fliV »- o ' vh-‘F OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY . PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. © 1979 STEPHANIE LEA BROWN AILRIGHTS RESERVED A STUDY OF THE READING ACQUISITION PROCESS OF EARLY READERS By Stephanie Lea Brown A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education College of Education 1979 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE READING ACQUISITION PROCESS OF EARLY READERS BY Stephanie Lea Brown Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine among children who had demonstrated an ability to read prior to first grade entrance: a. whether they had acquired any of the reading acquisition skills considered to be prerequisites to learning to read, b. the extent of this skill acquisition within each individual and of the sample as a whole, c. which of these skills were crucial components contributing to the early reading ability of these children, and d. whether the acquisition of these essential components might be hierarchical in nature. Procedures The theories of five prominent educators were examined to identify skills considered essential to learning to read. Twenty-nine skills were identified and categorized into the areas of visual dis- crimination, auditory perception, sound-symbol association, blending and letter substitution, and word knowledge. A variety of standardized and non-standardized measuring instruments were selected and developed to assess the skill acquisition of the subjects. Stephanie Lea Brown The sample consisted of twenty pre-first grade children who were selected from communities in Michigan and Ohio. Great care was taken in selecting children who had received minimal, if any, formal reading instruction from their parents or school personnel. Each child was individually tested in two testing periods, of two hours each. Two screening measures which assessed both sight vocab- ulary and reading comprehension were administered to determine whether the child could easily read and understand words found in typical mid- year first grade level reading materials and be classified as an early reader. Children who were unable to pass the initial screening proce- dure were not included as subjects. A parental questionnaire was dis- cussed with one or both of each child's parents to gather information concerning aspects of the home environments, family reading practices, and emphasis on education. The data were analyzed to answer each of the thirty-four research questions. Raw scores were transformed into percentages of correct response which were compared across the subtests. Rank-order correlation coefficients and mean scores were also computed. Conclusions The majority of parents of the subjects placed a high value on educational accomplishment and occupational or professional success. The number of female subjects outnumbered the males by more than two to one. Nearly all of the subjects were Caucasian and were enrolled in kindergarten at the time of the data collection. Stephanie Lea Brown The subjects engaged regularly in reading a wide variety of both fictional and nonfictional materials but, for the most part, had not developed specific reading preferences. All of the parents read to their children on a regular basis and viewed reading as a contributing factor to success in life. Reading was a frequent leisure-time activity of the parents. All of the subjects substantially exceeded the criterion scores for classification as able readers on both screening measures. The majority of subjects demonstrated knowledge of word meanings greater than that of the average pupil entering grade two. The mean verbal score, the mean performance score, and the mean full scale score earned by the subjects on the WPPSI fell within the Superior intelligence classification. The investigator was unable to determine the existence or non— existence of a reading acquisition hierarchy. However, a distinct difference in the levels of mastery of the skill components was evident. Sixteen of the twenty—nine skills were acquired by the subjects. This acquisition supports the position that certain reading skills must be mastered before reading can occur. Whether these components were acquired as prerequisites to the reading act or as concomitants is not conclusive. The remaining thirteen skills were not demonstrated by the subjects with sufficient mastery to be considered requisite to the beginning stages of reading acquisition; however, their acquisition may contribute to the attainment of higher ordered reading skills. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express appreciation to Dr. Byron H. Van Roekel, the chairman of her doctoral committee, for his encouragement, support, counsel and demand for academic excellence throughout the completion of her graduate program and doctoral dissertation. His compassion for and dedication to children are qualities which she admires greatly. Appreciation is also extended to each of the doctoral committee members: Dr. Patricia J. Cianciolo, Dr. Robert L. Ebel, and Dr. Timothy H. Little. Each one has provided the writer with intellectual stimulation as well as personal support, enthusiasm, and encouragement. Without the cooperation of administrators in the East Lansing, Lansing, and Painesville Township school systems, this research could not have been completed. The writer especially expresses her thanks to the children who served as subjects. Each brought a unique sparkle and enthusiasm to the testing sessions, which made the data collection phase a very enjoyable part of the dissertation. The support and encouragement from these children's parents was also greatly appreciated. Appreciation is extended to Mrs. Grace Rutherford, who shared her creativity, expertise, and time in the typing of this dissertation. Finally, a very special appreciation is expressed to the writer's parents, who encouraged her with unwavering support, confidence, and a sense of humor throughout her graduate work. *‘k'k'k'k ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . 11. REVIEW OF RESEARCH . Reading Acqusition Theory Factors Related to Reading Ability--Reading Success Characteristics of Early Readers . III. RESEARCH DESIGN Research Questions . Visual Discrimination Auditory Perception . Sound- Symbol Association . . Blending and Letter Substitution . Word Knowledge . Total Skill Acquisition The Sample . . . . . Measuring Instruments . Dolch Basic Sight Word List Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty-~Subtests . Matching Letters . Identifying Letters Named Naming Letters . . . Visual Memory of Words--Primary Hearing Sounds in Words--Primary . . . Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, Level 7, Form 5-- Subtests . . . . . . Vocabulary. . . . . . Word Analysis . . . . . . . . . . Non- Standardized Measures . . . . Durkin' 5 Initial Screening Measure . Identification of Consonant Sounds in the Medial Position of Words . . . Identification of Inflectional Endings . Identification of Root Words . iii Page vii 12 12 16 21 30 31 31 32 32 34 34 34 36 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 39 39 Chapter Page Medial Vowel Letter Substitution . . . . . . . . . . 39 Sound-Symbol Association-~Vowels . . . . . . . . . . 39 Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O Consonant Blends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Consonant Digraphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O Phonograms . . . . . . . . . . 40 Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Procedure; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Performance on Screening Measures . . . . . . . . . . 49 Intelligence Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Visual Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Auditory Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Sound- -Symbol Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Blending and Letter Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Word Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Total Skill Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Additional Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Implications of the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Visual Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Auditory Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Sound- -Symbol Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Blending and Letter Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Word Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Total Skill Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Appendix A. SUMMARY TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 B. MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 C. PARENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 D. INITIAL LETTER TO PARENTS AND RESEARCH CONSENT FORM . . . 119 E. CLOSING LETTER AND TEST RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 iv Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. A.2 A.3 LIST OF TABLES Descriptive Data . WPPSI Score Distributions According to Intelligence Classifications WPPSI Score Distributions WPPSI Subtest Scaled Score Distributions . Mean Scaled Scores for the Verbal and Performance Subtests . . . . . . . . . Total Skill Acquisition: Rank Order and Degree of Skill Attainment by Subjects . . . . . Number of 29 Skills Performed by Each Subject According to Degree of Accuracy . . Relationship Between Degree of Word Recognition Skill Attainment, Intelligence, and Sex Mean Scores on the Visual Discrimination Subtests Identification of Consonant and Rhyming Phonemes: Percentage of Sample Answering Items Correctly . Mean Scores on the Auditory Perception Subtests Mean Scores on the Sound—Symbol Association Subtests . Mean Scores on the Blending and Letter Substitution SUbtestS O O O O O O I O O I O 0 Mean Scores on the Word Knowledge Subtests . Screening Measures: Percentage of Correct Response Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence . Visual Discrimination: Percentage of Correct Response . Page 45 51 52 55 56 7O 73 75 81 83 83 85 86 88 94 95 96 Table A.4 A.5 A.6 A.7 A.8 Auditory Perception: Identification of Consonant and Rhyming Phonemes--Percentage of Correct Response . Sound-Symbol Association: Percentage of Correct Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blending and Letter Substitution: Percentage of Correct Response . . . . . . . Word Knowledge: Percentage of Correct Response Total Skill Acquisition: Rank Order and Degree of Skill Attainment . . vi Page 97 98 99 100 101 Figure LIST OF FIGURES Age Distribution of Subjects . WPPSI Score Distributions According to Intelligence Classifications . . . . WPPSI Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale Score Distributions vii Page 47 53 54 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Educational theorists and researchers historically have been 1 interested in the nature of the reading process. These earlier inves- tigators and their resulting hypotheses have stimulated contemporary 1w. S. Gray reported documentation that as early as 1844 the nature of the perceptual processes in reading was investigated in the laboratories in Europe. In 1907, Edmund Huey hypothesized that the reading process mirrored the thinking process. Joseph Taylor comple- mented this viewpoint in 1913 in describing reading as a form of mental association involving the creation of a visual image and a subsequent meaning association. In 1917, E. L. Thorndike conceptualized reading as a reasoning process in a classic article examining the process involved in paragraph reading. More than three decades later, Paul McKee devoted a unit of his reading text to the nature of the reading process. He highlighted the reader's identification and recognition of printed words, attainment of an adequate understanding of the meaning intended by the writer, and use of meanings gained through reading as crucial elements of the process. In 1949, David Russell described reading as both a perceptual and con- ceptual process involving sensation, perception, comprehension, and utilization. During the 19505, Emmett Betts described research supporting the view that reading was a thinking process. Burton, Baker, and Kemp extended this view by describing the reading process as a form of thinking, reasoning, and problem solving. During the 19605, Peter L. Spencer suggested reading was a process in which the individual makes discriminative responses. He specified three stages in this process: Stimulation--involving sensory reception and activation; Perception--involving cognition, recognition, and mental association; and Expression--involving the performance of an adaptive response. Strang, McCullough, and Traxler identified similar psychological stages in the reading process: Visual Reception, Percep- tion, Conceptualization, and High Levels of Mental Association. During the 19705, Albert J. Harris examined the nature of the reading process by illustrating its development as an individual gains proficiency in reading. Robert L. Thorndike examined E. L. Thorndike's earlier position and identified research data supporting the view that reading is a thinking and reasoning process. researchers to develop theoretical models describing how aspects of this process function in an individual human being. In many of the models, theorists have examined the manner in which elements inherent in language, affect, cognition, and perception function in the reading process. Researchers, in some instances, have concentrated on the interaction of these elements in the acquisition of the rudimentary skills of reading while others have focused on this interaction in fluent reading. It is a matter of record that a number of children have acquired the rudiments of reading before entering elementary school. Lewis Terman noted in his Genetic Studies of Genius (1959) that more than 50 percent of the children he studied learned to read before starting school; that among these, 20 percent learned before the age of five years, and 6 percent learned before the age of four years. Children who demonstrated the ability to read before school entry were the subjects of two longitudinal studies undertaken by Dolores Durkin (1966). Both studies compared "early-readers" to "non-early-readers" as they progressed through the elementary school grades. Her first study was primarily interested in the effect early reading had on subsequent reading performance and school achievement. She found, that the average achievement of early readers who had either five or six years of school instruction in reading, was sig— nificantly higher than the average achievement of equally bright classmates who had six years of school instruction but were not early readers.2 2Dolores Durkin, Children Who Read Early: Two Longitudinal Studies (New York: Teachers College Press, 1966), p. 41. Her second study was an attempt to replicate the findings of the initial study, to gather more information about non-early-readers, and to determine, as in the initial study, which factors in the home environment influenced the acquisition of reading skill prior to school entry. The results of this study concur with the findings of her pre- vious study that following six years of elementary school instruction, the level of reading achievement of early readers exceeded that of non- early-readers of the same mental age. In addition, her data revealed significant differences for both groups of subjects in home environments and parental attitudes toward reading. Concerning instruction specif- ically related to the acquisition of reading, more parents of early readers helped their children with printing, identifying written words, understanding the meaning of words, spelling, and learning the sounds of letters than did parents of the non-early-readers. More recently, Ethel M. King and Doris T. Friesen (1972) compared the familial backgrounds, preschool experiences, and achieve- ment in selected reading variables among early and non-early-readers during kindergarten attendance and again one year later in grade one. Several differences in the home backgrounds of both groups of children were found to concur with the 1966 findings of Durkin. Visual dis- crimination, letter recognition, listening to directions, following directions, and word recognition were skills identified as being significantly related to reading success. The three studies previously described are representative of research involving children who have acquired some degree of skill in reading before attending elementary school. That these researchers restricted their investigations to an examination of the characteristics of gifted children, the aspects of the home environment which have affected reading success in the elementary grades or have encouraged reading prior to grade one, and the general characteristics of children who learned to read before entering grade one was singular to the development of the rationale for this research, for one must even— tually ask, "What is the substance of these findings?" One might reason that knowledge concerning the characteristics of children, gifted or otherwise, who learned to read before school entry might provide a means for selecting children for whom early reading instruction might prove advantageous. Or, it seems feasible to consider the possibility of providing a model that embodies the features which, according to the previously mentioned investigations, characterized those environments which fostered early acquisition of the rudiments of reading. Or, one might even reason that such infor— mation might provide guidelines for the publication of materials especially suited for nurturing the intellect of such children. However, a search of the literature has not revealed that any of the above have received critical attention. Since no information was uncovered to suggest that the information from the previously described studies had been subjected to any pragmatic endeavors, it appeared profitable to look at other aspects associated with children who learned to read before school entry. One such approach might be to identify the psychological or mental processes employed by these children in the acquisition of reading or the specific components of the reading process they have acquired. This might provide a means for identifying some of the essential components of the reading acquisition process and their hierarchical structure. Or, it might provide insight into procedures to facilitate the acquisition of the essentials of the reading act. It might even provide some insight into the most constructive form of reading instruction for children who often learn painstakingly and thus experience frustration and disappointment in learning situations. Identification of the psychological and mental processes employed by these children (the first proposition mentioned above) might be investigated by examining some of the theoretical processes or models of reading to determine the skills believed to be essential to the acquisition of reading. Because it seemed logical that word recognition is prerequisite to performing the reading act, it therefore seemed appropriate to examine models which described in detail the various learning tasks necessary to facilitate the initial stages of reading. To facilitate the identification of skills essential to reading, the theories of five prominent educators, who developed theories of word recognition during the interval 1956-1976, were chosen as rep- resentative. This particular time interval was chosen so that both traditional and current hypotheses about the reading process would be included. The theories selected include those of Donald D. Durrell (1956), William S. Gray (1960), Lillian Gray (1963), Richard L. Venezky (1975), and S. J. Samuels (1976). The following set of skills are considered by these educators to be prerequisite to the acquisition of the reading act.3 The child must be able to: 1. Maintain attention to the task. 2. Visually discriminate letters and word parts. He must attend to: a. The orientation of letters. b. Letter differentiations. c. The order of letters within a word. d. The specific details of a word. He must be able to: e. Visually match letters. f. Visually match words. g. Name all of the lower case letters. h. Name all of the upper case letters. 1. Recognize all of the lower case letters named. j. Recognize all of the upper case letters named. k. Recognize known for unknown words. 1. Identify root words. m. Identify the inflectional endings: :2, -es, -'s, -ed, and -ing. 3See Chapter II, Review of Research. 5. Auditorily perceive word elements. He must be able to: a. b. d. e. Hear separate sounds in words. Identify consonant sounds in the initial position of a word. Identify consonant sounds in the medial position of a word. Identify consonant sounds in the final position of a word. Identify rhyme. Associate a specific sound with a letter or letter cluster. He must know the sound-symbol correspondence for: a. b. The vowel letters. The consonant letters. The most common consonant sounds and blends found in the initial position of words: ch, sh, Eh, wh, 2:, dz, £3, .21.. 2:, 9.1., :1. 2.1., .2, av.» t_w, 2.2., and .511- The most common consonant sounds and blends found in the final position of words: ED) sh, 31, on, ck, pk, 1k, 3k, 21. 3.1. 91. and :2- The following phonograms found in high frequency in grade one level materials: am, an, 323 as, at, ay, ed, 33, en, .19.. is: _ __ i_t_, 21, 22» 91, 21. 9;, ea. 91, 21, a_ck_ ake, all, ame, and, ank, ell, ike, ill, ing, oke, oll, 00k, 001, ome, own, and ouse. Match sounds. 6. Blend sounds. He must be able to: a. Blend the initial consonant sound(s) with the remaining phonemes in a word. b. Blend the final consonant sound(s) with the remaining phonemes in a word. c. Substitute initial consonant letters in words. d. Substitute final consonant letters in words. e. Substitute medial vowel letters in words. 7. Master an initial stock of sight words. 8. Translate a word into an idea. Since the purpose of this investigation was to determine the psychological or mental processes employed by children who have learned to read prior to receiving any formal reading instruction in grade one, it was necessary to identify the specific skill components of the read- ing act which they had acquired. Through a careful investigation of the set of skills noted above, it was apparent that several of these skills, such as maintaining attention to the task and attending to letter differentiations, are not easily measurable by standardized tests or other instruments. Secondly, a set of norms or means of evaluating several of these skills has not been created. Thirdly, it appeared that several specific skills, such as attending to the specific details of a word, are dependent on the acquisition of other skills within the composite set for attainment and cannot be demon- strated independently as isolated skills. For these three reasons, the following skills were selected from the initial set for investigation: A. In terms of visual discrimination, the child must be able to: 1. 2. Visually discriminate the order of letters in a word. Visually match letters and words. Name all of the lower and upper case letters of the alphabet. Recognize all of the lower and upper case letters when named. Identify root words. Identify the inflectional endings: :s, -es, -'s, -ed, and -ing. In terms of auditory perception, he must be able to: 1. 2. Identify consonant sounds in the initial, medial, and final position of words. Identify rhyming sounds. He must know the sound-symbol correspondence for: 1. 2. The vowel and consonant letters. The common consonant sounds and blends frequently found in the initial position of words (sh, sh, Eh, HE) 23; d3, 5.1:, a, 2;, 9.1, f_1, L1» fl» :1, £1: 22: :11) and in the final position of words (sh, sh, 31, sh, sh, hh, 1h, 2.1:. 21. 11, 23.. :9)- High frequency phonograms (sh, sh, sp, ss, 33, sy, sh, gs, en, id, ig, in, is, it, og, hp, ot, 9!, 9y, 223 222 23, ack, 10 ake, all, ame, and, ank, ell, ike, ill, ing, oke, oll, ook, ool, ome, own, ouse). D. In terms of blending and letter substitution, he must be able to: l. Blend the initial and final consonant sound(s) with the remaining phonemes in a word. 2. Substitute initial and final consonant letters in words. 3. Substitute medial vowel letters in words. E. In terms of word knowledge, he must be able to: 1. Learn an initial stock of sight words. 2. Translate a word into an idea or, more specifically, associate meaning with a word. This investigator was interested in determining the extent to which children who had exhibited an inclination to read before first grade entrance had acquired these skills and more importantly, in determining which of these skills were crucial components which contributed to the early reading ability of these children. As previously mentioned, this knowledge concerning the characteristics of children who learned to read before school entry might provide a means for selecting children for whom early reading instruction would prove advantageous and for determining their entry level for reading instruction. Secondly, this information could be used to provide guidelines for the design and publication of reading materials created specifically for nurturing the intellect of early readers. Thirdly, this knowledge could be used to determine the interrelatedness of the 11 specific components of the reading acquisition process; and fourthly, it could be used to determine the existence or nonexistence of a skill acquisition hierarchy. The manner in which this investigation was conducted is described in Chapter III. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF RESEARCH Three major areas of research and theory are pertinent to the nature of this investigation. The first area includes the reading acquisition theories which were combined to create the composite set of word analysis skill components described in Chapter I. The second area includes research involving prereaders and first graders, examining reading factors related to reading ability or success in reading. The third area includes research relating directly to various characteristics of early readers. ReadingAAcquisition Theory The reading acquisition theories of five prominent educators were examined to determine which components of the reading act these educators considered essential for a child to acquire in order to learn to read and to determine the type of first grade reading instruction they recommended for these components to be acquired. Highlights of their theories are summarized in the following paragraphs. Donald D. Durrell (1956) proposed that a child must be able to visually discriminate word elements and auditorily perceive these elements, have an interest in printed words, and maintain attention to the reading task in order to learn to read. He suggested a child 12 l3 learns to analyze words by learning to hear sounds through ear training, to identify differences in printed symbols through learning the letter forms and corresponding names, to associate specific sounds with individual letters and letter clusters, to analyze words by applying phonics, to use context clues, to refine and develop phonic abilities, and finally to translate words directly into ideas. Durrell suggested that first grade reading instruction should enable the child to identify consonant sounds and blends in the initial and final position of a word; name the lower and upper case letters of the alphabet; recognize the suffixes :s, -es, -'s, -ed, ~ing, and :y; know the sounds associated with all of the vowel and consonant letters; know the sounds associated with the consonant blends and letter clusters frequently found in the initial position of words (sh, ss, sh, sh, hI, sh, 953 E32 s1, £3, gs, p1, sh, £3, £1, E!) sp) and in the final posi- tion of words (sh, sh, 31, sh, sh, 3y, hh, 1h, hy, hs, sh, ss); and know the sounds associated with the following phonograms frequently found in first grade reading materials: sh, shg, ihs, is, shs, shs, ook, own, ed, sy, sy, as, ed, ig, ouse, at, sh, sh, sh, is, ome, ack, ank, Es, sh, ell, all, ill, ame, 9g, ss, hp, 193 001, sh, 011, 93, s2, ihg, and 93, William S. Gray (1960) also proposed a phonetic approach to teach the initial stages of word analysis. In order for a child to be able to attack single syllable words, Gray claimed the child must be able to: 14 (1) hear accurately the sounds that single consonant letters (p, b, d, t, etc.), that consonant blends (bl, pr, st, etc.), and that two-letter consonant symbols (ch, sh, th, ng) stand for in words; (2) associate appropriate sound with a consonant letter or letters; (3) apply their understanding of the relationship between consonant sounds and letters in attacking new words; (4) blend sounds into word wholes.“ Following readiness and preprimer instruction, Gray contended the child should be able to identify rhyme, hear and discriminate between the initial, medial, and final consonant sounds in a word; and associate the initial and final consonant sounds in a word with their corresponding letter(s). At the first stage of progress proposed for the primary grades, he suggested the child should learn readiness and preprimer skills; how to analyze single-syllable words using consonant substitution; to identify root words and the inflectional endings :s, —es, -'s, -ed, and -ing; and to combine structural and phonetic analysis. Lillian Gray (1963) specified seven basic steps in word recognition instruction which she felt should occur in grade one. These steps included teaching recognition of rhyming sounds through experiences in ear training and picture reading; recognition of beginning sounds in words through ear training and picture reading; recognition of words at sight through repeated experiences in looking at and saying a variety of words; letter-sound associations; initial consonant letter substitution; medial vowel and final consonant letter .'William S. Gray, On Their Own In Reading_(Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1960), p. 67. 15 substitution, and structural analysis skills. She proposed introducing specific vowel rules in grade two as the child progressed toward independent word attack abilities. Richard L. Venezky (May 1975) proposed that decoding a word involves the following abilities: letter differentiation, sound-symbol (letter) association, sound blending, identification of specific sounds within words, and sound matching within words. Following several research studies, Venezky (June 1975) concluded that three major skill abilities are significantly related to the reading ability and reading success of children at the end of grade one. These areas include (1) visual matching of letters and words ("the ability to compare two letters or letter strings and determine whether or not they are the same"),5 (2) sound matching (the "ability to compare two words on the basis of a component sound"),6 and (3) sound blending (which "requires that separate sounds or sound sequences be used to produce words. . . . It requires memory for meaningless sounds, plus an understanding of how the sounds are to be united to form meaningful words").7 S. J. Samuel (1976) described initial reading acquisition in a five stage information processing model. The first stage involves 5Richard L. Venezky, "The Prereading Skills of Israeli Kinder- garteners" (Technical Report No. 332. Wisconsin University, Madison, Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning. National Institute of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C:, June 1975), p. 1. 6Ibid. 71bid. 16 stimulus presentation during which the child examines some form of printed stimuli such as that in a book or on a screen. The second stage involves cue selection and discrimination learning where the child learns to select and differentiate appropriate and inappropriate cues such as a letter, letter cluster, or word shape. Stage three involves visual recognition memory; stage four involves response availability; and stage five involves the hookup or associative stage during which the child associates a cue with its appropriate response. In order to transfer existing word knowledge in learning to recognize new words, Samuels suggested the child needs to know letter sounds, be able to recognize such higher order units as consonant digraphs and blends and their corresponding sounds, and be able to blend these sounds into words. Factors Related to Reading Ability--Readihg Success Several investigators have examined preschoolers and beginning first graders to determine factors related to reading success or reading ability in the primary grades. Nila Banton Smith (1928) presented various letter matching tasks to beginning first graders to determine whether the visual discrimination ability involved in matching letters and word forms was related to later success in reading. She found the correlation between matching ability measured during the first week of school and reading ability measured by the Detroit Word Recognition Test during the twelfth week of school was 0.87. She felt this high correlation suggested several important possibilities. It suggested a measure of letter and word matching might be used to predict which 17 children entering grade one were ready to receive and experience success with reading instruction, and secondly, it suggested that increased matching activities in kindergarten might provide children with a stronger preparatory background for reading instruction when they entered grade one. Smith determined that the most difficult lower case letters for these children to match were h, p, g, and s, the most difficult upper case letters to match were Q, B, D, g, I, Z, R, and g, the most difficult lower case letters to match with their corresponding upper case letters were qu, r-R, g-G, b-B, and f-F; and the task requiring matching lower case to corresponding upper case letters was more dif- ficult than matching either lower or upper case letters separately. Alice Nicholson (1957) examined perceptual, auditory, and kinesthetic abilities in relation to letters and words in first grade entrants. She also attempted to relate these abilities to variables such as chronological age, mental age, sex, and learning rate. She found a wide range of abilities across her sample. Children were more familiar with capital than lower case letters; identification of letters following a flash stimulus was an easier task than letter identification following an oral pronunciation of the letter name; few children had any knowledge of letter sounds; the girls in the sample were superior to the boys on a majority of abilities measured; chronological age appeared to have a low relationship with the abil- ities measured; and the ability to write letters and identify lower and upper case letters increased as mental age increased. 18 Several of her findings did not support Smith's earlier hypotheses. Nicholson found that the order of difficulty of letter knowledge was not consistent across all of her subtests. She reported, On the basis of the high scores achieved by 96 per cent of the population, it would appear that much of the matching of pictures and geometric forms as found in many reading readiness programs is a waste of time for most children.8 Edward E. Paradis (1970) examined the appropriateness of three different types of visual discrimination exercises in reading readiness materials designed for preschoolers and kindergarteners. His subjects consisted of 119 preschoolers and 91 kindergarteners who were randomly assigned to one of three experimental treatment groups. The first treatment group received visual discrimination training consisting of sequential presentations of object, letter, and then word stimuli. The second treatment group received visual discrimination training with letter followed by word stimuli, and the third treatment group received training only with word stimuli, progressing from easier to more complex words. Paradis determined that none of the instructional treatments was superior to the other treatments; exercises utilizing objects or letters as stimuli were less difficult for the subjects to perform than exercises involving words as stimuli; there was little difference in success between exercises involving objects and exercises involving letters; and the visual discrimination exercises found in reading 8Alice Nicholson, "Background Abilities Related to Reading Success In First Grade" (Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1957), p. 156. 19 readiness materials were more appropriate for preschoolers from middle socioeconomic families than for kindergarteners from comparable socioeconomic backgrounds. Robert Calfee (1972) examined skills presumed to relate to reading instruction in 138 first graders and 276 kindergarteners. The skill areas Calfee examined and considered related to reading instruction include alphabet recognition, visual word matching, phonetic segmentation, phoneme identification, and vocabulary distinctions. He found that the ability to identify phonemes, especially final consonants, in words was an important skill and noted, "measures of auditory—phonetic ability contribute much more substantially to reading achievement than do visual matching skills."9 Miriam E. Hochstetler (1975) examined a variety of factors considered to be related to the reading ability of beginning kinder- garteners. Specifically, she investigated the relationships between her Set I variables (word call and comprehension) and her Set II variables (letter naming, visual discrimination, oral language, chronological age, and mental age); the relationships between reading ability and socioeconomic status; and the relationships between reading ability and environmental-developmental characteristics of these kindergarteners. She selected her subjects by testing 1,858 kin- dergarteners with her own word call and comprehension measure and then using stratified random sampling to obtain seventy—one subjects 9Robert Calfee, "Diagnostic Evaluation of Visual, Auditory, and General Language Factors in Prereaders" (paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Hawaii, September 1972), p. 4. 20 who, as a group, represented a continuum of reading abilities. She gathered information about her subjects using the visual discrimination subtest of the Gates MacGinitie Readiness Skills Test; the Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test; the Minnesota Scale for Paternal Occupation; and her own letter naming measure, child interview questionnaire, and parental interview questionnaire. Using canonical correlation analysis, Hochstetler found: substantial relationships (l.00-.93) between word call and comprehension in Set I. Variables letter naming (.83 and .70), visual discrimination (.66 and .61), and mental age (.70 and .61) in Set 11 obtained a substantial relationship with word call and comprehension in Set 1. Of those var- iables in Set II, letter naming showed the largest observed relationship with word call and comprehension in Set 1.10 She also found that children with the greatest reading ability tended to come from higher socioeconomic families than did children with lesser reading ability, and children from homes containing a lot of reading materials tended to have greater reading skills than children from homes containing few reading materials. Hochstetler noted, The five most influential factors that seemed to encourage children to take an interest in reading were: being read to; seeing others read; having reading mate- rials available; viewing television; and being curious.11 In terms of the relationship between oral language ability and reading ability, she found "the data suggest that greater proficiency 1°Miriam E. Hochstetler, "A Study of Factors Related to the Reading Ability of Beginning Kindergarten Children" (Ph.D. dissertation, Ball State University, 1975), p. 89. 11Ibid., p. 147. 21 in oral language measured by T-units result in greater negative relationships with reading."12 Characteristics of Early Readers Several investigators have examined reading achievement and various other characteristics of children who learned to read in or prior to kindergarten. Gus P. Pleassas and Clifton R. Oakes (1964) examined the prereading experiences of 20 selected first graders who were early readers to identify experiences which might relate to early reading success. Early readers were identified as those pupils who scored above 2.0 on the California Reading Test which was administered in December of grade one. The mean full scale WISC I.Q. was 126 for the entire group, indicating that the group had superior intelligence. The questionnaires administered to the parents revealed that these early readers had received some form of reading instruction from a sibling or parent prior to grade one; the majority of fathers were in clerical or professional occupations; the home environments encour- aged reading; these children had displayed an early interest in letters, numbers, words, and road signs; and all 20 children could print their own names before entering grade one. Majorie H. Sutton (1967) examined reading achievement throughout grades one-three of 46 children who had earned a grade equivalent score equal to or greater than 1.3 on the Gates Primary Reading Achievement Test administered in April of their kindergarten year. Their reading 12Ibid., p. 149. 22 performance was compared to that of 59 children who had not reached the specified criterion level of 1.3 and to the performance on 24 children who moved into the school district during the first grade year. Twenty matched pairs were created from the first two groups of children described above by matching the subjects on the variables sex, age, and I.Q. Sutton noted that the existence of a cluster of scores around the cut-off score of 1.3 might have contaminated her results. She measured the subjects' reading progress each semester using the Gates Reading Achievement Tests. Sutton found that the children who scored greater than or equal to 1.3 had a higher mean I.Q., a higher mean mental age, a higher socioeconomic status in terms of the father's level of edu- cation, and a higher level of reading achievement during grades one through three than children who did not reach the cut-off score. She noted, "The study showed that children who achieve a measure of reading ability in kindergarten had a continuing and increasing reading advantage over their classmates throughout the primary grades."13 She also found no significant difference between any of the three groups on the variables sex and early reading ability; a cor- relation coefficient of .054 between chronological age and third grade reading scores, suggesting that no significant relationship between these two variables existed; and a significant positive correlation of .564 between mental age and third grade reading success. 13Marjorie H. Sutton, "Children Who Learned To Read in Kinder- garten: A Longitudinal Study," The Reading Teacher 22 (April 1969): 602. 23 Dolores Durkin (1966) completed two longitudinal studies comparing reading achievement and selected variables of early and non-early readers. Her initial study, in Oakland, California, started in 1958, was an exploratory study attempting to determine: How many children learn to read at home and, as a result, enter first grade already reading? What is the effect of this early ability on a child's future achievement in reading? What kinds of factors promote early reading, and do they have implications for school instruction in reading?1“ Forty-nine early readers were identified from 5,103 first graders through an initial screening as described below: For the purposes of this research, an "early reader" was initially defined as a beginning first-grade child who was able to identify at least 18 words from a list of 37, and who had not received school instruction in reading. Standardized reading tests would be given to the children who met this requirement. Those children who could not achieve a raw score of at least 1 on the standardized tests would be eliminated from the study.15 Standardized reading achievement tests and parental questionnaires were administered throughout the six-year duration of the study. Durkin determined that 13 of the 49 early readers first received some form of home reading instruction at the chrono- logical age of 3.5 years, 22 received this at the age of 4.5 years, and 14 received this at the age of 5.5 years. Comparisons of their reading progress during a five-year period revealed, "the children who started to read at an earlier age entered first grade with superior achievement in reading; and they also maintained their lead over a 1"Durkin, p. 13. 1511311, p. 15. 24 '16 Comparisons of the reading achievement of the five-year period.‘ early readers with that of equally bright non-early-readers following five or six years of school instruction revealed that the average achievement of the early readers was significantly higher. Family interviews and parental questionnaires revealed many parents felt the preschool reading instruction they had given their children might cause learning difficulties when the children entered school. In terms of the socioeconomic levels of the early readers' families, 14 percent were classified as upper-middle class, 31 percent were classified as lower-middle class, 53 percent were classified as upper-lower class, and 2 percent were classified as lower-lower class. Many early readers expressed an early interest in scribbling and learning to print. Durkin's second longitudinal study was an attempt to provide more information about non-early-readers and to validate the reading achievement and intelligence data collected in the initial study through the use of better testing procedures. The second study was started in 1961 and located in New York City. One hundred fifty-six early and 156 non-early-readers were identified through the same initial screen- ing used in the California study. Thirty matched pairs of early and non-early-readers were created for comparison purposes. The achieve- ment of both types of readers was measured in the same manner as in the initial study. Durkin's achievement findings concurred with those of the initial study: "the average reading achievement of the early 16Ibid., p. 29. 25 readers was significantly higher than that of the non-early-readers, over a three year period. ."17 Her family interview and questionnaires revealed a variety of characteristics of both types of readers and their respective home environments. For example, Durkin noted: More mothers of early readers were college graduates. More mothers of early readers said they read more often than the average adult. More early readers were read to at home, prior to entering school. . . More mothers of early readers said parents should give help with skills like reading to preschool children. Fewer early readers played with toys. As a result of watching television, more early readers develOped a curiosity about written words. . . More early readers showed a preschool interest in learning to read. . More parents of early readers gave preschool help with . . printing, . . . identification of written words, the meaning of words, . . . spelling, . . . the sounds of letters. 18 Ethel M. King and Doris T. Friesen (1972) also compared various characteristics of selected early and non-early readers. Thirty-one early and 31 non-early-readers were selected from 4,282 kindergartners in Calgary, Canada, based on scores on a standardized oral reading test. Comparisons between the two types of readers indicated that the group of early readers was more intelligent than the group of non-early- readers; the mothers of early readers tended to have a higher level of education than the mothers of the non-early-readers; the socio- economic index was higher for the families having early readers; and there appeared to be no significant difference between the ages the early and non-early-readers learned to walk and to talk. 171bid., p. 84. 1°Ibid., pp. 94—101. 26 In terms of specific differences in reading skills, King and Friesen stated, On the variables analyzed by a multiple discriminant analysis, the readers and non-readers in the kindergarten formed two distinct groups. Intelligence, visual discrim- ination, letter recognition, word recognition, and rate of learning to read new words were the variables most important in differentiating between the two groups. In the intercor- relation matrix for early readers, the reading level attained by the subjects at the end of the kindergarten year . correlated significantly with word recognition and rate of learning to read new words, the two factors that were found to be the best indicators of early reading achievement.19 Chari Briggs and David Elkind (1973) assessed perceptual, cognitive, motor, and personality characteristics of 16 matched pairs of five-year-old readers and non-readers. Using factor and discriminant analysis, they found: that only in their performance on an "Operativity" factor (derived from some Piagetian conservation tasks and an reflection—impulsivity measure) were the early readers significantly superior to their nonreader controls.2° They also found, as did Durkin, that mothers of the readers had more education than mothers of the control children. Fathers of the readers read more often to their children than did the fathers of the controls. Briggs and Elkind (1977) studied 33 matched pairs of early and non-early-readers as an extension and replication of their earlier research. The subjects were selected from 2,700 beginning 19E. M. King and D. T. Friesen, "Children Who Read in Kindergarten," Alberta Journal of Educational Research 18 (September 1972): 158-159. 20C. Briggs and D. Elkind, "Cognitive Development in Early Readers," Developmental Psychology 9 (1973): 279. 27 kindergarteners using Durkin's 1966 screening procedure. Pairs were matched by race, sex, chronological age, and, if possible, by classroom. Test data revealed that the early readers scored significantly higher than the controls on a measure of conservation and on two subtests of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities: Auditory Closure and Sound Blending. In terms of socioeconomic status, the data supported Durkin's 1966 findings: more parents of the early readers were in professional occupations and had attained higher educational levels than parents of the non-early—readers. Briggs and Elkind also noted, We had assumed that early reading was the consequence of an interaction between parents' achievement orientation and the spontaneous interest in reading on the part of the child. Our results suggest, however, that this may not be the case and that parents' rather than children's interest may be the main motivational determinant of early reading.21 Diann J. W. Ellis (1975) also examined the ability of early readers to perform various Piagetian tasks. The purpose of her research study was to: explore the relationship between the reading achievement of early readers and their degree of accomplishment on the tasks of conservation, classification, decentration, and language development as well as findings of oral reading abilities and biographical information on the subjects. 2 Her 20 subjects were four to six years of age, were able to read at least at the preprimer level, did not attend elementary school, and were classified as of middle socioeconomic status according to the 21C. Briggs and D. Elkind, "Characteristics of Early Readers," Perceptual and Motor Skills 44 (1977): 1236. 22Diann J. W. Ellis, "The Cognitive Development of Early Readers" (Ed.D. dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1975), p. 39. 28 father's professional occupation and educational attainment. Ellis found no significant positive correlation between the subjects' degree of accomplishment on the selected Piagetian tasks and chronological age; word recognition; or independent, instructional, and frustration reading levels. Several of her other findings include the following: there were positive correlations between the subjects' total Piagetian scores and mental age-intelligence scores; between the degree of accomplishment on the language tasks and mental age; between the degree of accomplishment on the decentration task and mental age- intelligence scores; and between the independent reading level scores and the degree of accomplishment on the total Piagetian tasks. Joanne Ruth Carlson (1975) examined the reading perceptions of 15 kindergarten children who were early readers. The purposes of her study were the following: (a) to analyze the early reading kindergartner's understanding and utilization of linguistic terminology used by teachers. (b) to formally investigate the application and utilization of selected phonic generalizations by kindergarten children who were early readers. (c) to investigate the extent of the utilization of semantic and syntactic systems in the oral reading of kindergarten children who were early readers.23 Carlson defined an early reader as a kindergarten child who, in the spring of 1973-74, earned a grade equivalent score greater than or equal to 2.0 on the total reading section of the Metropolitan Achievement Test. Her sample was selected from children in Omaha, 23Joanne R. W. Carlson, "A Study of Selected Reading Perceptions of Kindergarten Children Who Were Early Readers" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nebraska--Lincoln, 1975), p. 5. Ne te th St 5}: th 5e re so: of whl Re "TI '16: 29 Nebraska, who were tested following recommendations from their teacher(s). Her subjects were presented with various stimuli in three distinct stages. During the first stage, the subjects examined stimuli to determine: (a) recognition of the reading act. (b) utilization of the word "reading." (c) recognition and distinctions between sounds. (d) utilization of the word "sound." (e) recognition and distinction of the word "word." (f) utilization of the word "word." (g) recognition and distinction of groups of words. (h) recognition and distinction of sentences.2” During the second stage, the subjects pronounced a nonsense syllable or word and a primary sight word; and during the third stage, the subjects orally read stories to demonstrate utilization of specific semantic and syntactic generalizations. Carlson found that the early readers were aware that they could read and that reading involved sounds; they were familiar with the terms "sentences" and "groups of words"; they had a good phonics sense; they used grammatical cues when reading orally; and they were able to correct oral miscues. Related to the subjects' comprehension abilities, Carlson noted, "The findings revealed that the early reader's comprehension levels were enhanced by their ability to utilize their syntactic and semantic systems.“5 2”Ibid., p. 10. 251bid., p. 113. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN In Chapter I, the investigator listed specific word analysis skills which five prominent educators considered to be essential com- ponents of the reading acquisition act. A variety of published mate- rials are available for primary teachers to use in the classroom to teach these components. These materials are generally in the form of a basal reader and an accompanying skill workbook designed for reading readiness, preprimer, primer, and more advanced levels of reading ability. An examination of this type of material created an interest in determining how children who learn to read before attending first grade acquire these essential skill components. Secondly, it raised the question, "Have these children necessarily acquired any or all of the essential components prior to first grade entry?" One would assume that if, indeed, the specified skills are essential components of the reading acquisition act, that these children will have acquired them. It is conceivable, however, that these children are able to demonstrate an ability to read but have not acquired these specific skills. It is also conceivable that the acquisition of these skills is hierarchical in nature, suggesting that children acquire them in a particular order, and that the extent of skill acquisition may vary among individuals. 30 31 The purpose of this investigation was to determine among children who had demonstrated an ability to read prior to first grade entry: a. purpose. whether they had acquired any of the specified essential skill components, the degree of skill acquisition within each individual and of the sample as a whole, and whether the acquisition of these essential components might be hierarchical in nature. The following research questions were designed to meet this Visual Discrimination 1. To what degree are letters? To what degree are lower case letters To what degree are upper case letters To what degree are Research Questions preschool readers able to preschool readers able to of the alphabet when each preschool readers able to of the alphabet when each preschool readers able to case letters of the alphabet? To what degree are preschool readers able to case letters of the alphabet? To what degree are preschool readers able to discriminate the order of letters in a word? visually match identify the letter is named? identify the letter is named? name the lower name the upper visually 32 To what degree are preschool readers able to visually match words? To what degree are preschool readers able to identify root words? To what degree are preschool readers able to identify the inflectional endings: :s, ~es, —'s, -ed, and -ing in words? Auditory Perception 1. To what degree are preschool readers able to identify consonant phonemes heard in the initial position of’words? To what degree are preschool readers able to identify consonant phonemes heard in the medial position of'words? To what degree are preschool readers able to identify consonant phonemes heard in the final position of'words? To what degree are preschool readers able to identify rhyming phonemes? Sound-Symbol Association 1. To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the "short" phonemic value for each of’the following: s, s, i, e. and a? To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the "long" phonemic value for each of'the following: s, s, i, g, and h? To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the phonemes having independent regular representation by each 33 of the following consonant letters when found in the initial position 0f words: P.» 9.1.. L h: .1: E: E. a, a: e, e.» a: 19.: 13..» 2, s5 and s? To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the phonemes having independent regular representation by each of the following consonant blends frequently found in the initial position of'words: EX; d5, f2, gs, 35; 9}, f2, pl, as as :2. 22. and all? To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the phonemes having independent regular representation by each of the following consonant digraphs frequently found in the initial position of'words: sh, sh, and 2h? To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the phonemes having independent regular representation by each of the following consonant blends frequently found in the final position of’words: 23, 33, £5, and 33? To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the phonemes having independent regular representation by each of the following consonant digraphs frequently found in the final position of words: sh, sh, and 93? To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the phonemes having independent regular representation by each of'the following phonograms frequently found in the final position of'words: g2, b , sy, and ss? 34 9. To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the phonemes having independent regular representation by each of'the following frequently occurring phonograms: gm, gs, sy, sci: ee, 21, ii: is: 21, it: 92, __..0t 41.0 E: 22, ack,. ake, ame, ank, ell, ike, ill, ing, oke, and ouse? Blending and Letter Substitution 1. To what degree are preschool readers able to blend an initial consonant phoneme(s) with the remaining phonemes in a word? 2. To what degree are preschool readers able to blend a final consonant phoneme(s) with the remaining phonemes in a word? 3. To what degree are preschool readers able to substitute initial consonant letters in words? 4. To what degree are preschool readers able to substitute final consonant letters in words? 5. To what degree are preschool readers able to substitute medial vowel letters in words? Word Knowledge 1. To what degree have preschool readers developed an initial stock of sight words? 2. To what degree are preschool readers able to associate meaning with words? Total Skill Acquisition 1. What is the rank order, based on the degree of skill attainment, of‘the specified reading acquisition components acquired by preschool readers? 35 2. Is there a significant number of’preschool readers who have acquired all of'the specified reading acquisition components? 3. Is there a significant number of'preschool readers who have acquired none of’the specified reading acquisition components? 4. Is there a significant difference in the degree of’word recognition skill acquisition by preschool readers according to intelligence? 5. Is there a significant difference in the degree of word recognition skill acquisition by preschool readers according to sex? This data provided an answer to the question, ”To what degree have children acquired the skills and knowledges believed to be essen- tial to the acquisition of reading as specified by the educators previously mentioned?" However, it did not answer the very practical question of whether children in beginning reading instruction are actually taught these skills and knowledge. Since basal readers are widely used by primary teachers to teach beginning reading skills, the investigator examined the scope and sequence charts of five recently published basal reading series. Although the investigation revealed no complete consensus of skills, these series did incorporate a majority of the skills specified by the theorists. The investigator eliminated any grapheme or set of graphemes found in the original set of skills specified for investigation in Chapter I which did not have independent regular representation. The reference work, Word Patterns, by Lucille Batchelor, was used to 36 identify the graphemes which were eliminated. The criterion of independent regular representation was considered necessary to minimize the confusion a child might face when presented with a grapheme or set of graphemes which had more than one phonemic value in English spellings. Secondly, this simplified and added a measure of precision to the collection and interpretation of the data. The Sample The sample consisted of 20 pre-first grade children, whose names were obtained from a number of organizations in the Lansing area which had access to or could identify children who had not yet entered grade one. Among these were child care centers, nursery schools, the State of Michigan Department of Education, the Lansing Office for Young Children, the Lansing Program for Gifted Children, and the Institute for Family-Child Study at Michigan State University. Administrators in the Lansing and East Lansing public school systems were also con- tacted to determine if any kindergarten pupils might qualify as subjects. Since the majority of subjects were obtained from communities located in close proximity to Michigan State University, several sub- jects were selected from a community in Ohio to obtain representation from a small rural and industrial area. Great care was taken in selecting children who had received minimal, if any, formal word analysis skill instruction from either their classroom teachers, supervisors, or parents. At least five children were eliminated from the sample because extensive instruction had been provided in the type of reading skills investigated in this 37 study. Because of the limited number of subjects available, the exercise of random selection was not feasible. Measuring Instruments The following instruments were selected to assess the skill acquisition of the subjects: Dolch Basic Sight Word List This list contains 220 service words which frequently occur in primary level materials. These words are common to three other word lists containing words understood or used by primary grade children. Dolch determined, based on 1,000 word samplings from elementary level readers, that 70 percent, 66 percent, and 65 percent of the running words in first, second, and third grade readers, respectively, were on the Dolch List.26 The 220 words were presented on two sheets, each containing 110 words. The child's task was to pronounce each word, within a five second time limit. Durrell Analysis of Reading_Difficulty-- Subtests The test materials for the next three subtests consist of a set of 28 upper case and a set of 28 lower case letters printed in a random order. 26Miles V. Zintz, The Reading Process (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co. Publishers, 1970), p. 147. 38 Matching Letters. The child's task was to identify each of the 26 upper and 26 lower case letters by pointing on the answer sheet to the letter the examiner exposed briefly by means of a tachistoscope. Identifyithetters Named. The child's task was to point to the letter the examiner named. Naming Letters. The child's task was to name each upper and lower case letter. Visual Memory of Words-—Primary. This subtest consists of 20 items, each containing five to seven letters or words. The child's task was to encircle the same letter or word exposed for two to three seconds by means of a tachistoscope. Hearing Sounds in Words--Primary. This subtest consists of 29 items, each containing three words. The child's task was to encircle the word which began and/or ended with the same consonant phoneme(s) as a word pronounced by the examiner. Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, Level 7, Form 5—-Subtests Vocabulary. This subtest consists of 30 items. The first 17 items contain a picture followed by four words. The child was to choose the word that best told about or described the picture. The remaining 13 items consist of sentences in a cloze format, followed by four words. The child's task was to choose the word that best completes each sentence. The items include a reasonable combination of nouns, verbs, and adjectives. 39 Word Analysis. This subtest consists of 49, three choice items, measuring the following word analysis skills: recognition of initial, rhyming, and ending sounds; substitution of initial and ending letters; and recognition of silent letters. Non-Standardized Measures Durkin's Initial Screening Measure. This measure consists of 37 typed words arranged in columns and 27 words arranged in sentences. The child's task was to read the words and sentences orally. Identification of Consonant Sounds in the Medial Position of Words. This test consists of 17 items, each containing three choices. The child's task was to encircle the word that contains in the medial position of the word the phoneme articulated by the examiner. Identification of Inflectional Ending_, This test consists of 20 items. The child's task was to encircle the inflectional ending in each word. Identification of Root Words. This test consists of 20 words. The child's task was to encircle the root of each word. Medial Vowel Letter Substitution. This test consists of 10 items, each containing three choices. The child's task was to sub- stitute the vowel letter in the medial position of each word with the vowel letter designated by the examiner and to encircle the resulting new word. Sound-Symbol Association--V0wels. This test consists of 20 nonsense words. The child's task was to pronounce the phoneme represented by the vowel letter in each word. 4O Consonants. This test consists of 34 words. The child's task was to pronounce the phoneme represented by the consonant letter at the beginning of each word. Consonant Blends. The first part of this test consists of 26 words. The child was to pronounce the phonemes represented by the consonant letters at the beginning of each word. The second part of this test consists of eight words. The child was to pronounce the phonemes represented by the consonant letters at the end of each word. Consonant Digraphs. The first part of this test consists of six words. The child was to pronounce the phoneme represented by the compound grapheme at the beginning of each word. The second part of this test consists of six words. The child was to pronounce the phoneme represented by the compound grapheme at the end of each word. Phonograms. The first part of this subtest consists of 25 phonograms. The child's task was to pronounce the phomemes. The second part of this subtest consists of eight words. The child's task was to pronounce the phonemes represented by each of the underlined word parts. Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence This test consists of five verbal and five performance subtests designed to measure a variety of intellectual abilities. The composite score can be interpreted as a measure of global intel- lectual capacity. The subtests include Information, Animal House, Vocabulary, Picture Completion, Arithmetic, Mazes, Geometric Design, Similarities, Block Design, and Comprehension. 41 The standardized measures were selected after a thorough examination of information concerning their reliability, validity, and standardization procedures and of reviews of these tests in Buros' Mental Measurement Yearbooks. This investigator feels that each of the standardized measures satisfied the requirements for a well-constructured test. Procedure Seventeen of the 20 subjects were individually tested by this investigator at the Michigan State University Reading Center in a special testing room. Each child was seated across from the examiner at a rectangular table. The parents were invited to observe the testing sessions through a one-way vision strip. The testing of the three children from the Ohio community was done in an empty classroom in one of the elementary schools in the Painesville Township school system. Each child was tested individually and was seated across from the examiner at a rectangular table. The parents of these children were not invited to observe the testing because an isolated observation area was not available. An attempt was made to keep the testing in Ohio parallel in as many respects as possible to that done in Michigan. Two testing periods, of two hours each, were necessary to administer the complete battery of tests to each subject. The two testing sessions for each subject were scheduled on different days. Each two-hour session included several short recess periods for relaxation. 42 Each potential subject was administered two screening measures to determine whether the child could easily read and understand words found in typical mid-year first grade level reading materials. The first screening measure was identical to that developed by Dolores Durkin for her 1966 study. It consists of 37 typed words arranged in columns and 27 words arranged in sentences. Each child was asked to orally read these words to the examiner. Recognition of a minimum of 18 words was the criterion for passing the first screening measure. The second screening measure was the comprehension subtest from the Harper and Row Preprimer Achievement Test. The test consists of 22, four-choice items, each of which contains a short passage followed by four pictures. The child was asked to carefully read each item and to choose the picture which best corresponds with the passage. A raw score of 11 was the criterion for qualifying as an able reader. Instruments to measure both sight vocabulary and reading comprehension were selected to insure that the children who could pass the initial screening procedure could be classified as fairly fluent readers. At least two children were unable to pass the initial screening measures and, therefore, were not included as subjects for this study. The order for administering the 20 measuring instruments proceeded according to the order in which the tests are listed in Appendix B. Following the testing session, a parental questionnaire was discussed with one or both of each child's parents. 43 Statistical Analysis Since the nature and purpose of this study was descriptive, rather than experimental, the statistical analysis was kept as simple and comprehensible as possible. The data was analyzed to answer each of the 34 research questions specified earlier in this chapter (in italics). Since the subtests did not contain a uniform number of items, raw scores were transformed into percentages so that the percentages of correct response could be compared across the subtests. Both charts and graphs were created to simplify the interpretation of the data. Rank-order correlation coefficients were also computed to answer several of the research questions. CHAPTER IV RESULTS The questionnaire to which the parents of each of the 20 subjects responded provided data which formed a basis for char- acterizing the children who participated in the study. These data are included in summary Table l. The Sample General Description Fourteen of the 20 subjects were female and six were male. The age of the subjects, at the time of testing, ranged from four years- eight months to six years-four months. Figure 1 provides a pictorial representation of the distribution of ages. Seventeen subjects were attending kindergarten for the first time, one was attending nursery school, one was attending Michigan State University Laboratory Preschool, and one was attending a private Montessori ungraded school. The child attending the Montessori school was of kindergarten age but not old enough to be enrolled in a public school first grade classroom. Eighteen subjects were Caucasian, one was Black, and one was East Indian. The birth order and number of siblings were studied to deter- mine if these characteristics appeared to influence the subjects' early interest in reading. Two subjects were from families having only one 44 45 .>H:= someone .xuo .Em ocmHm em.32 .<.m .z.m H H u u m-m u NH .>H:: HooScOHm, . . . . u .xuo .Em >H Hoquz < m < m H H o 2 o m m HH .>H:= Hommomonm ucowoum .Hso new pmoHHou oHHzomzo: .a.;a oumsemum H H Hm maH oH-e 2 oH -Howcs .>H:: Howmou .Huo “a Hocpouo< -Hooua .o.w .m.m N H u g m-m a m m o>HumHmHmoH .>H== HoHHnmo Hoonom Hoosom . .xuo .Em HouuoH oszomso: :MH: an: H o u x m o m w .>H:: nemmomoum oEHuuuudm, . H mozumou .o.:d .m.2 m H u x mum z n xuo em omoHHou \omHzomso: .>H:: HouoohumcH . . . . u .Hsu .am Houses: omoHHou m m < 2 H N u g s m a s .>H:: Hommomonm, Honomouuxo . . . . . u .xuo .Em omoHHou \omHzomso: a am < m N H u x m m z m . . ucowaum acovsom . . I won now oumsvmuo Hoaomoh .o.:m < m H o u x o o 2 v .>H:: acovSuM nonomou-xo ucovzum . H \Hommomou . . .<.m H H 6 m2 N-m z m Hus am omoHHou \oHHzomso: a as .>H:: HOmmomopm Houmhu . . . . u .xuo .em oonHou -chHEo< m cm < m N N u x HH m m N ozopSHm .>H:: . . oeHm . . pusaempw N H m e HH- a H .xuo .Em < z HHUHHoHu < z m -uoocz oomxh :oHumasooo :oHumasooo :oHumoscm :oHumosum porno mwcHHon ooomm oompu mom< xom woomnsm on::EEou m.uonumm m.uo:uoz m.uo:umm m.uo:uoz oguhHm mo .02 a some o>HumHuomoo .H oHnmh .HmHucomeouucmnusn m ".moau.nsm quHmHo>Hcs .quo HHmEmuu.>H:: ..xuo .Em HHmHHumsvcHIHmnzh .quu HHmEm u .ocHu.p=H ..xuo .Em HHmHHumsvcHuucoECHo>ow .poo omumHnu.v:Hu.u>om ..xuo .wH Homxu qucaasouo .umovHo wcooom oga mcmoe N HauHHn mo Howuo .xomHm um HemchH ummmnuHm mamHmmosmuuuuo 46 v Hwoomnwcsv Hhommoucoznuz “copnewposzx "x ”Hoocomonm annnde “Hoonom Hummuozuumz Housman .mgucoeumumox :H woanomoc mH owom . . . owHw nozomou . . Hoocom u .xoo .wH < m u \omHzomsoz m m anz m N u u HH m m ON .ecH-.s>om . . . . - .Hpu .wH HmpeHmcm Hocomop m m < m H H u e o m a mH .vcHu.u>ow pozomouuxo . . . . u .xpo .mH Honomoh \omHzomso: < m < m H H u x n m u NH honomoo-xo .wcHu.u>ow \noxoun . . . . n .Hso .wH posses: Huoum < m < m H H u x a m a HH How mxnoz . :Hn.u>ow Hegemouuxo umeo e.HHo .w \ucowm -Hoceuou .<.m .m.m H H u H HH-m a SH H oocmHSmcH HmoHooz :mHochoou .>H=: ascends .uwmpmop “assays .m.m N H o x oH-m : mH .xuo .Em opennmuu ; .an mumscmuo .vcHn.u:H umxwmcm owns: . . . . u .xuo .Em maoumxm oHpumHzoxmd m m z m H H u x o o m «H .ocHu.usu noocewco Monumouuxo . . . . u .xuo .Em HmoHuuoon \omHzomsoz m m < m H H u x m o m mH oomxh coHommzooo coHummoooo :oHumozwm :oHumosom peopso mwcHHnHw ooomm oomyo mom< xom poonnsm qu::EEou m.uo;omm m.no:uoz m.um:umm m.pocuoz zunHm mo .02 n woscHucou|uH oHnmh of Subjects No. 47 0 4 J l 1 I J I l 1 (4-8)- (4-11)- (5-2)- (5-5)- (5-8)- (5-11)- (6-2)- (4-10) (5—1) (5-4) (5-7) (5-10) (6-1) (6-4) Age Ranges--Year-Month Figure 1. Age Distribution of Subjects. 48 child, fifteen subjects were from families having two children, and three subjects were from families having three children. Eleven of the subjects having siblings were first born, six were last born, and one was the second of three children. The level of education and occupational status of the parents were examined because a relationship between these two factors and the academic achievement and reading success of children has been reported in the literature. Sutton (1967) found a positive correlation (.471) between her subjects' fathers' level of schooling and the reading success of the children.27 Durkin (1966) found that more of the mothers of the early-readers had received college degrees than had the mothers of the non-early-readers.28 Because one subject was living with the mother in a single- parent home, information is reported on only 19 fathers. The level of educational achievement ranged from high school graduate through the doctorate, with the majority of parents earning at least a college degree. Since 34 of the parents reported the completion of at least a bachelor's degree, it seemed reasonable to conclude that the majority of these parents place a high value on educational accomplishment. Most of the parents are or had been engaged in professional occupations. Among the mothers, eight are housewives, six of whom had at one time worked in an educational setting; one is a college 27Sutton, p. 161. 28Durkin, pp. 94-101. 49 instructor; two are public school teachers; six are employed in the professions; and three are serving in clerical positions. Among the fathers, five are college professors, one is a public school teacher; two are pursuing graduate degrees; six are employed in the business world; four are engaged in professional pursuits; and one is employed in a nonprofessional governmental position. Approximately 56 percent of the parents were employed in some type of occupation other than education. The residences of the children in the sample were distributed among the various community types as follows: eleven subjects were living in a small city, university community; five were living in a large city, governmental-industrial area; three were living in a small city, rural-industrial area; and one was living in a suburban- residential community. Performance on Screeninngeasures All of the children in the sample substantially exceeded the criterion scores for classification as an able reader. Ceiling scores on the two parts of the Durkin screening measure (Words in Isolation and Words in Sentences) were earned by thirteen and twelve children, respectively. Eighteen subjects (90 percent of the sample) achieved an accuracy score of at least 92 percent on both parts of the Durkin measure. The remaining two subjects exceeded the criterion by at least 28 raw scores. The subjects' performance when the words were jpresented in a contextual framework was superior to their performance when words were presented in isolation. 50 On the second screening measure, the comprehension subtest of the Harper and Row Preprimer Achievement Test, twelve subjects correctly answered at least 20 items (91 percent accuracy); three subjects correctly answered 19 items (86 percent accuracy); four subjects correctly answered 17 items (77 percent accuracy); and one ‘ subject correctly answered 14 items (64 percent accuracy). Successful performance on this measure involved the exercise of three operations: (1) recognition of the words in the items, (2) interpretation of the stem of the items, and (3) selection of the appropriate response. The complexity of the tasks required for successful performance on the comprehension measure may account for the discrepancy in the levels of achievement on both screening measures. The data from the screening measures is summarized in Table A.l (Appendix A). Intelligence Characteristics A detailed array of each subject's performance on the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence is presented in Table A.2 (Appendix A). The mean verbal scale score earned by the subjects was 124.45; the mean performance scale score was 122.80; and the mean full scale score was 126.00. Significantly, all three mean scores fall within the Superior intelligence classification as specified in the examiner's manual. Significant, too, is the slight difference in the magnitude of the mean verbal and performance scores, suggesting that the subjects were equally facile in the abilities measured by the verbal and performance subtests. 51 The summary of intelligence test data in Table 2 reveals that seven subjects attained full scale scores which fell within the Very Superior classification (such classification requiring a performance which falls at least two standard deviations above the mean); six subjects attained full scale scores which fell within the Superior classification (such classification requiring a performance which falls at least one and one-third standard deviations above the mean); and seven subjects attained full scale scores which fell within the Bright Normal classification (such classification requiring a per- formance which falls at least two-thirds of a standard deviation above the mean). Table 2. WPPSI Score Distributions According to Intelligence Classifications (n==20) Composite Scores I.Q. Range and Classification Verbal Performance Full Scale Very Superior 130 and above 8 4 7 Superior 120-129 4 6 6 Bright Normal 110-119 6 8 7 Average 90-109 2 2 0 52 A more detailed analysis of the composite score distributions is presented in Table 3. One subject's performance scale score and full scale deviations full scale deviations score exceeded the mean by three and one-half standard and fell in the I.Q. range of 154-156. Six subjects' scores exceeded the mean by more than two standard and fell in the range of 132-140. These relationships are portrayed in Figures 2 and 3. Table 3. WPPSI Score Distributions (n =20) Composite Scores I.Q. Score Ranges Verbal Performance Full Scale I H 154-159 - 148-153 - 142-147 136-141 130-135 124-129 118-123 112-117 106-111 100-105 HMMMNbMD—Il NNOCNCNCNI The incidence of high scores on the Verbal Subtests, namely, Information, Vocabulary, Arithmetic, Similarities, and Comprehension, is evident in Tables 4 and 5. That the magnitude of the mean scores on the Vocabulary and Comprehension subtests is less than those on the other verbal subtests would ordinarily not be expected of good readers if one may generalize from other studies dealing with the 53 8 .. f Verbal 7 - /’,. Full Scale 6 .— No. of Subjects .5 1 3... 2 — Performance 11— 0 1 1 1 1 (90-109) (110-119) (120-129) (130 8 Above) Average Bright Superior Very Normal Superior Intelligence Classifications Figure 2. WPPSI Score Distributions According to Intelligence Classifications. 54 mcoHuanHumHo osoom onom HHSH cam .oocmeuomwom .Hmnno> Hmmaz .m ohzmHm momcmm onoom .O.H smH-va mmH-weH HVH-NeH HeH-omH mmH-omH mNH-eNH mNH-wHH HHH-NHH HHH-ooH moH-ooH d T q q q u d mofiwfiowhmm . Hmpuo> onom HHsa A/ I/ \\ // \xr,./, . \.\x \\ c InlaIlOuI.\tll /I.II H I ll\ / . .. sioefqns go 'oN 55 20) Table 4. WPPSI Subtest Scaled Score Distributions (n Performance Tests Verbal Tests :mHmoo xoon :meoa lopoEoou wows: :oHuoneou ousuoHd omzo: HseHc< :oncocoHQEoo moHuHHmHHEHm oHuoecuHu< xansnwoo> COM HNEHOMfiH Scaled Score Ranges 18-19 16-17 4 Luv 14-15 12-13 10-11 8-9 56 Table 5. Mean Scaled Scores for the Verbal and Performance Subtests Mean Scaled Mean Scaled Verbal Tests Score Performance Tests Score Information 15.10 Animal House 13.95 Vocabulary 13.45 Picture Completion 12.65 Arithmetic 14.70 Mazes 14.10 Similarities 13.80 Geometric Design 13.10 Comprehension 12.55 Block Design 13.15 relationships between achievement in reading and intelligence test scores. It has been held by other researchers that accuracy in reading comprehension "is much more dependent on ability to associate word meanings correctly than on any other mental ability. Second in importance is ability to weave ideas together and make inferences about them."29 A careful analysis of the subjects' behavior failed to provide a feasible explanation for why this data appear to be somewhat contrary to what has been reported previously. Perhaps the magnitude of the discrepancy among the subtest scroes is not particularly significant. The fact that all of the scaled scores are quite high suggests that the subjects demonstrated strengths in each of the verbal and performance abilities measured by these subtests. 29F. B. Davis and C. C. Davis, "Development of the Test," Davis Reading Test (New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1962), p. 28. 57 Analysis of the Data The purpose of this investigation was to determine among children who had demonstrated an ability to read prior to first grade entry: 3. whether they had acquired any of the essential components of the reading acquisition act, b. the degree of skill acquisition within each individual and of the sample as a whole, and c. whether the acquisition of these essential components appeared hierarchical in nature. Accordingly, the children were administered measures to provide data for assessing the level of achievement in the acquisition of components of the reading act. Visual Discrimination The various measures which were used to assess the components of visual discrimination provided data to answer the questions which follow. The distributions of scores for each of these subtests are presented in Table A.3 (Appendix A). 1. To what degree are preschool readers able to visually match letters? On the letter matching subtest, the range of scores was 53-54 items (98-100 percent accuracy). All but two subjects earned a ceiling score. 2. To what degree are preschool readers able to identify the lower case letters of the alphabet when each letter is named? 58 On the lower case letter identification subtest, the range of scores was 24-26 items (92-100 percent accuracy). Nineteen subjects correctly identified all of the lower case letters, and one subject identified s_for l_and p_for s, 3. To what degree are preschool readers able to identify the upper case letters of the alphabet when each letter is named? All of the subjects correctly identified each of the upper case letters. 4. To what degree are preschool readers able to name the lower case letters of'the alphabet? The scores on this subtest ranged from 24-26 (92-100 percent accuracy). Eighteen subjects correctly named all of the lower case letters; one subject correctly named 25 letters (96 percent accuracy); and another subject correctly named 24 letters (92 percent accuracy). The errors made by the latter two subjects involved naming p_for q and s_for h, 5. To what degree are preschool readers able to name the upper case letters of the alphabet? All of the subjects named each of the upper case letters correctly. 6. To what degree are preschool readers able to visually discriminate the order of letters in a word? And, 7. To what degree are preschool readers able to visually match words? The first visual discrimination subtest which presented any difficulty for the subjects involved the matching of words and remem- bering the order of letters in words. The scores on this subtest 59 ranged from 7 to 18 (39-100 percent accuracy). Two subjects attained ceiling scores; two correctly answered 17 items (94 percent accuracy); three correctly answered 16 items (89 percent accuracy); and eight correctly answered 13-15 items (72-83 percent accuracy). Five subjects performed in the range of 7-12 correct responses (39-67 percent accuracy). The mean score was 14 (78 percent accuracy). 8. To what degree are preschool readers able to identify root words? The subjects' performance on the identification of root words subtest revealed some diversity. The scores ranged from 8 to 18 (40-90 percent accuracy). The highest scores were attained by two subjects who correctly identified 18 root words (90 percent accuracy); three who correctly identified 17 root words (85 percent accuracy); and three who correctly identified 16 root words (80 percent accuracy). Eight subjects scored in the range of 14-15 items (70-75 percent accuracy). Four subjects correctly answered no more than 11 items (55 percent accuracy). The mean score was 15 (75 percent accuracy). 9. To what degree are preschool readers able to identify the inflectional endings: 3s, :ss, :js, 32g; and :isg_in words? The subjects' performance on the identification of inflectional endings subtest revealed even more diversity than was demonstrated on the root word subtest. The scores on this subtest ranged from 1-20 (5-100 percent accuracy). The highest performances were achieved by one subject who earned a ceiling score; three subjects who correctly answered 19 items (95 percent accuracy); three who correctly answered 18 items (90 percent accuracy); and three who correctly answered 17 60 items (85 percent accuracy). Six subjects scored in the range of 12-16 items (60-80 percent accuracy). The dispersion of scores is especially evident at the lower range of the scale where four subjects correctly answered 25 percent of the items or less. The mean score was 14 (70 percent accuracy). Auditory Perception The various measures which were used to assess the components of auditory perception provided data to answer the questions which follow. The distributions of scores for each of these subtests are presented in Table A.4 (Appendix A). 1. To what degree are preschool readers able to identify consonant phonemes heard in the initial position of words? The scores on the identification of initial consonant phonemes subtest ranged from 20 to 30 (67-100 percent accuracy). The mean score was 26 (87 percent accuracy). The highest performances were achieved by one subject who earned a ceiling score; two subjects who correctly answered 29 items (97 percent accuracy); two subjects who correctly answered 28 items (93 percent accuracy); two who correctly answered 27 items (90 percent accuracy); and five who correctly answered 26 items (87 percent accuracy). Five subjects scored in the range of 23-25 items (77-83 percent accuracy), and three subjects correctly answered 73 percent of the items or less. 2. To what degree are preschool readers able to identify consonant phonemes heard in the medial position of’words? 61 The range of scores on the identification of medial consonant phonemes was somewhat less than that on the previous subtest: 14-17 items (82-100 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 16 (94 percent accuracy). A ceiling score was earned by nine subjects; four subjects correctly answered 16 items (94 percent accuracy); four correctly answered 15 items (88 percent accuracy); and three correctly answered 14 items (82 percent accuracy). 3. To what degree are preschool readers able to identify consonant phonemes heard in the final position of'words? The scores on the identification of final consonant phonemes subtest ranged from 9-14 (64-100 percent accuracy). The mean score was 13 (93 percent accuracy). This subtest had the highest mean score of the four tests of auditory perception. Fourteen subjects earned ceiling scores; three subjects correctly answered 13 items (93 percent accuracy); two correctly answered 11 items (78 percent accuracy); and one correctly answered 9 items (64 percent accuracy). 4. To what degree are preschool readers able to identify rhyming phonemes? The range of scores on the rhyming phonemes subtest was 4 to 9 (44-100 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 7 (78 percent accuracy). Six subjects earned ceiling scores; six correctly answered 8 items (89 percent accuracy); three correctly answered 7 items (78 percent accuracy); three correctly answered 6 items (67 percent accuracy); and two correctly answered 4 items (44 percent accuracy). 62 Sound-Symbol Association The various measures which were used to assess the components of sound-symbol association provided data to answer the questions which follow. The distributions of scores for each of the sound-symbol association subtests are presented in Table A.5 (Appendix A). 1. To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the "short" phonemic value for each of the following: s, s, i, s, and s? The range of performance on the first sound-symbol association subtest was 0-8 items (0-80 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 4 (50 percent accuracy). The highest performances were achieved by four subjects who correctly answered 8 items (80 percent accuracy); two subjects who correctly answered 7 items (70 percent accuracy); three who correctly answered 6 items (60 percent accuracy); and one who correctly answered 5 items (50 percent accuracy). Six subjects scored in the range of 1-4 items (10-40 percent accuracy). Four subjects were unable to determine the "short" phonemic value of the vowel letters in any of the items. 2. To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the "long" phonemic value for each of the following: sesame? The range of performance on this subtest was 0-8 items (0-80 percent accuracy). The mean score was 2 (20 percent accuracy). The highest performances were achieved by one subject who correctly answered 8 items (80 percent accuracy); two who correctly answered 6 items (60 percent accuracy); and one who correctly answered 5 items (50 percent accuracy). Six subjects scored in the range of 1-3 items 63 (10-30 percent accuracy). Ten subjects were unable to determine the "long" phonemic value of the vowel letters in any of the items. 3. To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the phonemes having independent regular representa- tion by each of the following consonant letters when found in the initial position of'words: E9 g; f, h, Lilianessseeanda? '- The range of performance on the initial consonant phonemes subtest was 26-33 items (76—97 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 30 (88 percent accuracy). The highest performances were achieved by three subjects who correctly answered 33 items (97 percent accuracy); two who correctly answered 32 items (94 percent accuracy); two who correctly answered 31 items (91 percent accuracy); and seven who correctly answered 30 items (88 percent accuracy). Six subjects scored in the range of 26-29 items (76-85 percent accuracy). 4. To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the phonemes having independent regular representation by each of the following consonant blends frequently found in the initial position of'words: hg, g2; 12; esflebflsfl;8_t.subfl;§eandsw The range of performance on the initial consonant blend phonemes subtest was 6-26 (23-100 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 14 (54 percent accuracy). The highest performances were achieved by two subjects who earned ceiling scores; one who correctly answered 25 items (96 percent accuracy); and two who correctly answered 23 items (88 percent accuracy). Two subjects scored in the range of 15-18 items (58-69 percent accuracy); nine scored in the range of 9-11 items (35-42 percent accuracy); and four scored in the range of 6-8 items (23-31 percent accuracy). 64 5. To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the phonemes having independent regular representation by each of the following consonant digraphs frequently found in the initial position of'words: sh, sh, and wh? The subjects demonstrated a range of performance of 0-33 (0-100 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 4 (67 percent accuracy) on the initial consonant digraphs subtest. Three subjects earned ceiling scores; five correctly answered 5 items (83 percent accuracy); six correctly answered 4 items (67 percent accuracy); five subjects scored in the range of 1-3 items (17-50 percent accuracy); and one subject was unable to correctly answer any items. 6. To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the phonemes having independent regular representation by each of'the following consonant blends frequently found in the final position of'words: 259 3%; {fly and hs? The range of performance on the final consonant blends subtest was 0-8 (0-100 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 5 (63 percent accuracy). Five subjects achieved ceiling scores; five correctly answered 6 items (75 percent accuracy); six scored in the range of 3-5 items (38-63 percent accuracy); two scored in the range of 1-2 items (12-25 percent accuracy); and two were unable to correctly answer any items. 7. To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the phonemes having independent regular representation by each of the following consonant digraphs frequently found in the final position of words: c_h, sh, and sh? The range of performance on the final consonant digraphs subtest was 1-6 items (17-100 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 4 (67 percent accuracy). Seven subjects earned ceiling scores; 65 three correctly answered 5 items (83 percent accuracy); three scored in the range of 3-4 items (50-67 percent accuracy); and seven scored in the range of 1-2 items (17—33 percent accuracy). 8. To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the phonemes having independent regular representation by each of the following phonograms frequently found in the final position of'words: s}, Egg 3y, and ss? The range of performance on the final phonograms subtest was 0-8 (0-100 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 4 (50 percent accuracy). Four subjects earned ceiling scores; one correctly answered 7 items (88 percent accuracy); three correctly answered 6 items (75 percent accuracy); six correctly answered 4 items (50 percent accuracy); four scored in the range of 2-3 items (25-38 percent accuracy); and two were unable to correctly answer any items. 9. To what degree are preschool readers able to produce the phonemes having independent regular representation by each of the following frequently occurring phono- grams: es 221, 221.. ed: tee; en: i_d.~ is, in: ii. 22: gig £99 22; hp, ack, ake, amZI'ank, ell,-ike, ill, ihg, 95s, and ouse? The range of performance on the last sound-symbol association subtest, phonograms in isolation, was 6-25 (24-100 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 18 (72 percent accuracy). Two subjects earned ceiling scores; two correctly answered 24 items (96 percent accuracy); five correctly answered 23 items (92 percent accuracy); seven scored in the range of 15-22 items (60-88 percent accuracy); and four scored in the range of 6-12 items (24-48 percent accuracy). 66 Blending and Letter Substitution The various measures which were used to assess the components of blending and letter substitution provided data to answer the questions which follow. The distributions of scores for each of these subtests are presented in Table A.6 (Appendix A). 1. To what degree are preschool readers able to blend an initial consonant phoneme(s) with the remaining phonemes in a word? And, 2. To what degree are preschool readers able to substitute initial consonant letters in words? The range of performance on the substitution and blending of initial consonant phonemes in words subtest was 39-45 items (87-100 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 44 (98 percent accuracy). Nine subjects earned ceiling scores; eight subjects scored in the range of 42-44 items (93-98 percent accuracy); and three scored in the range of 39-41 items (87-91 percent accuracy). 3. To what degree are preschool readers able to blend a final consonant phoneme(s) with the remaining phonemes in a word? And, 4. To what degree are preschool readers able to substitute final consonant letters in words? The range of performance on the substitution and blending of final consonant phonemes in words subtest was 2-5 items (40-100 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 4 (80 percent accuracy). Nine subjects earned ceiling scores; eight subjects correctly answered 4 items (80 percent accuracY); one correctly answered 3 items (60 percent accuracy); and two correctly answered 2 items (40 percent accuracy). 67 5. To what degree are preschool readers able to substitute medial vowel letters in words? The range of performance on the substitution of medial vowel letters in words subtest was 8-10 items (80-100 percent accuracy), and the mean score, rounded off to the nearest whole number, was the highest of the three subtests in this area: 10 (100 percent accuracy). Seventeen subjects earned ceiling scores; two correctly answered 9 items (90 percent accuracy); and one correctly answered 8 items (80 percent accuracy). Word Knowledge The two measures which were used to assess the components of word knowledge provided data to answer the questions which follow. The distributions of scores for the word knowledge subtests are presented in Table A.7 (Appendix A). 1. To what degree have preschool readers developed an initial stock of sight words? The Dolch List was administered to the subjects to measure the extent of their sight vocabularies. The range of performance on the first half of this list was 48-110 (44-100 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 98 (89 percent accuracy). Four subjects earned ceiling scores; twelve subjects scored in the range of 100-109 (91-99 percent accuracy); and four subjects scored in the range of 48-92 (44-84 percent accuracy). The range of performance on the second half of the Dolch List ‘was 3-110 (3-100 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 85 (77 per- cent accuracy). One subject earned a ceiling score; thirteen subjects 68 scored in the range of 100-109 (91-99 percent accuracy); two scored in the range of 92-96 (84-87 percent accuracy); and four subjects identified less than 13 words (12 percent accuracy). The range of performance on both lists combined was 53-219 (24-99 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 183 (83 percent accuracy). Fifteen subjects recognized a minimum of 199 words (90 percent accuracy). The remaining five subjects scored in the range of 53-192 (24-87 percent accuracy). 2. To what degree are preschool readers able to associate meaning with words? The vocabulary subtest of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, Level 7, was administered to assess the meaning vocabularies of the subjects. The first seventeen items measure isolated word comprehen- sion. The range of performance on this part of the subtest was 2-17 items (12-100 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 12 (71 percent accuracy). One subject earned a ceiling score; three subjects cor- rectly answered 16 items (94 percent accuracy); three correctly answered 15 items (88 percent accuracy); seven subjects scored in the range of 11-14 items (65-82 percent accuracy); and six subjects scored in the range of 2-10 items (12-59 percent accuracy). The range of performance on the remaining thirteen items, which measure sentence comprehension using a cloze format, was 0-12 items (0-92 percent accuracy); and the mean score was 8 (62 percent accuracy). Five subjects correctly answered 12 items (92 percent accuracy); two correctly answered 11 items (85 percent accuracy); eight scored in the range of 8-10 items (62-77 percent accuracy); 69 three subjects scored in the range of 3-6 items (23-46 percent accuracy); and two subjects scored in the range of 0-1 items (0-8 percent accuracy). The range of performance on both parts combined was 2-28 items (7-93 percent accuracy), and the mean score was 20 (67 percent accuracy). Five subjects correctly answered 27-28 items (90-93 percent accuracy); nine scored in the range of 21-26 items (70-87 percent accuracy); two scored in the range of 16-19 items (53-63 percent accuracy); and four subjects correctly answered less than 11 items (37 percent accuracy). Total Skill Acquisition All of the measures which were used to assess components of the reading acquisition act provided data to answer the questions which follow. The rank order of scores for each subject is presented in Table A.8 (Appendix A). 1. What is the rank order, based on the degree of skill attainment, of the specified reading acquisition components acquired by preschool readers? The degree of skill attainment by the subjects is presented in Table 6. It is evident that the acquisition of five of the twenty- nine components was demonstrated by all of the subjects with at least 91 percent accuracy. These include the following: 1. Matching Letters, 2. Identifying Lower Case Letters When Named, 3. Identifying Upper Case Letters When Named, 70 Table 6. Total Skill Acquisition: Rank Order and Degree of Skill Attainment by Subjects (n = ’0) Percent of Skill Items Answered Correctly Skilla 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 20 B -- -- -- -- -— -- -- -- -- 20 C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 20 D -- -- -- -- —- -- -- -- -- 20 E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- —- -- 20 F -- -- -- l 2 l 1 S 5 5 G -- -- -- 1 2 1 1 S 5 5 H -- -- -- -- 2 2 9 3 2 I I 2 1 -- -- 1 l 3 6 S J —- -- -- -- -- -- 2 4 9 S K -- -- -- -- -— -- -- -- 7 13 L -- -- -- -~ -- -- l 2 -- 17 M -- -- -- -- 2 -- 3 3 6 6 N -- -- 2 1 3 2 4 -- -- O 1’ 3 1 -- l 2 -- 1 -- -- P - -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 ll 7 Q -- -- 3 8 2 1 1 -- 2 3 R . 2 -- l 6 -- -- 5 3 S 7 I 1 3 1 2 -- 5 -- 5 T -- 2 -- S 1 -- 2 -- 3 7 U 7 -- 3 1 6 -- -- 3 1 4 V - -- 2 1 l 3 1 -- 3 9 w -- -- -- -- -- —- -- -- 1 19 X -- -- -- 2 -- l -- 8 -- 9 Y —- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- l 19 Z -- -- -- 2 -- 1 -- 8 -- 9 AA -- -- -- -— -— -- -- 1 2 17 BB -- -- 3 -- 1 -- -- -- 2 14 CC -- 2 l -- 4 4 4 3 8Key to skills: Matching Letters, Identifying Lower Case Letters When Named, Identifying Upper Case Letters When Named, Naming Lower Case Letters, Naming Upper Case Letters, Remembering the Order of Letters in Words, Matching Words, Identifying Root Words, Identifying Inflectional Endings, Identifying Initial Consonant Phonemes, Identifying Medial Consonant Phonemes, Identifying Final Consonant Phonemes, Identifying Rhyming Phonemes, Producing the Short Phonemic Value of Vowel Letters. Producing the Long Phonemic Value of Vowel Letters, Producing Phonemes Corresponding to Initial Consonant Letters, Producing Phonemes Corresponding to Initial Consonant Blends, Producing Phonemes Corresponding to Initial Consonant Digraphs, Producing Phonemes Corresponding to Final Consonant Blends, Producing Phonemes Corresponding to Final Consonant Digraphs, Producing Phonemes CorreSponding to Final Phonograms, Producing Phonemes Corresponding to Isolated Phonograms, Blending Initial Consonant Phonemes in Words. Blending Final Consonant Phonemes in Words, Substituting Initial Consonant Letters in Words, Substituting Final Consonant Letters in Words, Substituting Medial Vowel Letters in Words. Development of Sight Vocabulary. and Associating Meaning with Words. Ong demonstrate a high degree of mastery. A more diverse yet high degree of performance was demonstrated on the subtests measuring identification of initial consonant phonemes and identification of rhyming phonemes. 83 Table 10. Identification of Consonant and Rhyming Phonemes: Percentage of Sample Answering Items Correctlya (n==20) Position of Consonant Phonemes in Words Percentage of Items Rhyming Correctly Answered Initial Medial Final Phonemes 100-91 25 65 85 30 90-81 45 35 -- 30 IT 80-71 20 -- 10 15 70-61 10 -- 5 15 Less than 61 -- -- -- 10 aThe number in each cell represents the percentage of the sample scoring in each range. Table 11. Mean Scores on the Auditory Perception Subtests Mean Score Expressed Subtest as a Percentage Identification of Medial Consonant Phonemes .94 Identification of Final Consonant Phonemes .93 Identification of Initial Consonant Phonemes .87 Identification of Rhyming Phonemes .78 84 High level mastery in the identification of medial consonant phonemes and final consonant phonemes and slightly less mastery in the identification of initial consonant phonemes supports the position held by the five prominent educators presented in Chapter I. The more diverse performance on the subtest measuring identification of rhyming phonemes leads one to question whether this skill is a prerequisite for learning to read. This, however, does not imply a denial of the efficacy of this skill in learning to read, but it may suggest that the purpose for incorporating this skill into reading instruction may differ from that proposed by traditional educators. Sound-Symbol Association The mean scores earned by the subjects on each of the sound- symbol association subtests are presented in Table 12. Since the average scores earned by the subjects do not reflect an exceptionally high degree of accuracy for any of the subtests, it seems reasonable to assume that these skills are acquired with varying degrees of accuracy by children who learn to read before entering grade one and may very well be acquired by these children at different stages in their individual reading acquisition processes. The skills most readily acquired appear to be the ability to produce the phonemes represented by: (1) initial consonant letters, (2) phonograms in isolation, (3) initial consonant digraphs, and (4) final consonant digraphs. The difficulty the subjects encountered on the two subtests measuring the ability to produce the long and short phonemic values 85 Table 12. Mean Scores on the Sound-Symbol Association Subtests Mean Score Expressed Subtest as a Percentage Produce Initial Phonemes: Consonant Letters .88 Produce Phonograms in Isolation .72 Produce Initial Phonemes: Consonant Digraphs .67 Produce Final Phonemes: Consonant Digraphs .67 Produce Final Phonemes: Consonant Blends .63 Produce Initial Phonemes: Consonant Blends .54 Produce Final Phonemes: Phonograms .50 Produce Short Vowel Phonemes .40 Produce Long Vowel Phonemes .20 of the vowel letters may be attributed to the format of the items which consisted of three and four letter nonsense words. The nonsense words were formed according to the CVC pattern (consonant letter-vowel letter-consonant letter) or according to the CVCe pattern (consonant letter-vowel letter-consonant letter-final e). The format of nonsense words was selected for this subtest so that the subjects would be required to sound out each word rather than to recall it (and its related vowel phoneme) from an established sight vocabulary. Unfamiliarity with nonsense words may have increased the difficulty level of these tasks. 86 Blending and Letter Substitution The mean scores earned by the subjects on the blending and letter substitution subtests are presented in Table 13. The subjects demonstrated a high degree of accuracy and mastery of three of the five skills in this category, namely, medial vowel letter substitution, substitution of initial consonant phonemes in words, and blending initial consonant phonemes in words. This high degree of mastery does not necessarily provide confirmation that these skills are prerequisite to the acquisition of reading, but it may be construed to support the position of those who argue that these skills are significant contributors to the decoding process. Table 13. Mean Scores on the Blending and Letter Substitution Subtests Mean Score Expressed Subtest as a Percentage Medial Vowel Letter Substitution . . . . . . . . . 100 Substitution and Blending of Initial Consonant Phonemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98 Substitution and Blending of Final Consonant Phonemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 On measures assessing the ability to substitution and blend of final consonant phonemes in words, the degree of accuracy varied across the subjects. Although nine subjects demonstrated mastery of these skills with 100 percent accuracy, the scatter among the remaining scores indicates significant differences in the levels of mastery 87 of these two skills. This diversity in mastery does not support those who contend that substituting and blending final consonant phonemes in words is prerequisite to word recognition. Word Knowledge The mean scores earned by the subjects on the subtests measuring sight vocabulary and knowledge of word meanings is presented in Table 14. Sixteen subjects recognized a minimum of 191 words (87 percent) on the Dolch List which was used to assess the subjects' sight vocabularies. The McBroom-Sparrow—Eckstein scale of known sight 32 A score of this magnitude words was used to interpret this score. indicates these subjects are able to read and comprehend at least at the second reader level and possibly at a more difficult reading level. The remaining four subjects earned scores which predict ability to comprehend written discourse at the preprimer-primer reading level. If the range of the subjects' scores on the vocabulary subtest were expressed as grade equivalent scores rather than as percentages of correct responses as indicated in Table A.7 (Appendix A), the sub- jects' performances would fall in the range of 0.3 to 3.2. The eight subjects who achieved at least 80 percent accuracy demonstrated a knowledge of word meanings comparable to at least that of the average pupil in the eighth month of second grade. Sixteen subjects demon- strated a knowledge of word meanings greater than that of the average pupil entering grade two. 32Miles V. Zintz, The Reading Process (Dubuque, Iowa: wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, 1970), p. 60. 88 Table 14. Mean Scores on the Word Knowledge Subtests Mean Score Expressed Subtests as a Percentage Dolch Words I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 Dolch Words I and II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 Dolch Words 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 Word Comprehension (Vocabulary Subtest) . . . . .71 Total Comprehension (Vocabulary Subtest) . . . . .67 Sentence Comprehension (Vocabulary Subtest) . . .62 The mean score (20 items--67 percent accuracy) attained by the subjects on the vocabulary subtest falls at the 55th percentile on the year-end norms for first grade pupils. It falls at the 47th percentile on the beginning of the year norms for second grade pupils and at the 34th percentile on the year-end norms for second grade pupils. A mean score of this magnitude suggests that the average performance by the subjects on the vocabulary subtest was better than that of one-half of the year-end first grade pupils in the norm group. Total Skill Acquisition One of the questions of interest to the investigator was whether a correlation existed between the subjects' acquisition of word recognition skills and their intelligence. A low to moderate degree of relationship was found between these two variables. The correlation between word recognition skill, measured with the word 89 analysis subtest of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, Level 7, and verbal intelligence abilities, measured with the WPPSI, was .33. The correlation between word recognition skill and performance intelligence abilities was .59, and the correlation between word recognition skill and full scale intelligence was .50. A correlation coefficient of the magnitude of .59 indicates more than a chance relationship between the abilities measured by the word recognition subtest and the performance subtests of the WPPSI. It is difficult to account for a correlation of this magnitude because we usually expect a higher correlation between reading and verbal intelligence abilities. A careful examination of the tasks involved in the word analysis test and in the performance subtests of the WPPSI suggests certain abilities are common to the performance of both sets of tasks. Another objective of this study was to determine the existence or nonexistence of a reading acquisition skill hierarchy. The investi- gator was unable to determine whether the reading components mastered by the subjects were acquired in a hierarchical manner. However, a distinct difference in the levels of mastery of these components by the subjects was evident. The educators, previously mentioned in Chapter I, proposed that specific components of the reading acquisition process were prerequisite skills for demonstration of the ability to read. That all of the subjects met the criterion for mastery of twelve of the twenty-nine reading acquisition components and near mastery of four 90 of the other components supports the views held by the proponents of the position that certain of these skills must be mastered before reading can occur. The following skills had been acquired by children who learn to read prior to receiving formal reading instruction. Whether these are acquired as prerequisites to the reading act or as concomitants is not conclusive. These components include the ability to: 1. Match Letters, 2. Identify the Lower Case Letters When Named, 3. Identify the Upper Case Letters When Named, 4. Name the Lower Case Letters, 5. Name the Upper Case Letters, 6. Identify Medial Consonant Phonemes in Words, 7. Identify Final Consonant Phonemes in Words, 8. Substitute Medial Vowel Letters in Words, 9. Substitute Initial Consonant Phonemes in Words, 10. Blend Initial Consonant Phonemes in Words, 11. Develop a Substantial Sight Vocabulary, 12. Associate Meaning with Words, 13. Identify Initial Consonant Phonemes in Words, 14. Produce the Phonemic Value of Consonant Letters in the Initial Position of Words, 15. Substitute Final Consonant Phonemes in Words, and 16. Blend Final Consonant Phonemes in Words. 91 As mentioned previously, the subjects demonstrated on the comprehension screening measure that they could read at least as well as average pupils in mid-year first grade classrooms. The scatter of scores on the measures used to assess the remaining thirteen components indicates significant differences in the levels of mastery of these skills. This range of performance and the subjects' demonstration of the ability to read does not support the contention that these thirteen components are prerequisites to the reading act. These include the ability to: 1. Identify Rhyming Phonemes, 2. Produce the Phonemic Value of Isolated Phonograms, 3. Remember the Order of Letters in Words, 4. Match Words, 5. Identify Root Words, 6. Identify Inflectional Endings, 7. Produce the Phonemic Value of Consonant Digraphs in the Initial Position of Words, 8. Produce the Phonemic Value of Consonant Digraphs in the Final Position of Words, 9. Produce the Phonemic Value of Consonant Blends in the Final Position of Words, 10. Produce the Phonemic Value of Consonant Blends in the Initial Position of Words, 11. Produce the Phonemic Value of Phonograms in the Final Position of Words, 92 12. Produce the "Short" Phonemic Value of the Vowel Letters, and 13. Produce the "Long" Phonemic Value of the Vowel Letters. It appears significant that eight of the thirteen components not mastered by the subjects involved the association of sounds with single letters or letter clusters. That the subjects could correctly articulate words containing these sounds but could not isolate these self-same sounds heard at the beginning or ending of words may suggest that these sound-symbol associations should be taught within the frame- work of words rather than from single letters or letter clusters presented in isolation. The wide scatter of scores on the subtests measuring these components does not provide prima facie evidence that these skills do not facilitate the acquisition of reading. However, it is entirely plausible that these skills may not be requisite to the beginning stages of reading instruction but the acquisition thereof does generate positive transfer in the attainment of higher ordered skills. The findings of this study should be useful to educators and other professionals who work closely with children. One possibility would be to use the results to develop instruments and procedures for identifying and selecting beginning kindergarten or first grade pupils for whom early reading instruction might prove advantageous. This could be accomplished by following a two-part screening procedure. Since all of the early readers examined in this study were bright, it would seem useful to identify pupils of above average intelligence. The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence 93 would be an appropriate screening instrument for this purpose. Secondly, a test could be developed to assess the sixteen components described previously which were acquired by the subjects and appear to be rudimentary skills in the reading acquisition process. This measure could then be used as a screening instrument to identify children who have acquired these skills and are ready to receive advanced reading instruction. at The research findings could also be used to develop reading materials for early readers. In view of the fact that the subjects in the sample had developed fairly substantial sight vocabularies and were able to identify many of the one and two-syllable words frequently found in primary level reading materials, traditional reading materials which include highly controlled vocabularies and a great deal of rep- etition appear to be inappropriate for early readers. A more appro- priate type of reading material might incorporate more multisyllabic words and a variety of content area terminology for the purpose of broadening and expanding the children's knowledge of words and word meanings. APPENDIX A SUMMARY TABLES APPENDIX A SUMMARY TABLES Table A.l Screening Measures: Percentage of Correct Responsea Sight Vocabulary Subject Words in Isolation Words in Sentences Comprehension l 100 96 100 2 97 100 100 3 97 100 77 4 100 100 100 5 97 100 95 6 100 100 91 7 70 85 86 8 100 100 91 9 100 100 100 10 100 96 86 11 100 100 100 12 100 96 91 13 100 100 100 14 100 100 91 15 100 100 77 16 65 81 64 17 100 100 86 18 100 96 100 19 92 93 77 20 95 93 77 No. of Items 37 27 22 aThe screening instruments used were Durkin's measure for measuring sight vocabulary and the Harper and Row Preprimer Achievement Test, Comprehension subtest. 94 95 .ououm onom HH5mnu.m.m.m Honom oocmENomuomnu.m.m HoHNom Hmnpo>uu.m.> HcoHumshomcHnu.m:H .Noa.ooo “coHuHmomEou manuon II. .500 .UMQ .NNHNNN NuoHN Homso: H.255" .30: .5. "mohoom ouHmomEooo .moo.on NewHNoo oHuuoEoou um HWOH. OUHHGEHOMHOQ a .concoconEouuu.mEoo ”NoHuHHmHHEHmnu.EHw moHuoEHHHNnu.oo> ”mummy Hmnho> .WGHOUW COHNUW mm Umufiwmmhm 0km mmhoum HWOHDSW C09 HH .8902 .9588 N88: .583: 521.5 N58 .58 .532 30> .NHHH 58.33. U Nopoom ouHNomEou nmumob oocmenomhom mmumoh Hmnho> oocowHHHoucH mo onom NHNEHMQ use Hoozomowd honzooz N.< oHan 96 .HmcoHuoon H u.Hm:H meHucoann.ucopH Hommu Mommanu.o.: Hommu Hozoquu.u.H m mEouH oN oN NH NH NN NN NN NN NN mo .02 NN NN NN NN NNH NNH ooH NNH NNH oN NN NN NN NN NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH NH NN NN NN NN NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH NH NNH NN NNH ooH NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH NH NO ON NN NN NNH NN NNH NNH NN NH NN NN NN NN NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH NH NN NN NN NN NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH NH ON ON NN NN NNH ooH NNH NNH NNH NH NN NN ON ON NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH NH NN NN NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH HH NN NN NN NN NNH NNH NNH ooH NNH NH ON ON NN NN NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH N NN NN NN NN NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH N ON ON NN NN NNH NN NNH NNH NNH N ON ON NN NN NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH N NN NN NN SN NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH N NN NN NN NN NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH N NN NN No No NNH NNH NNH NN NN N NN NN NN NN NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH N N NN NN NN NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH H mmfifififim MUHOZ WCHOB UHOZ Cm mHQHHOJ thHHOJ QEmZ Hmuuoa— QENZ HOHHON— mHOHHQN— HUOMDSW .HWHHH “00m £09m: WHOHHON— .U.D OEmZ .U.A GENZ .U.D .HCGUH .U...— .HCOCCH .NcoNH .peoNH No HNNHo menoz NpouuoH w omcoamom Hooehou mo owmocoouom “coHuwcHEHNoNHQ HmsmH> m.< oHan 97 Table A.4 Auditory Perception: Identification of Consonant and Rhyming Phonemes--Percentage of Correct Response Position of Consonant Phonemes in Words Rhyming Subject Initial Medial Final Phonemes l 97 82 100 89 2 87 100 100 100 3 90 94 100 78 4 73 82 100 100 5 83 88 100 100 6 93 100 100 89 7 87 88 100 89 8 100 100 100 89 9 77 94 93 89 10 87 100 93 67 ll 87 94 100 100 12 77 88 100 44 13 93 100 100 78 14 83 94 93 67 15 97 100 100 100 16 70 88 64 67 17 87 100 100 89 18 90 100 100 100 19 67 82 78 44 20 80 100 78 78 ”0' 0f 30 17 14 9 Items 98 mEopH mN N O m 0 ON Nm OH OH mo .02 NN O mm mN mm NN ON O O ON NN mN mm OOH O NN Nw OH OO OH OOH Om NH mN mm OOH mm OO OH NH Nw mN OOH mN NO mN mm O OO NH Nm mm mm om NH Hm Nw OH OH OH NO OOH OOH O NO OOH NO OO ON mH Nw mN mm mN mm NN ww O ON NH mm mN OOH OOH mm mm NO O OO mH Ob Om NO NH NH mm HO O O NH NO Om mm OOH mm NN NO ON OH HH NO Om Om mN mm mm mm O O OH NO mN NH mm NO OO ON ON OH O NO mm OOH OOH mm mm NO O O N ON O mm O Om mm mm on Om N am OOH OOH mN NO mm mm om ON O OO mN mm OOH No mm Nw ON ON m cm OOH OOH mo OOH mm mm O ON N NO om No mm NO mm HO O ON m OOH OOH mm mm OOH mm mm O ON N OO Om OOH mo OOH cm NO ON ON H :oHumHomH Newswoconm mammeHO choHO NEONHNHO mvcon Naouuoq w:0H unocm woomnsm :H acmcoNcou acecomcou HancoNcou newcomcou acm:0m:ou memuwoconm :oHuHmom Hmch ecu :H Nosococm :oHuHmoO HmHuHcH one :H moeococm mesoconm Hozo> omcommom pooapou mo ommpcoouom ”coHumHoon< HonENm1Ocoom m.< oHnmN 99 mEouH OH m mN m mN mo .02 OO ON OO ON om ON OOH Ow Nw Om Nw OH OOH Ow OOH Om OOH OH OOH OOH Om OOH mm NH Om ON HO ON HO OH OOH Om OOH Om OOH mH OOH OOH mm OOH mm NH OOH Om OOH Om OOH mH OOH OOH HO OOH HO NH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH HH OOH OO cm OO cm OH OOH OOH mm OOH mm O OOH OOH wO OOH mm m OOH on mm on mm N OOH Om OOH Om OOH O OO OOH OOH OOH OOH m OOH Om OOH Om OOH N OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH m OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH N OOH ow mm on mm H muouuoq HmcHu HeHuHcH :oHuHNoO :oHpHmom poomnsm Hoso> HmHOoz mHouuoH ucmcomcou Hmch HmHuHcH Nunez :H mnouuoH mcHusuHuanm mesocond acmcomcou mcchon omcommom uooauou we owmucooaom "coHuouHumnsm HouuoH van mschon o.< oHnmh 100 mEouH Om OH NH ONN OHH OHH mo .62 NN NN ON NN HH NN ON NN N HN ON m mm OH ON NN NN NO NO NO NH ON NO ON NO HO OOH NH N O NH mN m NN OH mN NO Om OO NO NO mH ON NN NO NO NO NO NH NN NN ON NO NO NO NH NO NO NO NN NN HO NH OO NO NN OO OOH OO HH ON NN NO NO NO NO OH NO NO NO OO NO OOH O NN NN NO NO NO OO N mm Hm mm Om N Nm N NO NO NO OO OO OOH O mm ON Om OO NN NO m NN mN NN OO OO OO N mN NO NN NO NO NO m NO ON OOH NO NO OOH N OO NO NN NO NO NO H :oncononOsou :oncononaeoO :oncoonOsou HHHNH :oHOO HH cuHoo H :oHOO poomnsm Hmuob mucoucom who: NumHsnmoo> Nchmoz NHeHsnmoo> uLNHm omcommom uoonuou mo onucooHoO HoNOonocx Ono: N.< oHOmb 1(11 .HHHxN HmHsoHume use» NcHusmmoE NsouH 0:» No oN=0ON6N uuouuoo No omeucoouon a Nucomopmou Hones: comm .mHHHxN ou No; How :N: ouocuoom .O.oHOmh .ON omen coma N-= N-N oH-z o-o N-uu =-N o-o N-o o-o NH-z c-o NH-z N-o N-= NN-o NN-= o-o o-o N-o N-H u. 8-6 NH-o NH-N NN-O NH-N No-c NN-N NN-o N-z NN-o N-z NH-N N-z N-N NN-o NN-o NN-O NN-H NN-N NN-o m 8.: NN-O NN-N No-2 NH-z NO-N NN-N No-2 NH-N NN-O NN-: oN-o NN-O NN-H NO-N NN-uu NO-N NN-O NN-O NN-z x. NN-> NN-> NN-= NN-N NH-N NN-uu NN-o NN-: NH-N NN-= oN-= NN-: NN-N NN-NN oN-H NN-O NN-z NN-N NN-z NN-= nu NN-uo NN-= oc-o NN-uo NN-NN NN-: NN-: NN-uo oN-H NN-N NN-N NN-N NN-= NN-o NN-N NN-N NN-N oN-= oN-: oo-> m. NN-o NN-ou oN-ou NN-: HN-o NN-N No-2 NN-: NN-o NN-N NN-N NO-> NN-N NN-uo NN-N oo-> NN-: NO-N NN-N NO-N 1 NN-N NN-NN oN-N NN-N NN-> NN-x NN-uo NN-N NN-z NN-N oo-x NN-N NN-H NN-N NN-N No-N NN-N NN-N NN-H NN-= w. NN-N NN-N oN-x NN-> NN-N NN-z NN-o NN-x NN-= NN-NO NN-z No-o NN-ou NN-o NN-z NN-z NN-x NN-O NN-N NN-O N NN-N Nwa NN-N NN-=. NN-= NN-H NN-N NN-: NN-O NN-: NN-uu NN-= NN-= NN-N NN-N NN-H NN-H No-a NN-N NN-N m. NN-x No-2 NN-N NN-N NN-N NN-o NN-= NN-N NN-N NN-> NN-N NN-N NN-o oN-: NN-: NN-= NN-N NN-ou NN-uu NN-N m. NN-NN NN-N NN-: NN-N NN-N NN-N NN-N NN-> oo-> NN-¥ NN-O NN-N NN-z NN-> NN-u NN-o NN-ou NN-z NN-u oN-x a. NN-= NN-e NN-N NN-z NN-o NN-> NN-z NN-H No-uo NN-H Nr-a NN-O NN-> NN-N NN-N NN-N NN-N oN-z NN-N NNxx N NN-N NN-N NN-NN NN-NN NN-N NN-N NN-N NN-N NN-N NN-N NN-N NN-N NN-N NN-2 NN-= NN-N NN-u NN-= NN-NN NN-: .. NN-N NN-: NNH-<< NN-» NN-N NN-NN NN-> NN-N NN-= NN-NN NN-N NN-z NN-NN NN-o NN-uu NN-N NN-N NN-N NNH-<< NN-uu ma NN-: NN-H NNH-» NN-z oN-H NN-N NN-N NN-o NN-N NNH-<< NN-N NN-H NN-» NN-N NN-N NN-N ON-NN HN-N NNH-N NN-> .u NN-H NN-N NNH-z NNH-<< NN-H NNH-<< NN-H NN-N NN-NN NNH-N NN-N NN-uu NN-: oN-x ON-> oN-NN ON-> NN-> NNH-> NN-: Nu NN-N NN-x NNH-> NNH-N No-2 NNH-» NN-» NN-NN NN-N NNH-» NN-> NN-N NNH-<< NN-N NN-NN NN-<< NNH-<< NN-N NNH-x NN-o N NN-H NN-N NNH-o NNH-x NN-N NNH-: NN-: NNH-<< HN-N NNH-x NN-H NN-x NNHNN NN-N NNH-<< cNH-N NNH-» NN-NN NNH-3 NN-NN a NN-O NN-N NNH-z NNH-N NN-: NNH-= NN-H NNH-N HN-2 NNH-: NN-H NN-» ooHtx NN-¥ NNH-» NNH-» NNH-: NN-x NNH-> NN-N “w NN-N NN-N NNH-H NNH-H NN-<< NNH-N NN-N ccH-z Ho-e NNH-N ON-» NN-: NNH-» NN-: NNH-z NNH-N NNH-= NN-< NNH-= NN-N .s NN-<< NN-z NNH-N NNH-N NN-N NNH-N NN-NN NNH-N NNH-<< NNH-: NN-z NN-NN ooH-N NN-» NNH-= NNH-: NNH-N NNH-<< NNH-N NNH-<< "m ON-» NN-H NNH-H NNH-H NN-N coH-z NNH-<< NNH-N NNH-N NNH-H NN-NN NNH-<< NNH-H NN-: NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N .ooH-N NNH-z NNH-N "u NN-z NNH-<< NNH-o NNH-o HN-> NNH-H NNH-N NNH-H NNH-x NNH-o NNH-<< NNH-N NNH-N NN-= NNH-H NNH-z NNH-z NNH-» NNH-H NNH-N “v NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N HN-: NNH-N NNH-x NNH-¥ NNH-H NNH-N NNH-N NNH-x NNH-N NNH-<< NNH-N NNH-H NNH-H NNH-x NNH-“ NNH-H .m NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NN-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N ccH-m NNH-H NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-z NNH-N NNH-N m. NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NN-< ooH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-H NNH-N NNH-N N. NNH-u NNH-o NNH-u NNH-o NNH-N NNH-u NNH-u NNH-o NNH-o NNH-u NNH-u NNH-u NNH-o NNH-u NNH-u NNH-u NNH-O NNH-N NNH-o NNH-u "u NNH-N ooH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-u NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N NNH-N N NNH-< NNH-< NNH-< NNH-< NNH-N NNH-< ocH-< NNH-< NNH-< NNH-< NNH-< NNH-< NNH-< NNH-< NNH-< NNH-< NNH-< NNH-o NNH-< NNH-< NN NH NH NH OH NH NH NH NH HH NH N N N N N N N N H HUNHNNN NocpecHNHHN HHHNN co sotNoN NcN HNNto N=NN ”coHsHNHssu< HHHNN HNNoN N.< NHNNN APPENDIX B MEASURES APPENDIX B MEASURES Order of Presentation Screening Instruments: 1. Durkin's Measure: Criterion-—18 words minimum 2. Preprimer Test: Criterion-—ll/22 items correct Specific Measures: WPPSI Dolch I 8 II ITBS--Vocabu1ary Subtest ITBS--Word Analysis Subtest Durrell Analysis Subtests Matching Letters (Nb-(NNH Naming Letters Visual Memory--Primary Measures P099”??? é of Words H°D‘OQ Had: an 0" Identifying Letters Named Hearing Sounds in Words--Primary Identification of Consonant Sounds in the Medial Position Identification of Root Words Identification of Inflectional Endings Medial Vowel Letter Substitution Sound—Symbol Association: Sound-Symbol Association: Sound-Symbol Association: Sound—Symbol Association: Sound-Symbol Association: Vowels Consonants Consonant Blends Consonant Digraphs Phonograms Parental Questionnaire--to be administered to a parent 102 Name: 103 Durkin's Initial Screening Measure Date: said mother red want can help get the look From: to for it father is stop and come make down big in here work little funny play me The ball is red. Come and look. Come and see the ball. It is not big. It is little and red. Mother said it is for me. Dolores Durkin, Children Who Read Early (New York: College Press, 1966), p. 151. jump house blue we away ball you see go 1101'. Teachers the if it its so no know in to into do not don't old cold see saw was carry funny little yellow all call come came ride red ran run has had is his he be me we she too two you your put out am an as at my by yes away around Dolch Words I under go of one eat and uP who on her but get big are over after black blue brown can did down for fly five from fast find give going good green help here have him jump like look may make play said some stop soon ten that this three with will what went please sleep start show shall thank think these there then those them their they try why when which where white any ask ate again about always before because both buy bring better best been could cut clean drink draw does done eight every far full fall first four found got goes gave grow hot how hold 105 Dolch Words 11 hurt just keep kind let long laugh live light made many much must myself now new never own only open or off our once pretty pull pick right round read sit six say seven sing small tell today take together us use upon very warm wash want walk well were work would write wish Name: 106 Identification of Consonant Sounds in the Medial Position of Words Read the directions 1. 10. 11. Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle the word bad the word hidden the word sniff the word begged the word magic the word can the word landing the word milk the word mailman the word petting the word car Date: orally to the child fbr each item. that has the /b/ sound that that that that that that that that that that has has has has has has has has has has table /d/ sound bad the the /f/ sound far the /g/ sound good the /j/ sound bridge the /k/ sound backyard /1/ sound willow the the /m/ sound Jim the /n/ sound sunny the /p/ sound tap the /r/ sound staring in in in in in in in in in in in the the the the the the the the the the the middle of the stab middle of the dog middle of the lift middle of the bag middle of the jar middle of the lake middle of the ball middle of the swimmer middle of the no middle of the stopper middle of the running word. word. word. word. word. word. word. word. word. word. word. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle the word fancy the word fat the word stove the word water the word boxing the word ZOO that that that that that that has has has has has has 107 Name: the /5/ sound Sunday the /t/ sound ten the /v/ sound COVBT the /w/ sound COW the /x/ sound desk the /z/ sound fuzzy in in in in in in the the the the the the middle of the cans middle of the battle middle of the vote middle of the tower middle of the kiss middle of the snooze word. word. word. word. word. word. 108 Identification of Root Words Name: Date: Read the directions orally to each child. Directions: Circle the root of the following words: 1. cups 11. balls 2. wishes 12. Dad's 3. wanted 13. wanting 4. cats 14. swimming 5. running 15. dresses 6. Bill's 16. fished 7. dishes 17. Sue's 8. dogs 18. jumped 9. traded 19. playing 10. churches 20. John's 109 Identification of Inflectional Endings Name: Date: Read the directions orally to each child. Directions: Circle the ending added to each root word. 1. cups 11. balls 2. wishes 12. Dad's 3. wanted 13. wanting 4. cats 14. swimming 5. running 15. dresses 6. Bill's l6. fished 7. dishes 17. Sue's 8. dogs 18. jumped 9. traded 19. playing 10. churches 20. John's 110 Medial Vowel Letter Substitution Name: Date: Read the directions for each item orally to the child. The directions for the subsequent items are the same. 1. Look at the first word in #1. It is "bad." Take away the a_and put an g_in its place. This makes a new word. Circle the new word. bad: bed bid bead (8-9) 2. pet: pot pat put (e-a) 3. hot: hit hate hut (O-i) 4. put: pit pout pot (u-O) 5. bid: bed bud bad (i-U) 6. pan: pin pen pane (8-6) 7. bed: bad bud bid (8-3) 8. hit: hut hot hat (i-U) 9. cup: cap cop cape (u-O) 10. son: sun sin soon (o-i) 111 Sound-Symbol Association: Vowels Name: Date: Read directions orally to each child. Directions: The following words are nonsense words. Pronounce the vowel sound in each of these words. 1. rad 2. fude 3. moge 4. des S. bip 6. mibe 7. gof 8. deme 9. rafe 10. gud 11. raf 12. gude l3. gofe l4. dem 15. mib l6. bipe l7. mog 18. dese 19. rade 20. fud 112 Sound-Symbol Association: Consonants Name: Date: Read the directions orally to each child. Directions: Pronounce the consonant sound at the beginning of each of these words: 1. bad 18. bet 2. quit 19. pin 3. pet 20. dip 4. no 21. quiet 5. mom 22. fed 6. run 23. red 7. dog 24. hen 8. say 25. sand 9. fog 26. jam 10. to 27. ten 11. hat 28. vet 12. van 29. kind l3. jar 30. law 14. we 31. win 15. keg 32. mud l6. zoo 33. nod 17. lake 34. zebra 113 Sound-Symbol Association: Consonant Blends Name: Date: Read the directions orally to the child. Part I. Pronounce the consonant sounds at the beginning of each of these words. 1. bring 14. plan 2. drag 15. bread F- 3. frog l6. flow I 4. trap 17. draw I 5. clown l8. clip 1 6. fly 19. fry 1 7. play 20. try fl 8. stone 21. sting 9. swing 22. grass 10. twig 23. smoke 11 green 24. swim 12. spy 25. spin l3. smile 26. twin Part II: Pronounce the consonant sounds at the end of each of these words. 1. milk 5. pant 2. bank 6. bark 3. dark 7. silk 4. punt 8. sink 114 Sound-Symbol Association: Consonant Digraphs Name: - Date: Read the directions orally to each child. Part I. Pronounce the consonant sound at the beginning of each of these words. 1. church 4. shut 2. shoe 5. chow 3. who 6. why Part II. Pronounce the consonant sound at the end of each of these words. 1. much 4. lock 2. sash 5. such 3. back 6. mush Name: 115 Sound-Symbol Association: Phonograms Date: Read the directions orally to each child. Part I. hi hi hi F4 o: k) H‘ c) '0 a> \l O\ U! h» 03 k) h‘ am an aY ed ee en id is in it 0P 0t OY Part II. b- 03 h) hi 8:1 chubby nutty_ loo§§_ 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Pronounce the sounds made by the underlined end of each of these words. 5 6. 7 8 Pronounce the following letter clusters: un uP ack ake ame ank ell ike ill ing oke 01158 letters at the flkm;asghayp APPENDIX C PARENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX C PARENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Subject a. Child's Name: b. Sex: Male Female c. Race: d. Birthdate: e. Date(s) Tested: f. Age: g. Is this child adopted: h. Were there any unusual circumstances associated with this child's birth? Parents: a. Name: b. Address: c. Occupation: Father: Mother: d. Is either parent divorced? e. 15 there a step-parent in the family? 116 117 Siblings in the Family a. b. Number: Names and Ages: Information Concerning Reading a. When did this child start reading? Did this child receive any intentional reading instruction from either the parent(s) or sibling(s)? 1) If yes, what type of instruction did the child receive? 2) If yes, how frequently did this child receive instruction? Does the child visit the local library? 1) If yes, how frequently? Does the child have books of his/her own at home? 1) If yes, approximately how many does s/he have? Is the child interested in reading? What type of books or reading material does the child prefer? 118 Preschool Instruction: a. Did the child attend nursery school? b. Did the child attend kindergarten? c. What type of reading instruction did s/he receive in nursery school or kindergarten? Television Viewing a. Approximately how many hours does the child spend watching television each day? b. What type of programs does s/he watch? Does either parent have any concerns about this child's reading ability or achievement in future schooling? APPENDIX D INITIAL LETTER TO PARENTS AND RESEARCH CONSENT FORM W.< 119 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - 48824 DEPARTMENT or ELEMENTARY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION ' Dear Parents As a Ph.D. candidate in Reading Instruction at Michigan State University, I am conducting a research study, for my dissertation requirement, which examines the extent of acquisition of a specified set of word recognition skills by pre—first grade children who are able to demonstrate an ability to read and comprehend, at least at the primer level. Specifically, I am interested in determining the ex- 5“ tent to which these children have acquired the specified skills; secondly, in determining which of these skills are crucial components of the reading acqui- sition process; and thirdly, in determining whether the acquisition of these skills is hierarchical in nature. I feel this information will be useful in providing guidelines for the design and publication of reading instruction materials created specifically for early readers. Secondly, it could be used to determine the interrelatedness of the components of the reading acquisition process; and thirdly, it could be used to determine whether these skills are acquired by children in a hierarchical manner. -r’ The research study has been approved by the Department of Elementary and Special Education in the College of Education. This research will be conducted at the Michigan State University Reading Center (250 Erickson Hall) and at various day care centers in the Lansing area. I would like to have your permission for your child to participate in this study. Each potential subject will be given two screening measures to determine whether s/he is able to read at the primer level or higher. Each child who passes the screening measures will individually be given a variety of short tests which measure aspects of general intelligence and various word recognition and reading comprehension skills. The total amount of time required for each child is approx— imately four hours, which will be divided into several different sessions, prefer- ably into two, 2—hour sessions. Parents of participating children will be asked to verbally complete a brief questionnaire either in person or over the phone with me. The questionnaire examines aspects of the home and preschool environments which may have contrib- uted to the early reading ability of these children. All of the information collected for this study will be described anonymously and will remain confidential during the study and following the completion of the study. If you have any questionsabout this research study, please feel free to contact me at my campus office (355—1755) or at my home (351—0237). At the conclusion of this study, a summary of the test results and a general description of each child's degree of skill acquisition will be sent to his/her respective parents. This information should be useful in planning that child's future educational experiences. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely, a"; ""-'-.A( L TH}. WV Winn- Stephanie Lea Brown Clinical Reading Diagnostician - MSU Reading Center 120 RESEARCH CONSENT FORM (developed by the MSU Department of Psychology) I have freely consented to take part in a scientific study being conducted by Stephanie Lea Brown under the supervision of Dr. Byron H. Van Roekel, Professor of Education. The study has been explained to me and I understand the explanation that has been given and what my participation will involve, as well as what my child's participation will involve. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at any time without penalty. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, results of the study will be sent to me at the conclusion of the study, regardless of whether my child is still enrolled at the school or not. I understand that my participation in the study will not guarantee any beneficial results to me or my child. I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanation of the study after my participation is completed. Signed Signed Date Jn‘l“")lll.mm. h ALIE'MI if.) .1 .m‘ "I ‘2. . APPENDIX E CLOSING LETTER AND TEST RESULTS -reetfl 121 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE 0" EDUCAT'ON EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - 43824 DEPARTMENT or ELEMENTARY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION May 22. 1979 Dear Parents: I would like to thank all of you for permitting me to use your children as subjects for my dissertation. Each one came to see me with a unique sparkle and enthusiasm which made the data collection phase a very enjoyable one for me. I would like to caution all of you when interpreting your child's test results. These results were indicative of the child's performance on the day s/he was tested and could have been influenced by a variety of factors such as the weather, the child's health, his or her particular mood that day, his or her experience with taking tests, and his or her degree of ease in working with a stranger. The tests I chose to administer were deisgned to measure a variety of reading skills which are usually taught in grade one. Since I was attempting to prove that early readers may be able to read fluently without mastering all of these skills, please don't be concerned if your child did not perform as well as you expected on each test! I will attempt to give you as much information as possible in terms of a pro- portion of correct responses, percentage, classification, and percentile rank, if available. At the completion of my study, I will send you a brief summary of my findings in case this would be of interest to you. Again, thank you for all of your cooperation and assistance. Sincerely, ‘\J¢741H1.-6L "Tt.a. HLJLtf7c({\.I Stephanie Lea Brown Reading Center - 25o Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 ‘ ' ‘4' r- Name: 122 Date Tested: Screening Instruments 1. Durkin's Measure: Isolated Words: Words in Sentences: Harper 8 Row Preprimer Comprehension Test (designed for children reading at the preprimer level) Specific Measures for Dissertation 1. Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) (designed for children of 4-6 years of age) Classification Approximate Percentile Rank a. Verbal Score: b. Performance Score: c. Full Scale Score Dolch Word Lists (measures sight vocabulary typically acquired during grades 1-3) a. First Half: b. Second Half: c. Total: Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) (designed for children in mid-year-first to mid-year-second grade) a. Vocabulary Subtest: b. Word Analysis Subtest: 122 Name: 123 Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulties a. b. C. d. e. Matching Letters: Identifying Letters Named: Naming Letters: Visual Memory--Primary: Hearing Sounds in Words: My Own Measures a. Identification of Consonant Sounds in the Medial Position of Words: Identification of Root Words: Identification of Inflectional Endings: Medial Vowel Letter Substitution: Sound-Symbol Association: Vowels: Sound-Symbol Association: Consonants: Sound-Symbol Association: Consonant Blends: Sound-Symbol Association: Consonant Digraphs: Sound-Symbol Association: Phonograms: BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Basic Reading Skills Chart. Houghton Mifflin Reading Series. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Batchelor, Lucille. Word Patterns. Copyright, Lucille Batchelor, 1969. Betts, Emmett A. "Research on Reading as a Thinking Process." Journal of Educational Research 50 (1956): 1-15. Botko, Louise 6.; Heryla, JoAnn Krebs; Klassen, Verla Kroeker; Manning, John. Teacher's Edition, Dragon Wings. Basics in Reading: Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman 8 Co., 1978. Briggs, Chari, and Elkind, David. "Characteristics of Early Readers." Perceptual and Motor Skills 44 (1977): 1231-1237. Briggs, Chari, and Elkind, David. "Cognitive Development in Early Readers." Developmental Psychology 9 (1973): 279-280. Buros, Oscar K., ed. The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook. Vol. 2. Highland Park, N.J.: The Gryphon Press, 1972, pp. 689-690. The Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Highland Park, N.J.: The Gryphon Press, 1959, pp. 758-759, 30-37. Burton, William H.; Baker, Clara Belle; and Kemp, Grace K. Reading in Child Development. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1956. Calfee, Robert. "Diagnostic Evaluation of Visual, Auditory, and General Language Factors in Prereaders." Unpublished paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, Hawaii, September 1972. Carlson, Joanne Ruth (Wilson). "A Study of Selected Reading Perceptions of Kindergarten Children Who Were Early Readers." Ph.D. disser- tation, The University of Nebraska—-Lincoln, 1975. Davis, Frederick B., and Davis, Charlotte C. Davis ReadingiTest. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1962. Durkin, Dolores. "A Six Year Study of Children Who Learned to Read in School at the Age of Four." Reading_Research Quarterly 10 (1974-75): 9-61. 124 125 Children Who Read Early: Two Longitudinal Studies. New York: Teachers College Press, 1966. "The Achievement of Pre-School Readers: Two Longitudinal Studies." Reading Research Quarterly 1 (Summer 1966): 5-36. ”Children Who Read Before Grade 1: A Second Study." Elementarijchool Journal, December 1963, pp. 143-148. _________ "Children Who Learned to Read at Home." Elementary School Journal 62 (October 1961): 14-18. "Children Who Read Before Grade One." The ReadingTeacher 14 (January 1961): 163-166. "A Study of Children Who Learned to Read Prior to First Grade." California Journal of Educational Research 10 (May 1959): 109-113. Durrell, Donald D. Improving Reading Instruction. New York: World Book Co., 1956. Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1955. Early, Margaret; Cooper, Elizabeth K.; Santeusanio, Nancy; and Adell, Marion Y. Teacher's Edition for Together We Go and Reading Skills 5. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1970. Ellis, Diann Joyce Waskul. "The Cognitive Development of Early Readers." Ed.D. dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1975. Gray, Lillian. Teaching Children to Read. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1963. Gray, William S. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. 3d edition. Edited by Chester W. Harris. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1960, pp. 1086-1088. On Their Own In Reading. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1960. Harris, Albert J. How to Increase ReadingAbility. 5th edition. New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1970. Hieronymous, A. N., and Lindquist, E. F. Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1972. Hochestetler, Miriam Elaine. "A Study of Factors Related to the Reading Ability of Beginning Kindergarten Children." Ph.D. dissertation, Ball State University, 1975. 126 Huey, Edmund Burke. The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading. -—— Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1968. Jackson, Dauris. Teacher's Edition: Puppy Paws, Jumping Jamboree, No Cages, Please. Basics in Reading. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman 6 Co., 1978. Jennings, Robert E., and Prince, Dorothy E. Teacher's Edition: Calico Cgper. Basics in Reading, Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1978. King, Ethel M., and Friesen, Doris T. "Children Who Read in Kindergarten." Alberta Journal of Educational Research 18 (September 1972): 147-161. McKee, Paul. The Teaching of Reading in the Elementary School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1948. Nicholson, Alice. "Background Abilities Related to Reading Success in First Grade." Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1957. Paradis, E. E. "The Appropriateness of Visual Discrimination Exercises in Reading Readiness Materials." Journal of Educational Research 67 (February 1974): 276-278. "A Study of the Appropriateness for Selected Preschool and Kindergarten Children of Visual Discrimination Exercises in Reading Readiness Materials." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1970. Plessas, Gus P., and Oakes, Clifton R. "Prereading Experiences of Selected Early Readers." The ReadingTeacher 17 (January 1964): 241-245. Riggs, Carole. Teacher's Edition: First Readers. Basics in Reading. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman 6 Co., 1978. Ruddell, Robert B.; Adams, Phylliss J.; and Taylor, Mark. Teacher's Edition: Rides and Races and High Wires and Wigg. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1978, pp. A32-35. Teacher's Edition: Surprises and Prizes. Boston: Allyn 8 Bacon, Inc., 1978, pp. A28-33. Teacher's Edition: Upside and Down. Boston: Allyn 8 Bacon, Inc., 1978, pp. A32-33. Russell, David H. Children Learn to Read. New York: Ginn and Co., 1949. 127 Samuels, S. J. "Modes of Word Recognition." Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. Edited by Harry Singer and Robert B. Ruddell. Newark: International Reading Association, 1976, pp. 270-282. Smith, Nila Banton. "Matching Ability as a Factor in First Grade Reading." The Journal of Educational Psychology 19 (November 1928): 560-571. Spencer, Peter L. "The Nature of the Reading Process and Building Balanced Reading Programs." In Reading and the Elementary School Child: Selected Readings on Programs and Practices. Edited by Virgil M. Howes and Helen Fisher Darrow. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1968. Strang, Ruth; McCullough, Constance M.; and Traxler, Arthur E. The Improvement of Reading. 4th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967. The Improvement of Reading. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961. Sutton, Marjorie H. "Children Who Learned to Read in Kindergarten: A Longitudinal Study." Reading Teacher 22 (April 1969): 595-602, 683. "A Longitudinal Study of Children Who Attained a Degree of Reading Proficiency in Kindergarten." Ph.D. dissertation, Ball State University, 1967. . "First Grade Children Who Learned to Read in Kindergarten." The Reading Teacher 19 (December 1965): 192-196. Taylor, Joseph S. Principles and Methods of Teachigg Reading. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1913. Terman, Lewis M. The Gifted Group at Mid-Life; Thirty-Five Years' Follow-Up of the Superior Child. In Genetic Studies of Genius. Vol. 5. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1959. Thorndike, E. L. "Reading and Reasoning: A Study of Mistakes in Paragraph Reading." Journal of Educational Psychology 8 (1917): 323-332. Thorndike, Robert L. "Reading as Reasoning." Reading Research Quarterly 9 (1973-1974): 135-147. Van Roekel, Byron H. Harper and Row Preprimer Achievement Test. New York: Harper 6 Row, Publishers, Inc., 1968. 128 Venezky, Richard L. "The Prereading Skills of Israeli Kindergarteners." Technical Report No. 332. Wisconsin University, Madison, Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning. National Institute. of Education. (DHEW) Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, June 1975, 28 pp. "Prereading Skills: Theoretical Foundations and Practical Applications." Wisconsin University, Madison. Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning. National Institute of Education. (DHEW) Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, May 1975, 31 pp. Zintz, Miles V. The Reading Process. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., Publishers, 1970.