indication that
organization that was not present in the input material
had occurred in recall. By definition, measures of sub-
jective organization only determined that word pairs
occurring together on one trial were present on a suc-
cessive trial and that organization depended on sequential
factors as well as associative factors.

Although several measures discussed have been
used to study subjective organization (e.g. clustering,
index of subjective organization (SO), and index of
intertrial repetition [ITR]), the index of intertrial
repetition was used to represent subjective organization
in the present study. Because most measures of subjec-
tive organization have similar limitations, researchers
have been generally dissatisfied with them. These

limitations have been described best by WOod (1972):

31

. . . the relationship between recall and organi-
zation has not been clarified very much by the
studies in which subjective organization measures
and recall scores were correlated. This is probably
because the subjective organization measures are
inadequate. The measures do not reflect categorical
organization or the occurrence of units larger than
two events, and the measure are obtained by experi-
mental procedures which pit experimenter-imposed
organization against subject-imposed organization.

. . . The view that subjects attempt to impose a
single organization on the to-be-recalled material

. . . appears to be incorrect. If the experimenter
imposed organizations (varied presentation orders)
encourage subjects to use multiple organizations to
encode the to-be-recalled events, it seems subjects
will do so [p. 65].

Although the relationship between recall and
organization has not been clarified, these studies were
important because they indicated that subjects were not
passive responders to the organization supplied by the
researchers. Rather, they demonstrated that subjects
interact with the organization in materials by both
detecting and imposing organization. Several impli-
cations were apparent for the present study: first, the
literature suggested that subjects were capable of detect-
ing the organization within a word list as well as impos-
ing their own organization; second, these studies sug-
gested that subjective organization was related to per-
formance. It seemed reasonable, therefore, to expect
that subjects would use similar processes while reading
and that these processes should influence comprehension.

The above literature was reviewed to provide a

rationale for the use of subjective organization as an

I .l
.5"

CI'

bl

)

32

independent variable and ability factor. Because of the
inherent limitations of measuring subjective organization,
certain trade-offs are associated with its use as an
independent variable, especially since the measure used
accounted for only pairwise ”constancies" across trials
free to vary. Given the importance of the questions
asked, however, the consequence of these limitations

was considered less important than the potential benefit
of the questions to be answered.

Although learning a list of words may not be the
same as reading a text, the underlying cognitive pro-
cesses may be similar. In the present study it was
assumed that these processes are similar across tasks;
therefore, organizing processes available in list learn-
ing are also expected to be available during reading for
comprehension. Musgrave and Cohen (1971) and Deese
(1961) have suggested that list learning is related
to learning connected discourse. Similarly, Powell
et al. (1972), inferring that list learning was like
reading, found a relationship between word recall and
paragraph comprehension. Others have extended list
learning techniques to prose material. The following

section discusses this literature.

Organization of Materials

 

Several studies (DiVesta, Schultz, & Dangel,

1973; Frase, 1969; Frase, 1973; Friedman & Greitzer, 1972;

Rn
(D

...
"~
".56
0

Ava:
oo'd
r

.n
(I)

Fym
h.‘
I

II
”N
0"

0:
rv
bl

n."

h“

:1

33

Myers, Pezdek, & Coulson, 1973; Schultz & DiVesta, 1972)
have extended the investigation of organizational strate-
gies found in free recall list learning to learning from
prose materials. This section reviews the literature on
organization in learning from prose material.

Believing that sentences represented "a basic
associative unit," Frase (1969) asserted that sentences
provided, "a unit for the analysis of organizations in
recall [p. 394]." He demonstrated that appropriate para-
graph organization was related to how well sentences
were sequenced and corresponded to the conceptual structure
inherent in the material presented to subjects. Exploring
the consequence of sentence order on level and organi-
zation of recall, Frase organized passages composed of
attribute, concept, and randomly ordered sentences:
concept-name organized passages were sentences grouped
by conceptual-name dimensions; concept-attribute
organized passages were sentences grouped by attribute
names; and random-organized passages were a random com-
bination of concept-attribute and concept-name organized
sentences. Using chess pieces, concept-name passages
were organized so that a given piece was described
before the next piece was introduced. For example:

"The Pawn is worth one point."

“The Pawn moves in a forward direction."
"The Bishop is worth three points."

34

In the attribute organized passage, sentences
were grouped by attribute description. For example:
"The Pawn is worth one point."
"The Bishop is worth three points."
"The Pawn moves in a forward direction."
"The Bishop moves in a diagonal direction."

Thus, in the attribute organized passages sen-
tences described moves and point values. The random
passage organization was represented by passages randomly
organized with concept-name and concept-attribute sen-
tences. Frase found that subjects reading either concept-
name organized passages or concept-attribute organized
passage performed better on recall than subjects reading
the random organized passage. He also found that sub-
jects preferred the concept-name organization strategy
over the concept-attribute organization. That is, there
was a greater tendency for subjects to recall information
by concept-name than concept-attribute.

Schultz and DiVesta (1972), also studying the
extent to which subjects' clustering deviated from
passage organization, extended the generalizability of
Frase's (1969) research. Allowing subjects to take
notes while studying passages, they hypothesized that
note taking would influence organizational strategies.
Consequently, they found that taking notes during the
study period influenced learners to change their cluster-

ing strategy from that implicit in the passage to one

of their own choosing (subjective organization).

35

Expecting organization of recall and passage organi-
zation also to be similar, they speculated that the com-
patibility between a subject's dominant organization
strategy and the passage organization would facilitate
recall. On the other hand, if the organization of the
passage was inconsistent with the subject's dominant
organizational strategy, they expected that recall would
suffer. Their findings supported Frase's (1969) research
that concept-name and concept-attribute organized
passages resulted in better recall than randomrorganized
passages. They concluded, therefore, that passage
organization influenced the selection of the clustering
strategy and that subjects' clustering in recall was
congruent with the organization of the passage. Subjects
reading the randomrorganized passage demonstrated no
consistent organization in recall, thereby reflecting its
lack of influence on the organization of recall. The
importance of Schultz and DiVesta's findings was that
subjects would relinquish their dominant organizational
strategy (subjective organization of the passage) when
not allowed to take notes. In other words, while taking
notes subjects tended to employ a dominant subjective
organizational strategy.

In a closely related study, Friedman and Greitzer
(1972) considered how the information-processing require-

ment of a task required subjects to organize their

36

learning for storage and retrieval. They summarized
reading as an information processing activity, thusly:
In the information-processing framework, the
problem of learning from reading might be described
in terms of (a) the readers "encoding" the information
in reading material into some sort of memory structure,
and (b) the development of a program or strategy to
retrieve the information from memory [p. 609].
In other words, they suggested that subjects transform
reading materials into organized structures in memory
and use strategies to retrieve the information stored in
memory. Using 224 undergraduate psychology students
reading versions of passages dealing with fictitious
types of fish, Friedman et a1. explored the application
of information-processing to problems of organization
and memory for text material. Several variables were
included: organization on first reading and second
reading, syntax of reading material, and time. Two
different passage organizations were also used: name
organized (all attributes of a given fish were described
before the next fish was introduced), and attribute
organized passages (all fish associated with a given
attribute value in each dimension were named before
introducing the next dimension). Their findings con-
tradicted those found by Frase (1969) and Schultz et al.
(1972) who found that concept-name was the preferred
strategy for organizing material. Rather, Friedman et

al. found that subjects reading the attribute-organized

passages achieved higher recall scores. Furthermore,

y -
II-

‘1

37

subjects' output organization generally followed the
organization of the last passage read. Interpreting
their results as an information processing activity,
they argued that attribute-organized passages resulted
in better recall because it produced a more efficient
retrieval strategy of hierarchially organized categories.
Thus, changing from concept to attribute organization
caused lower recall because it required subjects to use
a new retrieval strategy. They concluded that subjective
retrieval strategies were important to the recall of
information from texts.

In a similar study, Myers, Pezdek, & Coulson
(1973) also found that attribute organization produced
better recall than concept organization. In addition,
they found that serial information, in the original
prose, was preserved in output only for the attribute
condition. Subjects' recall, using the attribute
strategy, was also better under serial recall conditions
than free recall condition. The superiority of attribute
organizers, the authors concluded, was because of their
preference for a serial subjective organizational
strategy. Thus, they inferred that name and attribute
organizers employed different organizing strategies for
learning. Name-organizers reported using various mnemonics
strategies including imagery, whereas attribute organizers

reported frequent use of serial list learning strategies.

38

Perlmutter and Royer (1973), in a similar study
and using the materials of Myers et al., suggested that
the results of the Frase (1969) and the Schultz and
DiVesta (1972) studies were due to a procedural artifact.
Testing also the reorganization hypothesis, Perlmutter
et a1. wanted to determine the efficiency of attribute,
name, and random organized sentences on the organization
of recall. In addition, they examined whether organization
was present at the time of storage or at the time of
retrieval. Their results clearly supported that organized
prose was more easily learned than unorganized prose.
However, they failed to find that attribute organization
was superior to name organization because of a reorgani-
zation of the input materials as suggested by Friedman
et al. (1972). They found, using clustering indices,
that subjects organized their recall around attributes.
These findings were contrary to the Frase (1969), Myer
et al. (1973), and Schultz et al. (1972) studies but
supported Myer et al. (1973) that attribute and name
organizers used different clustering strategies. Perl-
mutter et al. concluded: that recall performance did not
differ as a function of subjects' reorganization of
material, that Myer's finding of the memory storage
analysis was supported, and that the attribute group

”preserves serial order information in memory.” That

III

s.
-

IQ‘A'
div.-

9‘

on. O

I
. ’ 4
two.“

5))

0 f-
'1
9'

3.3

I
b
‘

 

39

is, subjects used the organization in the material as
storage devices and preserved the organization in recall.
In contrast, Frase (1973a) found that input order

influenced output order but that subjects had a higher
tendency to adopt name organization. Whereas Myers et
al. (1973) argued that subjects using attribute organi-
zation employed a serial organizing strategy available
if the order of the information within the paragraph was
free to vary, Frase found that attribute organizers
reordered subsequent information to correspond to earlier
information learned. These findings were not supported
by Perlmutter et al. Although Frase's findings sup-
ported those of Myers et al., he extended them by showing
that the influence of semantic redundancies were possibly
used as an organizational device. Frase also found that
subjects' ability to correctly integrate two items of
information depended upon whether or not the two items
had occurred together in the text. He, therefore,
concluded:

. . . that the grouping or sequential structure

of a text can affect subjects' representation of

that information and that this representation

might support different higher level test per-

formance without affecting text recall per se

[p. 259] .

Several important implications were apparent

for the present study. For example, Frase found that

while subjects in the name and attribute organized groups

40

did equally well on items requiring a verbatim response,
they varied on items requiring information to be inte-
grated in ways consistent with the learned structure of
the materials. Furthermore, Frase's experiments demon-
strated that "the sequential characteristics of text
sentences mediated, not the acquisition of text, but 85'
ability to see relationships among different sentences
(Frase, 1973b, p. 21)." These findings, in the context
of the present study, suggest that subjects' scores may
vary more on inference items (seeing the relationship
between sentences) than on fact items (recalling infor-
mation given directly in the text).

Organization in materials and organizational
strategies have also been found to influence the recall
of young children. For example, categorically grouped
pictures facilitated recall in kindergarten children
(Kobasigawa & Orr, 1973). Another study demonstrated
that fourth graders could learn organizational strategies
used by older subjects (Liberty & Ornstein, 1973).
Several studies (Cole, Frankel, & Charp, 1971; Denny &
Ziobrowski, 1972; Laurence, 1966) have found age dif-
ference in the use of subjective organization.

In summary, this research was important because
it demonstrated that passage organization influenced the
organizational strategies used by subjects and also

influenced the organization of recall. The literature

41

also suggested that passage organization was, in part,
stored in memory. The literature, therefore, supported
the importance of the information-processing demands of
the material and its influence on organizational strate-
gies used by learners.

These findings had several important implications
for the hypotheses tested in the present study: first,
passage organization was found to influence learning;
second, learners differed in their use of subjective
organizational strategies; and finally, the effects of
passage organization could be reflected in different
performance on fact and inference items.

The following section reviews the influence of

organization on reading comprehension.

Organization in Comprehension

Whereas the previous section discussed the
literature on organization in recalling prose materials,
this section discusses the influence of organization on
comprehending reading materials and provides the bridge
from free recall techniques in prose learning to reading
comprehension. Several researchers (DiVesta, Schultz,
& Dangel, 1973; Maroon, Washington, & Frase, 1971; Oakan
& Wiener, 1971) have studied the influence of input
organization on comprehension. Maroon, Washington, and

Frase (1971), using second, fourth, and sixth grade

42

children, found that comprehension (defined as seeing
relationships within and between sentences) was related
to the organizational structure of material. Subjects
reading concept-organized passages and attribute-organized
passages obtained higher comprehension scores than subjects
reading a scrambled organization (where the order of sen-
tences favored neither concept nor attribute organization).
Consequently, Maroon et al. inferred: "The difficulty of
detecting relationship between sentences thus seems to be
a matter of appropriately partitioning the various textual
units, rather than a problem of short-term memory [p. 7]."
These findings confirmed Frase's (1973a) conclusions that
”subjects' ability to integrate information depends on
whether the information occurred together in the text.‘I
DiVesta, Schultz, and Dangel (1973) studied the
relationship between passage organization and imposed
learning strategies on comprehension and the recall of
connected discourse. They found that well-organized
passages (concept-name and attribute) improved compre-
hension and recall over poorly (randomly) organized
passages. Likewise, Cromer (1968), Levin (1973), and
Oakan, Wiener, and Cromer (1971) found that a significant
amount of the comprehension difficulties experienced by
some poor readers was because these readers did not

organize their reading input effectively.

.y-S'a
n.u.~.

«A've
'U.“

A
"‘.'Q-
'0

c.3t

I. 9
[as ‘

'Y‘
(I)
‘1‘

(J
I r.

43

Others (Powell, Havner, & Wiggins, 1972), studying
the organization and recall of pictures by children, sug-
gested that children's ability to transform surface
structure to deep structure was, to some extent, deter-
mined by clustering ability and could be measured by
tests of paragraph comprehension. They hypothesized,
therefore, that paragraph comprehension scores would be
correlated with recall tasks. Since the correlation
between paragraph comprehension and clustering scores
was low, a combination of both scores provided a better
prediction of recall. They concluded that some of the
increase in recall which occurred as a function of age
was in part attributable to organizational processes.
Since paragraph comprehension and recall were correlated
and could neither be attributed to simple word knowledge
nor organization, they postulated that with increasing
development children are able to " . . . translate sur-
face structures into abstractly organized deep-structure
representation [p. 386]." In summary, this literature
had several implications for the present study. For
example, the literature indicated that the organization
of materials influenced comprehension and possibly
materials poorly organized accounted for a failure to
see relationships within reading materials. Similarly,
the organization of material was found to affect answer-

ing test items and poor readers.

44

The following section discusses the literature

on the implications of organization for poor readers.

Organization and Poor Readers

 

Cromer (1968) proposed a Difference Model for
explaining the reading comprehension difficulty encountered
by some poor readers. He found that a "Difference" group
of poor readers, although matched on IQ and vocabulary
scores with a group of good readers, performed as well as
good readers when given pre-organized materials. These
Difference Poor Readers had comprehension scores signifi-
cantly lower than a match group of good readers, except
when their reading materials were properly organized
(phrase organized). Others (Oakan, Wiener, Cromer, 1971)
also found that while good readers imposed order on their
input, poor readers failed to compensate for organization
lacking in the material.

These findings, in addition to those discussed
in previous sections of this review, strengthened the
speculation that a relationship could exist between the
organization of reading material and the ability of
readers to impose organization (subjective organization)
on what they read.

According to Cromer (1968), " . . . the literature
on reading and reading difficulty can be characterized

as lacking an overall conceptual framework [p. 1]."

45

Developing a conceptual framework of poor reading, Wiener

and Cromer (1967) considered four explanations used to

account for reading difficulties. Since each model was

based on unique assumptions, each required different

remediation strategies:

1.

The Defect Model--assumed that reading difficulty

 

was attributable to a dysfunctional ability. For
example, something within the reader was not
functioning properly. For adequate reading to

occur, the defect would have to be repaired.

The Deficit Model--attributed reading difficulty

 

to the absence of a necessary function. For
example, an important skill was absent in the
poor reader that would have to be added before

adequate reading could occur.

The Disruption Model--explained reading difficulty
as due to the presence of something interferring
with reading that would have to be removed before
adequate reading occurred, such as psychological

problems.

The Difference Model--assumed that reading diffi-

 

culty was attributed to a difference between the
reader's way of responding and the response
necessary to comprehend the material. For example,

an inability to impose organization on input was

46

used to explain the difficulty of some Difference
Poor Readers (Cromer, 1970). "This model assumed
that the individual would read adequately if the
material was consistent with his behavior patterns;
thus, a change in either the material or his
patterns of verbalization is a pre-requisite for
better reading (Wiener & Cromer, 1967, p. 629."

The Difference model indicated no pathology and

 

considered the individual as "different" rather

than "sick" (Cromer, 1970). I

It was within the context of the Difference Model

 

of poor readers that the present study was formulated.
This section of the review provides the background and
rationale for the inclusion of poor readers in the present
design.

Cromer's (1968, 1970) study, using two groups of
poor readers fitting the Difference and Deficit model,
compared the groups with each other and a group of good

readers; the Difference group was matched on intelligence,

 

language skills, and vocabulary skills with good readers
but had lower reading comprehension scores. He assumed
that these poor readers, although capable of reading aloud
and identifying individual words, could not organize

their input in meaningful ways. That is, they organized
their input in a word by word fashion in contrast to

good readers who organized their input by phrase units.

 

47

A Deficit group of poor readers with a relative deficiency
in vocabulary skills was also matched with the Difference
group on intelligence and language skills. The Deficit
group's deficiency to elaborate word meanings was assumed
to account for their poor comprehension. Cromer, hypothe-
sizing that the reading strategies of Difference Poor
Readers differed from those used by either Deficit poor
or good readers, preorganized materials into meaningful
word groups (phrase organized). Comprehension for the
Difference Poor Readers he assumed would be facilitated
but woufd not change for Deficit poor readers or good
readers. Therefore, he expected that if meaningful
organization was discouraged by presenting material word
by word, the Deficit poor readers (due to poor vocabulary
skills) and the good readers would comprehend less. But,
the Difference Poor Readers were expected not to be
affected because they used a single word presentation as
their typical pattern of responding. Using a series of
stories taken from the Davis Reading Test, four different
presentation modes were used: regular sentence, single
word, meaningful phrase, and fragmented word groups.
Under each condition, the subjects read different sets

of stories without reading the same story more than once.
Comprehension was then tested with a 20-item multiple
choice test over each set of stories. Cromer (1968,

1970) found: that Difference Poor Readers comprehended

”1“,!

 

 

48

significantly less well than their matched good readers
except when the material was phrase organized, in which
case they did as well as the good readers; that good and
Difference Poor Readers did not differ in their ability
to identify words but did differ in their ability to
organize or understand the words identified. Likewise,
Deficit and Difference Poor Readers reading aloud did not
differ, thus supporting that their identification skills
were similar. Whereas Deficit poor readers comprehended
best on the single mode presentation, the pre-organized
materials had no influence. Consequently, Cromer (1970)
concluded that his general hypotheses were supported
that some poor readers can be viewed within a Difference
model.

Oakan et al. (1971) investigated the relationship
of identification and organization to comprehension for
both good and poor readers. Assessing the relationship
of comprehension in an auditory and visual mode, they
varied levels of identification (word recognition) and
patterns of organization (typical reading of good and
poor readers). Although good readers demonstrated their
highest reading performance under the good visual input
condition, poor readers demonstrated their highest com-
prehension under conditions of good auditory input. In
fact, under the good auditory input condition, the poor

readers were comparable on comprehension score to good

 

 

49

readers. Poor auditory input, while causing lower com-
prehension, failed to produce a significant change.
These findings supported the hypothesis (cf. Cromer, 1968;
Wiener & Cromer, 1967) that comprehension difficulty
experienced by some poor readers is due to the way in
which they organize their input. Oakan et al. concluded
that while identification was confounded with poor
organization for poor readers, good identification was
not a sufficient condition for good comprehension. For
example, poor identification, when confounded with poor
organization, resulted in poor comprehension for the poor
readers. In contrast, good readers', with good identifi-
cation skills, comprehension also suffered when the input
was poorly organized. These implications suggested that
providing poor readers with identification training was
not enough to overcome reading comprehension difficulty
and supported earlier findings (Cromer & Wiener, 1966;
Cromer, 1970) that the organization of input materials
influenced comprehension for some poor readers. Thus,
these findings suggested that poor readers have difficulty
organizing their input; whereas, good readers impose
organization on their input.

What implications does this literature have for
the present study? First, the implications drawn from
these studies indicated that good readers imposed organi-

zation on the materials; but some poor readers lack the

 

 

50

facility to subjectively organize (impose organization)
on what they read. Second, there was the implication
that subjective organizational ability interacted with
materials. That is, some readers with high subjective
organizational ability, reading well-organized materials,
should comprehend more than when reading materials poorly
organized.

Levin (1971-72) reviewed research on "experimenter
provided and subject-generated organizational strategies"
and related it to the operations in reading comprehension.
He concluded that "changing the characteristics of the
reading materials or changing the reader's characteristic
behaviors seemed to be reasonable (and not mutually
exclusive) possibilities [p. 26]." He further argued
that:

While changing the former approach caters to indi-
vidual differences through the presentation of dif-
ferentially effective organizations, the latter
approach promises the greater educational payoff
beyond the confines of the well-organized textbook,
the optionally sequenced teaching machine, and the
multi-talented teacher [p. 26].

In other words, children with more efficient
organizational strategies will be less dependent on the
quality of environmental stimulus because they ”will be
capable of reorganizing, elaborating and concretizing

relatively disorganized, unelaborated and abstract

materials (Levin, 1972, p. 26)."

r
'b‘

 

 

51

Cromer and Wiener (1966) suggested that reading
difficulty could be a function of the degree to which
individuals inappropriately responded to materials and
that the degree of inappropriate responding was in part
a function of the content and context of the stimulus con-
dition. They found that poor readers had difficulty with

sequential order as well as giving word associates. They

 

 

concluded, therefore, that these poor readers failed to
effectively use the syntactic cues available in the
material and that their one elaboration did not match
most printed material. Introducing an identification
task to determine whether these poor readers took in
information as well as good readers, they found no dif-
ference between the groups. Consequently, they concluded
that good and poor readers had similar ability to take
in information but differed in their ability to discrimi-
nate or elaborate available cues, at least when the
material was nonverbal. Poor readers, in other words,
recognized information as well as good readers. The
educational implication of the Cromer and Wiener (1966)
study was that poor readers could be trained to respond
to sequences and cues " . . . that is, to use the context
cues and information cues more while emphasizing their
'guessing' less [p. 10]."

Others (Guthrie, 1973; Weinstein & Rabinovitch,

1971) have also found evidence to support the notion

52

that while poor readers do not differ from good readers
in ability to retain information, they less effectively
use syntactical cues and sequential structure within the
materials. Likewise, Steiner, Wiener, and Cromer (1971)
also found that a group of poor readers, in contrast to
a group of good readers, also failed to utilize syntac-
tic and contextual cues in material and treated words as
”unrelated items in a series." Similar difficulties were
observed in reading retardates (Senf & Feshback, 1970).
They found that children classified as reading retardates
failed to develop ordering and pairing skills. Subse-
quently, they suggested that the possible absence of
these skills was a basis for reading retardation.
Although some poor readers have difficulty
organizing their input, several studies (Cromer, 1968;
Levin, 1973) demonstrated that organizational changes in
materials, or teaching readers organizational strategies,
would improve their comprehension. Cromer (1968) found
that pre-organizing materials into phrase units improved
reading for poor readers with adequate vocabulary skills
(Difference Poor Readers). Similarly, Levin (1973) found
that instructions to use imagery as a strategy improved
comprehension scores for Difference Poor Readers. Imagery
was also found to be a useful organizational strategy in
recall learning (Anderson & Hidde, 1971; Rohwer, 1970;

Spangenberg, 1971).

53

Conclusions

 

In conclusion, the literature clearly supported
the importance of organizational processes in reading.
Systematically organizing materials was found to effec-
tively demonstrate the influence of organization on recall
and comprehension. Likewise, the literature suggested
that subjects imposed organization on materials when the
organization within the material was not obvious. The
literature indicated that a number of organizational
strategies are available to readers (e.g. semantic, syn-
tactic, imagery, mnemonic etc.) and that subjects differ
in their use and preference for strategies.

Levin's (1973) comments best summarized the
importance of organization to reading comprehension:

. . . reading comprehension involves complex
organizational strategies on the part of the
reader, through which he detects meanings and
inter-relationship of the substantive materials
within a passage [p. 19].

Levin's remarks were generally supported by the
literature and indicated that passage organization, while
affecting the reader's ability to detect relationships,
did not affect the recall of information per se. In
other words, whereas organization influenced subjects'
ability to see relationships in materials, or answer the
type of inference items in this study, it did not influence

the recall of text information. Although the literature

supported the assumption that readers imposed organization

54

on materials, no one measure of subjective organization
has been developed which represents the organization
possible while reading. The measure of subjective
organization (ITR) used in the present study had similar
limitations, but its use seemed justifiable since it is
capable of indicating that organization had occurred in
the output that was not present in the input information.
There were several conclusions drawn from the literature
reviewed: first, the literature strongly suggested that
the organization of the materials interact with and
influence internal organizing processes (subjective
organizational processes) of readers and that this
interaction may be more obviously observed to influence
the comprehension of Difference Poor Readers while not
influencing the comprehension of Deficit Poor and good

readers.

Hypotheses of Interest

 

As a result of the literature reviewed and the
model proposed in Figure l, the hypothesis of a signifi-
cant three-way interaction among reading ability groups,
subjective organizational ability, and the organization
of materials seemed plausible. Cromer suggested that
Difference Poor Readers failed to organize their input
(reading material) but comprehended as well as good

readers when the material was pre-organized. However,

55

good readers and Deficit Poor Readers were unaffected
by the changed materials. The model in Chapter I suggests
that well-organized materials communicate an organizational
structure which is detected and used by the subjects.
Since the reading comprehension performance of
good readers and Deficit Poor Readers was not influenced
by the organization of materials, and Difference Poor
Readers' comprehension performance was (cf. Cromer, 1968),
it is expected that good and Deficit Poor Readers in this
study will not be influenced by passage organization.
However, Difference Poor Readers who are high subjective
organizers are expected to be influenced by passage
organization. On the other hand, Difference Poor Readers
who are low subjective organizers are not expected to be
influenced by passage organization. As suggested by
Figure l, the organizational processes accommodate to
the organization in well-organized materials but impose
organization or fail to detect the organization in poorly
organized materials. The Difference Poor Reader who is
a high subjective organizer reading well-organized
materials is therefore expected to perform as well as
good readers and higher than Deficit Poor Readers. Low
subjective organizers, on the other hand, who are Dif-
ference Poor Readers are not expected to have higher

comprehension than Deficit Poor Readers because they

56

are assumed to lack the organizational capabilities
necessary to utilize the organization within the
reading materials.

Given poorly organized materials, the scores of
Difference Poor Readers are expected to drop; but if high
subjective organizers, they are expected to significantly
differ from Deficit Poor Readers. Low subjective organi-
zers again are not expected to differ from Deficit Poor
Readers. The manipulation of the passage organization is
not expected to influence good readers because as the
literature (Cromer, 1968) suggested, they are capable
of imposing organization regardless of passage organi-
zation. Similarly, Deficit Poor Readers, because of the
absence of necessary skills (i.e. vocabulary), are not
expected to be affected by passage organization.

The literature also suggested that passage
organization should influence answering test items
requiring an inference but not influence the recall
of fact information from the material. Therefore, the
interaction predicted is expected to be most obvious on
inference items. A confirmation of this hypothesis
would support DiVesta et al. (1973), Frase (1973a), and
Maroon et al. (1971) that passage organization influences
seeing relationships within the text but does not affect

the recall of factual information.

57

Briefly stated the hypotheses of interest are:
that there will be a reading ability groups by subjective
organizational ability by passage organization interaction
and that the interaction will be significant on inference

items but not fact items.

CHAPTER III

METHOD

Although not a replication of previous research,
the present study incorporated materials developed in
prior studies. The reading passage and comprehension
test were adopted from a study by Anderson (1970), and
the list of unrelated words was adopted from Cohen (1963).

This chapter includes a description of the sample,
materials, variables, procedures, design, analysis, and
hypotheses of interest. The results of the pilot study

are also reported in this chapter.

Sample

The sample was 200 freshman men and women enrolled
in American Thought and Language (ATL) at Michigan State
University, winter term 1974. Class sections were
selected from four different tracks within the ATL cur-
riculum that were believed to represent the range of
reading abilities within the freshman class. Since the

subjects were not randomly chosen and reflected only a

58'

59

range of reading abilities within the freshman class,
the sample should not be considered representative of

the freshman class.

Materials

 

Unrelated word list.--A list of 20 unrelated words

 

used by Cohen (1963) provided the items used to evaluate
recall and subjective organization. Cohen's list was

used because it had been constructed to meet the follow-
ing criteria: minimal interword associations and minimal
duplication of the initial letters (no more than two words
the same initial letter). The words were also common

nouns (see Appendix A).

Passages.--The primary passage used in this study
was adopted from Anderson (1970). This passage described
the cultural practices of ficticious tribes somewhere in
the South Pacific (see Appendix A). Using Venn diagrams,
Anderson symbolized passage content through the use of
nested and disjunctive relationships, Figure 2. The
passage was written so that the logical ordering of the
paragraph could be determined and manipulated. The
original logical set-subset ordering of the paragraphs
constituted the well-organized passage. The poorly
organized passage was constructed by changing the sequence
of the paragraphs, thus changing their logical sequence.

(See Figure 3.)

60

«am .m .onma .sOmeosdv .mmmmmmmm

moaomon moo ca mmaomCOfiumeu ummoomlumm on» no EMHmMfio ssm> .N .mHm

mmmomflo cuwz omuoflammm omoou moooaosw "mafia omuuoo

Annouauzo Aouonuuso essay “sunbeds-0v

o>au-aosv asses oeIuooosH-x

 

Loecmxo mo equmHe

Annouoosoam one mno>wsuoo dame msasxe

auuocIoa Isoauuuouv
Issue-o

immense mo camach

Amumwmoaosnomu one mumwmwoom dame mwzmfio

61

 

 

Well Organized Poorly Organized
l l
2 2
‘2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16

 

Fig. 3. A comparison of paragraph ordering
between well- and poorly organized passage, Experiment I

62

Measurement of Variables

 

Reading ability groups.--Reading ability was

 

determined by subjects' scores on the Michigan State
University Reading Test, administered during registration,
Summer and Fall 1973. The test consisted of a vocabulary
subtest (which required subjects to identify word mean-
ings) and a reading comprehension subtest (which required
subjects to read passages and answer multiple choice
questions about the passage). These subtest scores were
used as criteria for placement into the reading ability
groups.

The reliability reported for both subtests was
evaluated using the Kuder Richard Formula--20 and was
obtained on a separate sample of 454 students. The
vocabulary subtest consisted of 79 multiple choice items
and had a reported reliability of .91. The reading come
prehension subtest consisting of 39 multiple choice items
and had a reported reliability of .80.

Assignment to reading ability groups was accom-
plished by ranking subjects on their comprehension raw
score and their vocabulary score (Difference and Deficit
Poor Readers), or on their reading comprehension score
(Good readers). Based upon these subtests scores, sub-
jects were then classified into groups of good readers,

Difference Poor Readers, and Deficit Poor Readers.

63

Good readers were defined as those subjects with
a reading comprehension score equal to or above the median
of the total sample; their vocabulary scores were not
considered. The mean reading comprehension score and
vocabulary score of these readers were above the median
of the sample (Table 1).

Within the population of poor readers, a dis-
tinction was made between Difference Poor Readers and
Deficit Poor Readers on the basis of their vocabulary
score.

Difference Poor Readers were operationally

 

defined as those subjects with reading comprehension
scores below the median of the total sample but with
vocabulary scores equal to or above the median of the
total sample. Their mean vocabulary score was approxi—
mately equal to the mean of the group of good readers;
but their mean comprehension score was similar to the
mean of the Deficit Poor Readers (see Table l).

Deficitggoor Readers, in contrast, were Opera-

 

tionally defined as those subjects with both reading
comprehension scores and vocabulary scores below the
median of the total sample. The mean reading compre-
hension score for this group was similar to the mean

of the Difference Poor Readers (see Table 1). That is,
Deficit Poor Readers were similar to Difference Poor
Readers on comprehension scores but differed on vocabulary

scores .

64

Table 1

Summary of Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Sizes by Group

Classification on the Michigan State University Reading

Comprehension Test and Vocabulary Test, and the
Measure of Subjective Organization

 

Reading Groups

Good Readers

 

Difference Poor

Deficit Poor

 

 

 

 

 

Readers Readers

Subjective High Low High Low High Low
Organization

Sub. Org. Sub. Org. Sub. Org. Sub. Org. Sub. Org. Sub. Org.

(N = 56) (N = 40) (N = 14) (N = 11) (N = 29) (N = 50)
Vocabulary
Means 40.04 39.30 37.71 38.46 24.45 22.26
Standard
Deviations 10.06 10.04 3.56 4.85 6.42 6.45
Reading Com-
prehenSion
Means 26.18 25.50 16.57 18.91 15.07 15.26
Standard
Deviations 3.37 3.21 3.76 1.87 3.55 4.24
Subjective
Organization
Means 2.85 .75 2.98 .79 2.16 .80
Standard
Deviations 2.25 .33 1.84 .37 1.04 .31

 

65

Reading comprehension test (dependent measure).--

 

A common means of testing comprehension is to have sub-
jects read meaningful materials and then to answer
questions about the material (Cromer, 1968). The reading
test in this study followed such a procedure.

The comprehension test adopted from Anderson's
(1970) study consisted of 30 multiple choice questions
and was composed of two types of items, inference and
fact. Half of the items were designated as fact items
and required a response that was given directly in the
passage (see Appendix A). In contrast, inference items
were constructed to symbolize a simple syllogism, which

Anderson represented by the following Venn Diagram.

All Y is X
All 2 is Y
All Z is X

Fig. 4. Example of syllogism used by Anderson to
represent the construction of inference items.

The solution to this type of question he repre-
sented by the following form:

All Z is 5.

hcuh3H
Q:U><S

66

Although the correct answer "All Z is X" would
not have been given directly in the passage, the question
could have been correctly deduced had the subject recalled
the two premises "All Y is X“ and "All Z is Y" (Anderson,
1970). Therefore, according to Anderson, it seemed
reasonable to believe that answering inference questions
required more than remembering just facts stated in the
passage, but in addition required making an inference.
These items, therefore, were used in the present study
to represent comprehension and meaningful learning.

Fact items, another indicator of comprehension, required
the recall of information given directly in the passage.
For scoring purposes, the inference items were assigned

even numbers and the fact items odd numbers.

Reliability estimates.--The Kuder Richardson

 

formula-~20 was used to obtain estimates of the reliability
for the total reading test,.the inference items, and the
fact items (see Table 2). Separate reliability estimates
were obtained for subjects reading the well-organized

and subjects reading the poorly organized passage. For
subjects (N=120) reading the well-organized passage, the
obtained reliability for the total comprehension score

was .75. For subjects (N=115) reading the poorly organized

passage, the reliability obtained was .77.

67

Table 2

Reliability Coefficients by Passage Organization on
Total, Inference, and Fact Scores

 

Well Organized Poorly Organized

 

Test Scores Passage Passage
(N = 120) (N = 115)
Total .75 .77
Inference .69 .70
Fact .47 .56

 

On the inference items, the obtained reliability
was .69 for subjects reading the well-organized passage
and .70 for subjects reading the poorly organized passage
(See Table 2).

On the fact items, the obtained reliability was
.47 and .56, respectively, for subjects reading the well-
organized passage and subjects reading poorly organized

passages (see Table 2).

Subjective Organizational
Ability

Subjective organization was evaluated using
Bousfield and Bousfield's (1966) measure of intertrial
repetitions (ITR). The measure was designed to account
for sequential constancies in response ordering which

developed in the series of free recall trials when the

order of the stimulus items was free to vary. A unit

68

of ITR occurred whenever two items appearing together in
trial h appeared together in trial h + 1.

The crucial item properties for successive trials,
h and h + l, were: j, the number of items recalled on
trial h; b, the number of items recalled on trial h + l;
and c, the number of items common to the two recalls.

The measure of the expected intertrial repetition,
E (ITR), was expressed in terms of three variables: j,
b, and c. On trial h, there were j-l ordered bigrams
and on trial h + 1, there were b - 1 such bigrams. Thus,
the obtained ITR, which was an order property of the
recall, represented the number of bigrams common to the
two recall trials. If the ordering of recalled sequences
were chosen at random, the E (ITR) for the order pairs

of bigrams was given by the formula:

E (ITR) = [c(c-1)] / jb. The value of E (ITR) is

always less than one.

The ITR, a deviation measure, was obtained by
subtracting the E (ITR), score expected by chance, from
the obtained (O-ITR) score. The recalled list, therefore,
was considered a random sample of all possible recall
orderings. Thus, to obtain a measure of a subject's
intertrial repetitions score, the expected ordered pairs
(E-ITR) were subtracted from the obtained ordered pairs

(O-ITR).

69

In this study, a mean ITR score was computed for
seven pairs of trials (eight recall trials) for all sub-
jects. Mean ITR scores were then ranked, using the
median of the sample, and subjects were designated into
groups of high and low subjective organizers (see Table l).
Intrusions and repetitions of words were disregarded and

not included in the computations of the ITR SCORES.

Pilot Study

 

A pilot study was conducted to examine the
relationship between subjective organization and reading
comprehension and to explore data collection and measure-
ment techniques. In addition, data were obtained on the
organizational strategies used by subjects. As a result
of the pilot study several changes were made in the pro-

cedures and materials. (For more detail see Appendix B.)

Procedure

 

Eight random orders of the unrelated word list
were constructed using a table of random numbers. Each
list was then used for one of the eight study trials.
Two test booklets were organized with the first half of
each booklet containing the eight lists of the randomly
ordered and unrelated words. Each study list was
followed by a blank sheet of colored paper followed by
a lined recall form and then another blank sheet of

colored paper; thus, a colored sheet of paper followed

70

each word list and each recall form. The second half of
the booklet contained either a well-organized or poorly
organized reading passage followed by a 30-item multiple
choice comprehension test. Also included in each booklet
was an IBM answer sheet used to record test responses.
Half of the booklets contained the well-organized passage
and half the poorly organized passage, and booklets were
coded to identify passage organization. They were pre-
ordered and distributed unsystematically to insure random
assignment of subjects to treatment conditions.

All subjects were tested within their classroom
during the normal class period which ranged from 55 to
90 minutes. Subjects voluntarily participated in the

study and seemed to take the exercises seriously.

Free recall learning task.--A standard free recall

 

procedure was used for the learning task with a stop
watch used as the timing device.

The following instructions were provided in
each booklet and read aloud.
Instructions:

This study consists of two parts. In the first part
of the study you will be presented with a list of

20 words. You will have 30 seconds to study the
word list. After the study period, you will have

60 seconds to recall as many words as you can
remember. Write the words as you remember them.
ORDER IS NOT IMPORTANT. After the final recall
period time will be called.

71

After the instructions were clarified, subjects
were directed to turn to their first study period and
begin studying the word list; 30 seconds were provided.
After the study period, time was called and the subjects
were asked to turn to the recall form and write down as
many words as they could remember. This procedure was
followed for each of the eight study and recall trials
which required a total of 12 minutes; the time was

standardized for all groups.

Reading task.--A brief rest period followed the

 

free recall task; instructions for the reading task were
then read aloud. Subjects were informed that they had
nine minutes to read the passage, which was sufficient
time for them to finish the passage reading at their
normal rate. After reading the passage, subjects were
instructed to proceed immediately to the comprehension
test. Below are the instructions for the reading section.
Instructions: READING PASSAGE (P0)
In this part of the study you will be presented a
passage to read. Read the passage carefully. You
will have about 9 minutes to read the passage. If
you wish to read over any part of the passage do
not go back any further than the preceding paragraph.
Do not take notes on the information you read.
Following the passage is a 30-item comprehension
test. Place your answers to the test questions on
the attached answer sheet. Please use the special

marking pencils provided and mark your answer sheet
with care.

72

Although most subjects required approximately 30
minutes to read the passage and complete the comprehension
test, this part of the test was not rigidly timed so that
all subjects had adequate time to finish reading the
passage.

pesign and Experimental
Treatment

 

 

The experiment was set up as a 3 x 2 x 2 com-
pletely crossed factorial design. Two of the dimensions
were subject classification factors: reading ability
groups (three levels), subjective organizational ability
groups (two levels). The third design dimension was an
experimentally manipulable factor: reading passage

organization (two levels).

Reading ability groups.--Reading ability groups

 

were classified as: good readers, Difference Poor
Readers, and Deficit Poor Readers. The designation

of subjects into reading ability groups was based upon
prior reading comprehension test scores and reading com—
prehension and vocabulary test scores. Subjects with
high reading comprehension without regard to their
vocabulary scores were designated as good readers.
Difference Poor Readers were so designated because of
their low reading comprehension but average vocabulary
scores. In contrast, Deficit Poor Readers had both low

comprehension and low vocabulary (see Table l).

73

Subjective organizational abiligy.--Subjective
organizers were classified into two groups-~high and low.
The upper 50% were designated as high subjective organizers

and the lower 50% as low subjective organizers.

Passage organization.--Passage organization was

 

manipulated to create the experimental treatment con-
ditions. Two types of passages were used: well-organized
and poorly organized. The poorly organized passage was
operationally defined by the degree to which its sequence
of paragraphs differed relative to the paragraph order

of the well-organized passage (see Figure 3).

Dependent variables.--The total reading score

 

was used as the dependent variable. Since the total
score was composed of a fact and inference score, each
of these scores was also treated as dependent variables

in two separate univariate designs.

Analysis

The Finn (1967) program was used to generate
separate univariate tests for each of the three dependent
measures (total reading score, inference score, and fact
score). When significance was found with the F-tests,
Scheffé Post Hoc procedures were used to locate the sig-
nificant mean differences.

In addition, a total sample correlation matrix

was constructed for six variables (mean intertrial

74

repetitions, Michigan State University vocabulary scores,
Michigan State University reading comprehension scores,
and total reading comprehension scores, inference scores

and fact scores) included in the study.

Testable Research Hypotheses

 

Cromer (1968) hypothesized that Difference Poor
Readers read differently from Deficit Poor Readers and
good readers and that they differed in how they organized
their input. Difference Poor and Deficit Poor Readers
were conceptualized as manifesting two distinct types of
reading problems. The Deficit group was seen as having
difficulty in comprehension because of a lack of vocabulary,
skills (the ability to attribute meaning to words). In
contrast, Difference Poor Readers were described as having
reading difficulty because of the way they organized
their input; that is, they did not organize their infor-
mation into meaningful units.

Since no evidence was found in the literature
that indicated readers consciously organized information
read, organization, in this study, was assumed to occur
because of internal organizational processes unknown to
the reader. To represent these internal processes, a
model of reading for comprehension described reading as
an information processing activity (see Figure 1). Con-

sequently, the hypotheses of interest were derived from

75

Cromer's (1968) conceptualization of poor readers and

the proposed model of the internal (subjective organi-

zational) processes which influence reading comprehension.
The hypotheses, described in Chapter II, were:

that there will be a three-way interaction among reading

ability groups, subjective organizational ability, and

passage organization and that the interaction will be

on inference items but not fact items.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

The results reported in this chapter were obtained
from the analyses of three dependent variables (total read-
ing comprehension score, fact score, and inference score).
The total reading comprehension score, representing the
number of items answered correctly, was the combined
score of the fact and inference score. Each score (total,
fact, and inference) was used as the dependent in separate
univariate analyses. A sample correlation matrix for six
variables is also reported in this section (Table 12).

The chapter is divided into three sections: the
first section discusses the results when the total reading
comprehension scores were used as the dependent variable;
the second section reports the results when fact scores
were used as the dependent variable; and in the third
section, the results are reported when inference scores
were used as the dependent variable.

The general hypothesis of interest is that
knowledge of subjective organizational ability and the

organization of materials will provide information about

76

77

the reading comprehension performance of readers of dif-
ferent ability, and the influence of subjective organi-

zation will be present on inference items but not fact.

Section I

 

Total Reading Comprehension
Score

 

Using a univariate analysis of variance procedure
with total reading comprehension scores as the dependent
variable, the hypothesis of a reading ability by subjec-
tive organization by passage organization interaction was
tested. Table 3 presents a summary of the analysis of
variance results. A summary of cell means standard
deviations and sample sizes for the 3 x 2 x 2 design
are reported in Table 4. When significant F-tests were
found, Scheffé Post Hoc procedures were used to locate
significant mean differences. Since cell sizes were
unequal and simple contrasts were examined, the Scheffé
procedure for post hoc comparisons was appropriate
(Glendening, 1973). Each contrast was tested at the
.05 level of confidence.

The hypothesis of a three-way interaction was
not significant. The following two-way interactions
and main effects were also not significant: the reading
ability by passage organization and subjective organi-

zational ability by passage organization (see Table 3).

78

 

 

mm.ma mmH EH09 Honum

emom. om.a ha.m~ N .muo . I
.mom x .Hflne .mp0 .mnom x .awod msflommm
eonm. mm.a hm.mm N sowumNstouo ommmmmm x .HHQ< endomom
seam. me. ms.m a consanaammuo mmmmmmm x .Hana .muo .flnsm
.smeo. mo.m ss.mm m .Hana .muo .flnsm x masons sanders museums
mmv. he. mm.m a sowomNasmmuo commune
mama. as.a om.mm a mundane Hmsoaumuacmmuo m>auomflnsm
«Hoe. mm.ma me.mmm N mmoouu aufiaaoe mswomom

v m m m: up mosmfium> mo moousom

 

maomwnm> osmosomoo may no mouoom
scamsonouefioo mswomom annoy msflmo muasmmm ¢>oz¢ m x N x m mo humEEsm

m OHQMB

79

Table 4

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for 3 x 2 x 2 ANOVA Design
Using Total Reading Comprehension Scores as

the Dependent Variable

 

Reading Groups

Passage Organization

 

Marginal Means and
Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well Poorly
High
Sub. Org. 20.72 20.29 20.54
SD = 4.34 SD = 3.86 SD = 4.11
Good N = 32 N = 24 N = 56 19.80
Readers SD = 4.54
Low 19.55 18.00 18.77 N a 95
Sub. Org. SD = 5.42 SD = 4.47 SD = 4.97
N = 20 N = 20 N = 40
High 23.17 18.25 20.36
Sub. Org. SD = 4.12 SD = 3.45 SD = 4.40
Difference N = 6 N = 8 N = 14 19.08
Poor SD = 4.35
Readers Low 17.43 17.50 17.45 N = 25
Sub. Org. SD = 3.51 SD = 5.07 SD = 3.88
N = 7 N = 4 N = 11
High 15.24 15.68 15.17
Sub. Org. SD = 3.85 SD = 3.87 SD = 3.81
Deficit N = 17 N = 12 N = 29 15.84
Poor SD = 4.68
Readers Low 15.08 16.65 15.22 N a 79
Sub. Org. SD = 6.05 SD = 4.23 SD = 5.12
N = 22 N = 28 N = 50
Marginal Means and 18.45 17.81
Standard Deviations SD = 5.39 SD = 4.32
N = 104 N = 96

 

 

 

 

80

Similarly, the main effects for subjective organizational
ability and passage organization were not significant
(Table 3) .

The reading ability group by subjective organi-
zational ability was significant (Table 3). In Chapter II
it was predicted that Difference Poor Readers who were
high subjective organizers would differ significantly
from Deficit Poor Readers who were high subjective
organizers. However, it was not expected that Difference
Poor Readers would differ from good readers who were high
subjective organizers. Since the interaction was sig-
nificant, Scheffé Post Hoc procedures were used to examine
the simple contrasts within reading ability by subjective
organizational ability groups.

There was a significant difference (p < .05)
found between the total mean reading comprehension scores
of Difference Poor Readers and Deficit Poor Readers who
were high subjective organizers (Y = 20.36 and 15.17
respectively, see Table 5). The hypothesis was, therefore,
supported that Difference Poor Readers scored higher than
Deficit Poor Readers when both were high subjective
organizers (Figure 5). These results agree with Wiener
et al. (1967) and Cromer's (1968) that the lack of word
facility (deficit in vocabulary) may be the source of
reading difficulty for Deficit Poor Readers, but word

facility alone did not account for the comprehension of

81

Table 5

Summary of Scheffé 95% Confidence Intervals for Simple
Mean Differences for Total Reading Comprehension Scores

 

 

Observed Interval
HSO Goodw-Difference Poor
Readers -.2050 (-3.4611, 3.0511)
HSO Good-Deficit Poor *
Readers 5.3450 ( 2.8441, 7.8459)
HSO Difference Poor-Deficit *
Poor Readers 5.5500 ( 1.9982, 9.1018)
LSO Good- Difference Poor
Readers 1.3150 (-2.4708, 5.1008)
LSO Good-Deficit Poor *
Readers 2.6150 ( .3197, 4.9103)
LSO Difference Poor-Deficit *
Poor Readers 1.3000 (-2.4127, 5.0127)
GoodJ-Difference Poor
Readers .7200 (-l.7017, 3.1417)*
Good.-Deficit Poor Reader 3.9600 ( 2.3217, 5.5983)
Difference Poor-Deficit *
Poor Readers 3.2400 ( .7651, 5.7149)

 

Note: HSO
LSO

*
Significant p < .05

High Subjective Organizers
Low Subjective Organizers

82

 

 

30

Good Readers

Difference Poor Readers
25 Deficit Poor Readers

 

20.54 20.36

Mean Total Reading Comprehension Scores

 

High Subjective Low Subjective
Organizers Organizers

Fig. 5. Mean total comprehension scores for
reading groups by subjective organizational ability

I”

 

(
n.
I.

 

83

Difference Poor Readers. That is, as low subjective
organizers, Difference Poor Readers did not perform
significantly higher than Deficit Poor Readers.
The hypothesis of no difference between Difference
Poor Readers who were high subjective and good readers
who were high subjective organizers was supported (3? =
20.54 and 20.36 respectively) (Figure 5) . Table 5 of
the post hoc contrast reveals that good readers who were
high subjective organizers did not significantly differ
from Difference Poor Readers who were high subjective
organizers. However, both good and Difference Poor
Readers significantly differed from Deficit Poor Readers
(Table 5).

Difference Poor Readers and Deficit Poor Readers
rho were low subjective organizers did not significantly
iffer (5(- = 17.45 and 16.22 respectively), Table 5.
nos a significant difference was found between Dif-
rence Poor and Deficit Poor Readers who were high
jective organizers, these results supported the
actation that subjective organizational ability would
ide information about reading comprehension perfor-
2. That is, while the Difference Poor high subjective
izers performed significantly higher than Deficit
ligh subjective organizers, Difference Poor low
:tive organizers did not perform higher than

it Poor high subjective organizers (Figure 5) .

N—FI

 

84

An unexpected finding was that good readers and

Difference Poor Readers who were low subjective organizers

did not significantly differ (3(— = 18.77 and 17.45

respectively). Figure 5 indicates that the mean score

of the Difference Poor low subjective organizers is
between the mean scores of good and Deficit Poor Readers,
and as a group the means of good and Difference Poor

Readers who were low subjective organizers are lower

than the scores of the high subjective organizers. The

main effects, however, between subjective organizational

ability groups were not significant. The main effect

among reading ability groups was significant; Good and

Difference Poor Readers did not significantly differ but

aoth significantly differed from Deficit Poor Readers

[see Table 5). Since the two-way interaction of reading

.bility by subjective organizational ability was sig-

ificant, the significant main effects were not as

nteresting as the interaction effect. Thus, the inter-

:tion was a primary consideration'in this study.

Section II

gt Comprehension Score
In this section the results of the analysis of
riance using fact scores as the dependent variable are

>orted (see Table 6). A summary of the cell means,

Lndard deviations, and sample sizes for the 3 x 2 x 2

*torial design are presented in Table 7.

 

 

 

 

 

85

as.v mma Esme Houum

 

me. am. mm.m N .mmm x .mno .flnsm x suaaana easemmm
mms. mm. Hm.a m soflumNHsomuo mmommmm x howawnm msflomom
moan. ea. mm. a soHoouwsmmHo cosmmmm x .muo .nndm
seem. He.a ee.e N massage museums x mundane .mno .flnsm
emem. em. os.a a coaumNaammno mmmmmmm
maom. mma.a m~.e a message amaoaumNacmmno m>aoomflbsm
«Hoo. Hmam.HH mm.vm N mmoouo mosafinm msflomom
v m m m2 mo mosmwum> mo moousom

 

maooauo> unmosmmmo may no wwuoom pooh moan: muaommm ¢>OZ¢ N x N x m mo mumEEdm

m OHQMB

86

Table 7

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for 3 x 2 x 2 ANOVA Design

Using Fact Comprehension Scores as the Dependent Variable

 

Reading Groups

Passage Organization

 

Marginal Means and
Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well Poorly
High 10.84 11.04 10.93
Sub. Org. so = 2.27 so = 1.97 so = 2.13
N = 32 N = 24 N = 56
Good 10.60
Readers SD = 2.19
Low 10.60 9.70 10.15 N = 96
Sub. Org. SD = 2.16 SD = 2.25 SD = 2.22
N = 20 N = 20 N = 40
High 11.67 10.50 11.00
Sub. Org. SD = 1.63 SD = 1.69 SD = 1.71
Difference N = 6 N = 8 N = 14 10.68
Poor SD = 1.75
Readers Low 10.29 10.25 10.27 N = 25
Sub. Org. SD = 1.80 SD = 2.06 SD = 1.79
N = 7 N = 4 N = 11
High 9.00 8.83 8.93
Sub. Org. SD = 2.42 SD = 2.73 SD = 2.50
eficit N = 17 N - 12 N = 29 9.11
)or SD = 2.23
fade” Low 9.18 9.25 9.22 N = 79
Sub. Org. SD = 2.26 SD = 1.96 SD = 2.08
N = 22 N = 28 N = 50
Marginal Means and 10.15 9.89
Standard Deviations SD = 2.33 SD = 2.20
N = 104 N = 96

 

 

 

 

A'. -
I

 

 

87

As indicated by Table 6, neither the three-way
nor the two-way interactions were significant. A sig-
nificant main effect was observed for reading ability

groups; however, other main effects were not significant

(see Table 7). As observed in Figure 6 and supported by

post hoc procedures, good readers and Difference Poor
Readers did not significantly differ from each other;

but both had higher performance on fact items than did

Deficit Poor Readers (see Table 8). Thus, the interaction

observed on the total comprehension score was not apparent
for the fact score; that is, the influence of subjective

organization was not observed to influence the performance

of Difference Poor Readers on fact items.

Section III

Inference Comprehension Score
The results of the analysis of variance using

inference scores as the dependent variable are reported

in this section. Table 9 summarizes the results of the

analysis of variance. The means, standard deviations, and

sample sizes for each cell of the 3 x 2 x 2 design are

summarized in Table 10.
A three-way interaction, among reading ability

roups by subjective organizational ability by passage

rganization, was hypothesized in Chapter II.

 

 

88

 

 

 

Good Readers
\\ Difference Poor Readers

Deficit Poor Readers

 

 

 

 

12 -
11: |0.93 ll.00

 

 

 

M34

9 d 8.93

 

s1

 
 

7..

6-

5-

Mean Fact Score

4 -

 
 

O O 0 O O O O O O O O O
0.00.90.00.000099...0.00.1
A Q.‘.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A’A.A.A.A.A.‘.A...A.A.A.A.A. ° .4

 

 

 

/////////////////////////////////////////

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High Subjective Low Subjective
Organizers Organizers

Fig. 6. Mean fact comprehension scores for
reading groups by subjective organizational ability

 

89

 

 

Table 8

Summary of Scheffé 95% Confidence Intervals
for Simple Mean Differences for
Fact Comprehension Scores

Observed Interval

Good-Difference Poor
Readers -.0800 (-1.2779, 1.1179)
Good-LDeficit Poor

*
Readers 1.4860 ( .6756, 2.2967)

Difference Poor-Deficit

*
Poor Readers 1.5660 ( .3418, 2.7902)

*
Significant p < .05

 

 

 

«N.m mmH

Enos Houum

 

mmvm. mm.a Hm.m m .muo
.mmm x .Hflna .mso .nnsm x .Hflna museums
mama. vm.a mH.mH N .GOflumecmmuo mmmmmmm x .Hflnd msaommm
mama. ~5.H «H.4H H cowumusamouo mommmmm x .Hwna .muo .nnsm
.smmo. om.m m~.s~ N suflasna .muo .flasm x muons .Hflna mcflommm
W mmmm. mm. um.m a coHuMNacmmHo mmmmmmm
momm. h~.H m¢.oa a sugaflns Hmcoflumuflcmmuo m>fluomflasm
«Hoo. mm.ma oo.va N mmsouw huwawnd mcflommm
v m m m: up mocmwum> mo mmousom

 

wanmwum> usmvcmmwa
0:“ mm mwuoom OOGMHOMGH mafimD muaammm «502$ N x N x M NO mumfifidm

m OHQMB

91

Table 10

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for 3 x 2 x 2 ANOVA Design
Using Inference Comprehension Scores as the Dependent Variable

 

Reading Groups

Passage Organization

 

Marginal Means and
Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well Poorly
High 9.88 8.95 9.61
Sub. Org. SD = 2.97 SD = 3.65 SD = 3.47
Good N - 32 N - 24 N — 56 9.20
Readers SD = 3.18
Low 9.25 .8.30 8.63 N = 96
Sub. Org. SD = 2.77 SD = 2.85 SD = 2.82
N = 20 N = 20 N = 40
High 11.50 7.14 9.36
’Sub. Org. SD = 3.02 SD = 1.94 SD = 3.27
Difference N = 6 N = 8 N = 14 8.40
Poor SD = 3.08
Readers N = 25
Low 7.75 7.25 7.18
Sub. Org. SD = 3.01 SD = 3.30 SD = 2.99
N = 7 N = 4 N = 11
High 6.24 6.50 6.24
ub. Org. SD = 2.08 SD = 2.09 SD = 2.06
aficit N = 17 N = 12 N = 29 6.72
>or SD = 2.89
saders N = 79
Low 6.25 7.39 7.00
Sub. Org. SD = 3.70 SD = 2.83 SD = 3.26
N = 22 N = 28 N = 50
Marginal Means and 8.30 7.93
Standard Deviations SD = 3.40 SD = 3.08
N = 104 N = 96

 

 

 

 

 

 

92

The three-way interaction was not significant.
Similarly, the two-way interactions--reading ability by
passage organization and subjective organization ability
by passage organizations--were not significant (Table 9).
The main effects for subjective organizational ability
and passage organization were also not significant.

The two-way interaction, reading ability group by
subjective organization, was significant (see Table 9).
Figure 7 suggests a pattern of differences similar to
those reflected when the total comprehension score was
used as the dependent variable. Post hoc procedures were
used to determine the significant mean differences when
inference scores were used as the dependent variable.
Tested at the .05 level of confidence, a summary of the
confidence intervals of the mean differences are reported
in Table 11. The post hoc procedures indicated that the
mean differences found on inference items were consistent
with those found for total reading score (see Figures 5
and 7). Difference Poor and good readers who were high
subjective organizers did not significantly differ, but
both had significantly higher mean scores (§’= 9.6 and
9.4 respectively) than the mean score of Deficit Poor
Readers (2': 6.2) who were high subjective organizers.
While good readers (Y = 8.6) who were low subjective
organizers significantly differed from low subjective

organizers who were Deficit Poor Readers (Y'= 7.0), they

:" -
.-" ’ _

 

93

12

Good Readers
11 Difference Poor Readers
Deficit Poor Readers

Mean Inference Score

 

High Subjective Low Subjective
Organizers Organizers

Fig. 7. Mean inference comprehension scores for
reading groups by subjective organizational ability

94

Table 11

Summary of Scheffé 95% Confidence Intervals for

 

 

Simple Mean Differences for
Inference Scores
Observed Interval

HSO Good-Difference Poor

Readers -.0650 (-2.1949, 2.0649)
HSO Good-Deficit Poor *

Readers 3.3200 ( 1.6841, 4.9559)
HSO Difference Poor-Deficit *

Poor Readers 3.3850 ( 1.0616, 5.7084)
LSO Good-Difference Poor

Readers 1.4300 (-1.0465, 3.9065)
LSO Good-Deficit Poor *

Readers 1.6800 ( .1785, 3.1815)
LSO Difference Poor -

Deficit Poor Readers .2500 (-2.1787, 2.6787)
Goodm-Difference Poor *

Readers .798 ( -.7861, 2.3821)*
Good-Deficit Poor Readers 2.476 ( 1.4043, 3.5477)
Difference Poor-Deficit *
Poor Readers 1.678 ( 0.0590, 3.2970)

 

Note: HSO
LSO

*
Significant p < .05

High Subjective Organizers
Low Subjective Organizers

95

did not significantly differ from Difference Poor Readers
(§'= 7.2) who were low subjective organizers. Although
not significantly differing from good readers, Difference
Poor Readers who were low subjective organizers also
failed to significantly differ from Deficit Poor Readers
who were low subjective organizers (see Figure 7). These
findings supported the hypothesis that subjective organi-
zational ability influenced reading comprehension and the
locus of the influence was on inference items. In other
words, the combined effect of subjective organizational
ability and reading ability groups provided additional
information about the performance of Difference Poor
Readers over Deficit Poor Readers; their subjective
organizational ability should be taken into account.
Although this combined influence was also obvious on
total reading comprehension scores, inference scores
appeared to be the locus of the interact effect. These
results indicated that separating total comprehension
scores into fact and inference scores provided additional
information about the influence of subject variables
(subjective organizational ability and reading ability)
on reading comprehension.

Table 12 indicates a moderate but significant
correlation between subjective organizational scores
and the Michigan State University Reading Comprehension

Test. A similar correlation.was found between the

96

 

 

com 2 «mo. v m mcosumamuuoo unmoswsamflm
t.
oo.H oH. mo. 0H. «ma. ma. .omze mmuoom
« nowadaflcmmuo m>wuomnnsm cums
oo.H mm. «m. mm. mm. “was mmuoom poms
« s s s
oo.a «am. «pm. «mm. AmHe mmnoom moamummca
oo.a .mm. «mm. Amuse mmuoom museums Hmuoa
oo.a «on. Ammanmoe mmuoom cowmcmsmumsou
oo.a ism21m>e mmuoom sumasnmoo>
om: mm mH was omzuu smzu>

 

mmuoom mocmummcH can push .Amusmmmz

ucmocmmmav mmuoom scamsmnmumaoo mcwommm Hmuoa “mmuoom sofimcmnmumaou mcflommm
can unmasnmoo>.umma mcaommm muwmum>wca mumum savanna: mo xfiuumz newumamuuoo mHmEmm

NH wanna

97

Michigan State University VOcabulary test and subjective
organization scores. The experimental passages did not
significantly correlate with the measure of subjective
organization. Generally, Table 12 suggests that the

six variables included were moderately interrelated.
Guthrie (1973a) suggested that an interrelationship
would support the systems model.

In summary, the results indicated that reading
ability groups significantly differed on reading compre-
hension. But since there was also a significant inter-
action effect between subjective organizational ability
and reading ability groups, a blanket statement that Dif-
ference Poor Readers score higher than Deficit Poor
Readers was not considered important. Knowledge of their
subjective organizational ability was necessary and
revealed that Difference Poor Readers with high subjec-
tive organizational ability scored higher than Deficit
Poor Readers who were high subjective organizers. But
Difference Poor Readers who were low subjective organizers
did not score higher than Deficit Poor Readers who were
low subjective organizers. In other words, Difference
Poor Readers were superior to Deficit Poor Readers only
when they were also high subjective organizers. Good
readers scored higher than Deficit Poor Readers regardless
of subjective organizational ability. In contrast, good
and Difference Poor Readers did not significantly differ

when either was high or low subjective organizers.

98

When inference and fact scores were separated,
the interaction of subjective organizational ability by
reading ability groups was observed only on inference
items. A direct interpretation of the results on fact
scores indicated that good readers and Difference Poor
Readers did not differ, but both significantly differed
from Deficit Poor Readers. Clearly, the results indi-
cated that Difference Poor Readers who were high subjec-
tive organizers performed significantly higher than
Deficit Poor Readers who were high subjective organizers
and that Difference Poor Readers who were low subjective
organizers did perform significantly higher than Deficit
Poor low subjective organizers on inference items.

These results clearly support: that knowledge
of subjective organizational ability provided additional
interpretive information about the reading comprehension
performance of Difference poor readers and that the locus
of the influence of subjective organizational ability was
on inference items.

Correlating the Michigan State University Reading
Comprehension scores (vocabulary and comprehension) with
subjective organizational scores revealed a low but
Significantly positive correlation. Furthermore, the
variables included in the study were interrelated which

Provided support for Levin's (1973) system model.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

Although the expected three-way interaction among
reading ability groups, subjective organizational ability,
and passage organization was not significant, a two-way
interaction was. A significant interaction effect between
the reading ability groups and subjective organizational
ability was found. This interaction, although observed
on inference items, was not significant on fact items.

The locus of the interaction was between Difference Poor
Readers who were high subjective organizers and Difference
Poor Readers who were low subjective organizers. That is,
the high subjective organizer performed significantly
higher on inference than Deficit Poor Readers who were
high subjective organizers, but the Difference and Deficit
low subjective organizers did not. On fact items, both
good and Difference Poor Readers scored significantly
higher than Deficit Poor Readers regardless of their
subjective organizational ability.

For Difference Poor Readers, the results clearly
supported that knowledge of subjective organizational
ability provided additional information about performance

99

100

on inference items. The absence of a two-way interaction
between reading ability groups by subjective organizational
ability on fact items revealed the importance of consider-
ing the items' scores as an indication of reading per-
formance rather than accepting the total score as the

only criterion to evaluate reading comprehension per-
formance.

Although the effects due to passage organization
were not significant, an examination of individual cell
means for Difference Poor Readers suggested different
patterns of performance. These patterns were generally
in the direction of what was expected had the passage
organizations differed. The failure to find a significant
difference on passage organization, at least for Difference
Poor Readers, was unexpected since Cromer and others
found passage organization to be critical for Difference
Poor Readers.

Since other researchers (Cromer, 1970) have found
passage organization a reliable influence on reading com-
prehension, the absence of an effect of this variable
in the present study was disquieting. A careful re-
examination of the amount of disorganization in the
“poorly" organized passage suggested that perhaps the
passage organization variable had not been given a
rigorous test. If the disorganization in the passage

could be increased then perhaps the expected main

 

101

effects of passage organization would be observed. This

line of reasoning led to the planning of Experiment II.

Experiment II

 

Examination of the data in the previous experi-
ment by passage organization revealed that although not
significant the pattern of sCores differed for total,
inference, and fact score. Since the main effects for
passage organization were not significant, a more dis-
organized passage was developed by completely reordering
paragraphs (see Figure 8). Clearly, the reordered para-
graphs constituted a passage more poorly organized than

that used in the first experiment. To test the trends

indicated by Tables 4, 7, and 10, the following hypotheses

were formulated:

Hypothesis 1:

 

Total and Inference scores for well-organized
passages will be higher than on poorly organized
passages.

Hypothesis 2:

 

Fact scores will not differ on well-organized and
poorly organized passages.

Sample

The sample for the second experiment was 56
freshmen enrolled in American Thought and Language at

Michigan State University, summer term 1974. Randomly

102

 

 

 

Well Organized Poorly Organized
l 1
2 2
3 10
4 9
5 13

6\ / /6

)‘V 3
10 {“II> . 7
u \\ 5
12 8
13 4
14 2

 

Fig. 8. Comparison of paragraph ordering for
well- and poorly organized passages in Experiment II

103

assigned to two treatment groups, 27 subjects read the
well-organized passage and 29 the poorly organized passage.

Procedure--See procedure for reading task, Experiment I.

 

Analysis and Results

 

A one-way analysis of variances was used to test
mean difference between well- and poorly organized passages
for total reading comprehension scores. A multivariate
analysis of variance (Finn, 1967) was used to test the
effects of well- and poorly organized passages on fact
and inference items.

The results of the analysis indicated that sub-
jects reading the well-organized passage scored signifi-
cantly higher on the mean total scores (§'= 19.78 and
14.90 respectively) than subjects reading the poorly
organized passages (MSE = 22.951, dF = 54; MS = 333.1437,
F = 14.5154, dF = 1,54, p < .0004). Likewise, the dif-
ference between the means (§'= 9.85 and 5.79, respectively)
of students reading the well-organized and poorly
organized passages on inference items was significant
(see Table 13). The mean scores of fact, although sig-
nificant, showed less dramatic changes between well-
organized and poorly organized passage (§‘= 10.90, and
9.10 respectively) than the means of inference scores
(see Figure 9). A summary of the means, standard devi-
ations, and sample sizes on total, fact, and inference

comprehension scores are reported in Table 14.

104

Table 13

Summary of Cell Means and Standard Deviations

 

 

Well Organized Poorly Organized
Inference
Score 9.85 5.79
SD = (4.84) SD = (2.21)
N = 27 N = 27
Fact Score 10.89 9.10
SD = (2.08) SD = (2.69)
N = 29 N = 29
Total Score 19.78 14.90
SD = 5.21 SD = 4.36

N = 27 N = 29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 —
A Tofal Conprehension Score
~ I Facf Score

m . Inference Score
H 25
4.)
o
m
1..
8
u 20 ‘1 19.73
V q
0
a:
5 15 -
g 4 l4.90
u .__
0’ 10 7 l0.89 A
'g 9.85 SLIO
z _.
5:}
m 5 n 5.79
2

° 1

Well-Organized Poorly Organized
Passage Passage

Fig. 9. Total, fact and inference scores on
well-organized and poorly organized passages

106

Table 14

Results of Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)
Test on Fact and Inference Scores

 

 

. Mean Univariate
Variables Square F P < Step Down F P <
Fact 44.5722 7.6323 .0079 7.6323 .0079
Inference 230.3340 16.6693 .0002 8.4223 .0054

 

Error Term

 

Fact 5.839932

Inference 13.817889

DF = 54, Multivariate F = 8.5518, DF = 2, 53,

P < .0007

107

It would not have been unreasonable to suggest
that if a person could not recall the facts contained in
the test passage he would not be expected to use those
facts in answering items requiring that an inference be
drawn from them. If this were true, the effect of passage
organization on inference scores could be explained away
as just the consequence of its influence on the recall
of facts.

The MANOVA provided a test of the reasoning that
passage organization effects on inference were an artifact
of its effects on fact recall. If this reasoning were
correct then one would expect to have found that the step-
down F-test for inference would not be significant. Con-
trarily, however, that step—down F-test was indeed sig-
nificant (see Table 14). It was true that inference was
influenced by fact recall, as was evidenced by the drop
in value from the univariate F-test (16.67) for inference
to the step-down F-test (8.42). However, even when the
effects of poor fact recall due to passage disorganization
were removed from the effects of passage organization on
inference items, there remained unique direct influence
of organization on inference scores (see Figure 10).

In summary the second experiment showed that
passage disorganization influenced reading comprehension.
Poorly organized reading material resulted in reliably

poorer comprehension than did well-organized material.

108

Although the influence of poor passage organization was
found to reduce recall of facts and thereby reduce
accuracy of inferences, poor passage organization also

had a direct effect on the ability to draw inferences.
These results suggest that in the main experiment reported
the absence of the predicted interaction of reading
ability, subjective organization, and passage organization
was most probably not given an adequate test due to the
fact that the variable of passage organization was not
effectively manipulated. Of course it remains to be

seen whether or not given effective manipulation of that

variable the predicted interaction would be observed.

 

 

 

Passage 3 Fact Inference
Organization Scores Scores

L __T__

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 10. The influence of passage organization on
answering fact and inference items

Discussion
The results of Experiment II clearly demonstrated
that although passage disorganization influenced perfor-
mance items, performance on inference items were more
dramatically influenced. These findings supported those

found by Frase (1973a) and Maroon et a1. (1971) that

109

passage organization has a greater effect on seeing
-re1ationship within text materials than on recalling
information directly from the text.

Although scores due to passage organization were
not significant in Experiment I, the significant dif-
ference between comprehension scores on well-organized
and poorly organized passages in Experiment II demon-
strated that passage organization effects comprehension
scores.

The main experiment demonstrated that when good
readers were compared to a group of Deficit Poor Readers
they performed significantly higher than on reading com-
prehension items, regardless of subjective organizational
ability. In contrast, Difference Poor Readers who were
high subjective organizers scored higher on inference
items than Deficit Poor high subjective organizers. But
Difference Poor Readers who were low subjective organizers
did not score significantly higher than Deficit Poor
Readers who were low subjective organizers. On fact
items, both good readers and Difference Poor Readers
scored higher than Deficit Poor Readers. Clearly, these
findings supported the general hypothesis that knowledge
of subjective organizational ability provided information
about the reading comprehension performance of some poor
readers. Furthermore, the influence of subjective

organization ability for Difference Poor Readers was

 

110

found to be on inference items (items requiring seeing
relationship) and not on fact items. Two important
implications can be drawn from this trend. First, the
pattern of scores observed on the total reading compre-
hension score while not maintained for fact items was
evident on inference items. In other words, the relative
loss of information reflected in the total scores resulted
from a loss of information on inference items but not
fact items. Thus, these findings supported the need to
closely examine the items within reading comprehension
tests as a means of identifying students' reading come
prehension difficulty. Another implication was that
adequate subjective organizational ability may help
readers to provide a detection, storage, and retrieval
function for the organization within materials.

Wiener et a1. (1967) and Cromer's (1970) findings
were extended in that a Difference group of poor readers
were identified who responded to organized material only
when they were also high subjective organizers. Whereas
Cromer found that Difference Poor Readers' comprehension
increased for phrase organized materials, the present
study extended these findings to total passage organi-
zation and demonstrated that the inference scores of
these poor readers were lower when they lack adequate

subjective organizational ability. Levin's (1971-72)

pro:

ISu

rep

t0

Slc

AV

on

for

dee

19E

is

L181

an.

in

Ha

Otj

Se!

in

 

 

111

proposal that an ordinal aptitude treatment interaction
model would best account for the differences between good
and poor readers was the tendency observed in this study.

If meaningful information is stored as images or
"surrogate structures" (thematic representation) which
represent the transformation of surface structure (words)
to abstract deep structures (Neisser, 1967; Neimark,
Slotnick, & Ulrich, 1971; Powell, et al., 1972), then
organizational processes may have their greatest impact
on the retrieval of deep structure. Thus, " . . . trans-
forming the surface structure of words into underlying
deep structure” may involve a number of processes (Neisser,
1967; Powell et al., 1972) of which subjective organization
is one.

If items on reading comprehension tests can be
used to reflect information stored as surface structure
and deep structure, performance on such items may provide
information about cognitive processes influencing infor-
mation storage and retrieval at either a surface or deep
structure level. In the present study, fact items were
considered to represent surface structures since infor-
mation was recalled directly from the passage. On the
other hand, the retrieval of deep structures was repre-
sented by inference items. With the above interpretation
in mind, the results indicated that retrieval of surface in-

formation (represented by fact items) was independent of the

112

subjective organizational processes at least for Dif-
ference Poor Readers (not an interaction effect). But

on inference items, subjective organizational ability
played a major role for these poor readers. From an
information processing interpretation, high subjective
organizational ability may have enabled Difference Poor
Readers to detect surface organization (structure) which
was subsequently transformed and stored as deep structure
(thematic representation). In other experiments when
subjects have been encouraged to transform surface
structure into deep structure by using imagery strategies
their comprehension and recall have been facilitated
(Anderson & Hiddle, 1971; Levin, 1973; Paivio, 1971;
Rohwer, 1970; Spangenberg, 1971).

The use of higher level organizational strategies
(imagery, mnemonic devices, and of syntactic cues) could
explain the failure of the present measure of subjective
organization to interact with good readers. On the other
hand, the word-by-word reading strategy of Difference
Poor Readers (Cromer, 1970) may have accounted for why
the present measure interacted with reading ability on
inference items. That is, the present measure of subjec-
tive organization may have been more sensitive to word-
by-word associations used by Difference Poor Readers
to transform surface structures to deep structure. The

absence of vocabulary skills for Deficit Poor Readers

113

possibly accounted for the lack of an interaction with
the subjective organizational measure.

No test of the dependence of Difference Poor
Readers on passage organization was made. The evidence,
however, did suggest that for Difference Poor Readers
who were low subjective organizers, the failure to use
”subject-generated organization," could be a factor
accounting for their reading difficulty and similarly
for some of the individual differences between good and
these poor readers (Kerst & Levin, 1973). For example,
while good readers may have more extensive reservoirs
of subjective organizational strategies which enable
them to accommodate more easily to various organizations
within materials, the pool of subjective organizational

strategies for poor readers may be more limited.

Implications for Future Research

Although support for the influence of subjective
organizational processes on reading comprehension is
strengthened by this study, additional research is needed
to isolate the specific subjective organizational strate-
gies used by good and poor readers. Once the strategies
are isolated, research can be undertaken to determine
whether teaching them to readers will improve compre-

hension. It may be that learning additional strategy

114

will strengthen weaker ones. Further research is also
needed to determine whether a combination of subjective
organizational measures will more effectively predict
reading comprehension scores for items reflecting dif-
ferent comprehension skills (e.g. recall, inference).

The importance of adequate vocabulary skills,
however, cannot be overlooked. The greater facility to
use words undoubtedly provided the means by which good
and Difference Poor Readers were better able to transform
surface structure to deep structure, a skill Deficit Poor
Readers lacked. Therefore, improving the ability to
derive meaning from words may be a critical first step
to improving comprehension for Deficit Poor Readers.

A model of reading for comprehension was proposed
in Chapter I. The model displayed four major components
(materials, organizational processes, short-term memory,
and long-term memory) proposed to account in part for
reading comprehension. Each of the components could be
represented by variables in the present study: materials
(well and poorly organized), organizational processes
(subjective organization), long-term memory (fact items,
in part, and inference items), and short-term memory (in
part fact items). Because there were significant cor-
relations among the scores representing each component,
the model can be interpreted as lending some support to

the systems models outlined by Guthrie (1973), who

115

suggested that components and subskills are interrelated;
further research is needed to support this claim.

An information processing interpretation might
best describe the interaction among components in Figure 1.
Comprehension (i.e., gaining meaning from materials) takes
place within a task environment (audio or visual) and the
surface structure (words, organization, structure, etc.)
of these materials determines the organizational strategy
used for comprehension. Organizational strategies are
proposed to evolve from the interaction between long-term
and short-term memory which takes place within what is
referred to as a "problem space" (Newell & Simon, 1972).
Thus, when the message is transmitted that materials have
low organizational structures, organizational processes
impose a structure on the materials. In contrast, when
the message is transmitted that the organization in the
materials is adequate, organizational processes accommodate
to the organization within the materials. As a conse-
quence, the organizational processes may, in part, be
responsible for transforming surface structure into
deep structure, thereby gaining meaning from words, which
is stored and later retrieved to answer questions on
comprehension tests; thus the proposed model could be
more rigorously tested.

If the recall of factual information can be

accepted as, in part, representing short-term memory,

116

and in conjunction with inference items represent long-
term memory, it is apparent that short-term memory and
long-term memory are not independent. For example, a
coefficient of determination represented the amount of
common variance between the two variables and indicated
that about 33% of variance accounted for in fact items
was common to inference items. The results of Experiment
II suggested that significant performance on fact items
was not affected by passage disorganization when the
effects on inference items were removed. Thus, items
dependent upon seeing relationships within the text
materials were more dependent on passage organization
than items requiring the recall of information directly
from the reading materials. Similarly, the transformation
of surface structure into deep structure may depend upon
seeing the relationship among ideas; likewise, the
storage and retrieval of deep structures may depend on
the availability of gaining meaning from surface
structures (Neisser, 1967). The utility of organiza-
tional processes for a particular individual may, there-
fore, depend to some degree on general ability to retain
information and to a greater degree on the ability to
transform surface structure into deep structure (i.e., a
facility to transform concrete information into abstract
representations). Whether these processes can be

explicitly taught is a challenge open to further research.

117

Although the model proposed only minimally
represents the complex processes and interactions in
reading comprehension, it was useful for generating
hypotheses in the present study. Although only one
example of subjective organization was used to represent
the organizational processes in reading comprehension,
more are available. The proposed model provides numerous
possibilities for exploring these processes in future
research. For example, a series of hypotheses could be
generated about the interaction of organization in
materials (e.g. syntactic, semantic, acoustic, paragraph,
sentence, etc.) and subjective organizational strategies.
Another set of hypotheses could be generated by holding
organization in the materials constant, but varying sub-
jective organizational strategies (e.g. mnemonic, imagery,
mediation, clustering, etc.). Materials and subjective
organizational strategies could also be varied simul-
taneously. Taking yet another approach, combining
measures of subjective organization in multivariate and
multiple regression analyses could be useful ways to
study the effects of subjective organizational processes
on reading comprehension. Finally, a direction of
research with the most practical pay off for school
children, especially children who fit the "Difference

Poor Model," would be to test the effects of explicitly

118

teaching heuristics for subjectively organizing reading
materials. Levin best sums up this need:

As educators, we should continually be seeking ways
to improve the learning process and make it more
enjoyable. Changing the characteristics of reading
materials or changing the reader's characteristic
behavior seem to be two reasonable and (not neces-
sarily mutually exclusive) possibilities. While the
former caters to individual differences through the
presentation of differentially effective organi-
zations, the latter approach promises the greater
educational payoff beyond the confines of the well-
organized textbook, the optimally sequenced teaching
machine, and the multi-talented teacher. Equipped
with efficient organizational strategies, the child
will be less dependent on the quality of stimuli

in his environment for he will be capable of
reorganizing, elaborating and concretizing rela-
tively disorganized, unelaborated and abstract
materials [p. 26, 1971-72].

Ausubel (1968) indicated that advanced organizers helped

to subsume ideas into cognitive structures. The results

of this study suggested that materials logically organized,
showing set-subset relationships, could also provide a
means of repetition which enables key ideas and relation-
ships to be subsumed under main ideas. A more definitive
answer to this assumption has potential for future research.
The model proposed, though incomplete, provided encourag-
ing evidence that an information processing interpretation
of reading for comprehension can help to better understand

and examine the cognitive processes influencing reading.

Summary

The hypotheses tested were derived from a pro-

posed model of reading for comprehension as an information

119

processing activity and Cromer's conceptualization of a
"Difference Model" of poor readers. Difference Poor
Readers were assumed to lack the ability to organize
input but comprehended as well as good readers when
their input was effectively organized.

The general hypothesis of the present study was
that the organization of materials and subjective organi—
zation would provide knowledge about the reading compre-
hension performance of readers with different ability.
Because total comprehension scores were viewed as pro-
viding only partial information about performance on a
comprehension test, performance on fact and inference
scores was observed.

The literature reviewed indicated that subjective
organization influenced list learning and that performance
on free recall tasks was related to subjective organi-
zation. Traditionally, three measures have been used to
study organization in memory: clustering, association,
and subjective organization. Tulving (1962) first intro-
duced the concept of subjective organization, his measure
correlated with an alternative measure the index of inter-
trial repetitions (ITR), introduced by Bousfield and
associates (1964, 1966). The ITR represented the measure
of subjective organization used in this study.

Frase and others extended free recall techniques

to prose materials demonstrating that paragraph

120

organization influenced organization of recall. The
literature also suggested that paragraph organization
would affect answering comprehension questions; that is,
questions requiring subjects to relate ideas within a
text would be influenced by the organization of the
material but factual recall per se would not. A Dif-
ference group of poor readers was described as having
reading difficulty because of an inability to organize
their input. To test this hypothesis three reading
groups were included in the present study: good, Dif-
ference Poor, and Deficit Poor.

A 3 x 2 x 2 analysis of variance design was used
to analyze reading ability groups by subjective organi-
zation by passage organization effect. Three dependent
variables (total comprehension score, inference score,
fact score) were examined in separate univariate analyses.

The major findings were that a significant two-
way interaction was found between reading ability groups
and subjective organization ability. A difference between
Difference Poor high subjective organizers and Deficit
Poor high subjective organizers, but no difference
between Difference and Deficit Poor low subjective organi-
zers, was considered the source of the interaction. In
other words, while good and Difference Poor Readers sig-
nificantly differed from Deficit Poor Readers, when they

were high subjective organizers, only good readers

121

(differed from Deficit poor low subjective organizers.
When the total reading score was separated into a fact‘
(and inference score, the source of the interaction
(reading groups and subjective organizational ability)
‘was the inference items. With the source of the inter-
action identified, the main effects between reading
ability groups were more interpretable. Good readers
and Difference Poor Readers did not significantly differ
Ibut both differed from Deficit Poor Readers on fact items
regardless of subjective organizational ability. On
inference items, although good readers and Difference
Poor Readers did not differ, Difference Poor Readers
differed significantly from Deficit Poor Readers only
'when both were high subjective organizers.

A second experiment was conducted to determine
‘whether the effects of a more disorganized passage would
influence reading comprehension. Total, fact, and
inference scores were found to significantly differ
as a result of passage organization. Descriptively,
the inference items were most dramatically affected by
changes in the passage organization. That is, inference
scores dropped more on the poorly organized passage than
did fact scores. Similarly, when the effect of passage
disorganization on inference items was removed, the
effect of passage disorganization on fact items was not

Significant.

122

An information processing interpretation implied
that Difference Poor Readers who were high subjective
jperformed effectively on materials reasonably organized
Ibecause their subjective organizational ability enabled
them to better detect and/or impose organization absence
in the material. That is, passage organization enabled
them to more effectively transform surface information
into meaning, stored as deep structures. Evidence that
inference and fact scores were related suggested that
answering inference items, in part, depends on recalling
information from the text. The results were interpreted
as supporting the notion that adequate reading for Dif-
ference Poor Readers who are high subjective organizers
occurs because these readers may be better able to detect
and utilize passage organization to transform, store, and
retrieve information. The results were also interpreted
as supporting the use of the proposed model (of reading
as an information processing activity) to generate
hypotheses about how the organization of materials,
asubjective organizational processes, and memory interact

'to influence reading for comprehension.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

TEST MATERIALS

Y, P f:

 

APPENDIX A
TEST MATERIALS

List of Unrelated Words

-__—_TCohen, 1963)
Garage
Arrow

Veal
Library
Ballet

Haystack
Mongrel
Cocoon

Tutor

Creek

Juice

Sofa

Veal
Dollar

Flag

Ink
Winter
Referee
Noon
Glue

Eye

123

Well-Organized Passage

(Anderson, 1970)

124

READING PASSAGE (W0)

In this part of the study you will be presented
a passage to read. Read the passage carefully. You will
have about 9 minutes to read the passage. If you wish to
read over any part of the passage do not go back any
further than the preceding paragraph. Do not take notes
on the information you read.

Following the passage is a 30-item comprehension
test. Place your answers to the test questions on the
attached answer sheet. Please use the special marking
pencils provided and mark your answer sheet with care.

Write your name, student number, and the letters
in parenthesis (either W0 or PO) at the top of this page,
on your answer sheet.

125

The following passage gives an account of two native tribes

living in an area unknown to the civilized world before 1700 A.D.
It may be typical of many other descriptions of primitive tribal
life, in that it was constructed with a considerable amount of

speculation: '

Two tribes, the Umawas and the Akulus, inhabited two large
islands in the South Pacific between 1200 and 1700 A.D. The entire
Umawa tribe lived on the island of Kunjee, claiming this land as their
only territorial possession. Ascribing to a different way of life
altogether, the members of the Akulu tribe lived on the island of
Okando, one hundred miles to the southeast. For centuries the two
tribes knew nothing of each other's existence, and had it not been
for a certain bizarre and unexpected event, to be explained later,
this may have continued for many more years.

The tribes had almost nothing in common in the way that they
lived. Being an inventive people, the Umawas had developed a culture
over the years that was based largely upon technology. Depending upon
agriculture to sustain themselves, all members of the Umawa tribe
became farmers and generally lived in the same geographical area most
of their lives. Although they believed each family should be self-
sufficient, there was an emphasis upon working together as a group,
often in order to develop new systems for irrigation and planting.

All Umawas were pacifists and held a strong taboo against the killing
of other human beings and even animals. As a result of this they
were also vegetarians.

Although all Umawas were believers in technology, roughly half
of them believed there was a connection between their technological
success and their belief in various spirit gods that ruled the universe,
such as the gods of thunder and lightning and the god of rain. This re-
sulted in a population which was divided into two distinct groups, those
who believed only in technology and those who could be called religious
technologists. These religious technologists came to be known as
Kumas.

Among the Kumas there was a group called the Bantoks. All
Bantoks were men and women who belonged to the Kuma tribe but in addi-
tion to being farmers they also had the function of maintaining the
beliefs of the Kuma religion. All Bantok children automatically as-
sumed this position of religious leadership upon reaching adulthood
and were permitted to marry only the sons or daughters of other Bantoks.

In contrast to the Umawa tribe the Akulus were nomads. They
'established no permanent homes and changed location frequently within
the boundaries of the island of Okando. They sustained themselves by
stealing from each other and their neighbors on nearby islands. The
Akulu tribesmen were not vegetarians and held no religious beliefs,
but were warriors who believed that killing was necessary for survival.
It was the tradition of the Akulu tribesmen to hunt their prey by them-
selves and were never seen in groups. They believed in "every man for
himself.”

A great number of Akulu tribesmen inhabited only the coastal
areas of Okando, making temporary homes in the many caves found along
the shoreline. Even though they were all members of the Akulu tribe,
they became known as Takus. Since they were all nomadic cave dwellers
and sustained themselves primarily by attacking and plundering sailing

126

vessels that came too close to Okando, they came to have an identity of
their own. After many years of existing in this manner they became de-
pendent upon their caves for shelter against storms and used them for
storing their stolen goods.

Historical accounts reveal that some of these'Takus were also
cannibals. The Takus who did not practice cannibalism had such a strong
taboo against it they set the cannibals apart by giving them the sep-
arate name of Malnoosians. Even though all Malnoosians were also Takus
the attitudes toward cannibalism on both sides made it mandatory that
children of each group always marry within their group. Sailors who
were shipwrecked on the coral reefs just off the shoreline of Okando
often became victims of the cannibalistic Takus.

Even though each had lived on their respective islands for hun-
dreds of years unaware that the other tribe existed, a bizarre event

suddenly brought the members of the Umawa and Akulu tribes together.

In the year 1600 a group of Umawa tribesmen had invented a new type of
sailing craft and were commissioned to test its sea-worthiness by sail-
ing it a considerable distance. Having traveled farther from the island
of Kunjee than any Umawas before them, they unexpectedly discovered an
uninhabited island which they called Ranguru. The news of this dis-
covery led to much disagreement as to how best to make use of this new
island, which the Umawas claimed for themselves. Through much political
maneuvering the Bantoks finally won out and the island of Ranguru came
to be used exclusively for religious festivals and ceremonies honoring
their spirit gods, including the god Zenus who they credited with their
success in agriculture and related technology.

The first major religious ceremony to be held on Ranguru was to
honor Solus, their sun-god, and was attended by all Kumas. Although
this religious ceremony was traditional, the Bantoks introduced the
practice of eating the bark from the Mangus tree, a new plant discovered
on the island which appeared similar to a substance back on their home-
land which was known to produce hallucinations and exotic sensations if
eaten raw. They felt sure that the Mangus bark would produce the same
effect and enhance their participation in the ceremony.

At the same time all of the Kumas were on the island of Ranguru
for the celebration a group of Malnoosians had sailed farther than
usual in search of ships to plunder in order to satisfy their canni-
balistic desires. Having accomplished this goal by raiding an unsus-
pecting ship in the waters near the island of Ranguru, the cannibals
found themselves caught in a storm and hastily sailed for the island
°which they thought would be a safe place to hide their stolen treasures.

Darkness had fallen on the island of Ranguru by the time the
Malnoosians had landed on its shores. Searching in the night for caves
in which to store their treasures they came upon the unsuspecting Kumas
who were by this time feeling the full toxic effect of eating the Mangus
bark and were in no condition to protect themselves from the forthcoming
Malnoosian attack. The cannibals attacked their prey swiftly and many
Kumas became their victims since they had no chance to escape. "However,
some Kumas were able to hide in the jungle and managed to reach their
boats and sail away from the island under the cover of darkness.

Unknown to both Kumas and Malnoosians was the disease produced
in the body of a person who eats the Mangus bark. The disease is known
as Tokavi and leaves its mark in the form of red pockmarks on the

127

surface of the skin. The Tokavi disease was known to result in a perma-
nent genetic change, which meant that all the offspring of the escaping
Kunas would also inherit the physical change in appearance caused by the
disease.

Since the entirertribe of Malnoosians took part in this partic-
ular attack on the unsuspecting Kumas, they too were to suffer the ef-
fects of the disease due to their cannibalistic practice of devouring
their victims. From that time on all Malnoosians and their offspring
bore the mark of that infamous attack by having their skin marked with
the unsightly red pockmarks.

The Bantoks who managed to survive the attack and return to
Kunjee eXplained the affliction of the permanent red pockmarks as re-
sulting from the displeasure of Medula, their god of health and safety.
The Bantoks decreed that no Kuma was ever to return to the island of
Ranguru again and that Kuma children were restricted to marriages only
among other Kumas in order that following generations wOuld be spared
this affliction.

The Malnoosians explained their changed appearance by attributing
it to this one unfortunate occurrence and thereafter became fearful of
visiting the island again. Their changed appearance made the Malnoosians
easy to recognize and reinforced the belief held by other Takus that the
Malnoosians were made to suffer from the curse of cannibalism they put
on the tribe.

 

Poorly Organized Passage

Main Experiment

128

READING PASSAGE (PO)

In this part of the study you will be presented a passage
to read. Read the passage carefully. You will' have about 9
minutes to read the passage. If you wish to read over any part
of the passage do not go back any further than the proceeding
paragraph. Do not take notes on the information you read.

Following the passage is a 30 item comprehension test. Place
your answers to the test questions on the attached answer sheet.
Please use the special marking pencils provided. and mark your
answer sheet with care.

Write your name, student number, and the letters in parenthesis
(either NO or PO) at the tap of this page, on yom' answer sheet.

129

The following passage gives an account of two native tribes
living in an area unknown to the civilized world before 1700 A.D.
It may be typical of many other descriptions of primitive tribal
life, in that it was constructed with a considerable amount of
speculation.

Two tribes, the Umawas and the Akulus, inhabited two large
islands in the South Pacific between 1200 and 1700 A.D. The
entire Umawa tribe lived on the island of Kunj ee, claiming this
land as their only territorial possession. Ascribing to a
different way of life altogether, the members of the Akulu tribe
lived on the island of Okando, one hundred miles to the southeast.
For centuries the two tribes knew nothing of each other' 5 existance,
and had it not been for a certain bizarre and unexpected _,event to
be explained later, this may have continued for many more years.

The tribes had almost nothing in common in the way that they
lived. Being an inventive people, the Umawas had developed a
culture over the years that was based largely upon technology.
Depending upon agriculture to sustain themselves, all members of
the Umawa tribe became farmers and generally lived in the same
geographical area most of their lives. Although they believed each
family should be self-sufficient, there was an emphasis upon working
together as a group, often in order to develop new systems for irri-
gation and planting. A11 Umawas were pacifists and held a strong
taboo against the killing of other human beings and even animals.

As a result of this they were also vegetarians.

In contrast to the Umawa tribe the Akulus were nomads. They
established no permanent homes and changed location frequently within
the boundaries of the island of Okando. They sustained themselves by
stealing from each other and their neighbors on nearby islands. The
Akulu tribesmen were not vegetarians and held no religious beliefs,
but were warriors who believed that killing was necessary for survival.
It was the tradition of the Akulu tribesmen to hunt their prey by
themselves and were never seen in groups. They believed in "every
man for himself".

Although all Umawas were believers in technology, roughly half of
them believed there was a connection between their technological success
and their belief in various spirit gods that ruled the universe, such
as the gods of thunder and lightning and the god of rain. This resulted
in a population which was divided into two distinct groups, those who
believed only in technology and those who could be called religious
technologists. These religious technologists came to be known as Kumas.

A great number of Akulu tribesmen inhabited only the costal areas
of Okando, making temporary homes in the many caves found along the
shoreline. Even though they were all members of the Akulu tribe, they
became known as Takus. Since they were all nomadic cave dwellers and
sustained themselves primarily by attacking and plundering sailing
vessels that came too close to Okando, they came to have an identity of

130

their own. After many years of existing in this numner they became
dependent upon their caves for shelter against storms and used them
for storing their stolen goods.

Among the 'Kumas there was a group called the Bantoks. All Bantoks
were men and women who belonged to the Kuma tribe but in addition to
being farmers they also had the function of maintaining the beliefs of
the Kuma religion. All Bantok children automatically assumed this
position of religious leadership upon reaching adulthood and were permitted
to marry only the sons or daughters of other Bantoks .

Historical accounts reveal that some of the Takus were also cannibals.
The Takus who did not practice cannibalism had such a strong taboo against
it they set the cannibals apart by giving them the separate name of Mal-
noosians. Even though all Malnoosians were also Takus the attitudes
toward cannibalism on both sides made it mandatory that children of each
group always marry within their group. Sailors who were shipwrecked on
the coral reefs just off the shoreline of Okando often became victimsof
the carmibalistic Takus.

Even though each had lived on their respective islands for hundreds
of years unaware that the other tribe existed, a bizarre event suddenly
brought the members of the Umawa and Akulu tribes together. In the
year 1600 a group of Umawa tribesmen had invented a new type of sailing
craft and were commissioned to test its sea-worthiness by sailing it a
considerable distance. Having traveled farther from the island of Kunjee
than any Umawas before them, they unexpected discovered an uninhabited
island which they called Ranguru. The news of this discovery led to much
disagreement as to how best to make use of this new island, Which the
Ilmawas claimed for themselves. Through much political maneuvering the
Bantoks finally won out and the island of Ranguru came to be used ex-
clusively for religious festivals and ceremonies honoring their Spirit
gods, including the god Zenus who they credited with their success in
agriculture and related technology.

At the same time all of the Kumas were on the island of Ranguru
for the celebration a group of Malnoosians had sailed further than
usual in search of ships to plunder in order to satisfy their cannibalistic
desires. Having accomplished this goal by raiding an unsuspecting ship
in the waters near the island of Ranguru, the cannibals found themselves
caught in a storm and hastily sailed for the island which they thought
would be a safe place to hide their stolen treasures.

The first major religious ceremony to be held on Ranguru was to
honor Solus, their sun- god, and was attended by all Kumas. Although
this religious ceremony was traditional, the Bantoks introduced the
practice of eating the bark from the Mangus tree, a new plant discovered
on the island which appear similar to a substance back on their homeland,
which was known to produce hallucinations and exotic sensations if eaten
raw. They felt sure that the Mangus bark would produce the same effect
and enhance their participation in the ceremony.

131

Darkness had fallen on the island of Ranguru by the time the
Malnoosians had landed on its shores. Searching in the night for
caves in which to store their treasures they came upon the unsus-
pecting Kumas who were by this time feeling the full toxic effect
of eating the Mangus bark and were in no condition to protec them-
selves from the forthcoming Malnoosian attack. The cannibals
attacked their prey swiftly and many Kumas became their victims
since they had no chance to escape. However, some Kumas were able to
hide in the jungle and managed to reach their boats and sail away
from the island under the cover of darkness.

Unknown to both Kmnas and Malnoosians were the disease produced
in the body of a person who eats the Mangus bark. The disease is
known as Tokavi and leaves its mark in the form of red pockmarks on
the surface of the skin. The Tokavi disease was known to result in
a permanent genetic change, which meant that all the off-spring of
the escaping Kumas would also inherit the physical change in appear-
ance caused by the disease.

Since the entire tribe of Malnoosians took part in this particular
attack on the unsuspecting Kumas, they too were to suffer the effects
of the disease due to their cannibalistic practice of devouring their
victims. From that time on all Malnoosians and their offspring bore

the mark of that infamous attack by having their skin marked with the
unsightly red pockmarks. '

 

The Bantoks who managed to survive the attack and return to Kunj ee
explained the affliction of the permanent red pockmarks as resulting
from the displeasure of Medula, their god of health and safety. The
Bantoks decreed that no Kuma was ever to return to the island of Ranguru
again and that Kuma children were restricted to marriages only among
Kumas in order that following generations would be spared this affliction.

The Malnoosians explained their changed appearance by attributing
it to this one unfortunate occurence and thereafter became fearful of
visiting the island again. Their changed appearance made the Malnoosians
easy to recognize and reinforced the belief held by other Takus that
the Malnoosians were made to suffer from the curse of cannibalism they
put on the tribe.

Poorly Organized Passage

Experiment II

132

READING PASSAGE (P0)

In this part of the study you will be presented
a passage to read. Read the passage carefully. You will
have about 9 minutes to read the passage. If you wish
to read over any part of the passage do not go back any
further than the preceding paragraph. Do not take notes
on the information you read.

Following the passage is a 30-item comprehension
test. Place your answers to the test questions on the
attached answer sheet. Please use the special marking
pencils provided and mark your answer sheet with care.

Write your name, student number, and the letters
in parenthesis (either WO or PO) at the top of this page,
on your answer sheet.

133

The following passage gives an account of two native
tribes living in an area unknown to the civilized world be-
f0re 1700 A.D. It may be typical of many other descriptions
of primitive tribal life, in that it was constructed with a
considerable amount of speculation.

Darkness had fallen on the island of Ranguru by the time
the Malnoosians had landed on its shores. Searching in the
night for caves in which to store their treasures they came
upon the unsuSpecting Kumas who were by this time feeling the
full toxic effect of eating the Mangus bark and.were in.no
condition to protect themselves from the forthcoming Malnoosian
attack. The cannibals attacked their prey swiftly and many
Kumas became their victims since they had no chance to escape.
waever, some Kumas were able to hide in.the jungle and.managed
to reach their boats and sail away from the island under the
cover of darkness.

The first major religious ceremony to be held on Ranguru
was to honor Solus, their sun-god, and was attended by all Kumas.
.Although this religious ceremony was traditional, the Bantoks
introduced the pradtice of eating the bark from the Mangus
tree, a new plant discovered on the island which appeared similar
to a substance back on their homeland which was known to produce
hallucinations and exotic sensations if eaten raw. They felt
sure that the Mangus bark would produce the same effect and
enhance their participation in the ceremony.

Even though each had lived on their respective islands
fer hundreds of years unaware that the other tribe existed, a
bizarre event suddenly brought the members of the Umawa and
Akulu tribes together. In the year 1600 a group of umawa
tribesmen had invented a new type of sailing craft and were
commissioned to test its sea-worthiness by sailing it a consider-
able distance. Having traveled farther from the island of
Kunjee than any Umawas before them, they unexpectedly discovered
an.uninhabited island which they called Ranguru. The news of
this discovery led to much disagreement as to how best to make
use of this new island, which the Umawas claimed for themselves.
Through much political maneuvering the Bantoks finally won out
and the island of Ranguru came to be used exclusively for
religious festivals and ceremonies honoring their Spirit gods,
including the god Zenus who they credited with their success in
agriculture and related technology.

unknown to both Kumas and malnoosians was the disease
produced in the body of a person who eats the Mangus bark. The
disease is known as Tokavi and leaves its mark in the form of
red pockmarks 0n the surface of the skin. The Tokavi disease
was known to result in'a permanent genetic change, which
meant that all the offspring of the escaping Khmas would also
inherit the physical change in appearance caused by the disease.

In contrast to the Umawa tribe the Akulus were nomade.
They established no permanent homes and changed location fre-
quently within the boundaries of the island of Okando. They
sustained themselves by stealing from each other and their
neighbors on nearby islands. The Akulu tribesmen were not

134

vegetarians and held no religious beliefs, but were warriors
who believed that killing was necessary for survival. It was
the tradition of the Akulu tribesmen to hunt their prey by
themselves and were never seen in groups. They believed in
"every man for himself".

The Malnoosians explained their changed appearance by
attributing it to this one unfortunate occurrence and thereafter
became fearful of visiting the island again. Their changed
appearance made the Malnoosians easy to recognize and re-
inforced the belief held by other Takus that the Malnoosians
were made to suffer from the curse of cannibalism they put
on the tribe.

Am the same time all of the Khmas were on the island of
Ranguru for the celebration a group of Malnoosians had sailed
farther than usual in search of ships to plunder in order to
satisfy their cannibalistic desires. Having accomplished this
goal by raiding an unsuspecting ship in the waters near the
island of Ranguru, the cannibals found themselves caught in
a storm and hastily sailed for the island which they thought
would be a safe place to hide their stolen treasures.

The tribes had almost nothing in common in the way that
they lived. Being an inventive people, the Umawas had developed
a culture over the years that was based largely upon technology.
Depending upon agriculture to sustain themselves, all members
of the Umawa tribe became farmers and generally lived in the
same.ge0pgraphical area most of their lives. Although they
believed each family should be self-sufficient, there was
an emphasis upon working together as a group, often in order
to develop new systems for irrigation and planting. All Umawas
were pacifists and held a strong taboo against the killing
of other human beings and even animals. As a result of this
they were also vegetarians.

A great number of Akulu tribesmen inhabited only the
coastal areas of Okando, making temporary homes in the many
caves found along the Shorline. Even though they were all
members of the Akulu tribe, they became known as Takus. Since
they were all nomadic cave dwellers and sustained themselves
primarily be attacking and plundering sailing vessels that
came too close to Okando, they came to have an identity of
their own. After many years of existing in this manner they
became dependent upon their caves fer shelter against storms
and used them for storing their stolen goods.

Among the Kumas there was a group called the Bantoks.

All Bantoks were men and women who belonged to the Kuma tribe
but in addition to being farmers they also had the function of
maintaining the beliefs of the Kuma religion. All Bantok
children automatically assumed this position of religious
leadership upon reaching adulthood and.were permitted to marry
only the sons or daughters of other Bantoks.

Historical accounts reveal that some of these
Takus were also cannibals. The Takus who did not practice
cannibalism had such a strong taboo against it they set the
cannibals apart by giving them the separate name of Malnoosians.
Even though all Malnoosians were also Takus the attitudes
toward cannibalism on both sides made it mandatory that children
of each group always marry within their group. Sailors who

135

were shipwrecked on the coral reefs just off the shoreline of
Okando often became victims of the cannibalistic Takus.

Although all Umawas were believers in technology, roughly
half of them believed there was a connection between their
technological success and their belief in various spirit gods
that ruled the universe, such as the gods of thunder and lightning
and the god of rain. This resulted in a pepulation which was
divided into two distinct groups, those who believed only in
technology and those who could be called religious technologists.
These religious technologists came to be known as Kumas.

Two tribes, the Umawas and the Akulus, inhabited two large
islands in the South Pacific between 1200 and 1700 A.D. The
entire Umawa tribe lived on the island of Kunjee, claiming
this land as their territorial possession. Ascribing to
a different way of life altogether, the members of the Akulua
tribe lived on the island of Okando, one hundred miles to the
southeast. For centuries the two tribes knew nothing of each
other's existence, and had it not been for a certain bizarre
and unexpected event, to be explained later, this may have
continued for manygmore years.

The Bantoks who managed to survive the attack and return
to Kunjee explained the affliction of the permanent red pock-
marks as resulting from the displeasure of Medula, their god
of health and safety. The Bantoks decreed that no Kama was
ever to return to the island of Ranguru again and that Kuma
children were restricted to marriages only among other Kumas
in order that following generations would be spared this
affliction.

Since the entire tribe of Malnoosians took part in this
particular attack on the unsuspecting Kumas, they too were
to suffer the effects of the disease due to their cannibalistic
practice of devouring their victims. From that time on all
Malnoosians and their offSpring bore the mark of that infamous
attack by having their skin marked with the unsightly red
pockmarks. '

Reading Comprehension Test

(Anderson, 1970)

136

Reading Comprehension Test

 

Which group became the victims of a cannibalistic
attack on the newly claimed land?

a.
be
Co
do

Kumas
sailors
Akulus
Takus

Religious leaders are to cave dwellers as:

a.
b.
c.
d.

Kumas are to Takus

Bantoks are to Takus
Kumas are to Akulus
Umawas are to Akulus

Before the cannibalistic attack, the groups allowing
their children to marry only within their own group
were the:

 

a. Malnoosians, Takus, and Kumas

b. Umawas, Akulus, and Bantoks

c. Malnoosians, Bantoks, and Takus
d. Bantoks, Malnoosians, and Kumas
A nomad could never be a .
a. Kuma

b. Malnoosian

c. plunderer

d. cannibal

The group of people who were nomadic cave dwellers
were the:

a.
be
C.
d.

Takus
Akulus
Umawas
Kumas

Pacifists are to nomads as:

a.
b.
C.
d.

Umawas are to Bantoks
Umawas are to Akulus
Akulus are to Malnoosians
Akulus are to Umawas

 

10.

11.

12.

137

Which of the following tribes considered killing to
be necessary for survival?

a. Bantoks
b. Akulus
c. Kumas
d. Umawas

Which statement is most nearly correct?

a. Some Akulus and some Umawas were afflicted with
the disease.

b. All Akulus were afflicted with the disease.

c. Some but not all Bantoks were afflicted with the
disease.

d. All pacifists and all nomads were afflicted with
the disease.

The disease mentioned in the story was:

a. Ravani
b. Tokavi
c. Mangus
d. Takuli

Any tribesman who was a cannibal was also:

a. A Bantok

b. A Kuma

c. An inhabitant of Kunjee
d. An Akulu

Which of the following groups were the religious
technologists?

a. Akulus
b. Bantoks
c. Kumas

d. Medulas

Some but not all vegetarians were .

a. Umawas
b. Akulus
c. Takus
d. Bantoks

 

13.

14.

15.

.16.

17.

18.

19.

138

The disease mentioned in the story resulted from the
consumption of .

a. Tokavi bark
b. Mangus bark
c. Rangus plants
d. Mangus leaves

Some but not all nomads were:
a. Kumas

b. Akulus

c. cannibalistic cave dwellers
d. believers in technology

The homelands of each of the two tribes were

 

approximately miles apart.
a. 100

b. 1,000

c. 50

d. 500

Religious leaders are to cannibals as:

a. Malnoosians are to Bantoks
b. Bantoks are to Takus
c. Bantoks are to Malnoosians
d. Umawas are to Akulus

The two main tribes in the story had contact with
each other for the first time on a land area known as:

a. Okando
b. Kunjee
c. Ranguru
d. Karunu

If a man had a strong belief in the value of applying
technology to farming he would never be:

a. an inhabitant of Okando

b. a Bantok
c. a Kuma
d. a pacifist

According to the story, the civilized world did not
know these tribes existed until the year .

a. 1750 A.D.
b. 1700 A.D.
c. 1650 A.D.
d. 700 A.D.

 

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

139

Which of the following groups would include the
fewest people?

a. all Umawas and all Akulus

b. all those afflicted with the disease
c. all Kumas and all Malnoosians

d. all Bantoks

The tribe that was first to claim the new land decided
that it should be used primarily for:

a. cannibalistic rites
b. religious festivals
c. marriage festivals
d. puberty rituals

Which of the following groups had their entire popu-
lation afflicted with the disease?

a. Umawas
b. Akulus
c. Takus

d. Bantoks

Which of the groups mentioned in the story were
notorious for being cannibals?

a. Umawas

b. Akulus

c. Takus

d. Malnoosians

The religious leaders considered to be
their homeland.

 

a. Kunjee
b. Okando
c. Takura
d. Zenus

The tribes mentioned in this story lived in the:

a. Caribbean

b. South Pacific

c. seas around South Africa
d. Aleutian islands

Nomads are to cannibals as:

a. Malnoosians are to Bantoks
b. Akulus are to Malnoosians

c. Akulus are to Bantoks

d. Umawas are to Malnoosians

 

27.

28.

29.

30.

140

Which of the gods did the religious technologists
associate with success in agriculture?

a. Solus
b. Zenus
c. Medula
d. Atola

The cannibals mentioned in the story considered
to be their homeland.

 

a. Kuma

b. Okando
c. Kunjee
d. Medula

Which tribe developed a culture based largely upon
agricultural technology?

a. Akulus
b. Malnoosians
c. Umawas
d. Takus

Which of the following groups is the largest?

a. religious technologists

b. Malnoosians

c. cannibalistic nomadic cave dwellers
d. all those afflicted with the disease

 

 

APPENDIX B

PILOT STUDY

 

A Preliminary Study of the Relationship Between
Subjective Organizational Ability and
Reading Comprehension

 

by
Henry C. Johnson

March, 1974

141

142

A Preliminary Study of the Relationship Between
Subjective Organizational Ability and
Reading Comprehension

This study was undertaken as a preliminary inves-
tigation of the relationship between subjective organi-
zational ability and reading comprehension. The purpose
of this study was to determine: first, whether there was
a relationship between subjective organizational ability
and reading comprehension; second, whether high subjective
organizers differed from low subjective organization on
immediate recall; third, whether ”good readers" differed
from "poor readers" on recall and retention; and fourth,
whether there was a difference in retention for high and
low subjective organizers.

The subjects were 13 men and women who were
experienced teachers enrolled in a graduate course in
educational psychology. The majority of the students
were working toward a master's degree in education; the
others were taking the course on nondegree status. The
subjects ranged in age from 23 to 62 years; and the
distribution was bimodal with 41 and 28 years being the
most frequently occurring ages.

The specific questions asked in this study were:

1. Do high subjective organizers have higher reading
comprehension scores than low subjective

organizers?

143

2. Do high subjective organizers have higher
immediate recall scores than low subjective

organizers?

3. Do good readers have higher subjective organi-

zational ability than poor readers?

4. Do good readers have higher immediate recall

scores than poor readers?

5. Is retention greater for high subjective

organizers than low subjective organizers?

Procedure

 

A list of 30 words with low inter-item associative
strength was randomly arranged across three study trials.
Immediately following each study trial was a recall period.
Subjects were given five minutes to study the word lists
and then asked to recall as many words as could be
remembered. Five minutes were also given for each recall
period. Following the final recall period, subjects
were asked to describe on the backs of their test book-
lets the strategies used to recall the words. After the
experiment subjects took an unrelated test over the
course content with a discussion period following, then
asked to recall as many words as they could remember
from the previous experiment. One week later subjects
were again asked to recall as many words as they could

remember from the experiment; no instructions were

144

given to study or remember the words. In a separate
session subjects were given a passage to read; after
reading the passage, a 30-item comprehension test was
administered.

Using Bousfield, Puff, and Cowan's (1964) measure
of intertrial repetition (ITR) a measure of subjective
organization was obtained. On the basis of the (O)ITR-
(E)ITR scores obtained on the three trials, mean ITR
scores were computed for each subject. Subjects were
then ranked and divided into groups of high and low sub-
jective organizers, which consisted of six students in
the upper 46% and the remaining seven in the lower 54%.
They were similarly ranked and divided on the basis of
their reading scores. The upper 46% were designated as
readers with "good” comprehension and the lower 54% were

designated as readers with ”poor" comprehension.

Results

The data were analyzed using three nonparametric
analysis procedures: The Spearman rank-order correlation,
Wilcoxen Test for small samples, and the Mann-Whitney
Test for small samples. The results of the Spearman
rank-order correlation, (rs = .29) at the .05 level of
significance, indicated that the agreement between sub-
jects' ranks on subjective organization and reading com-

prehension were not statistically significant.

 

 

145

The Mann-Whitney Test for small samples yielded

the following results:

1.

At the .05 level of significance, the hypothesis
was rejected that reading comprehension scores
for high and low subjective organizers differed

significantly (§'= 20.5 and 19.25 respectively).

At the .05 level of significance, the hypothesis
was rejected that subjective organizational ability
significantly differed for good and poor readers

(i = 9.26 and 7.22 respectively).

At the .05 level, immediate recall for good and

poor readers did not significantly differ (Table 1).

At the .05 level, recall after one week did not
significantly differ for good and poor readers

(Table 1).

High and low subjective organizers did not differ
significantly on immediate recall, at the .05

level of confidence (Table 2).

Recall after one week was significantly different,
at the .05 level of confidence, between high and

low subjective organizers (Table 2).

In addition, Kendall's Tau with ties was employed

to determine the similarity between the subjects' rank

on subjective organization and reading comprehension.

 

 

146

Table B-1

Mean Number of Words Recalled for Good
and Poor Readers

 

 

. . Immediate After Two After One
Reading Comprehension Recall Hours Hour

 

Good Reading

Comprehension
(N = 6) 28.42 28.5 24.75

Poor Reading

Comprehension
(N = 7) 27.16 28.5 22.05

Table B-2

Mean Number of Words Recalled for High and
Low Subjective Organizers

 

 

 

Organizational Ability Immediate Two Hours Afzzszne
High
Subjective
(N = 6) 28.51 30 26.75
LOW
Subjective

(N = 7) 27.07 27 20.05

 

147

The general hypothesis that there was significant agree-
ment between rankings on subjective organizational
ability and reading comprehension was rejected at the
.05 level of confidence.

Using the Wilcoxen Test for matched samples also
revealed that subjects significantly differed (p < .05)
on measures of reading comprehension and subjective

organizational ability.

Strategies Used for Learning the Lists

 

Generally the strategies for learning the lists
fell into three broad categories: rote memorization,
clustering, and mnemonic association or mediation. By
far (7 out of 13), clustering was used as the preferred
strategy for learning the word list. Descriptively,
Mnemonic association and mediation produced higher recall
scores than category clustering and association strate-
gies, and both produced higher word recall than rote

memorization strategies (see Table 3).

Discussion

 

Nonparametric procedures were employed to
examine the relationship between reading comprehension
and subjective organizational ability. The correlation
between ranks on subjective organizations and reading
comprehension measures was not significant. Inspection

of the data indicated that three subjects with the highest

 

 

148

Table B-3

Mean Number of WOrds Recalled Over Time
and Learning Strategies

 

 

After Two After One

 

Immediate Hours Week
Rote memorization
(N = 3) 21.91 25.75 15.25
Mnemonic Associ-
ation & mediation
(N = 3) 28.33 29.33 29.67

Category clustering
& association
(N = 7) 25.80 28.90 23.90

 

 

149

reading comprehension scores obtained the lowest subjec-
tive organization score. For other subjects reading and
subjective organization scores tended to be somewhat
related. Therefore, no conclusion was drawn about the
correlation between reading comprehension and subjective
organization.

Subjects reported using three general strategies
for list learning: rote memorization, mnemonic associ-
ation and mediation, and category clustering and associ-
ation: subjects did also report that they shifted
strategies between strategies (i.e. hypothesis testing)
until a suitable strategy was found.

The study time and recall period provided subjects
with enough time to over-learn the list and recall most
of the words. Therefore, immediate recall was not
expected to differ for the groups. However, it was
expected that any difference in learning and retention
due to organization or reading ability would show up
over time. Reading groups did not significantly differ
in the number of words recalled after one week. High
subjective organizer recalled significantly more words
than low subjective organizers after one week. Therefore,
it was concluded that reading groups do not differ over
time on word recall tasks. However, a reclassification of

these subjects into groups of high and low subjective

150

organizers revealed that high subjective organizers
recalled more over time than low subjective organizers.
This evidence suggests that subjective organization
facilitated the retrieval and retention of information

in long-term memory.

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Anderson, D. L. Retroactive interference in prose learn-
ing as a function of similarity, degree of learn-
ing, and instruction. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970.

Anderson, R. C., & Hidde, J. L. Imagery and sentence
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1971, fig, 5583530.

 

Ausubel, D. P. Education psychology: A cognitive view.
New York: Holt, Rinéhart and Winston, 1969.

 

Bousfield, A. K., & Bousfield, W. A. Measurement of
clustering and of sequential constancies in
repeated free recall. Psychological Reports,
1966, 12, 935-942.

 

Bousfield, W. A., Puff, C. R., 8 Cowan, T. M. The
develOpment of constancies in sequential organi-
zation during repeated free recall. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1964, 3,
489-495.

 

 

Bower, G. H. Organizational factors in memory. Cognitive

 

Psychology, 1970, I, 18-46.

Bower, G. H., Lesgold, A. M.. & Tieman, D. Grouping
operations in free recall. Journal of Verbal
Learning and verbal Behavior, I969, 3, 481-493.

Cofer, C. N. On some factors in the organizational char-

acteristics of free recall. American Psychologist,

 

1965, 39, 261-272.

Cohen, B. H. ‘Recall of categorized word lists. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, 227-234.

 

Cole, M., Frankel, F., & Sharp, D. The development of
free recall learning in children. Developmental
Psychology, 1971, 1, 109-123.

 

151

152

Cromer, W. The effects of preorganizing reading material
on two types of poor readers. (Doctoral disser-
tation, Clark University) Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University Microfilms, 1968, No. 68-17223.

Cromer, W. The difference model: A new explanation for
some reading difficulties. Journal of Educational

Cromer, W., & Wiener, M. Idiosyncratic response patterns
among good and poor readers. Journal of Consulting

 

Davis, F. B. Research in comprehension reading. Reading
Research Quarterly, 1968, 3, 499-545..

 

Dawes, R. M. Cognitive distortion. Psychological Reports,
1964, 14, 443-459.

 

Deese, J. From the isolated verbal unit to connected
discourse. In C. N. Cofer (Ed.), Verbal learning
and verbal behavior. New York: McGraw Hill, 1961.

 

 

Deese, J., & Kaufman, R. A. Serial effects in recall of
unorganized and sequentially organized verbal
material. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1957, 3, 183:187.

 

Denney, N. W., & Ziobrowski, M. Developmental changes in
clustering criteria. Journal of Experimental
Child Psyghology, 1972, 13, 275-282.

 

DiVesta, F. J., Schultz, C. B., & Dangel, T. R. Passage
organization and imposed learning strategies in
comprehension and recall of connected discourse.
Memory and Cognition, 1973, 1, 471-476.

Dooling, D. J., & Lachman, R. Effects of comprehension
on retention of prose. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1971, 88, 216-2222

Earhard, M. Subjective organization and list organization
as determinants of free recall and serial recall
memorization. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 1967, §§ 591-507.

 

 

Earhard, M. The facilitation of memorization by alpha-
betical instruction. Canadian Journal of Psy-
chology, 1967, El (1), 15-241 (5)

 

153

Earhard, M., & Endicott, 0. Why are there individual
differences in subjective organization during
free-recall memorization? Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 316-319.

Finn, J. D. Multivariance: Fortran program for uni-
variate and multivariate analysis of variance
and covariance. Buffalo: State University of
New York at Buffalo, 1967.

Frase, L. T. Paragraph organization of written materials:
The influence of conceptual clustering upon the
level and organization of recall. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1969, 62, 394-401.

Frase, L. T. Integration of written text. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1973, 65, 252-261. (a)

 

Frase, L. T. On learning from prose. Educational Psy-
chologist, 1973, 12, 15-23. (b)

 

Friedman, M. P., & Greitzer, F. L. Organization and
study time in learning from reading. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63, 609-616.

Geyer, J. J. Implications of information processing to
reading research. Paper presented at the AERA
Special Interest Group Basic Reading Research
Seminar, Annual Convention, American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, April, 1972. (a)

Geyer, J. J. Comprehensive and partial models related to
the reading process. Reading Research Quarterly,
1972, 1, 541-587. (b)

Geyer, J. Different conceptions of information processing.
Paper presented at the Symposium on Information
Processing Skills in Intelligence and reading,
Annual Convention of International Reading
Association, Denver, 1973.

Geyer, J., & Kolers. Reading as information processing
reprint of article appearing in M. J. Voight (Ed.)
Advances in librarianship. New York: Academic
Press, in press.

Glendening, L. Posthoc: A Fortran IV program for gener-
ating confidence intervals using either Tukey or
Scheffé multiple comparison procedures, Office
of Research Consultation, College of Education,
Michigan State University, Occasional Paper No. 20,
January, 1973.

 

154

Gorfein, D. S., & Blair, C. Factors affecting multiple
trial free recall. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 1971, 62, l7-24.

 

Gorfein, D. S., Blair, C., & O'Neil, C. R. A reanalysis
of the generality of free recall: I. subjective
organization as an ability factor. Psychonomic
Science, 1969, 11, 110.

 

Gorfein, D. S., Blair, C., & Rowland, C. The generality
of free recall: I. subjective organization as e
an ability factor. Psychonomic Science, 1968,
11, 279-280.

 

 

Guszak, F. J. Diagnostic readin instruction in the ele-
mentary school. New YorE: Harper & Row, PEE-
lishers, Inc., 1972.

 

 

 

Guthrie, J. T. Models of reading and reading disability. u
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 65,
9.13: (a)

Guthrie, J. T. Reading comprehension and syntactic
responses in good and poor readers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1973, 62, 294-299. (5)

Huey, E. B. The psychology and eda o of reading.
New York: Macmillan,1998. (Republished:

Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1968).

Kerst, S., & Levin, J. R. A comparison of experimenter-
provided and subject-generated strategies in
children's paired-associate learning. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 1973, 65, 309-393.

 

Kobasigawa, A., & Orr, R. Free recall and retrieval
speed of categorized items by kindergarten
children. Journal of Experimental Child Psy-

ChOIOSZ’ 1973' £5, 151-1920

Laurence, M. W. Age differences in performance and sub-
jective organization in the free-recall learning
of pictorial material. Canadian Journal of Psy-
Ch01092' 1966' 22, 388-3990

Levin, J. R. Comprehending what we read: An outsider
looks in. Journal of Readipg Behavior, 1971-72,
4' 18-280

 

155

Levin, J. R. Organization, comprehension, and some
evidence ”how." Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, April 1972.

Levin, J. R. Inducing comprehension in poor readers: A
test of a recent model. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1973, 65, 19-2477

 

 

Liberty, C., & Ornstein, P. A. Age differences in
organization and recall: The effects of training
in categorization. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 1973, 15, 169-186.

 

Mandler, G. Organization and memory. In K. W. Spence
(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation.
Vol. I. New York: Academic Press, 1967.

Mandler, G. Organized recall: Individual functions.
Psychonomic Sciences, 1968, 1}, 235-236.

Maroon, 8., Washington, E. D., & Frase, L. T. Text
organization and its relationship to children's
comprehension. Paper presented at the conference
of the American Educational Research Association,
New York, February, 1971.

Mayhew, A. J. Interlist change in subjective organization
during free-recall learning. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology, 1967, 14, 425-5302

 

Miller, G. A. What is information measurement? American
Psychologist, 1953, 8, 3-11.

 

Miller, G., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. Plans and the
structure of behavior. Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
Inc., 1960.

 

 

Musgrave, B., & Cohen, J. C. Relationship between prose
organization and list learning. In E. Z. Roth-
kopf and P. E. Johnson (Eds), Verbal learning
research and the technology of written ifistruction.
New York:—9Teachers College—Press,197l.

 

Myers, J. L., Pezdek, K., & Coulson, D. Effect of prose
organization upon free recall. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1973,‘§§, 313-329.

 

Neimark, E. D., Slotnick, N. S., & Ulrich, T. Development
of memorization strategies, Developmental Psy-

 

 

156

Neisser, U. Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-
Century-Cro s, .

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. Humanyproblem solving. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1972.

Oakan, R., Wiener, M., & Cromer, W. Identification,
organization, and reading comprehension for good
and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psy-

Paivio, A. Mental imagery in associative learning and
memory. Psychological Review, 1969, 16, 241-263.

Paivio, A. Ima ery and verbal processes. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1971.

Perlmutter, J., & Royer, J. M. Organization of prose
materials: Stimulus, storage, and retrieval.
Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1973, 21, 200-209.

Pompi, K. F., & Lachman, R. Surrogate processes in the
short-term retention of connected discourse.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 12,

Postman, L. A pragmatic view of organizational theory.

In E. Tulving and W. Donaldson (Eds.), Or anization
of memory. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1972.

 

Powell, A., Havner, J., & Wiggins, W. Organization and
recall of pictures and words in children. Psy-
chonomic Science, 1972, 22, 385-387.

 

Puff, C. R., & Hyson, S. P. An empirical comparison of
two measures of intertrial organization in free
recall. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 2, 329-330.

Quastler, H. (Ed.) Information thee in psychology.
Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1955.

Rohwer, W. D. Educational implications of research on
elaboration, imagery and memory organization:
Individual differences. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Minneapolis, March, 1970.

 

Schultz, C. B., & DiVesta, F. J. Effects of passage
organization and note taking on the selection
of clustering strategies and on recall of textual
materials. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1972, 23, 244-252.

157

Senf, G. M., & Feshback, 8. Development of bisensory
memory in culturally deprived, dyslexic, and
normal readers. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 1970, El, 461-470.

 

Shuell, T. J. Clustering and organization in free recall.
Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 12, 353-374.

 

Simons, H. D. Reading comprehension: The need for a new
perspective. Reading Research Quarterly, Spring,

 

Spangenberg, R. W. Structural coherence in pictorial
and verbal displays. Journal of Educational

 

 

Stauffer, R. G. Reading as a cognitive process. Elemen-
tary English, 1967, 53, 342-362.

Steiner, R., Wiener, M., & Cromer, W. Comprehension
training and identification for poor and good
readers. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1971, fig, 506-513.

 

Tulving, E. The effect of alphabetical subjective organi-
zation on memorizing unrelated words. Canadian
Journal of Psychology, 1962, ls, 185-191. (a)

 

 

Tulving, E. Subjective organization in free recall of
"unrelated words.” Psychological Review, 1962,
69, 344-354. (b)

 

Tulving, E. Intratrial and intertrial retention: Notes
toward a theory of free recall verbal learning.
Psyshological Review, 1964, 11, 219-237.

 

Tulving, E. Theoretical issues in free recall. In T. R.
Dixon and D. L. Horton (Eds.), Verbal behavior
and general theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1968.

 

Weinstein, R., & Rabinsvitch, M. S. Sentence structure
and retention in good and poor readers. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 1971, 22, 25-30.

 

Wiener, M., & Cromer, W. Reading and reading difficulty:
A conceptual analysis, Harvard Educational
Review, 1967, 31, 620-643.

 

Wood, G. Organizational processes and free recall. In
E. Tulving and W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization
of memopy. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1972.