.x-.4‘....,..-.r_- 7.-.-.-E" w‘ I

A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS A STRUCTURED TUTORIAL
PROGRAM HAS ON THE READING LEVELS OF LOW
ACHIEVING READERS IN THE SIXTH GRADE

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
WILLIAM A HALLS
A1976

 

   
   

 
 

13324"
"I. 9"”
. UM

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS A STRUCTURED TUTORIAL
PROGRAM HAS ON THE READING LEVELS OF LOW
ACHIEVING READERS IN THE SIXTH GRADE
presented by

William A. Halls

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein Administration 6:
Higher Education

4‘ ,

Major professor i

Date Eebruar 27, 1976

0-7639

 

 

 

 

Q m

K1. C; u u

 

 

 

 

a :4 .l’:.‘l- ’NTJJI

IE‘II‘IIT 1 ' I.

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS A STRUCTURED TUTORIAL
PROGRAM HAS ON THE READING LEVELS OF LOW
ACHIEVING READERS IN THE SIXTH GRADE

BY

William A. Halls

The purpose of this study was to test the effect
of a structured tutorial program on sixth grade low

achievers who tutored second grade low achievers in reading.

The Problem

 

The purpose of this study was to ascertain the
effect of the Grant Von Harrison Law Tutor Program on
sixth grade students who became tutors as well as on those
who were tutored. Low achievers in reading who worked in
the Grant Von Harrison Lay Tutor Program were compared
with sixth graders not having the instructional oppor-

tunities offered by Von Harrison's program.

Selected Review of Literature

 

Controversy relating to the teaching of reading has
always flourished in the field of education. The reading
process, recognized as the heart of education, creates a
necessity for expertise. Expertise in reading through
research is one crucial element in education today. The
effects of reading instruction, or the lack of reading

instruction, is crucial in the lives of the students we

William A. Halls
serve. This has necessitated the need for research and
has spurred much controversy.

The review of literature examined the need and
principles upon which present methods of teaching reading
are based. The researcher then traced the origination
of the American schools from the Quincy Grammar School of
1848 to the idea of a single-teacher-per-age graded group.

Recent attempts to improve reading instruction
within this organization led to encourage other research
in the history of tutorial programs. Finally, Von
Harrison's structured tutorial program evolved from a
combination of all three.

Three premises evolved from which tutorial programs
should be based:

1. Many forms of individualized instruction

are not in the best interest of low-
achieving students.

2. Effective individualized instruction

cannot be accomplished with machines
or programmed materials exclusively.

3. Effective individualized instruction

cannot be accomplished in a regular
classroom setting.

The Von Harrison Approach
to Structured Tutoring

 

Von Harrison has shown that efforts to individ—
ualize instruction for primary grade children or older
students with limited reading ability are not effective

unless certain structuring requirements are defined and

answered.

William A. Halls

Those requirements have been defined by previous

research and include:

Procedure

 

Pre-established instructional objectives.

Specified sequence of instructional
objectives.

Valid means of assessing each student's
mastery of the pre-established instruc-
tional objectives.

Instructional materials in harmony with
the instructional objectives, and
designed to strengthen the behaviour
found by the pretest to be weak or
missing from the student's repertoire.

Management procedures that include
performance pretests and instructional
prescriptions for individual students
based on the pretest.

Management procedures which assure
that individual students receive
instructional prescriptions sequen-
tially.

Management procedures that provide
validated criteria tests, prepared in
advance of instruction, for systematic-
ally checking each student's mastery

of instructional criteria.

Management procedures that provide
for modification of instructional
procedures when a student does not
master an instructional prescription.

A print-out of the reading scores of the sixth

graders at the experimental school, arranged in descending

order, was provided by the principal. Starting at the bottom

of the list every other student was placed in the experimental

group and the others assigned to the control group. The

William A. Halls
reading scores provided by the school had been taken from
the Stanford Achievement Test routinely administered in
1973.

The students were then pre and post tested for
reading, using the Von Harrison reading test. In addition,
both groups were given the Mehl test to determine the
Student Level of Confidence of Academic Ability.

For this study it was established that the level of

significance was .005 using multi-variate ANOVA.

Findings

 

Results of the analysis showed that the mean
difference of both the reading level and the level of
confidence of academic ability of the experimental group
did increase; and that the findings were significant at less
than the .0001 level of significance. Further, the second
grade tutees demonstrated reading gains significantly

greater than the non-tutees.

Conclusions

 

l. A basic conclusion of this study was that
involvement in the Von Harrison structural
tutorial program was successful in improving
the reading of readers of low achievement at
the sixth grade level in the population studied.

2. A second basic conclusion was that involvement
in the Von Harrison program also increased the
level of confidence of academic ability as
measured by the Mehl test of sixth grade
students involved within the program.

3. In addition, those younger children who were
tutored scored mean gains that indicated growth
that gave further support for using a
structured tutoring program.

A

STUDY OF THE EFFECTS A STRUCTURED TUTORIAL
PROGRAM HAS ON THE READING LEVELS OF LOW

ACHIEVING READERS IN THE SIXTH GRADE

BY

. b
<
William AVoHalls

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration
and Higher Education

1976

DEDICATION

This dissertation, its work, and effort are
dedicated to my sons Bill and Brad. For it was their
love that provided the motivation to finish this
unimaginable task.

In an entirely different manner but with no less
affection this work, and all that comes after it is
dedicated to Dr. Peter L. Clancy. It was he who first
suggested, then counseled and continually provided

encouragement, guidance, and concern that sustained me

to the finish.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many persons have helped to make this dissertation
possible. Dr. Howard Hickey, my dissertation chairman,
and friend, has provided the wise counsel and encourage-
ment that played a large part in the finishing of this
thesis. Dr. Archibald Shaw whose expertise in editing
so greatly improved this work.

To Richard Zanas, Al Putnam, Eugene Grice, Glen
Byers, and Jim Davidson whose friendship, concern and love

were so appreciated through a long trying time.

iii

LIST OF

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . .
The Problem. . . . . . . . . . .
Need for the Study . . . . . . .
Hypotheses to be Tested. . . . .
Definition of Terms. . . . . . .
Limitations. . . . . . . . . . .
Organization of the Study. . . .

SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . .
Organization of the School . . .
Recent Attempts to Improve
Reading Instruction. . . . . .
Findings from Tutorial Programs.
Structured Tutoring. . . . . . .
The Von Harrison Approach to
Structured Tutoring. . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . .

DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . .

The Site . . . . . . . . . . . .
Staffing Pattern of the School .
Selection of the Sample. . . . .
Instrumentation. . . . . . . . .
Analysis of Data . . . . . . . .

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis of Results. . . . . . .
Null Hypothesis I. . . . . . . .
Null Hypothesis II . . . . . . .
Secondary Analysis . . . . . . .
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page

vi

GDQU'IDUJWH

KO

13

16
19
24

25
30

31

31
32
32
34
35

36

36
36
39
39
40
41
42

Chapter

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,

RECOMMENDATIONS . .

The Problem . . . .
The Sample. . . . .
Instruments Used to

the Data. . . . .
Data Analysis . . .
Findings. . . . . .
Conclusions . . . .
Discussion. . . . .
Recommendations . .
Recommendations for

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O

APPENDICES

AND

Collect

Page

43

43
44

44
44
45
45
45
46
46

47

51

LIST OF TABLES

Breakdown on the Racial Make-up
of the Student Body . . . . . . . .

Reading Scores from Von Harrison
Reading Test. . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Pre and Post Test Scores
for the Von Harrison Reading Test .

Mean Scores of the Student Level
of Confidence of Academic Ability
of the Experimental and Control
Groups as Measured by the Mehl Test

Standard Deviations for Pre and
Post Reading Scores . . . . . . . .

Standard Deviations for Pre and
Post Tests of the S.L.C.A.A. . . .

Univariate Analysis of Variance
in Reading Scores . . . . . . . . .

Univariate Analysis of Variance
in S.L.C.A.A. Scores. . . . . . . .

Pre and Post Tests in Reading
Achievement for the Tutees. . . . .

vi

Page

32

34

37

37

38

38

39

39

41

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

"The most important responsibility of the
elementary school, indeed, its most central
and crucial responsibility--is to develop
children's love of learning and to teach the
.skills that facilitate learning. Chief among
those skills is reading, for reading is the
key to the past as well as the present. To
teach children to read is to start them on a
lifetime of learning."1

James E. Allen, Jr., former U. S. Commissioner of
Education, identified the inability to read effectively in
this following light:

"The inability to read efficiently, con-
taminating as it does every other dimension of
education, is clearly one challenge deserving
of our concentrated efforts. As we learn how
to attack this deficiency cooperatively we not
only will be getting at this foundation of
learning, but will be gaining the strength and
skills to meet many other educational problems."
From a variety of statistical information accumulated

by the U. S. Office of Education regarding deficiencies

throughout the country, these shocking facts stand out:

 

lJess M. Walker, A Comparative Study of Personalized
Reading in an Open-Learning Environment, and'Basal Text
Reading in a Traditional Learning Environment through Early
Elementary_Pupil Achievement,—Tunpublished Ph.D. Disserta-
tion, Michigan State University, 1970).

2James E. Allen, Jr., "The Right to Read Target for
the 1970's," The PTA Magazine LXIV (December, 1969): 6-7.

 

 

l

2

- One out of every four students nationwide has
significant reading deficiencies.3

- In large city school systems up to one-half
of the students read below expectation.4

- There are more than 3,000,000 illiterates
in our adult population.5

- About one-half of our unemployed youth ages
sixteen to twenty-one are functionally
illiterate.6

- In recent U. S. Armed Forces program called
Project 100,000, 68% of the young fell below
grade seven in reading and academic ability.7

Lacy has put these insights to the relationship of
learning and reading:

"Perhaps the clearest requirement of the
years ahead is that education must occupy a
far larger part of our energies and resources
dealing with a far more complex body of knowl-
edge, extending at every level of a higher
proportion of the population and continuing
for longer periods as education occupies a more
central role in our society. So inevitably
will reading; it is a necessary accompaniment."8

 

3Stephen H. Portuges and Norma D. Feshback, "The
Effects of Teachers' Reinforcement Style Upon Imitative
Behaviour of Children," A.E.R.A. Paper Abstracts, ed.
Henry Hausdorf (Washington, D.C.: American Educational
Research Association, 1968), p. 268.

41bid.

Ibid, p. 270.

Ibid, p. 271.

\IO‘U‘

Ibid, p. 281.

Don Lacy,"Readings Place in an Effective Society,"
International Reading Association Conference Proceedings,
Scholastic Magazine (January, 1958): 20.

3

Mr. James E. Allen, former U. S. Commissioner of
Education, has set forth a goal for all education in the
1970's:

"We should immediately set for ourselves

the goal of insuring that by the end of the

1970's the right to read shall be a reality

for all; that no one shall leave our schools

without the skill and the desire necessary to

read to the full limits of his capability."9

One of our concerns as educators today must be to
answer the question: Can we find more effective methods by

which reading skills can be taught? It is clear that more

research needs to be done.

The Problem

 

The purpose of this study is to ascertain the effect
of the Grant Von Harrison Lay Tutor Program on sixth grade
students who become tutors as well as on those who were
tutored.lo Low achievers in reading who have worked in
the Grant Von Harrison Lay Tutor program will be compared

with sixth graders not having the instructional opportunities

offered by Von Harrison's program.

Need for the Study

Von Harrison has stated:

"That for some reason we are not sure of,
no one program (reading) works for all children.
We have seen children receive instruction in four

 

9Allen, op. cit., p. 7.

10Grant Von Harrison, Beginning Reading I: A Pro-
fessional Guide for the LaygTutor (Provo: Brigham Young
University Press, 1972), p. 25.

4

or five reading programs over a three year

period and be unsuccessful in their attempts

to learn to read. Then in a fourth year

they begin to learn to read on their own."11

This study recognizes the need for continual research
in reading instruction. It explores specifically the effects
of a procedure that gives low-achieving readers in the sixth
grade a special challenge and staisfaction: special in the
sense that they are genuinely needed to help the teacher
teach some younger students. Their being needed and the
tutoring itself, it is hOped, will allow them to see them-

selves and their reading abilities in a new light and will

have a positive effect on their own reading achievement.

Hypotheses to be Tested

 

The following are the hypotheses which offered
and provided direction to the study:

Null Hypothesis I - There will be no significant
difference in gain scores in reading achievement between
experimental and control groups of tutors as measured by the
Von Harrison Reading Test.

Null Hypothesis II - there will be no significant
difference in gain scores in student level of confidence in

their academic ability between experimental and control

 

ll
15, 1973.

Grant Von Harrison, Interview Sheet, November,

5

groups of tutors as measured by the Mehl test of Student

Level of Confidence in Academic Ability.12

Definition of Terms

 

The following is a list of definitions of key
concepts as they are used in this study.

Structured Turoring - an approach to the teaching of

 

reading aimed at the systematic development of reading
ability and is distinguished by the care and process in
training the tutors. (See Appendix A for description of
3

the Von Harrison model.)1

Von Harrison Guide for LayiTutors - a guide out-

 

lining a step by step program for trainer, tutor, and

tutee.l4

Trainer - a professional teacher who has been

trained to work with tutors.15

Tutor - an upper elementary student who undergoes

a training program by the trainer to work with the tutee.16

Tutee - the recipient of the teaching being done

by the tutor.17

 

12John Walter Mehl, Parental Attitudes Toward the
School, Student Confidence, Level of Academic AbilityL
Selected Indices of Student Achievement, A Comparative
Study of Relationships (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1972).

 

13Von Harrison, op. cit., p. 22.
14933, p. 25.

15w, p. 26.

16121Q-

17

Ibid, p. 27.

 

/\

6
Controlled Vocabulary - "vocabulary selected and
spaced in a basal reader or other textbook so as to control
the number of new words to be learned by the child per unit
18

of reading matter."

Individual Reading Instruction - "differentiation

 

of instruction in reading according to individual difference

. . "19
in pupils.

Veatch offers a more detailed description of the
features of an individualized reading program:

"It is an attempt on the part of the
teacher to manage the classroom so each child
is safeguarded. The child's purpose and
plans are thus intimately involved in estab-
lishing the thresholds of his own learning.
Instruction is paced to the individual needs,
concerns, likes, and aspirations. The
selection of reading material and resources
is a matter of the particular child's
recognition that 'this is what I really
want to read'."2

Personalized Reading Program - a personalized
reading program encompasses individualization of reading
instruction and personalization of reading content.

Trade Book - a "book designed for the general
21

 

bookstore and library market rather than text use."

 

18Carter V. Good, Dictionary of Education, Second
Edition (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959),
p. 602.

lgIbid, p. 690.

20Jeannette Veatch, Individualizing Your Reading
Program (New York: G.P. Putnam and Sons, 1959), p. 8.

lebid, p. 12.

7

Reading Achievement - the status of the student's

 

ability to read as measured by standardized reading tests.
The Von Harrison reading test was used in this study to
measure reading achievement.

Reading Level - the form used to express the rela-

 

tionship between a child's reading achievement as compared
to reading achievement of other children with the same
degree of experience in education. Reading level is
expressed in grade equivalents derived from the Von Harrison
test.22

Mean Gain in Reading Achievement - the difference

 

between the average of the reading scores obtained by a
group prior to the application of the program, and the
average of the reading scores obtained by the same group
after completion of the program.23

Basal Reading Text - a book or series of books

 

uniform throughout any given school district, as the

principal or only textbook in reading.

Limitations

 

This research is affected by the larger question of
mental health and its relation to reading and that affect

is not dealt with in this study.

 

22Good, op. cit., p. 68.

23Stephan Michael and William Issac, Handbook in
Research and Evaluation (San Diego: Robert P. Knapp
Publisher, 1971), p. 8.

 

8
The researcher runs the risk, as do all researchers,
of not knowing exactly how much of the effect shown can be
attributed to the Hawthorne effect.24
The population studied is in one school and one

study. Therefore, the findings are limited to this

particular population.

Organization of the Study

 

Chapter I has stated the problem to be studied.
Included are the introduction, the problem, the hypotheses
to be tested, definition of terms, and the limitations of
the study.

A selected review of related literature is presented
in Chapter II. A brief history of the Von Harrison tutorial
instruction and a description of the classroom conditions
under which it can be used is included.

Chapter III has a description of the tutorial
projects, selection of experimental and control groups,
selection of trainer, methods and procedures, techniques
and instruments used to collect data. Analysis of the
data will be presented in Chapter IV. The summary,
conclusions, and recommendations will be presented in

Chapter V.

 

24Veatch, 0p. cit., p. 15

CHAPTER II

SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

 

Controversy relating to the teaching of reading has
always flourished in the field of education. The reading
process, recognized as the heart of education, creates a
necessity for expertise. Expertise in reading through
research is one crucial element in education today. The
effects of reading instruction, or the lack of reading
instruction, is crucial in the lives of the students we
serve. This has necessitated the need for research and
has spurred much controversy.

There are differing points of view representing
the many varying opinions from authorities in the field
of reading. Gerald A. Yoakam stated: "There must be a
well planned, systematic program of reading development
for all children. Such a program is properly called basal
reading instruction."1

It is with need for something to be done for the

non-reading or slow reading upper elementary students that

this study was initiated. It is the hope of this researcher

 

1Gerald A. Yoakam, Basal ReadingInstrugpion
(New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1955), p. 10.

 

10
that this study will suggest additional studies which will
have impact upon reading instruction. Jeannette Veatch
stated:

"Although reading achievement is improving
in this country, it is not improving enough;
and the blame for this too meager growth rests
on those who, perhaps knowing no better, have
led children to read books and other materials
which are remote from their purpose. A new
and different method of teaching reading is
needed to replace the outmoded basic reading
program now in vogue in American schools."2

Smith points out:
"A lack of books was a major problem in

American education as early as the Colonial

Period; and because of this many people never

learned to read. Children's literature was

also scarce; so textbook publishers, including

Lindlay Murry, Lyman Cobb, and others began

to compile series of school readers. The

outgrowth of their work was the modern basal

textbook, the use of which has dominated

reading instruction for over 100 years."3

During the Colonial Period, when children were
taught to read, more often than not the family Bible was
the only book to be taught by.

As education became more prevalent, with it grew
the need for books and instruction in how to use them
correctly. Little help was available and the only guidance

to be found was in the teacher's manual which accompanied

the textbook readers.

 

2Jeannette Veatch, "Individualized Reading for Success
in the Classroom," The Educational Trend (April, 1954):
p. 82.

 

3Nila Barton Smith, Historical Analysis of American
Reading Instruction (New York: Silver Burdett Company,
1934), pp. 51-72.

 

11

An American grade school began to be developed in
the early eighteen forties and with it came graded reading
material. Instruction books of this type usually consisted
of a primer and a succession of books graded one through
eight. William McGuffey popularized this pattern. Between
1836 and 1844, because of the universality of McGuffey's
books on the frontiers of America, he is given credit by
Smith and others for having authored the first series of
readers in this country. Two important concepts having to
do with reading were introduced by McGuffey:

"On each page a number of new words

were introduced. These words were then

offered for repetitive learning on

succeeding pages. These two ideas are

at the heart of all basal readers today;

that of a controlled vocabulary."4

Many sets of graded basal readers were produced
between 1880 and 1925. These textbooks manifested improve-
ments in terms of better mechanical make-up including the
use of colored pictures, provision for gradual introduction
of words, with a significant reduction in the number of
different words used, and inclusion of more variety in
story content.5

Enforcement of the compulsory education laws by

1921 was keeping more children in school longer. This influx

in the classroom load made it apparent to teachers that they

 

41bid, pp. 105-106.

5Paul Witty, Reading in Modern Education (Boston:
D.C. Heath and Company, 1949), p. 4.

 

12

needed more than one book per grade level. Three ability
levels gradually evolved and were used for instruction.
Smaller groups were structured within the classroom in
order to bring together children of similar reading levels
so that the instruction could be geared to each particular
group. Common today in many elementary classrooms in
America are these three ability groups: above grade level,
grade level, and below grade level. This ability grouping
plan has proven to be much more effective than the single
presentation practices.6

Preprimers for use in the first grade reading
program were added to the basal reader series around 1927.7
It is interesting to note that additional materials became
supplemental basal texts. Teachers’manuals, flash cards
for word drill, practice exercises, and tests were also
introduced at that time.

During the thirties Smith began a continuing
analysis of the vocabulary contained in primary levels of
basal readers. Smith's analysis of sixteen series produced
three conclusions: (1) standard word lists, rather than
author judgement, were used as the basis for vocabulary

selection; (2) the number of new words, or vocabulary load,

 

6Don Dawson, "Some Issues in Groups for Reading,"
National Department of Elementary School Principals 34th
Yearbook of the National Education Association (Washington,
D.C.: 1955), pp. 48-52.

7Gertrude Hildreth, Teaching Reading (New York:
Henry Boot and Company, 1958), p. 225.

 

 

 

13
for primers had decreased, and (3) the average number of
repetitions per word had increased.8
In 1941 Spache reported three new trends in pre-
primers, first and second grade readers: (1) extensive
use of color, and pictures; (2) lowering of the vocabulary

and (3) greater integration and carry-over of the

vocabulary to successive reader levels.9

Perhaps the best of the Post World War II trends
can be found in Walker. Walker reported:

Today, basal text reading instruction
refers to a procedure in which children
are grouped on the basis of reading profi-
ciency. Each group meets with the teacher
for a daily reading lession from a basal
text, the context of which has been geared
to current knowledge of the interest and
abilities of children at various stages
of development. Generally, the groups
remain the same throughout the year. 0

Organization of the School

 

The idea of a single-teacher-per-age-graded—group
is an invented concept that developed over a long period
of time. It represents an evolutionary continuum of
organizational development for schools in the absence of
any rigorous research or data-gathering activities.

Although the Quincy Grammar School of 1848 is usually cited

 

85mith, op. cit., pp. 200-210.

9George Spache, "New Trends in Primary-Grade Readers,’
Elementary School Journal XLII (December, 1941), p. 283.

10

 

Walker, op. cit., p. 21.

14

as the beginning of the current definition, the roots of
the idea can be found in the work of the German educator
Johann Sturm (1507-1589) when he founded the gymnasium in

Strassburg. Cubberlyll

notes that Sturm probably adopted
his idea from the French colleges. Sturm organized the
gymnasium into ten classes, one for each year the pupil was
in school and provided each class with a teacher. Sturm's
gymnasium was visited by scholars and educators from all
over Europe and the structure spread very rapidly, having
been adopted by the Jesuits. The significant difference
between Sturm's gymnasium and the Quincy Grammar School

was that in the latter, pupils were sorted and assigned to
teachers within specialized subjects, whereas in the
gymnasium although teachers had been "differentiated" by
subject or skill areas, students had remained in a hetero-
geneous group. Cubberly observed how in the elementary
schools the subjects of instruction were divided among the
teachers rather than the children. A common division was
between the teacher who taught writing and arithmetic.
Writing being considered a difficult art, was taught by

a separate teacher, who often included the ability to teach

arithmetic also among accomplishments.12

 

llFenewich H. English, and Donald K. Sharpes,
Strategies for Differentiated Staffing (Berkely: McCutchan
Publishing Company, 1970), p. 9.

12

 

Ibid, p. 10.

15

In the Lancastrian schools, which later came to
dominate eastern and southern school systems in the United
States, children were advanced individually and by subjects
as their progress warranted, "until they had progressed as
far as the instruction went, or the teacher could teach."13

The "modern" elementary school is the product of
several organizational changes that began by having three
separate schools coming together under one roof.

The next step was the division of each school into
classes. This began by the employment of assistant teachers,
in England and America known as "ushers," to help the
"master," and the provision of small recitation rooms, off
the main large schoolroom, to which the usher could take
his class to hear recitations. The third and final step
came with the erection of a new type of school building,
with smaller and individual schoolrooms. It was then
possible to assign a teacher to each classroom, sort and
grade the pupils by ages and advancements, outline the
instruction by years, and the modern graded elementary
school was at hand.14

Thus, the current definition of the role of class—

room teacher was born, and with it were created a host of

problems that have yet to be solved.

 

13rbid, p. 11.

14Von Harrison, op. cit., pp. 1-4.

 

16

Since the fifties virtually every school system in
the United States had adopted basal texts for their district.
The same judgement can be made for the graded structure of
the schools within these districts. It is safe to say that
during the late fifties and continuing to date experimental
programs sometimes resulted in approved supplemental programs.
The increased dissatisfaction with traditional schemes of
staffing, organization, and texts, led Grant Von Harrison
to develop both a rationale and program of study for those
children not learning to read using what was developed in

the traditional methods.

Recent Attempts to Improve Reading Instruction

In his guide Von Harrison summarizes and critizes
many attempts to improve reading instruction.

Von Harrison says:

Many students do not do well in reading,
and for many reasons. Some important reasons
include lack of adequate individualized help
at home, limited ability to work indepen-
dently, reluctance to request individual
help, insecurities because of repeated failure,
tendency to respond impulsively to questions,
unusual need for more clarification, more
than average need for practice with a task,
and need for systematic instruction in
small increments.15

Von Harrison points out:
No matter how conscientious a class-

room teacher is, it is humanly impossible
for him to conduct effective individual

 

15Grant Von Harrison, Beginning Reading I: A
Professional Guide for the Lay_Tutor (Provo: Brigham
Young University Press, 1972), p. 29.

 

 

l7

instruction for every student. Because of
time restraints and the wide range of student
abilities, it is almost impossible to
identify the precise learning needs of every
student every day. In a regular classroom
setting it is extremely difficult to provide
additional clarification regarding proce-
dures to individual students even if they
request it. In many instances, though they
do not understand, they will not say so.

In addition, Von Harrison says:
Even if a teacher wanted to, there is

no way he could monitor each student during

various learning activities. Of necessity,

teachers gear their instruction for the

majority, and in so doing find it extremely

difficult to individualize the amount of

time students spend on a particular objec-

tive. To provide individual students with

additional appropriate practice when

necessary is equally difficult. There is

a limit to the amount of specific feed-

back and reinforcement a teacher can give

individual students.17

These reasons are only representative of the host
of reasons why classroom teachers cannot realistically be
expected to individualize instruction for every student.

Currently, he says, various forms of instruction
in the public schools are erroneously called individualized
instruction. For example, the engagement of students in
a variety of learning activities is not of itself a true
form of individualized instruction. The possibility remains
that the student's activity will not fill his own specific

needs. Some educators let individual students select their

 

16Ibid, p. 35.

l7Ibid.

18

own learning activities to achieve individualization, but
some research has shown that children are prone to select
learning activities involving their strong subjects while
they avoid areas where they are deficient.18

A closely related fallacy would allow each student
to progress at a rate which the student controls. Again,
much research19 has shown that children do not have the
ability to select an appropriate rate of learning for
themselves.

In his view, the most common form of inapprOpriate
individualized instruction is the use of programmed texts
or workbooks. It has been found that, for a variety of
reasons (e.g., limited reading ability and poor notivation),
programmed texts or workbooks are not effective for those
students most in need of help.20

Probably the most serious fallacy regarding indi—
vidualized instruction is the idea that students should
work independently. Again, those students who have the
most serious difficulties are least likely to utilize

independent study time effectively.21

 

18Ibid, p. 48.

19Ibid, p. 50.

20Ibid, p. 4.

ZlIbid.

19
He urges that anyone attempting to individualize
instruction for primary grade children or older students
with limited reading ability keep the following in mind:
1. Many forms of individualized instruction
are not in the best interest of low-
achieving students.
2. Effective individualized instruction
cannot be accomplished with machines
or programmed materials exclusively.
3. Effective individualized instruction
cannot be accomplished in a regular
classroom setting.22

Out of these problems was conceived the idea of

structured tutoring.

Findings from Tutorial Programs

 

Little research has been undertaken in the area of
tutorial programs. As late as 1967 James Noce commented in
a publication prepared by the Tutorial Assistance Center,
"Very little careful and responsible tutorial research and
evaluation has been performed anywhere nationally to date."23
Yet, a number of studies have been reported which have
incorporated statistical designs that attempt to measure
change in pupil self-concept, achievement and intelligence.

24

In Winnetka, Illinois, Freund reported the

progress of the Project for Academic Motivation. This

 

22rbid.

3James Noce, Research and Evaluation in Tutorial
Programs (Washington, D.C.: Tutorial Assistance Center,
1967), p. 1.

24Janet Freund, "Time and Knowledge to Share,"
Elementary School Journal (February, 1965), pp. 351-358.

 

 

20
project was originally conceived as an inquiry into academic
under-achievement, especially among elementary school males.
The project was financed by a Wieboldt Foundation grant and
used knowledgeable volunteers in an effort to improve the
under-achievers' classroom performances and to provide them
with much needed recognition.

The projects on which the volunteers and children
worked were coordinated with the curriculum, and the pupils
shared their experiences with their classes. The instruc-
tion provided by the volunteers was not tutorial or remedial,
but rather enriching in nature.

Controlled evaluation was a part of the design.
Children were drawn from the third, fourth, and fifth
grades of the two participating schools. Premeasures and
postmeasures were administered to the 64 under-achieving
children who had been randomly assigned to the experimental
and control groups. Measures were taken for attendance;
for growth in reading, arithmetic, language, and spelling;
for attitudinal development and for self-esteem. The
analysis of these data showed that the experimental group
improved significantly in attitudes toward reading, in
confidence in applying such skills as use of the dictionary
and reference books, in school attendance and in enjoyment
of school life. The author concluded that while there was
no evidence to indicate that the experimental group improved

more than the control group in terms of academic achievement,

21

it was possible that improved school attendance and improved
attitudes toward school and school tasks might result in
improved academic achievement.25

Baun26 reported a tutorial project involving 85
college volunteers who tutored 250 Negro secondary school
pupils in basic science, remedial reading and arithmetic in
after-school situations. Tutoring was supplemented by
cultural and informative field trips. School personnel
gave basic methods of teaching to the volunteers prior to
their undertaking the tutorial relationship. Evaluation
of the program was primarily based on comments of the
faculty, the tutored pupils and their parents. Teachers
stated that the major advantage of the tutorial program
was an increased level of academic motivation which was
leading to a higher quality of classroom work. Tutored

pupils and their parents expressed positive comments about

the program. In the spring, the American Reading Achieve-

 

ment Test was administered to the seventh-grade class which

 

included 22 of the tutored pupils. The test results
indicated a significant difference in reading achievement
favoring the tutored group. They showed an average gain
of nine months in comparison to a 4.6 month gain for the

untotored group over a period of six months.

 

251bid.

26Eugene Baun, "The Washington University Campus Y
Tutoring Project," Peabody Journal of Education, (1965),
pp. 161-168.

 

22

A tutorial project reported by Gordon, Curran, and
Avila27 was designed to improve pupils' attitudes toward
school and to improve the self-concepts of pupils. As a
part of their educational course work, college sophomores
were assigned to tutor pupils who had or were having
learning difficulties. The tutored sample consisted of
20 pupils each from two elementary schools and one junior
high school. They were matched by age, sex, and enrollment
in the same classes with a control group in each of the
schools. Tutor-pupil pairs worked in the tutorial relation-
ship for one hour per week over a period of twenty weeks.

In an effort to measure behaviour change, teachers
completed a pupil behaviour instrument, the Behaviour
Description Chart, for each child at the beginning and the

end of the project. Gordon's How I See Myself self-concept

 

instrument was administered in January and May. Tests
failed to exhibit significant differences for the tutored
group on the aspects of leadership, aggressiveness, and
withdrawal as measured by the Behaviour Description Chart.
Likewise, there were no significant differences between the
pretest and posttest scores of the experimental group with

relation to self concept.28

 

27Ira J. Gordon, Robert L. Curran and Donald L.

Avila, An Inter-Disciplinary Approach to Improving the
Development of CulturallyfiDisadvantaged Children (Gainesville,
Florida: College of Education, University of Florida, 1966).

28Ibid, pp. 15-25.

23

Cloward29

has reported an extensive evaluation
program for the Mobilization for Youth tutorial program in
New York City. In each of 11 centers, tenth and eleventh
grade high school students tutored fourth and fifth grade
pupils under the supervision of certified teachers. All
of the tutees were reading below grade level according to
tests administered by the schools. An experimental group
of 410 pupils and a control group of 185 pupils were
randomly selected. Among those assigned to tutoring
sessions, some were tutored for four hours per week, some
for only two hours. Each of the pupils was tutored in
reading.

On comparing reading scores on pretests and post-
tests after a five-month period, it was found that tutees
who received four hours of tutoring per week showed an
increase in reading ability which was significantly greater
than the control group. This did not hold true for the
group which received only two hours of help per week.
Further analysis of data indicated that the tutorial
services did not produce in the tutees a measurable change
in school marks, school behavior ratings or pupil attitudes

and aspirations.30

 

29Robert D. Cloward, "The Nonprofessional in
Education: Mobilization of Youth's Tutorial Project,"
Educational Leadership (1967), pp. 604-606.

30

 

Ibid.

24

In Columbus, Ohio, the Teen Tutorial Program31 was
designed as a strategy for breaking the cycle of succeeding
generations of children educationally deprived during their
critical pre-school years. The tutorial program involved
40 boys and girls in one junior high school in tutorial
relationships with members of two kindergarten classes from
a nearby school. One measure, I.Q., was reported for the
kindergarteners during the period of the pilot study. The
results from pretests and posttests indicated gains in 1.0.
of 3.11 points for the kindergarteners in the experimental
group and .47 points for the control group. A level of

significance was not reported.

Structured Tutoripg

 

Structured tutoring seems to emanate from Von
Harrison. A Reading Guide Search, a Dissertation Abstract
Search and an ERIC Search failed to reveal any instances
of structured tutoring. In 1968 at the University of
Chicago a Conference on Tutoring was held. Eleven reports
were presented which dealt with specific tutoring programs.
However, a review of that conference report indicates a
non-structured tutorial emphasis. It indicates eleven
different instances of upper elementary students and junior

high students who all were achievers being placed for as

 

31Gene Telego, "A Teen Tutorial Program," Pacereport
(Lexington, Kentucky: A publication of the College of
Education, University of Kentucky, May-June, 1968), pp. 15-17.

 

25
little as one hour a week and as much as four hours a week
with a non-achieving first and second grader. Universally
these reports did ppp relate to a structured approach to

tutoring.32

The Von Harrison Approach to
Structured Tutoring

 

Von Harrison 33 has shown that efforts to individ-
ualize instruction for primary grade children or older
students with limited reading ability are not effective
unless certain structuring requirements are defined and
answered. Those requirements have been defined by previous
research and include:

1. Pre-established instructional objectives.

2. Specified sequence of instructional
objectives.

3. Valid means of assessing each student's
mastery of the pre-established instruc-
tional objectives.

4. Instructional materials in harmony with
the instructional objectives, and
designed to strengthen the behaviour
found by the pretest to be weak or
missing from the students' repertoire.

5. Management procedures that include
performance pretests and instructional
prescriptions for individual students
based on the pretest.

6. Management procedures which assure
that individual students receive
instructional prescriptions sequen-
tially.

 

32Grant Von Harrison, Telephone Conversation,
(Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University: February
12, 1974).

33Von Harrison, op. cit., pp. 1-4.

26

Management procedures that provide
validated criteria tests, prepared
in advance of instruction, for
systematically checking each
student's mastery of instructional
criteria.

Management procedures that provide
for modification of instructional
procedures when a student does not

master an instructional prescription.34

Because of the complexity in the reading process,

Von Harrison feels that many students do not learn to read

from regular classroom instruction. Consequently, reading--

more than

any other subject--requires legitimate individ-

ualized instruction to insure that every student learns to

read adequately.

He points out that structured tutoring opens

several new dimensions of instruction:

It is the first form of individualized
instruction that truly monitors oral
response.

It is the first form of individualized
instruction that monitors the student's
behaviour while he attempts to solve a
problem.

It provides a degree of flexibility
with instruction that cannot be
duplicated with computers.

It implements identified tutoring
techniques and procedures which allow
for maximum sensitivity to the
individual learning characteristics
of the student so as to maximize
learning.35

 

34
35

Ibid, p. 5.

Ibid, p. 6.

27

According to Von Harrison structured turoring is a
teaching technique rather than a set of material; thus,
the subject matter taught can be determined entirely by
the curricular requirements of the school system in which
it is used. His preliminary research and experience
indicate that this type of tutoring has great potential
for individualizing instruction at the primary grade level,
and that it could provide an answer to the problem of
effectively adapting primary instruction to individual
differences.

Von Harrison's extensive practice has demonstrated
that the classroom teacher need not spend his valuable time
tutoring. An adult with normal reading skills who follows
the procedures and techniques specified in a book based on
the structured tutoring model can successfully teach a
student such difficult academic skills as reading.

The process of reading is complicated by the
numerous sub-skills required, any one of which can become
a major stumbling block for a student. Many writers
assume that identification skills are important aspects
of reading mastery. For example, in a summary of reading
success studies, Durell (1958) indicated that:

...most reading difficulties can be
prevented by instructional programs which
provide ear y instruction in letter
names and sounds, followed by applied
phonics and accompanied by suitable prac-
tice in meaningful sight vocabulary and
aids to attentive silent reading.3

 

36D. D. Durell, "First Grade Reading Success,"
Journal of Education, No. 3 (1969), p. 2.

 

28

Each of these specified competencies (naming,
sounding, blending, and sight words) requires drill and
practice for acquisition, especially for the student who
does not find reading easy. Because of the time restraints
on classroom teachers, it is not always possible for a
teacher to provide the extensive individual drill and
practice that a particular student may need. Consequently,
many students are deprived of the skills of blending and
decoding sounds and of other prerequisite skills.

"Generally, there are students in every

elementary school classroom who have not

mastered basic skills. In some schools,

testing has shown that as many as 35 percent

of the children in the third grade do not

know the sounds of consonants, vowels, and

diagraphs."37

Very basic to the complex process of reading is the
process of blending sounds that make up a given word. This
process is extremely difficult for a child if the word is a
new one. The process of reading a new word is generally
called "sounding out a word." If a student can successfully
sound out a new word, we say he has "attack skills."38
Unfortunately, many children do not acquire basic attack
skills and later experience a great deal of frustration and
embarrassment when required to read aloud.

Some words cannot be read phonetically and students

must learn to read them by sight. "The total number of sight

 

37Ibid, p. 3.

381bid.

29
words primary grade children are expected to know ranges
from 100 to 200, depending on the particular reading series
being used."39

Hence, the inability to read a word results from one
or more of the following conditions: (1) the student does
not know or is uncertain of the sounds of the letters in
the word, (2) the student has not had ample drill and
practice in blending individual sounds into words, (3) the
word requires knowledge of a specific phonetic rule the
student has not learned, and (4) the word is a sight word
the student does not know.40

Von Harrison developed a guide for structured
reading which is designed to show a paraprofessional or
nonprofessional how to: (l) teach a student basic attack
skills, and (2) teach a student to read sight words that
are encountered frequently.

The guide assumes that if a student is proficient
at sounding out new words and can read the majority of the
sight words he encounters, he will not become anxious when
he reads out loud. Half the battle in learning to read is
won if the student is relaxed and unthreatened by the
process.

Similarly if a student knows how to decode (sound

out) words, he will usually enjoy reading. While in contrast,

 

39Ibid, p. 4.

40Ibid, p. 6.

30
if a student does not know how to decode words, he will not
ordinarily enjoy reading.

Even though only about 200 sight words are frequently
encountered, approximately 50 percent of the words on any
printed page are sight wordsfxlln many instances a student's
failure in learning to read key sight words is the crux of
his reading problem. Consequently, he must learn to read
frequently-encountered key sight words, as well as to decode
(sound out) new words that can be read phonetically.

So as the controversy continues, this study recog-
nized the need for a well planned systematic approach to
reading. At the same time it is directed toward the

non-reading or the slow reading student.

Summary

Recently those concerned with the slow readers in
upper elementary school are increasingly given to say that
the lower the teacher-pupil ratio, the better chance the
student has. A structured tutoring program indirectly

does just that.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The Site

Data used in this study were gathered in an elemen-
tary school located in a midwestern metropolitan community
with a pOpulation of about one hundred and fifty thousand.
The community in which the school is located is a combina-
tion of residential and commercial properties. A large
industrial plant, while not lying within the elementary
school attendance area, is just outside its boundary.
The housing pattern in the attendance area is a combina-
tion of multiple and single family dwellings. Located
in an older part of the city there is an absence of new
apartment complexes. However, there are several large
older homes that have been reconstructed for the purpose
of multiple family housing. Within the elementary boundaries
are a number of neighborhood grocery stores, gas stations,
and dry cleaners that supply the needs of the people residing
there. As of January, 1974, the principal of that school
noted that a high percentage of the school constituents
were experiencing economical difficulties. This was due
to the poor financial conditions of the city as a whole.

In particular, 80% of the community depended upon the

31

32

adjoining industrial complexes for their income. Lay-offs,
permanent and temporary, account in part for the high
mobility rates for about 20% of the student body. At the
time that these data were gathered, the school housed 468
students, not including those in kindergarten or the special
education programs.

A breakdown on the racial make-up of the student
body may be found in Table 3.1.

TABLE 3.1 -- BreakdoWn on the racial make-up of the
student body.

 

 

 

Race Total Number Percent of Total
Enrolled Students
White 183 39%
Non-White 285 61%
Totals 468 100%

 

Staffing Pattern of the School

 

Its staff includes some teachers who are organized
in a "differentiated staffing" pattern and others whose
role is more traditional. In addition to the teachers, the
staff includes coordinators, teaching aides, a community

school coordinator and a principal.

Selection of the Sample
The purpose of this study was to test the effects
of the Von Harrison Tutorial Reading Program on sixth grade

students reading below grade level.

33

The principal was contacted by Dr. William Hoffman
of Michigan State University. Discussion then followed
with the principal, central office personnel, and the
teachers involved. Permission was granted to do the study.

A list was compiled of the reading scores of the
forty sixth graders who scored lowest among the sixth
graders in order of their scores. Every second person
was assigned to the experimental group, the alternate ones
making up the control group. The reading scores provided
by the school had been taken from the Stanford Achievement
Test routinely administered in 1973.

All forty, both control and experimental were

then given the Von Harrison Reading Test.

 

 

 

TABLE 3.2 —- Reading scores from Von Harrison Reading Test
Experimental Control
Student Student
1 - 2.3 11 - 3.0 l - 2.3 11 - 3.0
2 - 2.4 12 - 3.0 2 - 2.4 12 - 3.0
3 - 2.5 13 - 3.1 3 - 2.5 13 - 3.1
4 - 2.6 14 - 3.2 4 - 2.6 14 - 3.2
5 - 2.6 15 - 3.2 5 - 2.6 15 - 3.2
6 - 2.6 16 - 3.4 6 - 2.6 16 - 3.4
7 - 2.6 17 - 3.5 7 - 2.6 17 - 3.5
8 - 2.7 18 - 3.5 8 - 2.7 18 - 3.5
9 - 3.0 19 - 3.6 9 - 3.0 19 - 3.6
10 - 3.0 20 - 3.6 10 - 3.0 20 - 3.6

 

34

Instrumentation

 

The Von Harrison reading test was administered by
the teacher in charge of the project at the school. (See
Appendix B for grade equivalent scores.)

Mehl recommends that his student level of confidence
of academic ability form (S.L.C.A.A.) not be administered
by teachers, since some of the items reflect the student's
perceptions of their teachers' evaluation of their work.1
Therefore, this study, as did Mehl's study, used Michigan
State University students who were enrolled in Education
482 (The Urban Tutorial Program) at Michigan State Univer-
sity to administer the S.L.C.A.A. A training session for
them was held prior to the administration of the S.L.C.A.A.
form.

The student level of confidence of academic ability
was determined by the previously outlined procedures. The
scale for this test was developed by Mehl after "a careful
examination of the literature of Brookover and others."2

An interview technique was used to accommodate

students whose reading level might be too low, as well as

to insure reliability of administration.

 

1John W. Mehl, Parental Attitude Toward the School,
Student Confidence Level of Academic Ability, Selected Indices
of Student Achievement: A Comparative Study of Relationshipg
(unpublished Ph.D. Disseration, Michigan State University,
1972).

 

 

2Ibid, p. 47.

35

Each item is scaled on a five point Likert-type
continuum with a letter (a) given a value of five (5)
points, (b) four (4) points, and on to (e) one (1) point.
A high score on the S.L.C.A.A. form indicated a low level
of confidence. The reliability of this instrument was
measured by the Hoyt test and showed a reliability (V) of
.70.3

The Von Harrison Reading Test was developed by
Dr. Grant Von Harrison while on the staff of the Research
Department of the University of Southern California.

It is a three part reading test given to the
students individually. The test not only shows the level
of ability in reading, but in addition shows diagnostically,
problem areas for each student, such as naming letters,
producing sounds, and reading sight words, blending the

sounds and decoding.

Analysis of Data

 

Multi-Variate ANOVA tests were used to analyze
the data. For this study the level of significance was
established as .005.

It has been the purpose of this chapter to
describe the procedures used in both the data gathering

and the analysis of the data.

 

31bid, pp. 47—48.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction

 

The purpose of the study is to find out if sixth
graders who have been reading below grade level will improve
their own reading level while acting as tutors, and whether
their tutoring helps raise reading achievement in those
being tutored.

Forty sixth graders reading below grade level were
systematically divided into two groups. One group was
designated as experimental group, the other as control.

The experimental group after receiving appropriate training
acted as tutors for 20 students defined as "needing help"

by their teachers.

Analysis of Results

 

The primary analysis of the basic data is presented
in this section.

Tables 4.1, 4.3, and 4.5 deal with the analysis of
data for Null Hypothesis I.

Tables 4.2, 4.4, and 4.6 deal with the analysis of
data for Null Hypothesis II.

Table 4.1 lists the mean pre and post test scores
made by the tutors and the control group in the Von

Harrison reading test.

36

37

TABLE 4.1 -- Mean pre and post test scores for the Von
Harrison reading test

 

 

 

Control Experimental
Pre Test 3.000 3.000
Post Test 3.000 4.000

 

Table 4.1 indicates that the mean score of the
experimental group rose one grade level in reading while
the mean score of the control group remained the same.

Table 4.2 shows the mean scores of the same
experimental and control groups as measured by the Mehl
test (Student Level of Confidence of Academic Ability)
S.L.C.A.A.

Table 4.2 -- Mean scores of the Student Level of Confidence

of Academic Ability of the experimental and
control groups as measured by the Mehl test.

 

 

Control Experimental

 

Pre Test 3.295 3.270

Post Test 3.315 2.855

 

The figures indicate a decrease of the mean of the
experimental group. On a Likert type scale a lower number
indicates more growth.

Table 4.3 tests the standard deviations for pre

and post reading scores.

38

TABLE 4.3 -- Standard deviations for pre and post
reading scores.

 

 

 

Control Experimental
Pre Test .4034 .4156
Post Test .4909 .7174

 

Table 4.4 lists the standard deviations for pre and

post tests of the S.L.C.A.A. (Mehl tests).

TABLE 4.4 -- Standard deviations for pre and post
tests of the S.L.C.A.A.

 

 

 

Control Experimental
Pre Test .2502 .2230
Post Test .1689 .2089

 

Both tables 4.3 and 4.4 confirm the results of
tables 4.1 and 4.2. There is a wider distribution of scores
for the experimental group than for the control group in
each of the post tests.

The next step in the analysis was to determine if
the data thus far presented related to the two hypotheses
in question.

Table 4.5 presents the results of the univariate

anova test of the data as it relates to null hypothesis I.

39
Null Hypothesis I
There will be no significant difference in gain
scores in reading achievement between experimental and
control groups of tutors as measured by the Von Harrison

Reading Test.

 

 

TABLE 4.5 -- Univariate Analysis of Variance in Reading
Scores
Mean Square Degrees of Multivariate P Less
Freedom F Than
1228.4503 1.37 43.1206 .0001

 

The results indicate P less than .0001, thus there
are significant differences between the mean of experimental
and control groups on the pre and post Von Harrison test,

in favor of the experimental group.

Null Hypothesis II

There will be no significant difference in gain
scores in student level of confidence in their academic
ability between experimental and control groups of tutors
as measured by the Mehl test of Student Level of Confidence

in Academic Ability.

 

 

TABLE 4.6 -- Univariate Analysis of Variance in S.L.C.A.A.
Scores
Mean Square Degrees of Multivariate P Less
Freedom F Than

1.7307 1.37 47.035 .0001

 

40
The results again show P less than .0001, and
indicate that there are significant differences between the
mean scores of the experimental and control groups of the
Mehl test, in favor of the experimental group.
The results of the data support rejection of both

of the null hypotheses of the study.

SecondaryfAnalysis

 

While the primary purpose of this study was to see
if sixth graders reading below grade level could be helped to
make progress in their reading ability, additional data
were gathered.

Involved in any tutor relationship is the tutee.
The reading progress of the tutees was also charted. The
tutees were pre and post tested, using the Von Harrison
reading tests. The tutees were not selected by a specific
statistical sampling method. Forty second grade students
were identified as "needing help in reading" by their
teachers. All names were alphabetized and every other name
was selected for the experimental group to be tutored by
the sixth grade tutors. The control group received no
tutoring.

Table 4.7 provided the means of the results of the

pre and post tests for the tutees.

41

TABLE 4.7 -- Pre and post tests in reading achievement
for the tutees.

 

 

Pre Reading, Post Reading Mean Difference

 

Experimental 1.59 3.42 +1.83

 

The mean difference for the tutees involved suggests
that the Von Harrison reading program does what it was
designed to do. (See Appendix C for grade equivalent scores.)
Von Harrison's intent was to take low-achieving tutors and
train them to tutor low-achieving tutees. The implications

of this research are mentioned in Chapter V.

Findings

There were significant differences reported between
the experimental and control groups on reading achievement
as measured by the Von Harrison reading test. The experi-
mental group, the sixth graders who tutored low achieving
second graders, made more reading gains than did their
counterparts in the control group.

There were significant differences reported between
the experimental and control groups on the student level of
self confidence in academic ability as measured by the Mehl
test. Students in the experimental group scored lower which
means they had a higher level of self confidence of academic
ability.

The secondary analysis indicates that the tutees in

the experimental group made significant gains in reading

42
achievement as measured by the Von Harrison reading test

over the control group who received no tutoring.

Summary
This chapter reported the analysis of the data

and listed the findings of the study.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Problem

 

It was the intent of this study to find the effect
of participation in a structured tutorial program on a
group of low achieving readers at the sixth grade level.
A control group was identified and exposed to the tradi-
tional reading programs his or her school was currently
offering. The experimental group, located at the same
school, received indoctrination, testing, and instruction,
and then acted as tutors to a group of second graders who
were identified as "needing help in reading" by their
teacher.
It was expected that two things would happen to
the experimental group.
1. The mean reading level of the experi-
mental group would increase at a
faster level than the control group.
2. The experimental group's rating on
the Mehl self confidence of academic
ability would show an increase in
their self confidence of academic
ability.

The research questions were stated in the null

hypothesis form and were tested statistically by examining

43

44
the difference between the experimental and control groups
using a multivariate analysis.
The results of the study indicated that both of the

null hypotheses were rejected with P less than .0001.

The Sample

 

The population from which the sample of tutors was
drawn was the sixth grade of the Willow Street School in
Lansing, Michigan. The research design was drawn up with
the cooperation of the Research Department of the College

of Education, Michigan State University.

Instruments Used to Collect the Data

The Von Harrison reading test was selected to pre
and post test all subjects.

The Mehl test for the student level of confidence
of academic ability was used to pre and post test all

tutor clients in the program.

Data Analysis

The test program was intended to identify whether
or not the treatment of the experimental and control groups
produced a mean difference in reading achievement in reading
level, and level of confidence of self concept of academic
ability. The data were collected, mean scores were found

and the mean scores were compared.

45

Findings

Results of the analysis showed that the mean
difference of both the reading level and the level of
confidence of academic ability of the experimental group
did increase; and that the findings were significant at
less than the .0001 level of significance. Further, the
second grade tutees demonstrated reading gains signifi-

cantly greater than the non-tutees.

Conclusions

 

l. A basic conclusion of this study is
that involvement in the Von Harrison
structural tutorial program was
successful in improving the reading of
readers of low achievement at the
sixth grade level in the population
studied.

2. A second basic conclusion is that
involvement in the Von Harrison
program also increased the level of
confidence of academic ability as
measured by the Mehl test of sixth
grade students involved within the
program.

3. In addition, those younger children
who were tutored scored mean gains
that indicate a growth that gives
further support for using a
structured tutoring program.

Discussion

 

For many years educators have tried to come up with
"a program" or "a system" that would satisfy the learning
needs of all the students. The Von Harrison structured
tutorial program as used here, proved to be a promising tool

to increase the reading level of tutors and tutees alike.

46

It is not, however, to be concluded from this study
that this is "the system" or "the program." Rather it is
a diagnostic, prescriptive program that proved here to lend

itself inexpensively to the needs of some students.

Recommendations

 

This investigation was undertaken to test the
realtionship between the use of the Von Harrison Tutorial
Reading Program as a means of increasing reading levels and
its effect on the clients level of confidence of academic
ability.

As a result of this study it is recommended that
educators give serious consideration to the use of struc-
tured tutorial programs. This recommendation would apply
to its use for achieving students and non-achieving students
alike. The research regarding tutorial programs should not
be confused with structured tutorial programs. The key
seems to be that a structured program offered on a one—to-one
basis produces gain scores not realized by non-structured

tutoring programs.

Recommendations for Further Study

1. This test be replicated with a different
population to see if results are the same 3

2. That the prescription be given for a full

academic year to reduce the Hawthorne effect
and to see if gains are substantial.

3. Test the same group a year later to see
if mean gain scores hold over time.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, James E., Jr. "The Right to Read Target for the
l970's,"The PTA Magazine, LXIV (December, 1969):
6-7.

 

Barbe, Walter B. Educators Guide to Personalized Reading
Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 1961.

Baun, Eugene. "The Washington University Campus Y Tutoring
Project," Peabody Journal of Education (1965),
pp. 161-168.

Beck, Carlton E., and others. Education for Relevance.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968.

Brogan, Peggy and Lorene Fox. Helping Children Learn.
New York: World Bood Company, 1955.

Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. New York
Alfred A. Knopf, Incorporated, 1960.

Bush, Clifford L., and Mildred H. Huebner. Strategies
for Reading_in the Elementary School. London:
MacMillan Company, 1970.

Chasnoff, Robert E. Elementary Curriculum. New York:
Pitman Publishing Company, 1964.

Cloward, Robert D. "The Nonprofessional in Education:
Mobilization of Youth's Tutorial Project,"
Educational Leadership (1967), pp. 604-606.

Cohen, S. Alan. Teach Them All to Read. New York:
Random House, 1969.

Combs, Arthur W. The Professional Education of Teachers.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1965.

Daniels, Steve. How 2 Gerbils, 20 Goldfish, 200 Games,
2,000 Books, and_I Taught ThemHow To Read.
Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969.

Dawson, Don. "Some Issues in Groups for Reading,"
National Department of Elementary School Principals
34th Yearbook of the International Education
Association, (Washington, D.C.: 1955).

 

47

48

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

Dawson, Mildred A. and Frieda Hayes Dingee. Children
pearn the Language Arts. Minneapolis: Burgess
Publishing Company, 1959.

 

Duker, Sam. Individualized ReadingilAn Annotated
Biblio ra h . Metchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow
Press, I968.

Durell, D. D. "First Grade Reading Success," Journal of
Education, No. 3 (1969).

 

 

Fader, Daniel W. and Elton B. McNeil. Hooked on Books:
Program and Proof. New York: A Berkiey
Medallion Book, 1970.

 

 

Fantini, Mario D. and Gerald Weinstein. The Disadvantaged
Challenge to Education. New York: Harper and
Row, 1968.

 

Fenewich, H. English and Donald K. Sharpes. Strategies
for Differentiated Staffing. Berkley: McCutchan
Publishing Company, 1970.

 

Freund, Janet. "Time and Knowledge to Share," Elementary
School Journal, (February, 1965) pp. 351-358.

 

Fromm, Erich. The Art of Loving. New York: Harper and
Row, 1963.

 

Glasser, William. Schools Without Failure. New York:
Harper and Row,il969.

Good, Carter V. Dictionary of Education. Second Edition.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959.

Gordon, Ira J., Robert L. Curran, and Donald L. Avila.
An Inter-Disciplinary Approach to Improvingthe
Development o£_Culturally Disadvantaged Children.
Gainesville, Florida: College of Education,
University of Florida, 1966.

Goslin, David A. The Schgpl In Contemporary Society.
Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1965.

Heilman, Arthur W. Phonics in Proper Perspective.
Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, 1964.

Hildreth, Gertrude. Teaching Reading. New York: Henry
Holt and Company, 1958.

 

49
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

Holt, John. How Children Fail. New York: Pitman
Publishing Corporation, 1964.

 

. How Children Learn. New York: Pitman Publishing
Corporation,gi967.

 

Kearney, Nolan C. "An Analysis of the Vocabulary of
First Grade Reading Materials," Journal of
Educational Research, Volume XLIII, March, 1950.

 

 

Lacy, Don. "Readings Place in an Effective Society,"
International Reading Association Conference
Proceedings, Scholastic Magazine, (January,
1958): 20.

 

Lee, D. M. and R. VanAllen. Learning to Read Through
Experience (revised editiofi). New York? Appleton-
Century-Crofts, Incorporated, 1963.

 

 

Mehl, John Walter. Parental Attitudes Toward the School,
Student Confidence, Level of Academic Abilityy
Selected Indices of Student Achievement, A
Comparative Study of—Relationships. (Unpublished
Ph. D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972).

 

 

 

Michael, Stephan, and William Issac. Handbook in Research
gpd Evaluation. San Diego: Robert P. Knapp
Publisher, 1971.

 

Noce, James. Research and Evaluation in Tutorial Programs.
Washington, D. C.: Tutorial Assistance Center, 1967.

Portuges, Stephan H. and Norma D. Feshback. "The Effects
of Teachers' Reinforcement Style Upon Imitative
Behavior of Children," A.E.R.A. Paper Abstracts, ed.
Henry Hausdorf (Washington, D.C.: American
Educational Resdarch Association, 1968): p. 268.

Rogers, Vincent R. Teaching in The British Primary School.
London: MacMillan Company, 1970.

Ryan, Kevin and James M. Cooper. Those Who Can, Teach.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972.

Schatz, Esther. Exploring Elementary Reading in the
Elementary Classroom. The Ohio State University,
1960.

 

Schwebel, Milton. Who Can Be Educated? New York: Grove
Press, Incorporated, 1968.

 

50
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Smith, Nila Barton. Historical Analysis of American

Reading Instruction. New York: Silver Burdett,
Company, 1934T

 

 

Spache, George. "New Trends in Primary-Grade Readers,"
Elementary School Journal,XLII, December, 1941.

 

Telego, Gene. "A Teen Tutorial Program," Pacereport,
Lexington, Kentucky: A publication of the College
of Education, University of Kentucky, May-June,
1968.

 

Veatch, Jeanette. "Individualized Reading for Success in
the Classroom," The Educational Trend, April, 1954.

 

. Individualizing Your Reading Program. New York:
G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1959.

 

. Reading in the Elementary Schools. New York:
The Ronald Press Company, 1966.

 

 

Von Harrison, Grant. Beginning Regding I: A Professional
Guide for the LayI Tutor. Provo, Utah: Brigham
Young University Press, 1972, p. 25.

 

Walker, Jess M. A Comparative Study of Personalized +Reading
in an Open-Learning Environment, and Basal; Text
Reading in a Traditional Learning Environment
throu h Earl EIementaryPupil Achievement.
(Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1970).

 

 

 

Witty, Paul. Reading in Modern Education. Boston: D. C.
Heath and Company, 1949.

 

Yoakam, Gerald A. Basal Reading Instruction. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Incorporated, 1955.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Instructor's Guide to Tutorial Reading Program1
Chapter 3

TRAINING GUIDE

INTRODUCTION

The following materials will assist the supervisor
in training the tutors. The training schedule suggests
seven training sessions; however, the time required to train
tutors will vary. If it is possible to schedule training
sessions for one hour instead of one-half hour, the training
can be completed in four sessions.

On the other hand if the tutors being trained are
lax in reading the Home Study Materials, it will take more
time. Also, if low achievers are selected as tutors, it
may take more time to train them. For example, if the tutors
do not know the sounds of certain letters, it will be
necessary to teach them these sounds in addition to the
specified tutoring techniques and procedures.

The school's reading specialist can prepare a tape
of appropriate sound models for the tutors to listen to.

The Sound Guide is adequate for answering any questions
regarding the specific sounds of any of the individual
letters or combinations of letters.

The supervisor should read carefully the Tutor Home
Study Materials (Chapter 4) and the Training Guide very

carefully before he conducts the training sessions. It is

 

1Used by permission of the author, Grant Von Harrison.

51

52

absolutely essential that he demonstrate the various
tutoring techniques and procedures before he has the tutors
practice them by roleplaying. This necessitates that the
trainer be highly conversant with all aspects of the training.

Before he meets with the tutors, the supervisor must
make arrangements with their teachers for them to be released
from class at designated times. It is also necessary that
the supervisor allow one week between the third and fourth
training sessions for each tutor to begin working with a
student who needs help with names of letters, sounds, or
sight words before introducing the tutors to the tutoring
procedures covered in the third, fourth, and fifth sets of
the Home Study Materials.

At the conclusion of the training, the tutors
should be able to handle any one of the following instruc-
tional prescriptions: naming letters, producing sounds of
letters and letter combinations, blending sounds, decoding

words, reading sight words, and reading orally.

ORIENTATION SESSION
Materials

. A copy of the Home Study Materials for each tutor
being trained.

. A c0py of the schedule of the training sessions.
Equipment

. A chair for each tutor being trained.
Procedures

. Cover the prescribed dialogue and instructions.

. Answer any questions the students have regarding their
roles as tutors.

53

Dialogue and Instructions

Congratulations. You have been selected to be a
tutor. A tutor is a special kind of teacher who teaches
one person at a time.

Before being assigned to tutor a younger student,
you will be taught how to tutor.

Review the schedule of the training sessions with
the tutors.

Today you will be given some home study materials
which will explain what you do the first time you meet a
student.

In the training sessions you will practice how to
tutor a student by means of role-playing.

Define role-playing.

After you have completed your training, you will
be assigned to tutor a younger student who needs special

help with his school work.

Conclusion
. Answer any questions the tutors may have.

. Give each tutor the Home Study Materials and a copy
of the training schedule.

. Stress how important it is that each tutor study the
first set of the Home Study Materials very carefully
before the first training session.

. Explain that in the first training session each of
them will practice meeting with a student for the
first time.

. Praise the tutors for accepting the responsibility
to be tutors.

. Tell them where and when the next training sessions
will be held.

54
TRAINING SESSION ONE
Note: The trainer should review the first set of

the Home Study Materials very carefully before conducting
the first training session.
Materials

. A set of flash cards for each pair of tutors.

. A Contingency Record.

. The first set of the Home Study Materials.
Equipment

. A table and two chairs for each pair of tutors
being trained.

Procedure
. Begin the prescribed dialogue.

. Follow the instructions on how to conduct various
phases of the training session.

. Have only one tutor respond when a response from
the tutors is requested.

. If the response is adequate, praise the tutor and
restate the answer.

. Example:

Trainer: "Why is it important to ask the student
friendly questions?"

Tutor: "So he will like us and not be afraid."

Trainer: "Very good. If you don't ask the student
friendly questions he might be frightened."

. Praise the tutors consistently after they practice the
various tutoring techniques.

Dialogue and Instructions
What should you remember to do when you are speaking

to the student? (Smile, speak in a friendly voice, speak

55
slowly and clearly. Briefly discuss the why for each
point.)

What should you remember to never say when a
student makes a mistake? ("No that is wrong" or ”That
isn't right")

How does it make a student fell if you tell him
no or that an answer is wrong? (Bad.)

What do you do before you meet with a student for
the first time? (Pick up your tutoring assignment sheets
from your supervisor so that you will know what you will
be teaching the student and also obtain the instructional
materials you will need, e.g. flash cards, decoding
exercises, storybooks.)

What are the questions you ask the student to put
him at ease? (What is your name? Do you have pets? Do
you like to play games?)

Play the role of the tutor and have one of the
student tutors play the role of the student in order to
demonstrate asking the designed questions.

Next, divide the tutors into pairs and instruct
them to take turns playing the role of student. Have each
tutor go once through the questions which are designed to
put the student at ease.

AlSo instruct the tutors to always sit on either
side of the child, never across from him, and to hold the

flash cards in their left hands. After each tutor has gone

56
once through the questions which are designed to put the
student at ease, select one tutor to demonstrate asking the
questions in front of the entire group and another to play
the role of the student. Then critique the tutor's perfor-
mance in front of the group.

Did he remember to smile?

Did he speak in a friendly voice?

Did he ask all of the questions?

Did he say something each time the student answered
a question before asking another question?

If you were assigned to teach the child the names of
letters 1, t, p, c, and b, what instructional materials
would you pick up before you meet with the student? (Three
flash cards for each letter.)

How many flash cards for each letter do you place
in your stack to start with? (One.)

What do you do after you explain what the flash
cards gave on them? (Hold up one flash card at a time,
tell the student the correct answer, and have him repeat
the correct answer.)

What do you say each time the student repeats the
answer correctly? ("That is right" or "Very good.")

Why is it important to praise the student every time
he is correct? (It provides encouragement, makes him feel
good, motivates him.)

What don't you do if a student repeats the answer

incorrectly? (Say no.)

57

What do you do if a student repeats the answer
incorrectly? (Tell him the correct answer.)

What do you do if the student mumbles or does not
speak clearly? (Encourage him to speak clearly.)

What do you do if the student speaks softly? (Ask
him to speak louder.)

How long do you go through the stack of flash
cards? (Approximately fifteen minutes.)

Play the role of the tutor and demonstrate having
the student (played by the tutor) repeat the correct answer
to the stimuli in the flash cards.

Provide each pair of tutors with a set of flash
cards (one flash card for six different stimuli), and
instruct the tutors to take turns playing the role of the
student. They are to repeat the answer incorrectly twice
and whisper answers correctly twice when they play the
role of the student.

While the tutors are practicing, watch for the
following:

. Do the tutors consistently praise the student
for repeating the answer correctly?

. Do the tutors avoid saying no if the student
repeats the answer incorrectly?

. Do the tutors ask the student to speak louder
if he whispers?

. Do the tutors playing the role of the student

repeat the answer incorrectly twice?

58

. Do the tutors playing the role of the student
whisper the correct answer twice?

If necessary the tutors are to be reminded of the
above points.

Did anyone forget to praise the student when he
repeated the answer correctly?

Did anyone say no when the student repeated the
answer incorrect?

Did anyone forget to have the student speak louder
when he whispered?

What do you say and do before you send the student
back to class?

Say things that will let the student know he has
done well: for example, "You really have done well today.
When I see your teacher I am going to tell her how well
you did." When the student learns what I am assigned to
teach him, I report to my supervisor. If the student passes
a mastery test, I help place a star on his record.

Next, show the tutors the Contingency Record and
explain how it is maintained.

What do you do after the student has returned to
class? (Fill out the Tutor Log.)

What information do you record on your Tutor Log?
(The date, the number of the instructional prescription,
comments about how the student reacted and what he learned.)
The supervisor should decide in advance what information he

wants the tutors to record.

59
How long do you continue to have the student repeat
the correct answers when you work with him? (Until he has
learned to say at least two of the new correct answers
without help.)
Conclusion

. Answer any questions the tutors may have.

. Stress how important it is that each tutor go
over the second set of the Home Study Materials
before the next session.

TRAINING SESS ION TWO

Note: The trainer should review the second set of
the Home Study Materials very carefully before conducting
the second training session.
Materials
. A set of flash cards for each pair of tutors
(three copies of at least six different stimuli
in file boxes of packets).
. A Tutor Log for each tutor.
. The second set of Home Study Materials.
Equipment

. A table and two chairs for each pair of tutors.
Procedures

. Begin the prescribed dialogue.

. Follow the instructions on how to conduct various
phases of the training session.

. Have only one tutor respond when a response from
the tutors is requested.

60

Dialogue and Instructions

What are the things you should remember when you
are speaking to the child? (Smile, speak in a friendly
voice, speak slowly and clearly.)

How do you check to see if the child has learned
some of the correct answers? (Ask him to tell you the
answer for each flash card and keep track of those he is
able to answer correctly.)

Play the role of the tutor and demonstrate checking
to see if the student has learned some of the answers.
Have the tutor playing the role of the student answer
correctly to three of the flash cards. Demonstrate
recording on the Tutor Log the answers the student has
learned. Provide each pair of tutors a set of flash cards
and two tutor logs. Instruct each pair to take out of the
box one flash card for six different answers. Have the
tutors practice checking to see if the student has learned
at least two answers and then record the results on the
Tutor Log.

Instruct the tutors to do the following when they
play the role of the student:

. Get two answers correct.

. Hesitate in some answers.

. Answer incorrectly.

While the tutors are role-playing, watch for the

following:

61

. Did the tutors remember not to tell the student
the correct answers?

. Did the tutors remember not to tell the student
whether or not his answer was correct?

. Did the tutor remember to go to the next card if
the student hesitated in answering?

. Did the tutor remember to keep track of the cards
for which the student knew the answers?

If necessary, remind the tutors of these points,
and be sure to have them fill out the Tutor Log.

If the child has learned at least two answers from
repeating the answers, what do you do? (Start to teach
one new answer.)

If the child has not learned at least two answers
from repeating the answers, what do you do? (Continue to
have the child repeat the correct answer until he has
learned at least two answers.)

Have the tutors practice, by means of role-playing,
everything that has been covered thus far in the training
sessions:

. Putting the student at ease.

. Having the student repeat the correct answers.

. Checking to see if the student has learned at
least two answers.

. Making entries in the Tutor Log.

. Concluding a session.

62

Stress to the student that they must be able to

remember to practice these techniques.

Each time you work with the child, say things that

will make him enjoy being tutored.

At the conclusion of the student's tutoring session,

make an entry in your Tutor Log.
Conclusion

. Answer any questions the tutors may have.

. Tell the tutors to study very carefully steps
3 through 9 in the second set of the Home Study
Materials before the next training session.

. Explain that in the next training session, they
will practice teaching new answers, using the
flash cards.

. Praise the tutors.

. Tell them where and when the next training
session will be held.

TRAINING SESSION THREE

Note: Review steps 3 through 9 in the second set
of the Home Study Materials very carefully before conducting
the third training session.

Materials

. A set of flash cards for each set of tutors
being trained.

. A Tutor Log for each tutor being trained.
Equipment

. A table and two chairs for each pair of tutors.

63
Procedures
. Begin the prescribed dialogue.

. Follow the instructions on how to conduct various
phases of the training session.

. Have only one tutor respond when a response from
the tutors is requested.

Dialogue and Instructions

What do you do before you meet with the student to
start to teach him a new answer? (Prepare a stack of flash
cards made up of all the answers the student knows, plue the
three flash cards for one of the answers he does not know;
shuffle the stack.)

Demonstrate preparing a stack of flash cards to
teach the student an answer he does not know (e.g., when
tested, the student knew hypothetically in the previous
session, and tell him one new answer to teach.)

Then check for the following:

. Does the stack contain one flash card for each
answer the student knows?

. Does the stack contain three flash cards for one
new answer?

. Did the tutor mix up the flash cards?

. Is the first card in the stack one of the flash
cards for which the student knows the answer?

When you start to teach a new answer, do you tell
the student the correct answer? (No, I ask the student to

tell me the answer.)

64

What do you do if the student answers correctly?
("That is right" or "Very good.")

What do you do if the student is slow to answer or
says he does not know the correct answer? (Tell him the
correct answer and have him repeat it.)

What do you do if the student answers incorrectly?
(Do not say no or that is wrong: simply tell the child the
correct answer and have him repeat it.)

How long do you drill the student with flash cards?
(Approximately five minutes.)

Demonstrate teaching the student a new answer.
Instruct the tutor who plays the role of the student to
miss the new letter the first few times it comes up.

Give each set of tutors a set of flash cards and
have them practice teaching the student a new answer.
Instruct them when they play the role of the student to
miss the new answer at least four times and to hesitate
at least five times.

Check for the following:

. Did the tutor consistently praise the student?

. Did the tutor tell the student the correct
answer if he hesitated?

. Did the tutor refrain from saying no when the
student answered incorrectly?

Have the tutors practice concluding a session and

making an entry in the Tutor Log.

65

What do you do in the next session if the student
learned the new answer? (Start to teach him one more new
answer.)

What do you do in the next session if the student
did not learn the new answer? (Continue to drill the
student on the same answer until he learns it.)

What flash cards do you put in the stack after the
student learns the new answer? (Put one flash card for
every answer the student learned from repeating the correct
answers, two flash cards with the answer taught in the last
session, one flash card for each answer taught before the
last session, three flash cards with the new answer that
is going to be taught.)

Demonstrate preparing the stack of flash cards for
a later session (e.g., the student knows a, m, and n when
checked after he has repeated the correct answers; f and i
have been taught in previous sessions; 5 was taught in the
last session; and t will be taught in the next session.)

Have the tutors practice preparing the stack of
flash cards for a later session. Tell them which answers
the student learned from repeating the correct answers,
which answers have been taught, which new answer was taught
in the last session, and what new answer is to be taught in
the next session.

What do you do if the student forgets an answer which
he has known previously? (Keep going through the stack until

the child is able to answer correctly for each flash card.)

66
What should you do if the student consistently
has trouble remembering an answer that has been taught? (Do
not put a new answer in the stack until the student is able
to answer correctly for each flash card already in the stack.)
What do you do when the student learns the correct
answer for each flash card? (Report to the supervisor.)
Conclusion
. Answer any questions the tutors may have.
. Explain that in the next session, which is to
be the last training session of the first phase
of their training, the tutors will practice

everything that have learned.

. Tell them to review completely the second set
of the Home Study Materials.

. Tell the tutors that if they do well in the
next training session, they will be assigned
to tutor a student.

. Praise the tutors.

. Tell them where and when the next training
session will be held.

TRAINING SESSION FOUR

Materials

. A set of flash cards for each set of tutors
being trained.

. A Tutor Log for each tutor.

. A copy of the specific procedures the tutors
are to follow (e.g., going to and from class,
picking up materials, reporting the student's
progress to the supervisor.)

. A c0py of the Instructional Sequence for each
tutor.

67
. The tutor assignment sheets filled out (if
possible) for each tutor, assigning him to
help a studnet with an instructional
prescription which requires the use of the
flash cards (those containing letter names,
letter sounds, and so forth.)
Equipment
. A table and two chairs for each pair of tutors.
Procedures

. Begin the prescribed dialogue.

. Follow the instructions on how to conduct
various phases of the training session.

. Have only one tutor respond when a response
from the tutors is requested.

Dialogue and Instructions

Today we are going to pretend that you have just
been assigned to tutor a student and that you will be
meeting with him several different times on different days.

Give each tutor a copy of the tutor assignment
sheets and a copy of the Instructional Sequence. The tutor
assignment sheets should contain the student's name and
room number and assign the tutor to help the student with
the fourteenth instructional prescription.

Show the tutors how to use the Instructional
Sequence to determine what specific letter names, letter
sounds, or sight words are in a particular instructional
prescription.

Now take turns pretending you are meeting with the
student for the first time.

Ask him questions to put him at ease.

68

Get one flash card for each answer you are assigned
to teach him.

Have the student repeat the correct answers three
times. If you were actually tutoring a student you would
have him repeat the correct answers for ten minutes.

Conclude the session.

Make an entry on your Tutor Log.

After each tutor has practiced conducting the first
session, have him pretend it is the next day and instruct
him to check to see if the student has learned at least
two answers. Tell the tutor to answer correctly for only
two flash cards when he plays the role of the student.

Remind him to conclude the session and then make
an entry in his Tutor Log.

Next, have the tutors practice preparing their
flash cards for the next session in which they will be
teaching the first new answer. Then have them pretend they
are meeting with the student for the third time. Remind
the tutors to make an entry in their tutor logs after they
conclude the session.

Have the tutors practice preparing their flash
cards for a later session in which they will be teaching
the student the last new answer they were assigned to teach
him. Remind the tutors again, if necessary, to make an

entry in their tutor logs after they conclude the session.

69

Direct the rest of the session, and if necessary
an additional session, to the specific procedures the tutors
are to follow (e.g., picking up and returning flash cards,
returning to class). These should be written out in detail
and duplicated for each tutor.
Conclusion
. Give the tutors their first assignments at
this time if at all possible. If this is not
possible, let them know when they will receive
their first assignment.
. Explain that the next training session will be
scheduled after this group of tutors has had
the Opportunity to tutor students using the
flash cards for approximately one week.
. Do not assign a tutor to tutor a student if
for some reason he has not mastered the specified
tutoring techniques.

. Praise the tutors.

TRAINING SESSION FIVE

Note: The fifth training session should not be
conducted until each student tutor has had an opportunity
to tutor a student using flashcard drills for approximately
one week.

The trainer should review the third set of the
Home Study Materials very carefully before conducting the
fifth training session.
Materials

. One blending exercise for each pair of tutors.

. A Contingency Record.

. A Tutor Log for each tutor.

70
Equipment

. A table and two chairs for each pair of
tutors being trained.

Procedures

. Follow the instructions on how to conduct
various phases of the training session.

. Have only one tutor respond when a response
from the tutors is requested.

Conducting Instructions

. Review and discuss with the tutors the study
questions for the third set of the Home Study Materials.

. Demonstrate the procedures the tutors should
follow when they are working with the blending exercises.

. Have the tutors practice the procedures by
means of role playing.

. Critique the performance of the tutors. Remember
that it is imperative that they they learn the specific
techniques for teaching the blending of sounds and that
they follow them precisely; otherwise they will be almost
totally ineffective in teaching students to blend the
sounds of letters.

I . Have the tutors practice concluding a session
and filling out their tutor logs.

. Discuss the procedures the tutors should follow
in reporting to their supervisor when the student is able
to blend the sounds on a blending exercise. Discuss also
the procedures they should follow in marking the Contingency

Record.

71
Conclusion
. Praise the tutors.

. Tell the tutors to carefully study the fourth
set of the Home Study Materials.

. Tell the tutors where and when the next training
session will be held.
TRAINING SESSION SIX
Note: The trainer should carefully review the
fourth set of the Home Study Materials before conducting
the sixth training session.
Materials

. One decoding exercise for each pair of
tutors being trained.

. A Contingency Record for each tutor.
. A Tutor Log for each tutor.
Equipment

. A table and two chairs for each pair of
tutors being trained.

Procedures

. Follow the instructions on how to conduct
various phase of the training session.

. Have only one tutor respond when a response
from the tutors is requested.

Conducting Instructions
. Review and discuss with the tutors the study
questions for the fourth set of the Home Study Materials.
. Demonstrate the procedures the tutors should
follow when they are working with one of the decoding

exercises.

72

. Have the tutors practice the procedures by
means of role playing.

. Have the tutors practice concluding a session
and filling out their Tutor Logs.

. Discuss the procedures the tutors should follow
in reporting to their supervisor when the student is able
to blend the sounds on a blending exercise. Discuss also
the procedures they should follow in marking the Contingency
Record.

Conclusion
. Praise the tutors.

. Tell the tutors to carefully study the fifth
set of the Home Study Materials.

. Tell the tutors where and when the next training
session will be held.

TRAINING SESSION SEVEN

Note: The trainer should carefully review the fifth
set of the Home Study Materials before conducting the
seventh training session.
Materials

. One storybook for each pair of tutors.

. A Contingency Record for each tutor.

. Several copies of the Individual Student
Progress Report.

. A Tutor Log for each tutor.
. The tutor assignment sheets (filled out) for

each pair of tutors if they have not been
assigned to tutor a child previously.

73
Equipment

. A table and two chairs for each pair of
tutors being trained.

Procedures

. Follow the instructions on how to conduct
various phases of the training.

. Have only one tutor respond when a response
from the tutors is requested.

Conducting Instructions

. Review and discuss with the tutors the study
questions for the fifth set of the Home Study Materials.

. Demonstrate the procedures the tutors should
follow when the student is reading an exercise or a story-
book orally.

. Have the tutors practice the procedures by role
playing. So that the tutor will have a change to practice
the specific tutoring techniques he has learned, instruct
the tutor playing the role of the student to hesitate on
some words and to read some words incorrectly.

. Have the tutors practice filling out their
tutor logs.

. Discuss the procedures the tutors should follow
in reporting to their supervisor when a student is able to
read a storybook. Discuss also the procedures they should
follow in marking the Contingency Record.

. Tell the tutors where the following materials are
filed: blending exercises, decoding exercises, reading
exercises, and storybooks. Discuss the procedures the tutors

should follow in picking up and returning their materials.

74

. If the tutors have not previously been assigned
to tutor students, give them their first assignment.

. Show the tutors how to fill out the Individual
Student Progress Report.
Conclusion

. Answer any questions the tutors may have.

. Praise the tutors.

APPENDIX B
PRE & POST TEST SCORES FOR TUTORS

Experimental Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre Test Post Test
Student Grade Equiva- Student Grade Equiva-
Number lent Score Number lent Score

1. 2.3 l. 4.1
2. 2.4 2. 4.4
3. 2.5 3. 4.0
4. 2.6 4. 3.8
5. 2.6 5. 5.1
6. 2.6 6. 3.8
7. 2.6 7. 4.2
8. 2.7 8. 2.9
9. 3.0 9. 3.9
10. 3.0 10. 4.0
11. 3.0 11. 3.1
12. 3.0 12. 5.4
13. 3.1 13. 5.2
14. 3.2 14. 4.8
15. 3.2 15. 4.6
16. 3 4 16. 4.2
17. 3.5 17. 4.2
18. 3.5 18. 3.6
19. 3.6 19. 4.2
20. 3.6 20. 5.1
Control Group

Pre Test Post Test
Student Grade Equiva- Student Grade Equiva-
Number lent Score Number lent Score

1. 2.3 l. 2.3
2. 2.4 2. 2.3
3. 2.5 3. 2.5
4. 2.6 4. 2.6
5. 2.6 5. 2.7
6. 2.6 6. 2.6
7. 2.6 7. 2.6
8. 2.7 8. 2.8
9. 3.0 9. 2.5
10. 3.0 10. 2.9
11. 3.0 11. 3.0
12. 3 0 12. 3.1
13. 3.1 13. 3.0
14. 3.2 14. 3.2

75

76

Appendix B (continued)

 

15. 3.2 15.
16. 3.4 16.
17. 3.5 17.
18. 3.5 18.
19. 3.6 19.
20. 3.6 20.

wwwwww
O O O I O O
\lflflbmb

APPENDIX C

PRE & POST TEST SCORES FOR TUTEES

 

 

Pre Test Post Test
Student Grade Equiva- Student Grade Equiva-
Number lent Score Number lent Score

1. 1.2 1. 2.5
2. 1.4 2. 2.7
3. 1.5 3. 3.2
4. 1.0 4. 2.4
5. 1.7 5. 3.0
6. 1.8 6. 3.9
7. 2.1 7. 4.2
8. 2.2 8. 3.6
9. 2.3 9. 3.4
10. 1.3 10. 3.4
11. 1.4 11. 3.7
12. 1.3 12. 3.7
13. 1.1 13. 3.2
14. 1.8 14. 2.3
15. 2.4 15. 4.1
16. 3.1 16. 4.4
17. 1.6 17. 3.9
18. 1.1 18. 3.7
19. 1.2 19. 3.8
20. 1.4 20. 3.4

77