REAMNG ABEEETY AND THE EFFECTS OF
PERCEFTEJAL MODE 0N LEARNERS AND
REMEL ’89? PARKE} ASSMIA’FES WETE

ACSUS'EIC OR GRAPEIC SWELRRHY '

“m f» 9%“. am who

Mtcmw mm .wVEgsm ,-   ~_ , * : = , v .

Lois QuiCk ‘WiIEiam; , 2» f- 7 _
T970 .. _

     
   
   

 

,. Ill/Illfl/ll/ll/l/llll/l/Il/I/l/Il/Il/l/ll/ll "
V 1293 10197 7233 Dian/m Y
‘ Michigan State
University
This is to certify that the
_ thesis entitled
READING ABILITY AND THE EFFECTS OF PERCEPTUAL
MODE 0N LEARNING AND RECALL OF PAIRED ASSO- . i
CIATES WITH ACOUSTIC OR GRAPHIC SIMILARITY
presented by i\“ ‘
Lois Quick Williams
‘has been accepted towards fulfillment \
, of the requirements for
Ph.D. degree in Educational Psychology
m . ‘

Major ofessor -

Date August 10. 1970

0-7 639

 

ngo I

 

 

ABSTRACT

READING ABILITY AND THE EFFECTS OF PERCEPTUAL MODE
0N LEARNING AND RECALL OF PAIRED ASSOCIATES
WITH ACOUSTIC OR GRAPHIC SIMILARITY
By
Lois Quick Williams

The theory of intersensory integration has been applied to early
childhood development and to reading disability in later childhood.
The purpose of this study was to compare three hypotheses of perceptual
integration, the first stated in terms of presentation mode only, and
the second and third stated according to concepts of first-order input
(the presentation mode) and second-order input (the acoustic or graphic
critical features of content). One, slow readers are deficient in
the ability to integrate information presented in two modes, auditory
and visual. Two, reading ability depends primarily upon the ability
to form the grapheme-phoneme unit, 1.6., to integrate acoustic critical
features of visually presented stimuli. Three, slow readers, unlike
better readers, have difficulty integrating graphic critical features
presented auditorially and also acoustic critical features presented
visually, the mode—content combinations that represent the intersensory
combinationsacross first- and second-order input.

A sample of average or better readers and a sample of slow readers
were drawn from the male population with intelligence scores in the
90-110 range in the third- and fourth-grade classrooms of three pre-
dominantly white, middle—class schools.

The subjects learned two paired associate lists in which the

Lois Quick Williams

stimulus and response terms had acoustic or graphic similarity. In
the intersensory condition, the stimulus term of the pair was presented
"visually and the response term auditorially. A second treatment group
received the same lists presented in a strictly visual form. A third
treatment group received the same lists presented in strictly auditory
form. Visual stimuli were presented on a memory drum and auditory
-stimuli with a tape recorder. Half of each treatment group received
the graphic list first, half the acoustic list first. Following
trials to criterion, subjects were given tests for backward recall. .

It was hypothesized that the learning rate of the slow readers
is sensitive to effects of the order of list presentation while better
readers do not show this sensitivity. It was also predicted that the
slow and better readers would differ in their patterns of response to
the six mode—content combinations.

Analysis of variance of the number of trials to criterion indi-
cated that of the three contrasting theoretical positions, the hypoth-
esis predicting a slower rate of acquisition by the slow readers in
the visual-auditory condition analogous to Birch's auditoryavisual
integration test was not supported, nor was the hypothesis that the
slow'reader“ requires more trials than the better reader in both the
visual-acoustic and auditorybgraphic mode-content combinations. The
hypothesis that the visual-acoustic combination corresponding to Gibson's
grapheme-phoneme unit is the source of difficulty for the slow reader
and not the better reader was upheld.

The order in which lists were presented appeared to affect the

performance of the better readers only. Those who received the acoustic

Lois Quick Williams

list first learned it in fewer trials than the better readers who
received the graphic list first and also in fewer trials than the
slow readers of both groups. Across orders, however, the patterns
of response to the six mode-content combinations were similar for
the two reading level groups.

An interesting finding was the interaction of mode, list and
order. In the visual mode, the acoustic pairs were relatively'diffi-
cult to learn, regardless of order. In the auditory mode, the diffi-
culty of the graphic and acoustic lists appeared to depend upon the
list which was learned first; when the acoustic list was learned first,
both lists were learned in relatively few trials when compared to the
number of trials required in the condition in which the graphic list
was learned first. In the visual-auditory'mode, both lists were
learned with relatively little difficulty and list order had no effect.

The findings were discussed in terms of the manipulation of the
child's perceptual input in reading training and remediation and also

‘. perceptual integration theory.

READING ABILITY AND THE EFFECTS OF PERCEPTUAL MODE
ON LEARNING AND RECALL OF PAIRED ASSOCIATES

WITH ACOUSTIC OR GRAPHIC SIMILARITY

By

Lois Quick Williams

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Personnel Services,
and Educational Psychology

1970

GCM/

To

Pamela

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I am indebted to my committee chairman, Dr. Clessen J. Martin,
for his help and encouragement throughout the period leading to the
completion of this thesis. The advice of Dr. William A. Mehrens,

Dr. Donald E. Hamachek, and Dr. Abram M. Barch has also been very
helpful.

I want to express my thanks to Dr. Maryellen McSweeney and

also Dr. Byron Van Roekel for generously giving their time when
questions arose.

Without the help of Mr. James F. Lewis, principal of Cedar Street
Elementary School in Mason, Mr. Henry Dulmage, principal of Murphy
Elementary School in Haslett, Mr. Leo Mullen, principal of Wilkshire
Elementary School in Haslett, and Mr. Cal Rizor, principal of Laingsburg
Community Elementary School, and their respective staff, this study
could not have been written.

And for the constant support, faith and patience of my family,

Ruth, Israel, Pamela, Cathie, and Mike, I am most deeply grateful.

ii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACAChOWld gement o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Lj-St Of Tables 0 O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O

Iii-St Of Fig‘lres o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

L151: Of ApperKii-ces o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

V.

THE PROBI‘m O O O O O O 0 O O O O O

The Comparability of Tasks in Different Modes
ChOice Of Task. 0 o o o o o 0 0
Choice of Presentation Mbdes . . . . .
First- and SecondeOrder Input . . . . .
Order as an Independent Variable . . . . .
Relevance of the Problem to Reading Instruction
The Correlates of Reading Achievement . . .

HEATED WEARCH o c c c o o o o o o 0

Reading Achievement and Perceptual Abilities . .
Studies of Intersensory'Discrimination . . .

Paired Associate Studies with Mode as a Variable
Discrimination Learning and Critical Features .
P 1101: Study 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MOD 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O 0

sub jeot S 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
Task and Apparatus . . . . . . . . . .

REst 0 O O O O O O O 0 0

Trials to Criterion . .
Immediate Backward Recall
Mixed List Backward Recall
Post-experimental Quiz .

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. 1 . . . . 0

iii

Page
ii

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges of Scores of
the High and Low Reading Level Groups for the
Slosson Oral Reading Test . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Statistics Based on Raw Scores of the
High and Low Reading Level Groups, Groups Receiving
Individual or Group Test Administration, and the
Total Group for Raven's Progressive Matrices Test .

Analysis of Variance of the Number of Trials to
criterion 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 0

Mean Number of Trials to Learn Both Lists by High
and Low Reading Level Subjects in Each Order . . .

Mean Number of Trials to Learn Each List by Each
MOdalj-ty Group 0 O O O O O O O I I O O O O O O O 0

Mean Number of Trials to Learn Both Lists in Each
Order by Each Modality Group . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance of Errors on Immediate Back-
wardRecallTestS.................

Summary of Simple Correlations Betweenmall Pairs
of Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance of Errors on Mixed Lists
Backward Recall Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page

40

41

#2

47

47

48

52

54

56

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Mean Number of Trials to Learn Lists by Order 1
and Order 2 Subgroups of the High and Low Reading
level Groups 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O 45
Interactions of Mode and List in Trials to Criterion,
Immediate Backward Recall of Individual Lists, and
MixedListsBackwardRecall............. 47
Mean Number of Trials to Learn Lists by Order 1 and
Order 2 Subgroups of the Three Modality Groups . . . . #9
Mean Number of Trials to Learn First and Second
Lists Presented for Order 1 and Order 2 Groups
inEachModality....,............... 51
Mean Number of Errors on the Mixed List Backward
Recall Test for Order 1 and Order 2 Groups . . . . . . 57
Mean Number of Errors on the Mixed List Backward
Recall Test for the Three Modality Groups . . . . . . 59

A-4

A-5

LIST OF APPENDICES

Means and Standard Deviations of the Number of
Trials to Criterion for Each of the Twelve
subgroupseooooon-ootoooonto...

Means and Standard Deviations of the Number of
Errors on the Immediate Backward Recall Tests
for Each of the Twelve Subgroups . . . . . . . . .

Means and Standard Deviations of the Number of
Errors on the Mixed Lists Backward Recall Test
for Each of the Twelve Subgroups . . . . . . . . .

The Proportion of Third- and Fourth-Grade Subjects
Selecting the Number That was the Classroom's Most
Popular Response as Having Visual or Acoustic
Similarity to a Given Letter . . . . . . . . . . .
Size and Conformation of the Letters and Numbers
Making Up the Two Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

74

75

76

77

78

 

CHAPTER I - THE PROBLEM

Various forms of perceptual dysfunction are among the more fre-
quent causes given for reading retardation when children of similar
past exposure to instruction and intellectual ability are compared.

It is impossible to define the process of reading in the early stages
without the use of perceptual terms, but the role of perceptual process
and perceptual abilities in relation to reading ability is far from
clear. The results of tests of auditory and visual discrimination

and memory are often used by teachers to determine the type of remedial
program for retarded readers.

There are several fundamental approaches to the study of percep-
tion in relation to reading ability. One approach assumes that either
animbalance exists between the auditory and visual abilities or the
two perceptual functions are equally adequate or inadequate to the
demands of the reading task at a given age. If perceptual imbalance
(sometimes termed perceptual bias or perceptual dominance) is believed
to be associated with reading retardation, then this approach attempts
to identify the particular population in which the deficient process
can be described. A second approach is to assume that the imbalance
is specific to no group defined by socio-economic level, age, sex or .
other variable, and therefore must be dealt with on a completely individ-
ual basis. A third approach is to assume that if both auditory and

visual processes are inadequate in the retarded reader, a general

learning deficit would be said to exist. However, this approach has
not received experimental support. In fact, several studies have
shown that auditory and visual abilities are independent (Butenica,
1968; Rudnick and Sterritt, 1967), and also that visual input is pro—
cessed differently than auditory input (Schulz and Hopkins, 1968).

If discriminative and memory functions in both modes are believed
to be adequate, reading retardation might be accounted for by a defic-
iency in a higher-order process. Such a process has been termed inter-
sensory integration, in which input in two sensory channels must be
consolidated as a unit in order to encode the unit for memory.

Each of these basic positions has given impetus to different hyb
potheses for research and the teaching of reading. The position of the
present study is based on a derivation of a theory of perceptual integ-
ration. It is assumed that the perceptual deficit involved in reading
retardation is not related to an imbalance in perceptual functions nor
a general learning deficit, but to difficulty in the integration of
second-order perceptual input in relation to the modality in which it
is presented.

Elimination of the perceptual imbalance hypothesis was based on
the fact that although the results of studies using standardized tests
to measure the auditory and visual abilities have indicated that audi-
tory tests are better predictors of reading achievement than visually
oriented tests, experimental studies using learning tasks have not led
to the conclusion that good readers are superior in or prefer auditory
learning.

Some recent research has suggested that many tests used in studies

of perceptual problems in reading may not be related to reading ability.

In any event, the most profitable use of experimental effort is not

an attempt to show that auditory perception or visual perception is
superior for a particular group, but a search for an ordering principle
that will define the conditions causing auditory and visual perception
to be disturbed and an attempt to show how this is related to reading
retardation.

Studies of intersensory integration have been criticized for the
lack of a systematic approach to the variation of stimulus dimensions
(Pick, Pick, and Klein, 1967). The design of the present study included
both single-sensory and inter-sensory presentations to permit examination
of the counter-hypothesis of differential learning when presentation is
strictly visual or auditory. It also included variation of the dimension
of second-order input in the form of acoustic or graphic similarity
of the stimulus material.

Integration thegry. Perceptual integration in children, adults
and animals is a field of investigation with a long history. Birch

(1962), noting the difficulty of brain-damaged subjects in solving
problems intersensorially, originated a test which required the subject
to listen to a series of taps and then find the match for the tap pattern
in a series of printed dots. Birch and others have used the tap-dot
or auditoryhvisual integration (AVI) test and have found low to moderate
correlations with reading achievement in grades one through six.

"The develOpment of integrative organization between the auditory
and the visual systems appears to be essential for the acquisition of
reading, in which visually presented and therefore spatially distributed
stimulation comes to be treated as equivalent to auditorially presented

and temporally distributed stimulus patterns" (Birch and Belmont, 1965).

This statement expressing the attributes which Birch considers
to be relevant to the AVI test and early reading process, differs from
Gibson's position, a theory also subsumed by the general theory of
intersensory integration (Pick, Pick, and Klein, 1967). Birch's theory
states that the developing nervous system progressively improves with
age in the ability to achieve synthesis of input from different modali-
ties. He has argued that perceptual discrimination precedes the level
of perceptual analysis, which is followed by the stage of perceptual
synthesis or integration (Birch, 1962).

From the standpoint of differentiation theory (Gibson and Gibson,
1955), the synthesis of information from different channels of input
takes place from infancy and is not a separate stage of development.

The difference between the infant and the older child is not the increase
in the ability to synthesize perceptual input but rather the increase

in the precision of the generalizations made by the child. These
generalizations come about only as a result of new discriminations of
complex environmental stimuli.

The complexities of the spelling-to—sound correspondences in English
require the child to make many graphic and phonetic discriminations
leading to generalizations about groups of letters of increasing span,
the integrated units that Gibson calls grapheme-phoneme units (Gibson,
1963) .

Three major points along which the two integration theories differ
are the following: Birch identifies the spatial nature of visual material

and the temporal nature of auditory material as the source of difficulty

 

in the making of perceptual integrations in reading. Gibson identifies
the decoding of graphic material in terms of the phonemic patterns of
spoken language, a process of discovery of higher-order invariants,

the spelling to sound correlations as the primary source of difficultyg
(Gibson, 1962).

Second, Birch holds that the degree of sensory integration possible
increases with age, while Gibson maintains that it is the precision of
the discriminations making up the integrated units which increase with
age.

Third, matching tasks with varied modes of presentation are commonly
used to investigate the Birch theory,vdile Gibson and others investigate
the discrimination learning of the critical features in single-sensory
presentation.

Birch and Gibson have discussed the role of cognitive process in
relation to individual differences in reading progress. Birch found
that subjects who counted or labeled the tape in the AVI test were not
high scorers, but children who reported visualizing the dot pattern
before seeing it performed at a higher level (Kahn and Birch, 1968).

Gibson has suggested that the child is not a passive receptor but
must play an active role in the discovery of the grapheme-phoneme unit.
The visual stimuli that later function as units are structured partly by
feedback from response, perhaps in the form of self-stimulation such as
sounding out various phonetic combinations (Gibson, Pick, Osser and
Hammond, 1963).

Birch's approach assumes that when the auditory and visual sensory

systems receive non-redundant information which must be integrated to

perform.a task, then a difference should be found between the performance
of the good and poor reader. This assumption formed the basis of the
present investigation.

Gibson's position was interpreted to suggest that whenever an
invariant correspondence exists between graphic and phonemic critical
features and which is discoverable through self-stimulation or feedback,
the child who learns to read well will be more likely to discover this
correspondence than one who has not learned to read well.

The Comparability of Tasks in Different Medes. Studies of discrim-
ination processes in reading typically vary stimulus content along the
dimensions of graphic or acoustic features. No known study has employed
material with both attributes studied independently and reciprocally.
Past studies which compared the results of two sensory modes of presen-
tation have employed stimuli which would adapt to both auditory and
Visual presentations, and the assumption, usually unstated, has been
that the material presented in both modes and also intersensorially
yields comparable data. For example, the stimulus content in one study
was dot-and-dash patterns, printed or sounded by an electric key, The
visual form of the stimulus patterns produced very few errors, while the
auditory form was much more difficult. The two intersensory conditions,
in which the printed or the sounded stimulus pattern was the standard
to be matched with a pattern presented in the opposing mode, were of
intermediate difficulty; Had the visual and auditory presentations been
of equal difficulty, the relative difficulty of the intersensory condition

could have been assessed (Muehl and Kremenak, 1966). In other intersensory

studies, geometric forms have been presented auditorially by means of

 

their verbal labels, visually, or kinesthetically by means of three
dimensional constructions (Otto, 1961: Rudel and Tueber, 196A; Van
Mondfrans and Travers, 1965). Words, printed and spoken, have been
used as stimuli in an intersensory study by Budoff and Quinlan (1964).

For the present study, a type of stimulus material was sought that
would be adaptable to auditory, visual and visual-auditory presentations
and generalizable to the process of reading. A problem arises in that
tasks in different modes are never identical, and when the two single-
sensory tasks are of unequal difficulty, it is impossible to generalize
to different tasks presented in the same modes. It is also impossible
to make conclusions about the differences of single-sensory and inter-
sensory tasks.

The solution was the construction of two paired associate lists,
one with acoustic correspondence between each pair, the other with
graphic correspondence between each pair. The correspondences constituted
distinctive features that were analogous to the grapheme—phoneme units
of Gibson's approach. It was therefore possible to examine the effects
of two compatible mode-content conditions (visual-graphic and auditoryh
acoustic) and two conflicting mode-content conditions (visual-acoustic
and auditory-graphic). By crossing modes with content types, the result-
ant patterns of the dependent variables can be compared even if the
difficulty of one mode or one list is not equal to that of the other.

The Choice of Task. The paired associate task was chosen for the
present study because it is highly adaptable to variation of both mode
and content. Both members of the pair, the stimulus term and the response
term, can be presented in the same mode or each can be presented in a

different mode. The dimensions along which the pairs themselves can be

varied are almost unlimited, and elements of correspondence along a
particular dimension can be introduced either between stimulus and
response terms or between pairs.

Complicating the analysis of results of paired associate studies,
however, is the attribute of meaningfulness of the stimuli. Single
letters, used as stimulus terms in the present study, do not have tabled
ratings of meaningfulness. The meaningfulness of numbers, used as
the response terms in the present study, have been tabled by Battig
and Spera (1962) using adults to make the associations to the single
digits. The numbers from O to 9 rank in the upper 25% of the tabled
association values of the numbers from O to 100. If meaningfulness
were to intervene in the sensitivity of an S to the perceptually-cued
correspondence between stimulus and response terms, perceptual and
transfer effects could be masked.

An additional complication is the fact that a number of studies
have shown that a unique relationship can exist between pair terms
that is called associability, defined operationally as a value corres-
ponding to the number of natural-language mediators aroused by the
pair (Montague and Kiess, 1968).

Furthermore, Schulz and Hopkins (1968) have concluded from a number
of studies with adults as 35 that mode (auditory or visual) fails to
affect performance in paired associate tasks in which the pairs have
high meaningfulness. Mode does have an effect when durations of aural
and visual stimuli are equated and when low E material is compared in
visual and auditory presentations.

These pitfalls in the use of the paired associate task were risked

in the belief that the letter—number pairs used in the present study had

low meaningfulness in terms of the associability concept for the
child subjects.

Choice of Presentation Mode. The kinesthetic or tactual mode is
often used in studies of intersensory learning. It is also used in
studies where several types of confirmation or feedback conditions are
compared. In the present study, the objectives were to compare the
single-sensory conditions with the intersensory visual-auditory condition
and to simulate, to the extent possible, the perceptual components of
the reading process that are assumed to contribute to reading retarda-
tion. These objectives determined the choice of the visual (VV),
auditory (AA), and visual-auditory (VA) modality presentations.

First- and Second-Order Perceptual Input. The perceptual content
of the learning material must in some way correspond to the graphic
and phonetic elements found in printed words. The critical features
of content are termed second-order input, while the mode of presentation
is termed first-order input.

The distinction is made to emphasize certain properties of second-
order input. The probability that a subject will respond to second-
order input is assumed to be lower than for first-order input. In time,
second-order input becomes inseparable for the observer from first-order
input as the subject's responses match the correct response consistently.
Second-order phonetic or graphic content would be expected to be more
salient for the learner who actively explores the stimuli visually or
auditbrially; For example, the phoneme of the grapheme-phoneme unit
when the subject is reading from the printed page is initially second-
order input. The printed word is the first-order input and is responded
to when the subject is given directions to trace, to name the letters,

to copy, etc.

 

10

The problem for the present study was to show that the subject
with a low level of reading achievement is less sensitive to second-
order perceptual stimuli. The perceptual correspondences were expected
to make the associations easier to recall and were expected to be
discovered at a slower rate by the retarded reader.

The distinction between first- and second-order input would be
academic were it not for the fact that in most studies of perceptual
differences of good and poor readers, the discriminable components of
the stimuli are ordinarily obviously very different. Secondly, although
the ability to use mediation to form associations has been the subject
of many studies, the ability to use perceptual mediators-~similarities
in sound or appearance of stimulus and response terms--has not been
investigated in relation to presentation mode. Third, the distinction
is related to differentiation theory which assumes that perceptual
learning represents an increase in sensitivity to existing but initially
undetected or poorly detected features of stimuli.

Change in Relevant Critical Features: Order as an Independent
Variable. In the early stages of reading, before whole words are rec-
ognized as unique, beginning readers tend to rely on one or two letters
of the word as graphic cues to prompt recall of the word from their
reading vocabulary. The response is made to recognizable graphic
features. The successful reader does not rely on this method but also
respondsfrom his knowledge of the language and the phonetic elements
of the letters and letter combinations he has learned.

The retarded reader may have difficulty in alternating from the

search for graphic cues to the search for phonetic cues and vice versa.

Habit strength may build up differently for a particular cue. For

 

ll

example, if the recognition of first and last letters occasionally
prompts the correct response, a set to attend to graphic cues may occur,
blocking the processing of phonetic cues.

In a pilot study using auditory presentation procedures, the im-
portance of examining the effects of a reversal of the features that
are critical to a correspondence of paired associates was noted. The
order of list presentation was included as a third dependent variable
in the present study in order to test the hypothesis that poor readers
would show the detrimental effect on learning due to the change from
the acoustic list to the graphic list and vice versa. In recall of
the association, the order variable also permitted the investigation
of the presence of selective perception in the high and low reading
level (RL) groupS.

Relevance of the Problem to Reading Instruction. Basic research
into the learning process when perceptual input is varied should result
in findings that are directly pertinent to the teaching of reading.
Methods presently in use have not been based on experimental research
in intersensory learning and integration. Past studies have confounded
important effects or have failed to vary stimuli systematically (Pick,
Pick and Klein, 1967).

Some researchers in the field of intersensory learning have made
several suggestions regarding remediation. In a comparison of auditory,
visual, and auditory-visual modes, Muehl and Kremenak (1966) concluded
that auditoryhvisual integration may be a maturational perceptual process
and suggested that evidence of delayed maturation could be remedied
with a continued readiness program.

Gibson, Osser, and Pick (1963) have advocated the use of materials

in which the reading matter is tailored to maximize the probability

12

that the child will discover regularities of spelling-to-sound corres-
pondence.

Wepman (1964) and others who have taken the approach of perceptual
dominance or imbalance have advocated the teaching of reading-related
tasks in the dominant mode with additional training in the weak mode.

It is a question whether to orient remedial assistance toward the strength
or the weakness (Bateman, 1966).

The direct implications of the findings from studies by Birch and
others has been that a combination of modes is more difficult. Thus,
the teaching of discriminations in single-sensory presentations should
be substituted. Children "who are unable to learn the names of the
letters probably will not be able to learn the more complex visual-
auditory associations involving whole words. Thus a continuing readiness
program should be provided these children until they indicate sufficient
maturity to master the letter-naming task" (Muehl and Kremenak, 1966).

The emphasis placed on the developmental aspect of the ability to
integrate visual-auditory material may serve to mask the real causes of
the failure to master visual-auditory material. This is especially likely
to be true at the age level of the subjects of the present study who were

from the third and fourth grade. Much study is needed, particularly that
which defines the critical discriminable features of the second-order
perceptual stimuli which are relevant to the encoding of words and

parts of words, as well as the variation of first-order input.

The Correlates of Reading Achievement: Sex and Intelliggnce.
Because reading test scores consistently correlate with intelligence
in heterogeneous groups, it is common practice in studies in which

other variables related to reading ability are examined to control for

13

the variable of intelligence by restricting the selection of subjects
to those who scored between 90 and 110 on a standardized test of
intelligence. This was the method used in the present study. The
use of covariance technique was planned if the relationship of the
dependent variable to the intelligence measure used was appreciable.
Although many investigations of the reading process in children
of both sexes have not included a factor for sex in their analyses,
frequently only boys are used as experimental subjects. Since reading
retardation is more common among boys, it was decided to limit the

selection of subjects to boys for this study.

CHAPTER II - RELATED RESEARCH

There are a great number of studies investigating the effects of
auditory and visual presentation of materials. However, only those
studies investigating some aSpect of reading ability were reviewed
in connection with the present investigation. Other areas of research
related to the topic of this study are: selected studies of paired
associate learning, the concept of distinctive features, intersensory
learning, intersensory transfer, perceptual shifting, and visual and
acoustic similarity in relation to short term memory. Whenever possible,
these topics will be reviewed in relation to children's learning as
opposed to adult learning.

Reading Achievement and Perceptual Abilities. Several recent correla-
tional studies have contributed to the understanding of the value of
tests of perceptual abilities that are considered to be relevant to
the reading process. Uhl and Nurse (1970) administered 53 tests of
perceptual, linguistic, cognitive and achievement measures, including
a wide range of the frequently'used tests of visual and auditory
discrimination and memory, retention of meaningful sequences presented
visually and auditorially, concept knowledge, speed and accuracy of
perception, spelling, reading achievement, motor skills, intelligence,
and ability to follow directions. The 211 second-grade children tested
were from families of the upper-middle or lower socio-economic level

(SEL). Separate factor analyses produced several similar factors that

14

15

were common to both the upper-middle SEL group and the low SEL group.
The significant loadings for the upper-middle SEL group on the factor
called.Academic.Achievement were tests of spelling, reading isolated
words, and reading paragraph meaning, while the lower SEL group loadings
on the.Academic Achievement factor for that group were the same three
tests plus oral word completion, listening comprehension, rhyming,
and visual paired associates. The upper-middle SEL group produced a
unique factor called Verbal mediation, while the lower SEL group pro-
duced a unique factor called Auditory Processing. The authors cone
cluded that the children in the two groups appeared to use different
skills in two reading measures loading on Academic Achievement. The
importance of auditory processing may have been due to the fact that
the majority of the low SEL group spoke nonstandard.American English.
The fact that for the upper-middle SEL group the auditory and visual
measures were not related to reading achievement is of interest to
the present investigation, which has as an objective the comparison
of single-sensory presentations and an intersensory presentation of
paired associates.

The second study to use correlational analysis is that of Dykstra
(1966). After testing 632 first-grade children with seven auditory
discrimination subtests of standardized achievement batteries, he
found that the knowledge of letter names, intelligence, and auditory
discrimination of like and unlike beginning and ending consonants
were the best predictors of reading,spelling and language skills

assessed at the end of the second grade.

16

Second-grade good and poor readers were tested with subtests of
the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities and the Monroe'Visuali-
zation Test by Golden and Steiner (1969). They concluded that poor
readers were lacking primarily in auditory rather than visual functions.

Jensen has pointed out that even if perceptual factors were of
themselves no longer an important source of individual differences
beyond the age of seven or eight, early perceptual difficulties could
have long-term effects resulting in low reading achievement. He has
suggested that differences in auditory perception might persist at
later ages than differences in visual perception (Jensen, 1966).

Many other studies comparing the results of the use of standardized
tests have been made. Probably the results depend to some degree upon
the tests themselves rather than a general "auditory skill” or a general
"visual skill." One review of research in the field of auditory perception
has pointed out that there is no generally accepted model of auditory
perception in terms of temporality, selectivity, discrimination, etc.
(Witkin, 1969).

Denison (1969), in a comprehensive review, has discussed studies
of visual perception, auditory perception, studies comparing visual
versus auditory presentation in both learning and diagnostic testing,
studies of intersensory integration, and finally, theory and research
concerning the concept of modality preference. He concludes that an
understanding of perceptual abilities is vital to the learning of reading
and related skills. He stressed the importance of the notion of
differential perceptual strengths, suggesting that several unsuccessful
attempts to show that children, when categorized according to a preferred

perceptual mode, would respond to training in that mode, may have failed

17

due to weaknesses in the training procedures as well as in the method

of identification of the modality of preference. His point of view is
that each child has a unique pattern of learning abilities which must be
assessed with non-verbal diagnostic tests in order to identify perceptual
style in the pre-school child.

In a general discussion of auditory abilities, Evans (1969) concludes
that auditory acuity is probably not a factor in most reading disability
cases. However, difficulties in auditory'discrimination.have been shown
to be at least slightly associated with reading disability. He calls
auditory-visual integration the third auditory skill, as indicated by
the moderate correlations found between.AVI performance and reading
achievement by several researchers (Birch and Belmont, 1965; Kahn, 1965;
Muehl and Kremenak, 1966; Sterritt and Rudnick, 1966; Rudnick and Sterritt,
1967; Beery, 1967). Pointing out the need for experimental rather than
correlational research studies, Evans suggests that training in auditory
discrimination or auditoryhvisual integration might demonstrate a causal
relationship between these skills and reading achievement.

Studies of Intersensory Discrimination and Transfer. The low to
moderate correlation of auditory tests to reading achievement parallels
the results of correlational studies of intersensory functioning. Kahn
and Birch (1968) tested 350 second- through sixth-grade boys. Using
the AVI task originated by Birch in which the subject identifies visual
dot patterns which correspond to patterns of tape made by the experimenter,
they found correlations of .37 to .55 with the word knowledge and reading
comprehension subtests of the Metropolitan.Reading Achievement Battery.
However, when intelligence was held constant, the correlation between

the auditoryhvisual integration test and reading comprehension scores

 

 

18

fell from the moderate (.50) range to the low (.20) range.

Good and poor readers matched on IQ, age and sex and from 8:9

to 13:3 years of age were compared on the AVI test by Beery (1967).
Each subject received an.AV form and a VA form. Both groups made
more errors on the AV form, and both forms discriminated between the

good and poor readers.

In an attempt to discover the dimensions relevant to the correla-
tion of the AVI test and reading retardation, Blank and Bridger (1966)
used lights as temporally distributed visual stimuli instead of taps.
The results yielded a significant difference between the 13 normal and
the 13 retarded readers, whose ages ranged from 9:4 to 9:11 years.

When a paper dot standard was matched by the same subjects to one of
three test dot patterns, no difference between the two groups was found.
The investigators concluded that retarded readers are inefficient in
both intermodal and intramodal perception of stimulus equivalencies,
although only intramodal conditions were included in this particular
study. They also concluded that retarded readers have difficulty with
temporally distributed stimuli.

In a later study, Blank.weidman and Bridger (1969) studied 24
first-grade good_and poor readers matched on IQ. Again using the light
flashes instead of taps, the flashes were presented both sequentially
and simultaneously in a pattern. Subjects were required to identify the
correct printed dot pattern from a series of three as before. The temp-
oral presentations resulted in inferior performance by the retarded
readers, although they did as well as the able readers in the simultan-
eous condition. This result supported the findings of the previous study.

In a third study, Blank and Klig (1970) found that four-year—old

19

children were able to learn a crossmodal dimensional shift as readily
as an intramodal shift. They concluded that because no verbal media-
tion could have taken place, given the task conditions, imagery or

some higher-order analysis of the complex sensory input must have been
used to bring about transfer. They used stimuli for which the subjects
had no verbal labels. The dimensions of sensory input were tactual
and visual.

The three studies by Blank et al. have shown that certain dimensions
of the Birch AVI task applied to similar tasks differentiate good and
poor readers, although the crossmodal condition has been eliminated.

Other researchers have continued to demonstrate a relationship
between reading ability and the.AVI task. Sterritt and Rudnick (1966)
used a multiple regression technique with correlations of scores of
36 fourth-grade boys on each of three different tasks and reading ach-
ievement scores. The first task was administered in the manner of
Birch. The experimenter tapped out the sound stimuli while the subject
observed and then identified the printed dot pattern. In another task,
the subject heard via headphones the patterns in tones before identi-
fying the dot pattern. Subjects also saw light flashes in the AVI
patterns before matching to dot patterns. Neither the scores from
experimenter-produced taps nor light flash patterns made significant
contribution to reading score variance independently of MA. Scores
from the tape-recorded tone presentation of the AVI stimuli accounted
for 23% of the reading score variance in addition to 46% accounted
for by'MA.

These investigators did a followaup study with third-grade boys

using the same procedures (Rudnick and Sterritt, 1967). Again, scores

20

from experimenter-produced taps did not predict reading score variance
independently of MA. The tape-recorded tones and the light flashes
produced scores which predicted llz and 14% of reading score variance,
indicating that the intramodal as well as the crossmodal conditions
may share a common factor in the prediction of reading achievement.

The presentation of the AVI test was altered in another way by Ford
(196?). The experimenter produced the tap pattern by striking a metal
plate under a table, hiding arm and hand movements. The correlations
of the dependent variable and reading scores were lower than those ob-
tained by Sterritt and Rudnick. The Ford sample was three times as
large as the Sterritt and Rudnick sample and consisted of 121 fourth-
grade boys from middle-class schools. When IQ was held constant, the
correlations with scores from subtests of the Gates-McKillop and the
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills dropped to the point of nonsignificance at
the .05 level.

Another study designed to determine the relationship of reading
ability to AVI performance was that of Muehl and Kremenak (1966). They
administered a matching task to 108 first-grade children at the beginning
of the school year. The VV condition required subjects to say if a
printed dot-and-dash pattern was the same or different from a similar
pattern. The AA condition required subjects to listen to an electrically
sounded dot-and-dash pattern and then say if a similar signal pattern was
the same or different. The crossmodal tasks used the same stimuli. The
VV task produced the fewest errors, the AA the most, and the VA and AV
tasks were of intermediate difficulty. The correlations of the two
crossmodal tasks and reading scores were moderate and significant, while

the two intramodal tasks produced low or insignificant correlations with

21

reading ability. When the matching tasks were included in a discrim-
inant function analysis with reading readiness tests, the letter-naming
subtest of theIHarrisonpStroud test made a large contribution to the
prediction of reading performance, but none of the matching tasks,
crossmodal or intramodal, made a significant contribution.

The study by Rudel and Tueber (1964) comparing crossmodal and
intramodal transfer of shape discrimination by children from.three to
six years also found that the VV task was the easiest, the strictly
tactual task the most difficult, and the crossmodal visual-tactual
task of intermediate difficulty. Their conclusion can be applied to
many of the studies in crossmodal and intramodal matching in which a
comparison is made between the two. "The problem of perceptual equiva-
lence across modalities does not seem to beutoo different from the
problem of equivalence within a particular modality. The subject will
utilize information from within a channel or from several channels in
such a way that invariant properties are extracted." They suggest that
a task comparing textures rather than shapes both visually and tactually
might have resulted in the opposite order of difficulty, but ”the fact
remains that the crossmodal tasks were not more difficult than the
intramodal task.”

The studies reviewed above lead to the conclusion that crossmodal
tasks such as the AVI test appear to contribute little when other tests
of ability are used in the prediction of reading achievement. The mod-
erate to low correlations with reading achievement scores were in some
cases in the same range as those for intramodal tasks and reading scores.
The dependence of reading ability on intersensory integration as defined

by Birch is in turn dependent upon many other factors. Because subjects

22

must compare a temporal pattern of consecutive signals, one of these
factors is temporality, but the relative importance of this factor
to reading ability is unknown.

Paired Associate Studies ianhich Mbde Is a Variable. Otto (1961)
noted that several researchers had found that paired associate learning
was directly related to reading ability; He used the anticipation
method to compare the effects of three conditions of presentation of
the response term: auditory, auditory plus visual, and auditory
plus visual plus tactual.

In all conditions, the stimulus figure (a common geometric form)
was presented and the subject responded with its verbal equivalent.
Then the stimulus figure was shown again visually and the response
term, a trigram, was pronounced by the experimenter, constituting
the auditory condition. In the auditoryavisual condition, the pro-
cedure was.identical plus the presentation of a printed form of the
trigram, In the auditoryhvisual-tactual condition, auditory and
visual forms of the trigram plus a form to be traced by the subject
were presented.

When the second-, fourth-, and sixth-grade subjects were compared,
it was found that there was a negative relationship between grade
level and number of trials, but the interaction of mode and reading
level was not significant. Across groups, the auditory confirmation
condition required the greatest number of trials to criterion and the
auditorybvisual-tactual condition required the least number of trials.
Good, average and poor readers, in that order, required increasingly more
trials to master the list of paired associates. Of interest to the pres-

ent study was the finding that the number of re-learning trials required

23

by good, average and poor readers was not significantly different,
leading to the conclusion that once they have mastered a list of paired
associates, poor readers will retain them as well as good readers.

Van Mbndfrans and Travers (1965) compared nine combinations of
visual or auditory stimulus and response terms in a paired associate
design with adult subjects. The stimuli were familiar geometric forms
or, in the auditory presentation, the names of the forms. The response
terms were three-letter verbs. The design included two simultaneous
presentation conditions differing only in length of exposure of the
visual stimuli, and one sequential presentation condition. In the
AVqAV simultaneous presentation, for instance, the subject at the same
moment heard a man's voice say "square," a woman's voice say ”was,”
saw a square figure, and saw the word ”was." In the.AV~AV sequential
condition, the stimulus word.“square" was heard, the square form was
seen, followed by the sound and sight of the word ”was.” The investi-
gators found that there were no differences between single-channel
presentation and multiple-channel presentation. They also found that
the simultaneous conditions produced more correct responses than the
sequential condition. In an effort to account for this effect, they
noted that in the sequential condition, each response item except the
last was contiguous to both its stimulus term and to the succeeding
stimulus term of the next pair.

The study by Budoff and Quinlan (1964) is relevant for its use
of the paired associate technique in aural and visual formats and its
comparison of average and poor readers at the second-grade level.
Aural learning of the word pairs was more rapid than visual learning

for both groups, an effect attributed to the use of meaningful words

24

as stimuli. The Reading Level X Mode interaction in this study was
also not significant, although it tended toward significance at the
.05 level.

In a paired associate study with subjects from.grades one to three,
Giebink and Goodsell (1968) found that good readers required fewer
trials than poor readers to learn an association between a visually
presented form or figure and an orally presented four-letter verb.
Presentation was sequential and mode was not included as a variable.

The investigators suggested that paired associate tasks pg; s9 might
be predictors of reading readiness, although this conclusion may not
have been justified since type of task was not a variable.

Discrimination Learning and Critical Features. In the work of
Gibson and her associates, discrimination tasks have been typically
presented in the visual mode. In one study, trigrams were exposed
tachistoscopically, and the first- and third-grade subjects reported
the letters seen. The pronounceable trigrams were read more accurately
than the unpronounceable trigrams. Gibson concluded that children in the
early stages of reading have already generalized certain consistent
predictions of grapheme-phoneme correspondence (Gibson, Osser and Pick,
1963).

In a second study, pronounciability and meaningfulness were compared
since both variables could have contributed to the results of the first
study, The adult subjects were Shown trigrams that were rated low on
pronounciability and meaning, pronounceable trigrams, or meaningful
trigrams of low pronounciability. Both variables were found to facilitate
reading and recall. Pronounciability was more effective for structuring

units in tachistoscopic recognition, and meaningfulness was better for
retention. (Gibson, Schiff, BishOp and Smith, 1964),

25

The distinctive features of letters were studied by Gibson, Gibson,
Pick and Osser (1962). Novel letter-like forms were generated from
rules which describe the graphic construction of capital letters, and
12 of these forms were chosen to be standards. Subjects of four through
eight years of age matched a standard form to a form.in a list contain-
ing the standard plus transformations of it which had been generated
according to rules of line-to-curve, orientation, perspective, and
topology. The results were interpreted in terms of the distinctive
features concept. It was found that over the course of development,
discrimination learning progresses steadily from already formed dis-
criminations of distinctive features, but proceeds slowly, if at all,
for those features of graphemes which are not critical.

Trieschmann (1968), using the same forms, found that second- and
third-grade retarded readers made more perceptual errors than good
readers in the matching task. It should be noted that the control
for intelligence in this study was minimal.

In a study using the Gibsons' visual discrimination stimuli (1955)
in a matching task, Whipple and Kodman (1969) found that good readers
learned the discriminations in fewer trials than retarded readers.

In this study, the'WISC 10's of the subjects were from 90 to 115.

The finding that children respond consistently to certain discrim-
inable graphic features and the fact that the ability to do this appears
to be related to reading ability is of importance to the present study,
in which both graphic and acoustic similarities of letters and numbers
were critical features.

Wickelgren has studied adult short-term memory (STM) in terms of

the phonemic distinctive features causing intrusion errors. He concluded

26

that a letter or a digit is not encoded as a single element but as a

set of internal representatives for the item. When the full set is

not encoded in STM, the intrusion of another letter or digit with simi-
lar distinctive features results. He has identified four classes of
phonemic distinctive features: voicing, nasality, openness, and place.
These classes reliably predict intrusion errors in adult subjects and are
characteristic of STM in both recall and recognition memory (Wickelgren,
1966a, 1966b).

A Paired Associate Study Comparing VisualI Acoustic! and Semantic

 

Similarity. Gumenik prepared lists of four-letter words in which the
stimulus terms of a list were either homonyms, visually similar words,
synonyms, or entirely dissimilar control words. Response terms were
two-digit numbers. All pairs were presented to adult subjectsvisually
once before recall. More errors were made by the subjects in the acous-
tic similarity condition than were made by the subjects in the other
three conditions. No visual or semantic effects were found. The authors
noted that the visual similarity had also not been found in a previous
study using auditory presentation. The findings were therefore consis-
tent with the auditory trace hypothesis of STM, i.e. both visual and
auditory inputs are stored in auditory form in STM.

The Effect of Shifting to a New Mode of Input. No research was
found which related to a shift in second-order input, but a study describing
the effect of a modality switch was made by Katz and Deutsch (1963).
When a change was made from auditory stimuli to visual stimuli, the
subjects were required to press a switch. When the change was in tone
or color, the subjects responded in the same way. The results indicated

that all subjects were slower to respond to a change of mode than to

 

27

an intramodal change in tone or color. The retarded readers responded
more slowly to a change of mode than did the better readers.

Pilot Study

 

A preliminary study was carried out using children from three
third- and fourth-grade classes in a semi-rural, suburban area very
similar to the areas of the schools from which the eXperimental subjects
were selected. The objectives of the pilot work were as follows:

1. To determine the choice of instruments to measure reading
ability and intelligence

2. To construct lists with graphic and acoustic cues salient
to children

3. To standardize task procedure

4. To estimate task variance

The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Survey D, Primary CS and
Primary C were administered to two third-grade classes and one fourth-
grade class. Children selected by their teachers as good and poor
readers of average intelligence were tested individually using the
Slosson Oral Reading Test (SORT). It was found that the scores of
the SORT were comparable to the group-administered test and would serve
to screen subjects into high and low reading level (RL) groups. It was
also found that for some poorly motivated subjects, individual testing
was superior to group testing. Although the SORT does not supply scores
for reading Speed or comprehension, it appeared to be a valid indicator
of the child's reading vocabulary when compared to the Gates in terms
of correlations of reading level scores. The mean reading level of
Gates scores tended to be somewhat lower than the mean reading level

of the same group tested with the SORT.

28

Slosson reports a reliability coefficient of .99 for a test-retest
interval of one week and a correlation coefficient of .96 with the Gray
Standardized Oral Reading Paragraphs.

Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices and the vocabulary subtests of
the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) and the Stanford-
Binet Intelligence Scale were administered to individual subjects from
the third and fourth grades for comparative purposes. Insufficient
variability, partly due to the fact that some of the test words, e.g.
"fable," had been the topic of in-class projects, led to the abandonment
of vocabulary testing as an estimate of intellectual ability. The choice
of Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices, Forms A, Ab and B was made
over other tests for the following reasons: it is language-free in
that all test stimuli are in the form of geometric patterned figures;
instructions are minimal and the administration time is short; it is
not subject to bias due to auditory receptivity; while all test stimuli
are visual, it is not a test of visual acuity; it can be adapted for
group administration, reducing the time spent in individual sessions.

Birkemeyer (1965) has reported coefficients of .74 for Negro sub-
jects and .70 for white subjects when the Progressive Matrices Test was
correlated with the performance scale of the WISC. Correlations with
the full scale and the verbal scale were, respectively, .62 and .40
for Negro and .50 and .22 for white subjects.

The Formation of the Acoustic and Graphic Lists. The feasibility
of the use of numbers and letters in acoustically and graphically similar
pairs was assessed from the responses of 46 children from third-and
fourth—grade classrooms. Each child was given a sheet of paper with

the numbers from two to nine printed at the top and the letters B, C,

 

29

G, F, H, J, K, M, N, Q, R, S, and Z in each of two columns at the left
margin and down the center of the page. The center column was in reverse
order. The subjects were asked to write the number that looked like each
of the letters appearing at the left side of the sheet. When this had
been done, they were asked to write the number that sounded like each

of the letters in the center column. They were instructed to leave a
blank if no number locked or sounded like a given letter, and to use

a number more than once if they wished.

The results of this procedure were summarized by finding the pro-

portions of children in each classroom who had selected a number that

3

was the most popular choice of children in that classroom. This summary
is presented in Table A-4 of the appendix.

Dominant choices for all letters were the same from the children
at the two grade levels with two exceptions: "Z" was most often
attributed the sound of "3” by third-grade children, but the sound
of "6" by fourth-grade children. The letter "B" was most often attrib- ‘
uted the look of "3" by the third-grade children, but the look of “8"
by fourth-grade children.

From the 22 different pairs formed by a minimum of 45% of the
children in one or both classrooms, 11 pairs were eliminated if the
same pair occurred as a dominant choice in both categories of simil-
arity (for example, B-3), or if the letter of the pair was also paired
with a different number chosen by a larger proportion of children.
Although X was paired with 6 by a smaller proportion of children than
was 3, it was included in the acoustic list in order to avoid loading

the list with numbers which when spelled out began with the letter of the

30

pair, To balance the length of the lists, it was necessary to add
“T-l" to the graphic list. The number "one” and "T" had not been in-
cluded in the selection procedure as it was originally thought that
the letter "L" might be read instead of the number ”one." In the pilot
work and in the experiment this did not prove to be a problem.
The pairs selected for the acoustic list were: F-5, K-8, N-9,
X—6, C-3, and Q-2. The pairs in the graphic list were: M93, G-6, H-4,
T-l, 3-8, and 2-7. Capital letters were used; "M" had a rounded outline.
When the acoustic and graphic lists were formed, it was felt that
such pairs had several advantages. First, they are highly available
responses for normal children in the age range studied. Second, single-
digit numbers (except 9 and 5) have dissimilar vowalsounds and are
not likely to cause errors due to lack of auditory acuity. Third,
letters and numbers belong to well-differentiated symbol systems that
might be assumed to be cognitively independent. This independence
would tend to reduce the familiarization period in which stimulus members
are differentiated from response members in the paired associate task.
Fourth, no source of bias is introduced tending to favor the high RL
subjects, a probable result when words or word-like stimuli are used.
Sixteen children from four third- and fourth-grade classrooms
who fulfilled two criteria were selected: one, average intelligence
and two, reading ability that was either at grade level or above or
at least one year below grade level. The two lists were administered
by means of tape recordings or cards bearing printed stimuli. Several
methods of presentation of the visual and auditory stimuli were explored.
The resultant data indicated that the stimulus lists required from three

to approximately 15 repetitions of the six-item lists to reach the

 

31

criterion of one perfectly correct repetition, an acceptable range of
variation in the pilot subjects. The number of items in the tests of
recall was increased to provide sufficient variation in scores.
hypotheses

The hypotheses of the present study follow from the implications
of the theories and the related research discussed earlier and from
the pilot work. Birch's theory of intersensory integration deficit
as it contributes to reading retardation was tested by the comparison
of good and poor readers, each receiving the stimulus term of a pair
in the visual mode and the response term in the auditory mode. Integra-
tion in this paradigm was assumed to be the same as the learning of
an association. To test this theory, it was hypothesized that in the
visual-auditory (VA) group, high RL subjects learn acoustically'and
graphically similar pairs in fewer trials than low RL subjects.

Although Gibson says nothing specifically directed toward the
relative difficulties of the good or retarded reader, it seemed reas—
onable to assume that the mastery of the grapheme-phoneme relationship
is a legitimate ability variable. Gibson has developed a theory of
how graphemes and phonemes are integrated and this can be tested as it
applies to good and poor readers by defining the grapheme-phoneme unit
as a seen or visualized group of symbols with a phonetic attribute not
identical to the phonetic attributes of the symbols taken separately.
For this study, the unit equivalent to the grapheme-phoneme unit was
the letter-number pair with similar phonetic elements.

It is assumed that there is a basic similarity between the process
of word recognition and discovery of the distinctive acoustic or graphic

features of the letter-number pairs in this study. The model for both

32

requires a set of prior discriminations. In the case of word recog-
nition, the letters of the alphabet have been discriminated and their
phonetic equivalents learned as included in the spoken vocabulary.

In the case of the letter-number pair the symbols have previously

been differentiated and have labels. In both cases the child's knowl-
edge of language sounds and vocabulary are a prerequisite. In learning
the pair, he matches the elements of the letter and number which coin-
cide; in word recognition, he finds one combination of several possible
combinations of sounds to match a word in his speaking vocabulary.

The rationale for the second and third hypotheses was based on
this model. The visual-acoustic combination of first- and second-order
input, the equivalent of the grapheme-phoneme unit,is the mirror-image
of the auditory-graphic combination. Both are assumed to represent
the same underlying ability factor. It was hypothesized that high RL
subjects receiving visual (VV) presentation require fewer trials to
learn pairs with acoustic similarity than low RL subjects, and that
the same effect holds when subjects in the auditory (AA) mode learn
a list with graphic similarity.

The greater saliency of the similarities in the compatible mode-
content conditions, VV-graphic and AA-acoustic, let to the prediction
of an interaction of mode and content. It was hypothesized that differ-
ent patterns of response by high and low RL subjects also result in
the interaction of reading level, mode and content. It was reasoned
that if the.AA-acoustic and VV-graphic combinations Ck) not differentiate
high and low RL subjects while the AA-graphic and VVeacoustic combinations
differentiate the two groups, a different pattern of response results

in a triple interaction.

33

As a result of the decision to use acoustic items and graphic
items in two separate lists as repeated measures, an order factor was
included in the design. It was observed during pilot work that the
effect of list presentation was not the same for the two orders. The
last three hypotheses dealt with this variable. It was hypothesized
that the learning rate of low RL subjects is affected by the order of
list presentation, while high RL subjects adapt to a shift in critical
features.

The hypotheses are summarized below. .All are stated in terms of
trials to criterion. By testing the subjects for backward recall (the
recall of the stimulus term when presented with the response term alone)

it was planned to apply the same hypotheses to that dependent variable.

1. 'When stimulus terms are presented visually and response
terms are presented auditorially, the high RL subjects
learn paired associates with acoustic or graphic similarity
in fewer trials than low RL subjects. (VAHigH<:VALow)

2. An interaction exists between mode of presentation and
type of list similarity. (VAc>VGr3 A31. >AAc)

3. An interaction exists between RL, mode, and type of list.
(How; VGrLow’VAcriigh' Veruigh‘ AACLow" AGrLow> AACHigh'AGrHigh'

VA - VA VA - VA
Ac’Low Grlow> AcHigh G’High)

4. ‘When presentation is strictly auditory, high RL subjects
learn paired associates with graphic similarities in fewer
trials than low RL subjects. (MGrHigh< AAGrLow)

5. When presentation is strictly visual, high RL subjects
learn paired associates with acoustic similari,ies in fewer
trials than lower RL subjects. WVACHigh‘ WACLow)

6. An interaction exists between.RL and order of presentation.

7. ‘When a list of acoustically similar pairs is learned first
(Order 1), lOW'RL subjects do not learn at the same rate as when
it is presented after learning a list with graphically similar
pairs (Cnéder 2), while the performance of high RL subjects is

34

unaffected by the order in which the lists are learned.
(OlAcLow 7‘ OZACLow’ OlAcHigh «= OZACHigh)

8. When a list of graphically similar pairs is learned
first, low RL subjects do not learn at the same rate as
when the list is presented after learning a list with
acoustically similar pairs, while the performance of
high RL subjects is unaffected by the order in which the

lists are learned. (01GrLow # OzGrLow; OlGr

High = OZGI'High)

CHAPTEfijfll-{METHOD

Sub jects

The subjects were 72 males, chosen from third- and fourth-grade
classes in three schools in towns in semi-rural suburban areas near
East Lansing. All schools were characterized as drawing pupils from
white, lower-middle to upper-middle socio-economic backgrounds.

Intelligence

 

Subjects who had scored between 90 and 110 on one of three stan-
dardized group tests of intelligence or had been retested with the
WISC or the Stanford-Binet and found to score within this range were
selected. After this preliminary selection, the experimenter admini- I
stered the Raven Coloured Progressive Matrices Test, Forms A, Ab and B
to all subjects. Slides were made from the test booklet and projected
on a screen by a Kodak Carousel projector. The subjects were tested
in groups of approximately 12. In all, 48 subjects were tested in
group sessions prior to the experimental sessions and 24 subjects were
tested individually immediately following the experimental procedure.

Reading Level

 

'With the help of the classroom teacher and the remedial reading
specialist, subjects were selected who were reading at a level at least
one year below the level of the rest of his class. Since scores from
standardized reading tests had been obtained for most subjects six or
more months prior to the time of experimentation, it was necessary to

administer the Slosson Oral Reading Test to each subject immediately

35

36

following the experimental procedure in order to obtain an estimate
of reading level. At the time of testing, subjects were in the eighth
and ninth months of the school year.

From each classroom which contributed one or more retarded readers,
an equivalent number of subjects who met the criteria of average or
better reading ability plus intellectual ability in the 90-110 range
were selected.

The subjects were assigned to groups randomly on arrival at the
experimental setting. The experimenter was unaware of the reading level
of the individual subjects when they arrived for the experimental sessions,
since the reading test followed the experimental procedure. However,
after all six subjects in the high or low RL group of the six experi-
mental conditions had been tested, it was no longer possible to avoid
prior knowledge of the reading level of the subject being tested.

‘Tgpk

.LiéEE- The paired associate lists employed evolved from prior
investigation of the choices of third- and fourth-grade children who
had been asked to select numbers which either looked like or sounded
like single-digit numbers. The acoustic list (letters and numbers
with similar acoustic features) contained the pairs Xr6, K-8, N-9,

Q-2, C-3, and F-5. The graphic list (letters and numbers with similar
attributes of conformation) contained the pairs H-4, T-l, 3-8, G-6,
Z-7, and M—3.

Appgratus. The pairs were presented on a Lafayette memory drum
for the VV presentation, a Norelco 150 cassette tape recorder for the
AA presentation, and both devices in the VA presentation. The memory

drum was activated by a hand-held switch and the tape recorder was

3?

controlled by a foot pedal. In the VA condition, the memory drum.was
activated by the experimenter when a recorded signal was heard. The
visual presentation of the stimulus letters in the VA mode was closely
synchronized with the auditory presentation of the response numbers.
Pronunciation of the stimuli on tape was done by the experimenter.
In the VV presentation, letters and numbers were printed in black ink
on a white background with the use of a lettering guide and were %”
high, exposed by openings in the memory drum 4” apart. In the'VA
condition, the subjects saw the same letters but the numbers were hidden.
To prevent serial learning, the six items of each list were pre-
sented in scrambled orders. A sequence of eight randomly ordered versions
of each list was repeated once if necessary, to a maximum of 16 repetitions
of the list. One complete cycle of the six pairs constituted a repetition.
Presentation trials. All subjects received the same tape-recorded
instructions, as follows: "Today you are going to learn a sort of code.
One way to write words in.code is to give every letter in the words a
number. Then you can send jhst the numbers to someone who knows the
code and he could put the right letters with the numbers to read your
message. Today you are going to learn numbers for just a few letters
in the alphabet to see if you get the idea of coding. You will hear/
see a letter and at the same time you will hear/see the number that
is the code number for that letter. Listen/watch for the number that
goes with the letter, and try to remember the letters and numbers that
go together.”
In the VV presentation, the subject saw a letter-number pair exposed
simultaneously in separate openings of the memory drum for 2 seconds

followed by a 2-second interval when the slide openings were closed.

38

The AA group heard the letter at the onset of the 2-second period and
heard the number immediately following the letter. The sequential
presentation of the letter-number pair occurred within a l-second in-
terval. The VA subjects saw the letter in the slide Opening and simul-
taneously heard the number. The letter remained exposed for 2 seconds
as in the VV presentation. The presentation list was shown once.

Acquisition. The anticipation trials were preceded by the follow-
ing instructions: "That was the list of letters and numbers you will
learn new. This is how you will learn them: you will hear/see each
letter again. As soon as you hear/see the letter, say the number that
you think goes with it. Then you will hear/see the letter again and
you will hear/see the number that goes with it to tell you if you were
right. When you hear/see a letter you can't remember the number for,
say 'Blank.’ Ready?" The presentation of each pair began with the
2-second exposure of the stimulus letter for the VV and VA conditions
or the sound of the stimulus letter via the tape recorder for the AA
condition. A 2-second interval followed, and the subject's response
was recorded by the experimenter if it occurred before the presentation
of the 3-H pair. A 2-second intermpair interval was used. Thus, a
total of 8 seconds was required for complete presentation of each S-R
pair.

If the subject did not respond to at least one of the stimuli in
the first six anticipation trials, the instructions were briefly repeated.
Anticipation trials were continued until all six response terms for
one of the eight random arrangements of the list were correctly given,
or a maximum of 16 repeated presentations of the list had been made.
The criterion was the number of repetitions of the list required by

the subject to respond correctly to all six items successively.

39

Backward Recall Tests. Immediately following the learning trials

 

the subject was given a test of backward recall. A 5" x 6“ card with
the numbers of the pairs printed %” high in black ink, was given to
the subject with the instructions to say the letters that went with
those numbers in the order given. Recall was untimed, but if the sub-
ject did not respond to a number before 10 seconds had passed, the
experimenter said, "Next one.“ Incorrect responses and omissions were
counted as errors.

Mixed List Backward Recall Test. Following the backward recall
of the second list, the subjectrwas given a card containing the response
term numbers from both lists, distributed in the same way as in the
backward reCall test for the separate lists. Each number occurred
three times, but because three response terms were common to both lists,
there were only 27 test items, nine from the acoustic list, nine from
the graphic list, and nine common to both lists. The subject was told
that the letter from either list was correct for the numbers that were
common to both lists.

The Slosson Oral Reading Test was administered after the mixed
list backward recall test, and if the subject had not been included
in the group testing session, the booklet form of the Raven CPM was
administered. Finally, in the time remaining, the subject was asked,
"How did you remember that (stimulus letter) and (response number)
went together? Did anything help you to remember (S-R pair)?” Each

subject was questioned about two pairs from each list.

CHAPTER IV - RESULTS

The results of the administration of the Slosson Oral Reading
Test yielded a difference in the means of the high and low RL groups

of approximately two and one-half years. The results are presented

in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges of Scores
of the High and Low Reading Level Groups
for the Slosson.0ral Reading Test

 

Group 75 S . D . Range

 

High Reading Level 5.53 1.00 4.20-7.50
Low Reading Level 2.95 0.40 1.70-3.50

 

In order to determine whether the analysis of covariance was appro-
priate, the dependent variables and the scores for Raven's Progressive
Matrices Test were correlated using the Pearson product-moment correla-
tion. The correlations obtained for the total sample and for the two
separate RL groups ranged from -.15 to .11, none of which were signifi-
cant at the .05 level.

The comparison of the means for the high and low RL groups showed
that they did not differ in intellectual ability as measured by Raven's
Progressive Matrices Test. These data are presented in Table 2. A

comparison of the means for the groups receiving group or individual

40

41

administration of the test showed that there was no significant differ-
ence between them. The reliability of the test as estimated by the
Kuder-Richardson #20 formula and the standard error of measurement

are also given in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Summary of Statistics Based on Raw Scores of the High and
Low Reading Level Groups, Groups Receiving Individual
or Group Test Administration, and the Total Group
on Raven's Progressive Matrices Test

 

 

 

Group ‘p i, S.D. Range K.R.#20 S'E'meas
High Reading Level 36 26.58 5.01 15-34 — —
Low Reading Level 36 26.14 3.59 18-33 - -
Group Admin. 48 26.23 4.90 15-34 .84 1.94
Individual Admin. 24 26.71 3.15 21-33 .65 1.86
Total 72 26.36 4.34 15-34 .84 1.94

 

Learning Trials
The total number of repetitions of each list needed by a subject

to reach the correct anticipation of all six items consecutively is
referred to in the following pages as "number of trials."

The means and standard deviations of the dependent variable for
each of the 12 groups of subjects are shown in Table A-1 of the appendix.

The data for the learning trials were analyzed by a fixed analysis
of variance design in which the two lists were repeated measures crossed
with the factors of reading level, mode, and order. The results of

the analysis are summarized in Table 3. This analysis yielded significant

TABLE 3

42

Analysis of Variance of the
Number of Trials to Criterion

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Reading Level (R) 150.06 1 150.06 10.12 <501
Mbde (M) 79.26 2 39.63 2.67 <3.10

R XiM 31.79 2 15.90 1.07
Order (0) 39.06 1 39.06 2.63 >310

R x O 95.06 1 95.06 6.41 <305

R x M x 0 39.04 2 19.52 1.32
85 within groups 889.58 60 14.83
Lists (L) 22.56 1 22.56 2.57 1>.1O

R x L 4.34 l 4.34

M x L 118.04 2 59.02 6.72 «<.01

R x.M x L 14.35 2 7.17

O x L 6.67 1 6.67

R x,O x L 0.56 l 0.56

M x O x L 0.68 2 0.34

R x M x O x L 18.04 2 9.02
L x 35 within groups 547.25 60 8.79

 

43

effects due to reading level, F (1,60) = 10.12, p<:.01, the Reading
Level X Order interaction, E (1, 60) = 6.41, p<.05, the Mode X Order
interaction, E (2, 60) = 3.75, p<:.05, and the Mode X List interaction,
E (2, 60) = 6.72, p<:.01. The main effects for mode, order and list
were not significant, as well as the other six interactions containing
the reading level factor and the Order X List interaction. The expected
Reading Level X Mode X List interaction did not yield an E_significant
at the .05 level.

The difference in the mean number of trials of the high and low RL
groups receiving the crossmodal VA presentation was also not significant,
thus not supporting the crossmodal deficit hypothesis.

Tests of simple effects were performed using Dunn's multiple com-
parison procedure (Kirk, 1968), in order to determine the extent to
which the remaining specific hypotheses were supported. Dunn's tech-
nique yields d values for each set of comparisons examined, dividing
the level of significance evenly among the comparisons made.

The mean number of trials to learn the acoustic list in the visual
mode was 7.17 for the high RL subjects and 11.58 for the low RL subjects,
a difference of 4.41 trials, confirming the hypothesis in the direction
predicted, d,= 3.22, p<:.05. The difference in the mean number of trials
of the high and low RL groups learning the graphic list in the AA pres-
entation was not significant. The expected effect of the two incompati-
ble combinations, VV-acoustic and AA-graphic, was not found in the
.AA-graphic combination, offering only partial support for the hypothesis
of high RL group superiority in making difficult integrations of first-

and second-order input.

44

The tests of the hypotheses concerning the interference due to
list order were performed using Dunn's technique. The results supported
the hypothesis that the effect of order of presentation was not the
same for the two groups as shown in.Figure l. The simple effects for
the two RL groups were opposite to those predicted. For the low RL
subjects, the difference in the trials to criterion on neither the
graphic list nor the acoustic list was significant, revealing no order
effect in the low RL groups. The difference in trials to criterion
on the graphic list by high RL subjects in the two orders was 3.22,
d’= 2.62, p<:.05. The high RL group learning the acoustic list first
required fewer trials.(i = 4.78) than the group learning the graphic
list first (if = 8.00). The difference in trials to criterion for high
RL subjects to learn the acoustic list in each order was not significant.

EBEEMEQE comparisons were performed using Tukey's ratio. In this
test the critical value 3 is based on the maximum number of steps in
an ordered set of means (Winer, 1962). The ratio was applied to test
meaningful pairwise comparisons where significant interactions existed.
The dependency of order on reading level was explained by the comparison
of the means of trials required to learn both lists. For high RL subjects,
Order 1 (the acoustic list first) required fewer trials than Order 2,
‘q (2, 60) = 2.93, p (~05. The Order 1 high RL subjects required fewer
trials than the Order 2 low RL subjects, 3 (2, 60) = 3.67, p‘<.01, as
indicated in Table 4.

The effect of mode was dependent upon both lists and order of lists.
When the rate of learning the two lists was compared in each of the
three modality groups, it was found that only in the VV mode was there a

significant difference between lists. The VV treatment groups needed

Mean Number of Trials

45

9.0 -
8.5 - ‘
8.0 -
7.5 _
7.0 -

6.5 .
6.0 _

   

Reading Level:

H1gh
Low ————————

5.5 ~

500 K
1 i I
Order 1 Order 2

 

Figure 1: Mean Number of Trials to Learn Both
Lists by Order 1 (Acoustic List First) and Order 2
(Graphic List First) Subgroups of the High and
Low Reading Level Groups

46

TABLE 4

Mean Number of Trials to Learn Both Lists
by High and Low BL 85 in Each Order

 

 

 

 

Reading Level Order 1 Order 2

 

 

'x' S.D. if S.D.
High Reading Level 5.28 2.37 7.94 4.38
Low Reading Level 8.94 3.99 8.36 3.44

 

more trials to learn the acoustic list and fewer to learn the graphic

list, 3 (2, 60) = 5.53, p<:.01. These data are presented in Table 5
and plotted in Figure 2.

 

 

 

 

TABLE 5
Mean Number of Trials to Learn Each List by Bach Modality
Group
Mode Acoustic List Graphic List
I S.D. I S.D.
Auditory (AA) 8.12 4.00 8.87 4.03
Visual (W) 9.37 4.44 6.04 3.20
Visual-Auditory (VA) 6.58 2.96 6.79 3.59

 

The subjects in the AA group required more trials to learn the

graphic list than subjects in the VV, but not the VA groups,

q' (3,60) = 4.04, p <305. The subjects in the VV group required more

47

.hphaa addearaedH no flasher

 

HHeoem whmsxoem pmdawfiexflz

vmfiq weed
oflsmeeo owpmeoo<

 

X
l

 

 

o.m

m.m

O
.3-

m.d

eamserm epeweeESH .msfiseeeq cw ween use oposfmo encepoenesz

SJOJJIE 3:0 .19qu URGN

 

HHeoom thmzxcem opewpesEH

rhea
eardrum

rhea
ofipmdooe

 

 

.,o.m
md
o.m
m6
0.:
m.e
o.m

 

l. , I . l . has. Bandeau:

0"IIID"|II

undone HesmH>
undone Ahopfiosq

saoaag go JeqwnN ueew

.HHmoem pnmzxomm pmfiq vexfiz

 

:ownepwno 0p waefiee

peed pmfiq
Ofigmehc cepmsooe

 

 

 

use

”N easmfim

m6

ghtuase

a} c:
ox
9191;;

48

trials to learn the acoustic list than subjects in the VA group, but
not the AA group, q' (3, 60) = 3.98.* Thus, for acoustic list learning,
performance was not significantly different for the AA and VV groups.
For graphic list learning, performance was not significantly different
for the VV and VA groups.

When the Mode X Order interaction was analyzed, it was found that
the difference due to order was not significant for the VV and VA groups,
but the AA groups learning the graphic list first required more trials
to learn the lists than the AA groups learning the acoustic list first,
'3 (2, 60) = 3.15, p<<.05. These data are presented in Table 6 and

plotted in Figure 3.

TABLE 6

Mean Number of Trials to Learn Both Lists
in Each Order by Each Mbdality Group

 

 

Mode Order 1 Order 2

 

if S.D. i S.D.

 

Auditory 6.75 3.71 10.25 3.52
Visual 7.96 4.19 7.46 3.55
Visual-auditory 6.62 2.79 6.75 3.71

 

An additional analysis of variance using the same design and depend-
ent variables but with the list factor expressed by first list or second
list rather than acoustic list or graphic list, yielded a significant

*Use of the q' symbol indicates that a pooled mean square error term
was used.

49

10.5

     

10.0
Auditory
9.5 1+
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5

7.0

Mean Number of Trials

 

 

6.5 ‘"’ 1isVisual-Auditory

 

Order 1 Order 2

Figure 3: Mean Number of Trials to Learn Lists by
Order 1 (Acoustic List First) and Order 2 (Graphic
List First) Subgroups of the Three Modality Groups

50

Mode X Order X List interaction, E (2, 60) = 6.72, p‘<.Ol. The graph
for this interaction is presented in Figure 4.
Immediate Backward Recall Tests

Although the low RL groups receiving the VA presentation made
more errors across orders and lists than were made by the high RL VA
group, the difference was not significant, again failing to support
the crossmodal deficit hypothesis. The tests of the specific hypotheses
using Dunn's procedure also failed to show a difference between high
and low RL groups in regard to the effect of order of list.

An analysis of variance, summarized in Table 7, of the same design
as that used for analysis of learning trials, was used to analyze the
data of the backward recall tests administered after each list was
learned. No main effects or interactions were significant, although
the Reading Level X Order X Mode interaction approached significance,

F (2, 60) = 2.48, p <.10. The Mode X List interaction was in general
similar to the Mode X List interaction for learning trials, as shown
by Figure 2.

Comparison of the results of this analysis with those of the learn-
ing trials showed that an increase in error variance was accompanied
by a decrease in the range of group means, resulting in the nonsignifi-
cant effects.

The high and low RL subjects, given the response terms as probes,
recalled the stimulus terms equally well. It was believed that the
procedure used in acquisition could have produced this effect, masking
a true difference in the RL groups. The subjects who learned the pairs
slowly were repeatedly exposed to the pairs they had already learned.

Thus, the slow learner had an opportunity to overlearn the pairs he

51

anwaepoz £00m :H mmsoac N nepao use H tempo not

Avenneeo ho owpmeoo<v newcomeam pmflq paooom pee pmefim_zneeq op manage mo eonssz sees. a: chewam

msoa0.maopfies¢raeumfi>

N pwfiq H 900%

 

_ _

 

...... n N nopao
H gecko
nopmfiq capmfioo¢

0 shag carnage

 

0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0H
n.0H

o.HH

 

amono Hesmw>

 

sIetJL JO JeqmnN ween

 

 

0.0
0.0
0.m
m.m
0.0
0.0
0.0
m.0
0.0a
n.0H

o.HH

SIRIJL jo JeqmnN ueew

 

mmoeoVNMOpHos<

N rhea

 

 

0.0
m.0
0.0
m.a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

O
O
H

m.0H

O.HH

steps; 30 JeqwnN ueew

52

TABLE 7

Analysis of Variance of Errors on
Immediate Backward Recall Tests

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df mean Square F p
Reading Level (R) 24.17 1 24.17 1.49
Mode (M) 40.26 2 20.13 1.24
R x M 18.01 2 9.01
Order (0) 21.01 1 21.01 1.29
R x 0 10.56 1 10.56
M X 0 10.68 2 5034
R x M x O 80.54 2 40.27 2.48 <,10
35 within groups 975.42 60 16.26
Lists (L) 0.06 l 0.06
R x L 0.06 1 0.06
M x L 47.37 2 23.69 2.45 <.10
R sz x L 10.79 2 5.40
0 X L 0.01 1 0.01
R x O x L 3.67 1 3.67
M x 0 x L 2.51 2 1.26
R xIM x 0 x L 0.93 2 0.47
L x 55 within groups 581.08 60 9.68

 

53

had mastered. while the subjects who learned the list quickly may

have seen the pairs as few as three times before being tested. It was
decided to examine the data for evidence that subjects reaching crit-
erion in more trials may'have tended to make relatively fewer errors

on the tests of backward recall. Product-moment correlations were
calculated for all possible pairs of dependent variables as shown in
Table 8. The substantial coefficients were all positive and no general
tendency'for the effect in question was evident.

Mixed List Backward Recall IQEE

The specific hypothesis regarding a crossmodal deficit was again
tested and found to be nonsignificant. The hypotheses regarding the
superiority of the high RL.AA group in recall of the graphic list and
the high RL VV group in the recall of the acoustic list showed that
these groups again did not differ from the low RL subjects.

The tests of hypotheses concerning the effect of order of pres-
entation in learning showed that order affected the recall of the graphic
list for both high and IOW’RL subjects. List order also affected the
recall of the acoustic list for low RL subjects. The difference in
the mean errors for each order for high RL subjects in recall of the
graphic list was 3.33.‘d* = 2.46, p<:.Ol. The difference in the mean
errors in each order for low RL subjects in recalling the graphic list
was 2.05.‘df = 1.93, p<:.05. The difference in the mean errors for
each order for lOW'RL subjects in recalling the acoustic list was 2.00,
51' = 1.93. g<.05.

The effect of order in the high RL group appeared to carry over

from the learning of the graphic list to the recall of the graphic

54

 

 

Ammzueev Haaoom eaasaoam
ooxflz .oowono OHQQNAOIowpmfioo<

a0. Ammsuov Haaoem 0003x000 eexaz 0000000
0N. H0.n Ammza<v Haeoom unwzxomm pexwz ofipmsoo<
00. 00. H0.- Ammuov Haeoom eamzaoam oaaaeao
mm. mm. m:. mm. Amml<v Haeoom eamzxomm oepmsoo<
mm. mm. mH.| Hm. mm. Aalov wHeflne owgmwau
m3. 0:. mm. Nd. we. mm. ABI¢V mewhe owewsoo¢

 

mm2I0< mmzlw mmzl4 mmlu mml¢ 90

 

 

ANA u 2v wefibdfiam> aceucomon mo
wawom Had cooSpom wcoflpoaoaaoo eHQEwm mo haeeszm

w mqm<s

 

55

list for the Order 2 (graphic list first) group. The greater number
of learning trials for the low RL subjects on both lists appeared to
result from the fact that there was forgetting of the first list
learned. regardless of the type of list item.

A third analysis of variance, summarized in Table 9, used the
same design as the previous analyses but contained three levels for
the lists factor. These were: items with response terms from the
acoustic list; items with response terms from the graphic list; and
items with identical response terms from both lists. The analysis
yielded significant effects due to mode, E = 3021!.3‘:-053 the Mode
x List interaction, E = .2.49, pf:.05; and the Order X List interaction,
E = 15.11, p<.01.

The relevant pggt hgg comparisons for simple effects were made
using Tukey's ratio. The recall of the Order 2 groups was better for
the acoustic list than for the graphic list, 3 (3. 120) = 7.58, p<:.01.
and the items which shared response terms from both lists. 3.(3, 120) =
4.97. p<.01.

As expected, the Order 1 (acoustic list first) groups recalled
the graphic list items with fewer errors than did the Order 2 groups.
gf (2, 60) = 6.39, p<:.01, and the Order 2 groups recalled the acoustic
items with fewer errors than did the Order 1 groups. 3' (2. 60) = 3.03,
p«<.05. The items with response terms from both lists were not recalled
differentially by the Order 1 and 2 groups. The interaction of order
and list is presented in Figure 5.

An analysis of the Mode X List interaction showed that only in
the AA groups was there a significant difference in mean errors in

items recalled from the two lists. Recall of the acoustic list was

 

Analysis of Variance of

56

TABLE 9

Errors on Mixed Backward Recall Test

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Reading Level (R) 26.04 1 26.04 2.71 >.10
Mode (M) 61.44 2 30.72 3.21 <.05

R x M 18.78 2 9.29
Order (0) 19.56 1 19.56

R x 0 13.00 1 13.00

M X 0 4.70 2 2.35

R X M x O 52.48 2 26.24 2.74 >.10
55 within groups 574.94 60 9.58
Lists (L) 24.53 2 12.26 2.59 <,1o

R x L 8.69 2 4.35
M x L 47.28 4 11.82 2.49 <.05
R x M x L 1.94 4 9.49
0 X L 143.23 2 71.62 15.11 <.01
R X 0 X L 3.95 2 1.9?3
M x O x L 3.30 4 0.82
R x M x 0 x L. 11.85 4 2.96
L x 85 within groups 569.22 120 4.74

 

Mean Number of Errors

57

Group:
Order 1 ————-——

Order 2

 

 

. 1
Acoustic Items Graphic Items Mixed Items

Figure 5: Mean Number of Errors on the Mixed List
Backward Recall Test for Order 1 and Order 2 Groups.
Items Are: Response Terms from the Acoustic List,
the Graphic List, or Items from Both Lists.

 

58

superior to recall of the graphic list by subjects in the AA group,
_q (3, 120) = 4.49, p<:.01. These data are presented in Figure 6.

When comparisons between modality groups were made, the recall
of the graphic list by the AA group was inferior to that of the VV
and the VA groups, q' (3,120) = 3.39. £‘<.05. and q' (3, 120) = 3.64.
p<.05.

Comparing the results of the three analyses for learning trials
and backward recall, it can be seen that the level of superiority found
for learning trials in the high RL group was not maintained in the
immediate backward recall tests. In the mixed backward recall test,
the high RL group was superior to the low RL group only in the recall
of items from the list that had been learned first, whether it was
acoustic or graphic.

Post-experimental Quiz

Data from the brief post-experimental quiz was summarized in order
to learn to what extent the acoustic and graphic features of the pairs
had been observed and used by the subjects as an aid to memory.

When the chi-square test of independence was applied to the answers

of the 64 subjects who had been questioned, the difference: in the replies
of the two RL groups was not significant at the .05 level. Seven sub-
jects in the low RL group and nine in the high RL group were unable

to verbalize a way in which they linked the pairs. Of the 25 high
.RL subjects and 23 low RL subjects who did verbalize an attribute which
helped them, 24 in the high RL group and 22 in the low RL group men-
tioned an acoustic or graphic similarity as an aid. Almost no attributes
of non-perceptual features were mentioned. The statements of eight

subjects indicated that they had remembered certain pairs as if the

 

N W \a) .(2‘ 4:-
I O . O
\n O U‘ 0 U!

Mean Number of Errors

N
O
O

59

List:
Acoustic A————A
Graphic 0’ ““““
\ Acoustic or Graphif)
_ .\ EL—«-—-[3

..

 

 

 

........ ”o
- if]
A
“ l I l
Auditory Visual Visual—Auditory
Mode Mode Mode

Figure 6: Mean Number of Errors on the Mixed List
Backward Recall Test for the Three Modality Groups.
Items were: Response Terms from the Acoustic List.
the Graphic List, or Both Acoustic and Graphic Lists.

 

.60

number of the pair indicated the place of the letter of the pair in
an ordered list, i.e. C was the third letter in the alphabet.

It appeared that most subjects discovered some of the acoustic
and graphic features during the learning trials. There was no evidence
from the subjects' replies to indicate that any pair except C-3 had
unforeseen features which would make it easier to retain for some

subjects.

 

CHAPTER V - DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Trials to Criterion

 

Eypothesis 1. There was no support for the prediction that the

 

association of nonpredundant stimuli. each presented in a different
mode. is learned more slowly or retained less well by retarded readers
compared to better readers. Therefore, the intersensory integration
deficit theory as stated by Birch was not supported. In contrast to
the VV and AA presentations, the VA presentation appeareito minimize
the disturbance of learning and recall patterns created by the factors
of list and list order for high and lOW'RL subjects alike.

Hypotheses 2 and 3. The presence of an interaction between mode
of presentation and the second—order input of the lists was found as
expected. but the response patterns of the high and low RL groups were
very similar. Apart from the effect of lists on the VA groups, the
VV and AA group means showed that the relative difficulty of learning
in a given modality was dependent upon the list being learned. even
though the lists were learned in approximately the same number of trials
across modes. The design of the experiment was therefore successful
in showing that children are sensitive to variation of both first- and
second-order input of the type employed.

gypotheses 4 and_5. In contrast to Birch's statement of integra-
tion deficit, the effect of mode and the critical features of each list
for each of the RL groups was hypothesized. It was shown that for the
'VV presentation of the acoustic list. high RL subjects were superior

‘to the low RL subjects, as expected. The expectation that the

61

62

incompatibility of mode and content in general would prove more detri-
mental to the learning of the low RL subjects was not supported. since
the learning rate of high and low RL subjects was not different when
presentation was auditory and the list pairs had graphic similarity.

Whatever it is that makes the formation and mastery of the grapheme-
phoneme unit easier for the high RL subject, as inferred from his high
reading achievement, also appears to operate in the learning of letter-
number pairs with acoustic critical features in the visual mode. 'When
pairs with graphic similarities are presented auditorially, the similarity
may be discoverable only through visual imagery. Because the AA-graphic
condition did not differentiate high and low RL groups, no relationship
of visual imagery to reading achievement is suggested by the data.

Across and within modality groups, performance on the graphic list
did not differentiate high and lOW’RL groups. This finding is of interest
in regard to the issue of the relative importance of graphic and acoustic
cues. The data indicate that by the time an individual is eight or
nine years of age, sensitivity to graphic cues no longer differentiate
the good and poor reader.

The data from the post-exPerimental interview indicated that subject
awareness of the critical features was greater for the graphic rather
than the acoustic pairs and that there was no difference between high
and low RL subjects in their awareness of graphic or acoustic features.

flypotheses 6,“? and 8. As predicted. reading level interacted
with order of list, but the difference between the RL groups was opposite
to the expected effect. It was hypothesized that low RL subjects would
be more sensitive to the effect of a shift in the critical features of

the pairs. Instead the high RL subjects proved to respond differentially

63
to the change. requiring more trials to learn the lists when the graphic
list was presented first. To explain the fact that the means for the
low RL group did not reveal sensitivity to order, it is possible to
assume that the low RL subjects may have adopted a strategy of simple
repetition or rote learning. Such a strategy is equally appropriate to
either list, while a strategy to look for either graphic or acoustic
features in both lists would be detrimental to the acquisition of the
second list. However, such an assumption is misleading, as inspection
of the means of Order 1 and Order 2 groups in each RL group and in each
modality group reveals. The subjects in the.AA condition receiving the

graphic list first needed more trials to learn the graphic list, regardless

 

of RL, than they needed to learn the same list in other conditions.
Moreover, the reduction or increase in the number of trials needed to
learn the second list, acoustic or graphic, was not significant for
either RL group when modes were combined. Thus there is no reason to
suspect that learning by rote was more frequent among low RL subjects.
The sensitivity of high RL subjects to order as shown by the interaction
of RL and order may reflect chiefly the tendency of the high RL subjects
in the AA condition to rely on visual imagery in the search for graphic
cues in the acoustic list after such a strategy was successful with

the first-learned, graphic list.

The Interaction of Mode with Lists and Order of Lists. Although
the three modality groups did not differ across all other factors. an
interaction with order led to the finding that the performance of the
AA groups was adversely affected by the learning of the graphic list
first rather than second. Both the VV and VA conditions were relatively

resistant to the effects of order.

64

The relationship of the VA condition to the two single-modal con-
ditions is most easily grasped in terms of the Mode x List x Order inter-
action presented in Figure 4. The resistance of the VA subjects to the
effects of interference from either list, regardless of list order, is
surprising. In the AA condition, carryover effects are apparent in
the learning of the acoustic list, but the learning of the graphic list
appears to have been slightly facilitated by the prior learning of the
acoustic list. In the VV condition, carryover effects were not observed.
Regardless of order, the acoustic list was learned slowly and the graphic
list rapidly. In the VA condition, neither list nor order appeared to
affect the acquisition of the pairs to a significant degree.

The reason for the superiority of the VA condition is difficult
to explain and is counter to the results of studies in which single-modal
and multi-modal presentation is compared (Van Mondfrans and Travers, 1965).
In the present task, procedure demanded that the subject respond vocally
with the response term. It is likely that the S-R terms were rehearsed
sub-vocally as a unit and unlikely that the response term alone entered
auditory process.

The visual stimulus term remained exposed for 2 seconds. It is
probable that during the same interval the response term was visualized
with it. Some evidence supports the hypothesis that children make use
of visual imagery in the learning of paired associates (Paivio, 1966).

In the 2—second interval between the presentation trial and the antici-
pation trial, the auditory processing may have taken place. Thus, the
VA pairs may have been processed both visually and auditorially, and it
would be expected that under these conditions the difference between lists

would be minimized.

 

65

Backward Recall

Immediate Backward Recall Tests. When tested for backward recall
immediately following one correct anticipation of all six items of a list,
the effects found in the analysis of trials to criterion were not parallel
to the backward recall effects. These effects were still present, as
found by inspection of the rank order of means for main effects in learning,
immediate backward recall, and mixed lists backward recall.

The positive correlations which were obtained between acoustic list
dependent variables and graphic list dependent variables indicated that
subjects who learned a list slowly tended to make more errors during
recall. The correlations were not high, however, and it was not surprising
to find that there was no difference between the number of errors in
the VV-acoustic condition made by the high and low RL subjects in the
backward recall items.

Mixed Lists Backward Recall. The recall of items from both lists
was strongly influenced by the list learned last. The interference
was common to both RL groups, although it was not evident in the recall
of first-learned acoustic items by the high RL subjects.

The facilitative effect of the AA-acoustic combination was present
in backward recall as it was in learning. The lack of a difference
between recall of graphic and acoustic items in the VV and VA groups
suggested that the VV presentation may have had an advantage over the
AA presentation.

A large proportion of the variance contributing to the significance
of the interaction of order and list in mixed list backward recall was
due to the tendency for the subjects in all groups to make more errors

on the items from the list learned first. There was little evidence of

 

66

selective perception, defined as a tendency to recall the items of one
list whether it was learned first or second by either RL group. Another
possible source of selective perception, defined as the choice of acoustic
or graphic stimulus terms where the probe in recall was a response term
common to both lists, showed no difference between RL groups in their
choice of stimulus terms.

The facilitative effect of the auditoryhacoustic combination was
found in backward recall and in learning. The interference effect ob-
served in the auditoryegraphic combination was also found in both recall
and learning. The VV group, however. recalled items from both lists
with about the same number of errors, a finding also true of the VA
group. In learning trials, the VV—acoustic combination required more
trials than the VV-graphic combination, leading to the conclusion that
the pairs learned visually were less subject to forgetting than the
auditorially presented pairs.

The carry-over effect when the initially difficult-to-learn AA-
graphic combination was presented and then followed by the AA-acoustic
presentation may in some way parallel the situation described by Cohen
(1967): "We know from abundant experience that once hooked on a sight
approach to reading, retarded readers are extremely difficult to move
to a phonic and structural approach to word attack."

Conclusions

In learning and recall, there was no evidence that information
presented visually and auditorially is poorly integrated by retarded
readers. The intersensory integration theory as stated by Birch was

not supported by the results of this study.

 

67

The relationship between reading ability and the results of Birch's
AVI task. in which taps are presented and the subject then finds the
corresponding dot pattern, can be accounted for if it is assumed that
successful performance in the AVI task depends upon (1) visual processing
of the auditorially presented tap pattern, or (2) transformation of
the visually presented dot patterns to auditory process before the audi-
tory stimulus trace has faded from short-term memory. The results of
the present study tend to support the latter interpretation, since with
visual presentation the high RL subject was more efficient at processing
acoustic input, but when stimuli were presented auditorially, he was no
more efficient in processing graphic input than the low RL subject.

It is concluded that if the concept of intersensory integration
has any relationship to reading ability, it is that the concept must
be interpreted in terms of first- Egg second-order input. The integration
accomplished by the individual that is crucial for reading cannot be
generalized in terms of mode of presentation alone. To do so invites
limitation of the child's perceptual environment without an understanding
of the benefits of bimodal presentation with control of critical features
of second-order input.

The grapheme-phoneme unit of Gibson's form of integration theory
fulfills the requirement that second-order input be defined. The results
of this study are in agreement with Gibson's view of the way in which
the grapheme-phoneme unit functions in beginning reading.

The second major finding was the severe effect on subsequent learning
and backward recall when auditory presentation procedures and material

with graphic critical features were combined. A marked carry-over effect

 

68

was found when the AA-graphic combination was followed by the normally
facilitative AA-acoustic combination.

The third major finding of the study was that type of list and
order of list presentation did not affect the rate of learning in the
VA condition as in the single-modal conditions. The simultaneous pres-
entation of visual and auditory stimulus and response terms appeared
to escape the interference effects found in the AA presentation as well
as the difficulty in detection of the acoustic features in the VV presenta-
tion.

The fourth finding of interest was that good and poor readers differed

in their rate of learning the pairs but did not differ in degree of reten-

 

tion.

The analysis did not provide a satisfactory explanation of the
slower rate of acquisition of the low RL subjects. Further research,
perhaps a study to investigate short term memory in good and poor readers
presented with terms with varied attributes of similarity, should be

directed toward this problem.

REFERENCES

Bateman, B. Learning disorders. Review of Educational Research, 1966,

E! 93-1190

Battig, W.F. and Spera, A.J., Rated association values of numbers from.
O-lOO. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1962. 1,
200-202.

Beery, J.W. Matching of auditory and visual stimuli by average and
retarded readers. Child Development, 1967, 28, 827-833.

Birch, H. G. DySlexia and the maturation of visual function. In Reading
Disabilit : Pro ress and Research Needs in D slexia, John Money,
Ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1962.

Birch, H. G. and Belmont, L. Auditoryevisual integration in normal and

retarded readers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1964, 34,
852-861. _

 

Birch, H. G. and Belmont, L. Auditoryevisual integration, intelligence.
and reading ability in school children. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
1965. 39. 295-305.

Birkemeyer, F. The relationship between the Coloured Progressive Matrices
and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Childrena Psychology in the
Schools, 1965. 2, 278-280.

Blank, M. and Bridger, W. H. Deficiencies in verbal labelin in retarded

readers. American Journal of Orthopsyohiatry. 1966, 3_, 840-847.

Blank, M., Weider, S., and Bridger, W. H. Verbal deficiencies in abstract
thinking in early reading retardation. American Journal of Ortho-

psyohiatry, 1968, 3§, 823-834.

Blank, M. and Klig, 3. Dimensional learning across sensory modalities

in nursery school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psyphology,
1970’ 2, 166-173.

Budoff, M. and Quinlan, D. Reading progress as related to efficiency of
visual and aural learning in the primary grades. Journal of Edu-

cational Psychology, 1964, 55, 247-252.
Butenica, N. A. Perceptual mode dominance: an approach to assessment '

of first-grade reading and spelling. Paper presented to American
Psychological Association, San Francisco, Sept. 1968. ‘

Cohen, 3. Alan. Some conclusions about teaching reading to disadvan-
taged children. Readin Teacher. 1967, 29, 433-435.

69

7O

Denison, J. W. Perceptual influences in the primary grades: an altern—

ative consideration. Journal of School Psyphology, 1969, 2, 38-46.

Dykstra. R. Summary of the second-grade phase of the Cooperative Research
Program in primary reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly,
1968, 4, 49-70.

Evans, J. R. Auditory and auditoryevisual integration skills as they
relate to reading. Reading Teacher, 1969, 22, 625-629.

Ford, M. P. Auditoryevisual and tactual-visual integration in relation
to reading ability. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1967, 24, 831-841.

Gibson, J. J. and Gibson, E. J. Perceptual learning: differentiation
or enrichment? Psyphological Review, 1955, ég. 33-40.

Gibson, E. J., Gibson, J. J., Pick, A. D., and Osser, H., A develop-
mental study of the discrimination of letter-like forms. Journal

of Comparative Physiology and Psyphology, 1962, 55, 897-905.

Gibson, E. J., Pick, A.. and Osser, H. and Hammond, M. The role of
grapheme-phoneme correspondence in the perception of words.

American Journal of Psychology, 1962, 25, 554-570.

Gibson, E. J., Bishop, C. H., Schiff, W. and Smith, J. A comparison of
meaningfulness and pronounciability as groupingprinciples in the
perception and retention of verbal material. Journal of Experi-
mental Psyphology, 1964, 62, 173-182.

Gibson, E. J., Osser. H. and Pick, A. A study of the development of

grapheme-phoneme correspondences. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 1963, 2, 142-146.

Giebink, John W. and Goodsell, L. L. Reading ability and associative
learning for children with a visuomotor deficit. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 1968, 5, 412-420.

Golden, N. E. and Steiner, S. R. Auditory and visual functions in good
and poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1969, 2, 46-51.

Gumenik, W. E. Effects of articulatory activity and auditory, visual,
and semantic similarity on the short term memory of visually pre-

sented paired associates. Journal of Experimental Psyphology,
1969 0 29 70-7“.

Jensen, A. R. Social class and perceptual learning. Mental Hygiene,
1966, 59, 226-239.

Kahn, D. and Birch, H. G. Development of auditory—visual integration
and reading achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 27,
459-468. '—

 

71

Katz, P. A. and Deutsch, M. Relation of auditoryevisual shifting to
reading achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1963, 22, 327-332.

Kirk, R. E. erimental Desi n Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences.
Belmont, Calif.: Brooks7Cole, 1968.
Montague, W. E. and Kiess, H. W. The associability of CVC pairs. Journal
of Eyperimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 1968, 2§, 1-23.

Muehl, S. and Kremenak, S. Ability to match information between auditory
and visual sense modalities and subsequent reading achievement.

Journal of Educational Psyphology, 1966, 52, 230-239.

Otto, W. The acquisition and retention of paired associates by good,

average and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1961,
52, 241-248.

Paivio, A. and Yuille, J. C. Word abstractness and meaningfulness, and
paired associate learning in children. Journal of Eyperimental
Child Psyphology, 1966, 4, 81-89.

Pick, H. L. Jr., Pick, A. D., and Klein, R. E. Perceptual integration
in children. In Advances in Child Development and Behavior, Vol. 3,
Lipsitt, L. P., and Spiker, C. S., eds., New York: Academic Press,
1967.

Rudel, R. G. and Tueber, H. Crossmodal transfer of shape discrimination
by children. Neuropsyphologica, 1964, 2, 1-8.

Rudnick, M., Sterritt, G. M. and Flax, M. Auditory and visual rhythm
perception and reading ability. Child Development, 1967, 2Q,
581-587 0 .

Schulz, R. W. andKHopkins, R. J. Presentation mode and meaningfulness
as variables in several verbal learning tasks. Journal of Verbal

Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1968, 2, l-l3.

Sterritt. G. M. and Rudnick, M. Auditory and visual rhythm perception
in relation to reading ability in fourth grade boys. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 1966, g_2_, 859-864.

Trieschmann, Roberta B. Undifferentiated handedness and perceptual dev-
elopment in children with reading problems. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 1968, 22, 1123-1134.

Uhl, N. P. and Nurss, J. R. Socio-economic styles in solving reading-
related tasks. Readin Research Quarterl , 1970, 5, 452—485.

 

72

Van Mondfrans, A. P. and Travers, R. M. W. Paired associate learning
within and across sense modalities and involving simultaneous and
sequential presentations. American Educational Research Journal,

19659 2: 89‘99.

Wepman, J. M. The perceptual basis for learning. In Meeting Individual
Differences in Readin , H. A. Robinson, Ed. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 196%.

Wickelgren, W. A. Distinctive features and errors in short term memory
for English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 1966, 22’ 388'39 I a

Wickelgren, W. A. Short-term recognition memory for single letters and
phonemic similarity of retroactive interference. Quarterly Journal

of Eyperimental Psyphology, 1966, l§2 55-62. (b)
Whipple, C. and Kodman, F. Jr.. A study of discrimination and perceptual

learning with retarded readers. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1969 p _6_O’ 1'5-

Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Eyperimental Design. New York:
McGraw Hill, 19 2.

Witkin, B. R. Auditory perception - implications for language develop-
ment. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 1969, 2, 53-71.

 

 

APPENDDI

74

TABLE A-l

Means and Standard Deviations of Each of the Twelve
Groups (N = 6): Number of Trials to Criterion

 

 

 

 

Group Acoustic List Graphic List

Mode Order f S.D. Y S.D.

Auditory l 3.83 1.47 5.17 2.32

Auditory 2 10.33 2.94 11.33 4.84

High Visual 1 6.67 3.72 4.17 1.72

Reading Visual 2 7.67 5.20 5.67 3.14
Level

Visual-Aud. 1 6.83 1.72 5.00 2.10

Visual-And. 2 5.67 3.33 7.00 4.20

Auditory 1 9.17 4.75 8.83 2.71

Auditory 2 9.17 3.13 10.17 3.54

Low Visual l 13.17 3.37 7.83 4.17

Reading Visual 2 10.00 2.90 6.50 2.88
Level

Visual-And. 1 6.67 4.23 8.00 3.10

Visual-And. 2 7.17 2.64 7.17 4.67

 

75

TABLE A-2

Means and Standard Deviations of Each of the Twelve
Groups (N = 6): Number of Errors on Immediate
Backward Recall Tests

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group Acoustic List Graphic List
Mode Order i S.D. i S.D.
Auditory 1 1.83 1.83 2.67 2.34
Auditory 2 5.33 5050 7017 6.15
High Visual l 3.17 4.25 1.83 2.23
ReadingVisual 2 3 00 3.03 2.17 2.64
Level
Visual-Auditory 1 2.67 2.50 2.00 1.67
Visual-Auditory 2 2 33 3.50 2 00 2 53
Auditory 1 4.17 3.87 5.17 5.56
Auditory 2 3 00 2.68 4.00 2.53
Low Visual l 4.83 3.13 2.67 3.08
Remfing Visual 2 4.83 3.97 2.67 2 16
Level
Visual-Auditory l 1.83 2.99 3.83 3.87
Visual-Auditory 2 4.50 4.23 4 67 5 20

 

76

TABLE A-3

Means and Standard Deviations of Each of the Twelve

Groups (N = 6):

Mixed Lists Backward Recall Test

Number of Errors on the

 

 

 

Group Acoustic List Graphic List Either List
Mode Order 11‘ S.D. i S.D. if S.D.
Auditory l 2.00 1.90 1.83 1.60 2.33 2.25
Auditory 2 3.17 2.93 6017 2056 4050 3073
Visual l 2.83 3.66 0.17 0.41 1.33 1.75

High Visual 2 2.50 3.33 3.17 3.49 1.50 1.52

Rdg.

Lvl. Visual-And. l 2.83 3.06 0.67 1.21 1.83 1.83
Visual-And. 2 0.33 0.81 3.33 2.80 1.00 2.45
Auditory l 3.33 3.08 3.67 3.33 3.83 2.79
Auditory 2 0.83 1.33 5.67 2.58 2.50 2.07
Visual 1 5.33 3.33 2.67 1.86 2.67 3.67

Low Visual 2 2.00 2.28 3.83 2.32 3.50 3.02

Rdg.

Lvl. Visual-And. 1 1.67 1.97 1.67 1.86 1.67 2.42
Visual-And. 2 1.50 1.97 4.67 2.88 3.00 1.90

 

 

 

77

TABLE A-4

The Proportion of Third— and Fourth-Grade
Subjects Selecting the Number That was
the Classroom's Most Popular Response

as Having Visual or Acoustic
Similarity to a Given Letter

 

 

 

 

 

Pairs with Pairs with
Visual Similarity Acoustic Similarity

Stimulus Number 3rd Grade 4th Grade Stimulus Number 3rd Grade 4th Grade
Letter Chosen Ss(N=22) Ss (N=24) Letter Chosen Ss (N=22) Ss (N=24)

H 4 .92 .86 N 9 .92 .90

S 8 .79 .69 C 3 .78 .52

G 6 .77 .73 Q 2 .60 .50

Z 7 .50 .45 K 8 .60 .50

M 3 .26 .53 F 5 .50 .35

B 3 .83 .14 X 6 .42 .45

B 8 .08 .73 B 3 .83 .39

C 6 .62 .55 J 8 .70 .31

F 7 .35 .46 Z 3 .65 .15

J 9 .43 .51 Z 6 - .35

K L» .29 .30 M 9 .16 .31

Q 9 .29 .34 G 3 .12 .28

R 8 .23 .13 H 8 .88 .21

N 4 .29 .18 S 6 .68 .70

X 4 .15 .18 R 4 .39 .30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

78

FIGURE A-5

Size and Conformation of the Letters and Numbers
Making Up the Two Lists ’

Acoustic List

Graphic List

 

(1)—6303434
“ZOOXX
wwwNOOOW

Z—iCDmIN