.Nw‘! r.
n vortccuv

     

’zv‘a

  

Y
c

     

‘
‘-
...

...... .
a 3.... ....v.....

0...:

‘1

  

   

 

the

u
l

.

é

 

m

        

v.

Th

 

 

.m....J........H......i........

... . ...1 :I

aka.

 

fife;

.n‘ "‘.r_

.

 

J .. .... .. .
......un...» of.”

 

 

  

c. . I31 a v-.ova....::. l.‘...fu...ln. 1.. UI.J. :-CJ.O.

 

 

          
          

 

 
   

 

. ......
IV 'DII .-
J’oabat J~L.r
"LN/.24.

 

   

 
 

   

                         

         

'qufl cnulltv

. . Jinn}.

    
    

uA- n’r ..
......4..
.IV on:

.

up 7"».

. ... u i. f
......._.r..ct Ff!

.... -v! 1'4.

.. run»

   

Vflmhvfitlfié
'11. Int .

4.71M. 97:» a. 1rd

  

 

 

         

(......

. .L rvub

 

 

 

   
     

T .lllflllllt'. u ..
6 University

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled _
PRIMARY SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT AND BEHAVIORAL AGE

presented by

FRANCIS ASHLEY ESCH

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Doctor of Philosoghz degreein Education

Date September 292 1972

Fw‘; ..-“ ...-.. j

1'

...;

 

 

ABSTRACT

PRIMARY SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT AND BEHAVIORAL AGE

BY
Francis Ashley Esch

Problem Statement

The purpose of this study was to examine the nature
of the relationship between academic achievement as meas-
ured by appropriate Stanford Achievement Tests and behav-
ioral age as measured by the Gesell Developmental Examination
and the ABC Inventory. The purpose was further resolved into
the following five major hypotheses:

1. No linear relationship exists between behavioral
age as measured by the Gesell Deve10pmental Examination and
the ABC Inventory, and achievement as measured by the Stan-
ford Achievement Tests.

2. Gains in reading and mathematics scores of first
year students as measured by the Stanford Early School
Achievement Test, Level I, will not be related to behav-
ioral age as measured by the Gesell Developmental Examination
and the ABC Inventory.

3. No difference will be found in achievement as meas-
ured by the Stanford Achievement Tests between groups with
a behavioral age less than 5.5 years and groups with a be-
havioral age greater than or equal to 5.5 years as measured

by the Gesell Developmental Examination.

Francis Ashley Esch

4. There is no significant correlation between
Gesell Developmental Examination subscores and Stanford
Achievement Test subscores.

5. The ABC Inventory is less valid than the Gesell
Developmental Examination for educational placement of

first year students.

Procedure

The sample population consisted of 187 students of
the Edmonson Elementary School which was representative
of the middle class community of madison Heights, a northern
suburban city of Detroit, Michigan. Behavioral age and
achievement data was gathered over a three year period on
63 children identified as Group A, for a two year period on
69 children identified as Group B, and for a period of one
year on 55 children identified as Group C.

Hypotheses one, two, and four were subjected to statis-
tical tests establishing linear correlations between variables.
Hypothesis three was tested using a one way analysis of vari-
ance model and hypothesis five by using a least squares pro-
cedure to establish correlations. All hypotheses were re-

jected at the .05 level of significance.

Conclusions

Considering each hypothesis in order for the various

subgroups in the sample population some interesting and

Francis Ashley Esch

sometimes confusing results were evident. Data from Group A,
when analyzed for hypothesis one, indicated that the total
Gesell Deve10pmenta1 Examination scores obtained at the be-
ginning and end of the first year had a high significant and
positive relationship with Stanford Early School Achievement
Test, Level II total scores obtained at the end of the second
year. Behavioral age scores from the same instrument obtained
throughout the three year period were also found to be posi-
tively and significantly correlated with the Stanford Achieve-
ment Test, Level I, while only behavioral age scores obtained
at the end of the second and third years had a significant

and positive correlation with the Stanford Achievement Test,
Level II. Conflicting evidence occurred in Group A when the
data analyzed indicated that no significant correlations ex-
isted between the Stanford Early School Achievement Test,
Level II and behavioral age scores obtained at the end of

the second and third years as well as the Stanford Achieve-
ment Test, Level II obtained at the end of the third year and
behavioral age scores during the first year.

Some consistency was maintained in Group B in that the
data indicated that a significant positive relationship ex-
isted between the Stanford Early School Achievement Test,
Level I total scores obtained at the end of the first year
with Gesell Deve10pmental Examination total scores obtained
at the end of the first and second years. Again, conflicting

data were evident when no significant correlations were found

Francis Ashley Esch

between behavioral age scores and the Stanford Early School
Achievement Test, Level II.

The inconsistent data involving the Stanford Early
School Achievement Test, Level II and behavioral age meas-
ures in Groups A and B may, in part, be due to the small N
involving the above achievement test, but may also be related
to the length and format of the instrument and/or possible
variables relating to limitations inherent in the consistency
of the correlations over a period of time. With the exception
of the length and format argument, the same variables may have
caused the two low behavioral age correlations with the Stan-
ford Achievement Test, Level II.

Consistency of data was totally maintained in Group C
with the results indicating that measures of behavioral age,
including behavioral age as measured by the ABC Inventory,
had a significant and positive correlation with achievement
scores obtained at the beginning and end of the first year
from the Stanford Early School Achievement Test, Level I.

Data from Group C, when analyzed for hypothesis two,
indicated that no significant correlations existed between
measures of behavioral age and gains in reading and mathe-
matic achievement scores for first year students. A signifi-
cant negative correlation was found between the Gesell Devel-
opmental Examination behavioral age score obtained from the
beginning of the year with gains in mathematics. This con-
flicting data may be due to the nature of the Stanford Early

School Achievement Test, Level I, curriculum content for

Francis Ashley Esch

first year students, and/or behavioral traits peculiar to
this sample population or chronologically five year old chil-
dren in general.

Conflicting results were apparent when the data for the
third hypothesis was analyzed. A positive and significant
difference in achievement was found in Group A between stu-
dents with a behavioral age less than 5.5 years when compared
to students in the same group with a behavioral age equal to
or greater than 5.5 years. However, there was no significant
difference found in Group B. Since the dependent variable for
Group A was the Stanford Achievement Test, Level I, failure of
a significant difference in Group B may have been due to the
Stanford Early School Achievement Test, Level II which served
as the dependent variable for the group.

Data, when analyzed for hypothesis four, produced con-
flicting and confusing results. Although total behavioral
age and achievement scores were significantly correlated, sub-
scores from the same instruments were generally not signifi-
cantly correlated with each other. Significant and positive
correlations were found in Group A between Gesell Developmental
Examination subscores obtained at the end of the second and
third years with Stanford Achievement Test, Level I subscores
obtained at the end of the third year. Positive and signifi-
cant correlations were found in Group C between behavioral age
subscores and achievement subscores obtained at the beginning

of the year and subscores between the same two instruments

Francis Ashley Esch

at the end of the first year. All other correlations, in-
cluding those analyzed for Group B, were not significant.

The problem encountered in this hypothesis may well be
due to the non-additive quality of the Gesell Developmental
Examination subscores or the degree of subjectivity and
dependence upon the examiner's evaluation of examinee's
quality of performance when presented with the tasks of
the various subtests. In the final analysis, the fact that
total scores from the Gesell Developmental Examination were
significantly correlated with total scores from the Stanford
Achievement Tests while the subscores from each instrument
were not, indicates that more reliable data exists in the
total scores than in the subscores.

The ABC Inventory was significant at the .05 level,
although the Gesell Developmental Examination proved to be
a more reliable measure since it was significant at the .01
level. The squaring of the correlation coefficients indi-
cated that the Gesell Developmental Examination and the Stan-
ford Early School Achievement Test, Level I shared more common

variance than the ABC Inventory and the same achievement test.

PRIMARY SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT AND BEHAVIORAL AGE

BY

Francis Ashley Esch

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Elementary Education

1972

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his appreciation to the
many people who made this dissertation possible:

To Dr. Richard L. Marquard, chairman of his doctoral
committee, who gave freely of his time and wise counsel in
guiding the writer through the doctoral program and research
project. The guidance was professional, appropriate and a
source of personal satisfaction and encouragement.

To Dr. William V. Hicks, Dr. John P. McKinney and
Dr. Perry E. Lanier, members of his doctoral committee,
for helpful suggestions and encouragement during the pro-
gress of this study.

To the Lamphere Board of Education administrative
staff, and especially the teachers, children and staff of
the Edmonson Elementary School for their personal support
and encouragement throughout the phases of the doctoral
program. Appreciation is also extended to Mrs. Carole
Thomas for her able assistance in proofreading and typing

of the entire manuscript.

ii

To his wife, Sandra J. Esch, the writer is most
indebted. It was her patient understanding and quiet
encouragement throughout the several years during which
the writer was engaged in the doctoral program, which

gave him the perserverance to complete his studies.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Chapter I - The Problem
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Necessity Of The Study. . . . . . . . . . . 2
Scope And Definition Of The Study . . . . . . . 6
Educational Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Hypotheses To Be Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Limitations Of The Study. . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Background, Theory And Related Studies. . . . . l3
Assumptions Underlying The Study. . . . . . . . 33
Definition Of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Organizational Overview Of The Study. . . . . . 36
Analysis Of Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Summary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Chapter II - Review Of Related Literature
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Philosophical Considerations. . . . . . . . . . 44
The Organismic View Of Education. . . . . . . . 53
The Deve10pmenta1 Psychology of Jean Piaget:
Some Fundamental Aspects. . . . . . . . . . . 63
Gesell's Deve10pmental Point Of View. . . . . . 80
Discussion Of Previous Research . . . . . . . . 97

iv

Chapter III - Design Of

Introduction. . .

Population and Sample .

Instrumentation .

Design of Study .

Testable Hypotheses .

Analysis of Data.
Summary . . . . .

Chapter IV - Analysis

Hypothesis One. .
Hypothesis Two. .
Hypothesis Three.
Hypothesis Four .
Hypothesis Five .
Summary . . . . .
Chapter V - Summary
Summary . . . . .
Conclusions . . .

Discussion. . . .

of Data . . .

Implications For Further Research

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . .
APPENDIX A. . . . .
APPENDIX B. . . . .

Page

100
100
103
117
12 3
128
129
131
131
133
135
137
151
152

155
158
160
168
171
180
186

Table
1.

10.
11.

13.

14.

LIST OF TABLES

Testing Schedule: Center and Montowese
Schools, North Haven, Connecticut. . .

Intelligence Scores for 25 Selected Girls

Compared On The California Mental
Maturity Scale and Wechsler Intelli-
gence Scale for Children . . . . . . .

Intelligence Scores for 25 Selected Boys
Compared On The California Mental
Maturity Scale and Wechsler Intelli-
gence Scale for Children . . . . . . .

Socio-Economic Status of Parents (North
Haven) 0 0 O O O O O O O C C O O O O 0

Reliability of the ABC Inventory . . . .

Correlations Of Behavioral Age With
Achievement For Group A. . . . . . . .

Correlations Of Behavioral Age With
Achievement For Group B. . . . . . . .

Correlations Of Behavioral Age With
Achievement For Group C. . . . . . . .

Correlations 0f Reading and Mathematics
Gain Scores With Behavioral Age. . . .

ANOVA Table For Group A. . . . . . . . .
ANOVA Table For Group B. . . . . . . . .

Correlations of BAl Subscores With SAT Io

Subscores For Group A. . . . . . . . .

Correlations of BA2 Subscores With SAT I1

Subscores For Group A. . . . . . . . .

Correlations of BAQ Subscores With SAT II

Subscores For Group A. . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

180

181

182

183
114

131

132

132

135
136

137
138
140

141

Table

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.
28.

Correlations of
Subscores For

Correlations of
Subscores For

Correlations of
Subscores For

Correlations of
Subscores For

Correlations of
Subscores For

Correlations of
Subscores For

Correlations of
Subscores For

Correlations of
Subscores For

Correlations of
Subscores For

Correlations of
Subscores For

Correlations of
Subscores For

BA1 Subscores With
Group B. . . . . .

BAo Subscores With
Group C. . . . . .

BAl Subscores With
Group A. . . . . .

BAl Subscores With
Group A. . . . . .

BA2 Subscores With
Group A. . . . . .

B Subscores With
Gr up A. . . . . .

BA Subscores With
Gr up A. . . . . .

BAl Subscores With
Group B. . . . . .

BA2 Subscores With
Group B. . . . . .

BAo Subscores With
Group C. . . . . .

BAl Subscores With
Group C. . . . . .

SESA II

SESA 11

SAT II

SAT II

SESA II

SAT Io

SAT I1

SESA I

SESA II

SESA Io

SESA I1

Gesell Developmental Examination As A
Predictor Of Placement . . . . .

ABC Inventory As A Predictor Of Placement.

A Summarization Of The Major Hypothesis. .

vii

Page

142

143

184

185

144

145

146

148

149

150

150

152
152
154

PRIMARY SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT AND BEHAVIORAL AGE
Chapter 1 - The Problem
Introduction

With the recent trend and emphasis upon deve10ping cog-
nitive and perceptual skills in children, it would seem that
among educators there has been a shift in the hierarchy of
educational values. Current American education has received
a barrage of sharp criticism toward all facets of the pro-
fession. Almost overnight public school curriculum has been
found wanting and institutions of higher learning are said
to be operating inadequate teacher education programs. With
the present emphasis upon how human beings increase their
mastery in achieving and using knowledge, many public school
children are expected to perform at operational levels above
their developmental expectations and existing functional
levels.

During the 1940's, the educator was becoming concerned
about the deve10pment of the "whole child" as theories of
child growth and development prevailed upon the educational
scene.l However, we are now urged to believe that highly
structured, mechanical, and systematized teaching practices
are superior to those that are flexible, child-experience

oriented and focused on developing human.relationships.

lBaldwin, Alfred L., Theories o_f_ Child Development, John Wiley
8: Sons, Inc., 1968.

2
.Bruner Jerome S. et.a1. Studies in Cognitive Growth New
'York, Jehn.Wiley'é Sons, Inc., 1966. ’

In addition, teachers and administrators are being pres—
sured from a variety of sources including private business,
governmental units, and parent groups to install instruction-
al programs which presume immediate and lasting results aimed
at speeding up learning in the youngest minds.

many innovations, particularly in the last decade, have
occurred in elementary schools in an attempt to meet public
-demands for quality education. Among the many innovations,
team teaching has been one of the more popular as it achieved
national attention among educators by 1965. The intent of
the team teaching model was to break the time-worn "lockstep"
patterns of school organization that had frozen conventional
teaching into a rigid and inflexible tool for administrative
convenience. Instructional emphasis was shifted from the
needs of the group to a concern for the learner and his in-

dividual instructional needs.

The Necessity _£_Thg Study

During the early months of 1960, teachers and adminis-
trators of the Iammhere Public Schools of Madison Heights,
Michigan, began to formulate plans for a pilot team teaching
program based upon more efficient use of instructional per-
sonnel. The model for instructional reorganization was
intended to provide a better educational and learning envi-

ronment for elementary school children through a flexible

regrouping of students in accordance with their individual
needs, interests and achievement. Because of community
support, positive student and teacher reactions, the team
teaching model was allowed to expand beyond the pilot pro-
gram and by 1962 all Lamphere elementary schools had one or
more teaching teams.

The results of a comparative educational study focusing
upon the effects of a team teaching organization conducted in
Lamphere Schools by wayne State University during 1964 indi-
cated that children in team teaching situations, scholastically,
did no better on the average than similar children in self-
contained classroom situations.3 With the realization that
no apparent significant differences could be attributed to
the team teaching organization, district administrators, with
the assistance of federal funds, encouraged further in-depth
study to identify specific aspects of child growth and devel-
opment that could lead to increased scholastic achievement.

As a result of financial support received from the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education Act (E.S.E.A. - Title III),
for a pilot project during the 1965-66 school year, Lamphere
Schools received federal money for the next three school

years to further its study designed to identify learning

3Hill, Joseph E., "Evaluation Report of the Lamphere Edu-
cation Action Project: September 1960 to May 1962", an un-
published evaluation by the Department of Education, wayne
State University, Detroit, Michigan, presented to Lamphere
Schools on November 26, 1963.

4

styles, patterns, and problems of the primary school child.
Although the pilot program centered on learning disabilities
of children, it was expanded during the following years into
the realms of normal child growth and development based upon
the work of Arnold Gesell, Frances Ilg, and Louise Bates

4 Several experienced kindergarten, first, and second

Ames.
grade teachers from Lamphere Schools were sent to the Gesell
Institute for an intensive two-week training program designed
to familarize them.with knowledge of child growth and devel-
Opment and to provide in—service training in the intricacies
of administering and evaluating the Gesell Developmental
Examination.

From September 1967 to September 1971, primary school
children enrolled in the Edmonson School, one of the Lamphere
District's eight elementary schools, have been grouped on the
basis of "behavioral age" as defined by the Gesell Develop-
mental Examination, as contrasted to the traditional chrono-
logical age-grade placement in most elementary schools. Al-
though no child of 4.6 years of age or older, and eligible
by state law to attend kindergarten, was denied the privi-
lege of attending school, the classroom curriculum for the

younger "behavioral aged" kindergarten child was different

as compared to those kindergarten children.who exhibited

4Drs. Frances Ilg and Louise Bates Ames, founders of the
Gesell Institute of Child Development located in North
IHaven, Connecticut, have continued and expanded the child
deve10pment theories of the late Dr. Arnold Gesell of
Yale University.

older "behavioral ages". The intent of this grouping pro-
cedure in kindergarten, first, and second grades was to
cluster the children who had similar or nearly similar
developmental behavior in terms of intellectual develop-
ment, experiential knowledge, fine motor control, later-
ality development as expressed in verbal and motor re-
Sponses, visual discrimination, visual memory, language
develOpment and interests. Further, an attempt was made

to provide the child with a curriculum designed for his ap-
proximate behavioral age based upon the notion that the
child learns and successfully achieves academic skills more
effectively if they are presented when he is develOpmentally
ready to learn them.

While a fair amount of the current professional liter-
ature related to instruction is devoted to the methods of
remediating the academic problems of elementary school ch11-
dren,5’6 only a small portion deals with the art of prevent-
ing the problems.7 Since it would seem educationally sound
to attempt to prevent children from early school academic
failure, learning problems included, rather than attempt to
cure them once they have occurred, there is reason to be-

lieve that "prOper" placement based on behavioral age may

5Dechant, Emerald, Diagnosis QIRemediation 2; Readin Disa-
bility, Parker Publishing 00., West Nyack, N.Y., 1968.

6deHirsch, x., Jansky, J., Langford, w.; gredioting_nead1ng
Failure, Harper & Row, New York, 1966.

7Ames, Louise 3., Is Your Child In The wrong Grade?, Harper
8: Row, New York, 1967.

be a step forward. Therefore, this study is designed to
evaluate the academic achievement of the primary school
child as it relates to his behavioral age as indicated on
the Gesell DevelOpmental Examination.

Scope And Definition Of The Study
The Problem Statement

The purpose of this study is to determine the nature of
the relationship between academic achievement and behavioral
age of first, second and third year primary students enrolled
in the Edmonson Elementary School.

Since a child's achievement is dependent upon such a
wide variety of variables, it is doubtful that the problem
of providing academic remediation.will ever become history
in elementary education. The important question at any edu-
cational level is not, "How do children learn?" but, "Why
is it that some children do not learn what teachers profess
to teach them?". If a partial answer to this question can
be attributed to the prevention of early academic school
failure through the presentation of curricula on the basis
of behavioral age, than a study that examines the relation-
ship of behavioral age to academic achievement is a necessary

step in the right direction.

Educational Implications

The impact of this study could contain educational
implications for state legislators, school administrators,
teachers, parents and students. If this study can establish
that academic achievement is significantly and positively
related to behavioral age of primary school children, it
could indicate that current Michigan law requirements for
school attendance need to be re-evaluated. Although kinder-
garten enrollment and attendance is optional, the current
law states that children must be chronologically five years
of age on or before December lst of the school year in
order to be lawfully enrolled in a public elementary school
at the grade placement of kindergarten. Current state law
does require that children must be enrolled during the
school year in.which their sixth birthday falls on or be-
fore December lst.

Legislative changes in school attendance laws could
provide school administrators more flexibility in terms of
establishing instructional groupings within the school as
well as admitting students on a basis designed to provide
for individual differences. It is probably more realistic
to assume that state attendance laws will not change, but
rather that local boards of education may change curriculum
content and organization for instruction in order to more
adequately provide for individual differences among children.
For example, schools could space grades at half-year inter-

vals with the first interval beginning at a pre-kindergarten

or nursery school level in terms of curriculum content
and organization for instruction. Such an arrangement,
particularly in those schools which have established the
nongraded primary concept, would broaden the provisions
available for the child who is not quite behaviorally
ready to begin standard kindergarten or first grade cur-
riculum. Further implications could result in terms of
defining the school day. Less mature youngsters may not
be ready to remain in school as many days per week or as
many hours per day as compared to more mature youngsters
of the same chronological age. The latter implication
would undoubtedly have an effect upon parents as well.
From a behavioral age point of view, teachers could
more Specifically identify the opportune point to begin in-
struction in letter and sound recognition and discrimina-
tion, aural comprehension, formalized reading, mathematics
and other areas. With the more flexible models of instruc~
tional organization, care could be taken to assure a pro-
gression at the child's individual rate of behavior and
academic growth as compared to the traditional age-grade
expectations which may tend to promote academic failures
and learning disabilities through overplacement. Demands
on teachers' time and talents in terms of parent-teacher
conferences; and develOpmental, academic, and physical
evaluation, would increase as related to educational de-
cision making as it effects students, their behavior to-

ward students, and their expectations of students. In

addition to the normal attributes of a good teacher, teach-
ers must also acquire the necessary expertise in adminis-
tration and evaluation of behavioral examinations and have
a thorough understanding of child growth and development
to assure the proper placement of children. Only when these
forces are in balance can teachers be expected to produce
quality decisions aimed at preventing or diminishing school
failure among primary aged children.

Community support through parental information pro-
grams relaying knowledge of behavioral age as it relates
to academic achievement may become a demand for a success-
ful program. Parents of mature children may have to be
convinced that program initiation will not effect their
child's progress through the school while parents of less
mature children may have to be convinced of the advantage
of delayed instruction in certain academic areas as it re-
lates to the behavioral development and academic success
of their child. As indicated above, parents may have to
become accustomed to new school hours and additional parent-
teacher conferences. Parental reward in terms of a well
adjusted, academically capable student may be only partially
realized in later elementary years for lack of comparison of
the reactions and progress of the same child in a traditional
age-grade instructional environment.

It is difficult to identify, with any degree of cer-
tainty, what implications will be observable on behalf of

five, six and seven year old students. The mature normal

10

child may exhibit no effects resulting from a behavioral
based program. However, for the less mature normal child,
placement in such a program may produce rewarding reactions
in the form of positive attitudes toward school and toward
scholastic achievement as compared to a similar child in a
traditional program.

Many causes, such as physical and emotional handicaps,
poor teaching, early childhood illnesses, and social malad-
justments, can be cited as legitimate reasons when young
school age children are found to be involved in an unpro-
ductive struggle with academic work. However, it is further
hypothesized that overplacement is also a cause of the re-
sultant fruitless struggle with academic work which is beyond
the normal child's behavioral level and is also one of the
major contributing factors to elementary school failure. For
the normal child, overfatigue, incomplete work, inattention
and/or disruptive behavior during class periods and not
wanting to attend school are a few of the common complaints
by parents and teachers which could be attributed to over-
placement. The child's reactions are sometimes in the form
of frequent crying, crankiness, headaches, stomach aches,
visual complaints and other negative responses or changes
in behavior from a customary happy and well adjusted manner.
Proper placement and a curriculum based upon the child's
behavioral age is intended to alleviate such reactions and

provide a school environment conducive to academic success.

ll

Hypotheses T Be Tested

The major problem statement leads to the formulation
of five hypotheses. It is predicted that (1) behavioral
age as measured by the Gesell DevelOpmental Examination and
the ABC Inventory is significantly and positively related
to achievement as measured by the Stanford Achievement

Tests;f'n'

(2) the behavioral age of first year students
as measured by the Gesell Developmental Examination and
the ABC Inventory will be significantly related to a gain
in both reading and mathematics as measured by the Stan-
ford Early School Achievement I Test; (3) students with
a behavioral age less than 5.5 years as measured by the
Gesell Developmental Examination will score lower on the
Stanford Achievement Tests than students with a behavioral
age greater than 5.5 years; (4) Gesell Developmental Exami-
nation subscores are differentially related to Stanford
Achievement Test subscores; and (5) the ABC Inventory is
as valid as the Gesell Developmental Examination for edu-
cational placement of first year students.

If the basic research hypotheses are accepted, it is
expected that behavioral age indices can be used as pre-

dictors of reading and mathematics achievement; a minimal

behavioral age of 5.5 years as a predictor of readiness for

f.n. - All hypotheses will be accepted at the .05 level of
confidence unless otherwise specified.

12

formal reading and mathematics instruction; and that the
ABC Inventory is equal to the Gesell Developmental Exami-

nation for educational placement of first year students.

Limitations 9; The Study

Some reservations and specific limitations of the
study need to be noted. Generalizations of the findings
must be limited to average middle class suburban commu-
nities similar in characteristics to the Edmonson Elemen-
tary School community. Effects due to different teacher
personalities and classroom behavior with regard to teach-
ing technique, methods of instruction and materials used
may also be cited as possible variables affecting the re-
sults of achievement tests as well as some parts of both
behavioral age inventories. However, these variables are
not totally uncontrollable. Although third year students
may have been exposed to as many as six different teaching
personalities including auxiliary teaching personnel during
their three years in school, variables due to methods of
instruction and materials used are partially controlled by
district-wide required use of teaching curriculum guides,
adopted basic and supplemental texts and suggested teaching
time allotments for each academic area. Methods of instruc-
tion and technique were, to a lesser degree, controlled by
frequent inservice training of teachers which was based on

child growth and deve10pment theory.

13

Further caution is encouraged against generalizing
the results beyond the chronological age limits of the
population of children under study. Discretion must be
followed with any future use of the Gesell DevelOpmental
Examination beyond the limitations of this study. Since
many subscores are based upon the subjective evaluation
of the trained examiner, it is essential that adequate
training and substantial amounts of experience be provided
before any examiner can be expected to attain a high level
of consistancy and competence with the instrument. Gener-
alization of the findings should be further limited to nor-
mal children who eXhibit normal patterns of growth and devel-
opment. There was no attempt made to include physically or
emotionally impaired children in this study whose growth
and development may deviate from normal average patterns of

develOpment.

Back round, Theory And Related Studieg

A comprehensive amount of research in the area of
child growth and development was published between 1920
and 1950 relating physical growth of children to a variety
of environmental and behavioral qualities. It was during
this time that the nature-nurture controversy was height-

ened to the position of verbal conflict between educators

l4

8 It is not this writer's intent to

and psychologists.
recapitulate historically the controversy still existing
between the environmentalist vs. the predeterministic ap-
proaches in a review of the literature. The review of lit-
erature here and in Chapter II is limited to the predeter-
ministic position, particularly as it relates to the theory
of maturation presented by Dr. Arnold Gesell and others
subscribing to this position. It is also intended that

the review of the literature be further narrowed to include
those studies relating to growth and achievement of the
primary aged school child.

Dorothy Eichorn states, "For most aspects of physique
and for many physiological and behavioral functions, devel-
opmental scientists have confirmed significant differences
in rate of growth known to exist between boys and girls,
among individuals within either sex, from generation to
generation, from country to country and among ethnic or
cultural subgroups within a country."9 Based upon this
established information, Dorothy Eichorn and others have
reported that current studies in physique and behavior in-
dicate that "... with increasing age, from conception to

adolescence, chronological age becomes a progressively

8Frank, Lawrence H., "Research In Child Psychology: History
and Prospect", in Baker, Kounin, and wright, Child Behavior
and Development, McGraw Hill, New York, 1943, p. 6-9.

9Eichorn, Dorothy H., "Variations In Growth Rate", Childhood
Education, January, 1967, 44:5, p. 283-291.

15

poor predictor of a child's size, shape and behavior.",
which strongly implies variations of developmental be-
haviors with increasing differences in chronological age.10

Early studies in child growth and development were
executed using a cross-sectional approach in which large
groups of children of different age periods were examined
on a vast array of variables.11 However, some established
quantitative findings began to give way to the modifications
and amendments of the Harvard Growth Study, "... which showed
not only how the longitudinal picture differed from the cross-
sectional, but also that chronological age categories pro-
duced large distortions and errors in the picture of growth
and maturation".12

In the original analysis of the Harvard Study, Dearborn
and Rothney advocated the use of "growth units" in predicting
academic achievement. "Growth units" were calculated by a
comparison of the percentage of actual growth to the esti-
mated maximum growth of the individual. They concluded that
"growth units" had value in terms of educational guidance.

However, they also determined that the rate of development

during the prepubescent growth spurt had no significant

10Eichorn, Dorothy H., op. cit., p. 283.

11Frank, Lawrence K., "The Problem of Child Development",
Child Development, Vol. 6, 1935, p. 7-18.

12Frank, Lawrence H., op. cit., p. 10.

l6

relationship to learning of school materials during
this time.13

Freeman and Flory were also unable to make a sharp
distinction between the part of intellectual development
which is due to maturation and that part which is due to
education. However, they pointed out the possibility that
the rate of learning may be more rapid at different devel-
opmental ages. "It may be possible to determine more nearly
the course of development due to the factor of maturation by
determining the rapidity and limits of learning ages. A
genuine measure of learning may prove to be a better meas-
ure of the stage of maturation than is a single test."14

The organization of longitudinal studies of children,
such as those mentioned, may be cited as indicating an
interest in observing how the changing structures, func-
tions, and activities of the individual organism are trans-
formed through periods of time. These studies recognize
that there is considerable variability of functional ac-
tivities and behavioral response from time to time in each
individual, and it was during these studies that varia-
bility within the individual as distinguished from varia-

bility among individuals received increased recognition.

13Dearborn, Walter F. and Rothney, John.W., Predicting The
Child's Development, Sci-Arts Publishers, Cambridge, Mass.,
1941, p. 343.

l4Freeman, F. N. and Flory, C. D., "Growth In Intellectual
Ability", in Baker, Kounin and Wright, Child Behavior and

Development, McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, 1943, p. 147-
O.

17

The world, every situation, event, or organism was recog-
nized as being multidimensional and, therefore, called for
a multidisciplinary approach for its adequate study.

Longitudinal and cross-sectional data have provided
norms furnishing bases for interpreting the child's anatom-
ical or physiological age from a developmental point of view.
In an early study, Olson and Hughes arrived at an organismic
age by taking a number of different growth values of given
chronological age. From a theoretical point of view, both
writers felt that "... one could have determined a stable
organismic age when no further additional (growth) values
would cause it to fluctuate in a significant manner."15
Such a measure was considered very important in evaluating
a child's growth and achievement, and in terms of educa-
tional diagnosis there was no need to label a child as a
reading disability if his reading age approximated his
organismic age.

Using the growth curve data from previous longitudinal
and cross-sectional studies, Olson's ”organismic age" was
established by averaging heighth age, weight age, carpal age,
8 mental age, reading age, grip age, and dental age to de-
scribe the central tendency of the child's growth. In
order to eliminate problems involved in the varying ages,

the deviation of organismic age from chronological age was

15Olson, Willard C. and Hughes, Byron 0., "The Concept of
Organismic Age" Journal pf Educational Research, Vol. 35,
1942, p. 525-526.—_ ""'————-'—

18

calculated. He further demonstrated that the central tend-
ency of growth called "organismic age" tended to remain at

a very constant rate of change, while the part-growth fac-

tors involved in the computation fluctuated widely.16

Olson viewed the development of the organism as being

influenced by what he called a "gradual unfolding design".

"[The organism's] powers increase through the
growth that occurs with time. A basic error is
the attempt to influence the time schedule by
premature training. When this is attempted,
it is usually found that either there are no
results from the training or there is positive
damage because an interference is introduced
in an intricate self-sustaining balanced or-
ganism. Since the unfolding of the design

is a gradual process, quick results should

not be expected from any method of nurture,
nor should it be expected that the experience
related to the stage of growth must appear in
synchronization with the regularity of the
time clock. One of the striking abilities of
the human organism is the power to take on 1
new modifications throughout its lifetime." 7

In reviewing past data as it related to instruction,
Huggett and Millard interpreted growth in developmental
cycles and presented the following generalizations based
upon empirical evidence: "(1) Individual growth is unlike

average growth; (2) Growth takes place in cycles; (3) Cycle

development is common to all phases of growth in.which

l6Olson, Willard 0., Child Develo ment, D. 0. Heath & Co.,
Boston, 1949, p. 48-68 and Chapter VII.

17Olson, Willard 0., 0p. cit., p. 40.

l9

instruction is interested; and (4) All phases of growth

taking place during the school career of the child are
18

interrelated."

The authors viewed the existence of developmental
growth cycles as essential in that one might postulate that
reading should not be introduced until the end of the "baby
cycle". Although some question remained as to whether one
cycle begins when the former is completed or whether they
overlap, the introduction of reading activities at one time
to all children.within the same grade seemed unjustified
from an educational or a psychological standpoint.

"If growth is interrelated, as individual
data seem to show, then various phases of
growth exist in a certain sequential arrange-
ment or pattern. Organismic changes are known
to affect the entire growth pattern. By de-
termining ratios of development among various
aspects of growth it would be possible to pre-
dict the moment when certain instructional
procedures should be initiated. This scheme
would be a great improvement over the present
one for determining when reading should be
introduced. Our current technique is to
determine mental age; and if the mental age
of the child is sufficient, then.we assume
the child is ready for formal reading. This
method is not infallible. Sometimes it works
and sometimes it does not. The explanation
is that we do not know whether the desired
mental age is representative of status or
whether it is representative of an adequate
percentage of the child's maturity. Such

are some of the implications of ChiIS growth
study for programs of instruction."

18Huggett, Albert J. and Millard, Cecil V., Growth and
Learning In The Elementary38chool, D. C. Heath & 00.,
Boston, 1946, p. 32.

19Huggett, Albert J. and Millard, Cecil V., op. cit., p. 43-44.

2O

Tanner, in a discussion as to what extent intellectual
and emotional advancement relates to developmental rather
than chronological age, draws attention to the study con-
ducted by the Harvard School of Education indicating that
children who are physically advanced for their age generally
score higher on mental ability tests than those who are less
mature but of the same chronological age.20 The differences
are not great, but are consistent and occur at all ages that
have been studied.

Olson.was among the few who believed that "... the indi-
vidual growth curves indicate systematic changes as if the
expression of intelligence were under the influence of an
unfolding design".21 It was at about this point in time
that substantial evidence was mounting that exposed the
wide variations in intelligence quotients which had pre-
viously been believed to be "fixed" or relatively unchang-
ing.22

During the time when children were grouped in schools

on the basis of "fixed" intelligence scores and later during

the age of ability grouping, uneven educational progress on

20Tanner, James M., Education and Physical Growth, Univer-
sity 0? London Press Ltd., Warwick Square, London, 1961,
p. 44- 3.

21Olson, Willard C., Child Develo ment, D. C. Heath, Boston
1949, P- 97-

22Goodenough, Florence L. and Mauer, Katherine M., The

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1942.

21

the part of students continued to be a major concern of
the schools. Even the numerous aggressive "patented plans
for preventing laggers" did not appear to affect the con-
tinual uneven progress of school children.23 Principles
in the field of learning theory began to take root as nu-
merous studies established a relationship between educa-
tional readiness and the degree of physical and mental
maturation.24 Integrated child growth and development con-
cepts developed as psychologists and educators penetrated
deeper into the question of when children were ready to
learn and how this related to their total development as
an integrated whole.25 The acquisition of education began
to be seen as a maturing process.

"A grade is a group of children about the same age
who are maturing at widely different rates and who are be-
ing provided with the kinds of experiences which it is be-
lieved will help them in the maturing process. Thus, it is
not something that children are promoted to if they have

23Cook, Walter w., "Individual Differences and Curriculum
Practices", in Remmers, Rivlin, Ryans, and Ryden, Growth,
Teaching and Learnin , Harper Brothers, New York, 1957,

p. 194-199.

24Blair, Glenn M., "How Learning Theory Is Related to Cur-
riculum Organization", in Remmers, Rivlin, Ryans, and
Ryden, Growth, Teachin and Learnin , Harper & Brothers,
New York, 1957, p. 183-187?

25T’row, William C., "When Are Children Ready To Learn?",
in Remmers, Rivlin, Ryans, and Ryden, Growth, Teaching
iggd-Learning, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1957, p.

P

 

22

good marks, but instead it is a group in which the children
who compose it can develOp best."26

Using the organismic age criteria, Olson and Hughes
presented data which fully documented the fact that achieve-
ment was a function of the organism as a whole. "The level
of growth also implies seeking behavior within a given en-
vironmental supply of educational nurture." They further
drew attention to an established relationship of similarity
between deve10pmenta1 age and social age for children of the
same chronological age.27

In a later study, Olson presented data relating read-
ing achievement to individual growth patterns of children.
He pointed out that no child follows the theoretical average
which is one year of gain in reading age for one year of
living, and that as children grow older they become even
more unalike in reading achievement. Boys appear to show
a greater variation in reading ability than do girls and

many more boys than girls show an initial plateau in reading

achievement which extends for several years after first

grade.28

26Trow, William C., op. cit., p. 108.

27Olson,Willard C. and Hughes, Bryon 0., "Growth of the
Child As A Whole", in Baker, Kounin, and Wright, Child
Behavior and Develo ment, MCGraw Hill Book Co., New York,

1943, p. 199-20 .

28Olson, Willard C., Child Development, D. C. Heath, 1949,
Chapter‘VI.

23

Millard stated, "One of the most encouraging concepts
for teachers is the idea that growth naturally follows a
cyclic pattern as long as environmental and organismic fac-
tors remain constant".29 No two children of the same chron-
ological age are alike in that they are continually advanc-
ing based upon their own unique growth curves and rates in
reference to definable beginning and end points of cycles.
Continuity refers to adherence of the growth impetus to an
unfolding design, described by Olson, which early in the
cycle begins to manifest its over-all characteristics. It
was this quantitative and qualitative process of growth,
acting under a continuous self-impelled organismic drive,
that was used as the basic rationale to explain.how chil-
dren differed in their readiness for learning a particular
skill.3o Trow states that teachers who intentionally or
'unintentionally attempt to force the learning of skills
before essential general maturity are not only ineffective
"but may be causing fear in the child and rebellion against
learning when.his natural beginning arrives."31 Mhllard
eXpands this idea and generally agrees that interrelations

of growth and learning are generally ignored by schools in

29mullard, Cecil V., Child growpp and Develo ment ip the
Elementary School Years, D. C. Heath & Co., 19 8, p. 13.

3QMillard, Cecil V., op. cit., p. 13-14.
31Trow, William C., Ibid., p. 107.

24

planning, teaching and evaluating the curriculum.32 He
further presents data illustrating that when a child reaches
a satisfactory maturity status, learning takes place rather
easily. In an earlier study, Willard C. Olson reported that
children tended to seek nurture according to their growth
needs and their abilities to perform tasks successfully and
with satisfaction. "Children of the same age and the same
grade location are generally found to differ by as much as
four or five years in maturation and their readiness to
perform tasks."33

Olson's development of the organismic age concept great-
ly contributed to knowledge in child development, however,
its validity was questioned by the late 1950's. In discuss-
ing organismic age, Garrison pointed out that there was a
question as to what measures should be included in the or-
ganismic age and that the question was never answered to
any high degree of finality.

"In most cases there are not a sufficient

number of measures available to furnish a

stable and conclusive organismic age. How-

ever, two measures are more likely to provide

a better basis for determining a child's total
growth than is one measure. Likewise, three

32Millard, Cecil V., Ibid., p. 22.

330lson, Willard C., "Experiences For Growing", Journal
g£.the National Education Apsociation, 36: Oct. 1947,
p. 302- 503 o

25

or four measures would in most cases give a
better basis for determining a child's total
growth age than would one or two."34

Ausubel further argued the validity of organismic age

as well as developmental age.

"An individual's developmental age in a given
function corresponds to the chronological age

at which the mean attainment of a representa-
tive sample of children equals his current
status in that function. If this expression

is divided by his chronological age, a deve-
10pmenta1 quotient is obtained. Needless to
state, developmental age units for a given
function are not comparable (equivalent)

from one period to another unless differences

in variability at successive age levels are
taken into account. Otherwise they artifically
tend to impose an appearance of straight-line
progress on basically uneven growth sequences.
For the same reason, uncorrected developmental
ages cannot be used in comparing an individual's
relative status and rate of growth with respect
to different functions, or cannot be averaged to
yield an expression such as Olson's and Hughes'
organismic age.”3

While past studies appeared to indicate a strong re-
lationship of learning to physiological factors, those stud-
ies did not consider the behavior of the child as an inte-
grated totality which seemed to indicate that behavior

played a secondary role as related to learning and achieve-

ment. Millard recognized the deficiency and suggested

34Garrison, Karl C., Growth and Develo ment, David McKay
Company, Inc., New York, 1959, p. .

35Ausubel, David P., Theory ppg Problems of Child Devel-
opment, Grune & Stratton, New YorE, I958: p. II3-II4.

 

26

broadening our knowledge of affective child behavior. "We
must discover not only the changes in behavior which develop
with increasing age, the change (or lack of change) which
underlies increased maturity of response, but also the ex-
periences that influence individual affective behavior."36

He strongly suggested that it is absolutely necessary
to develop techniques whereby the total development of the
child can be evaluated. He further cites the development
of devices for determining stages of maturity of various
aspects of affective behavior and the determination of their
interrelations as being two of the problems to be solved.

In the current literature, no one has made a greater
impact on educational thought and research than Jean Piaget.
His contributions to the fields of genetic epistemology and
intellectual deve10pment are now recognized by some to be
the most important to have been made in this century. The
impact of his work on educational practice is less than it
ought to be. Many educators talk about Piaget, fewer under-
stand his work and only a handful design their work with
children according to his theoretical principles. In part,
this is due to the sheer difficulty of the field in.which
Piaget has done his pioneer work and to the fact that Piaget

is not the clearest of writers.

36Millard, Cecil V., Ibid., p. 323-324.

27

For the purpose of exposition, Piaget's Developmental

Psychology is organized into four phases which describe the

major divisions in the course of developmental growth. They

are as follows:

Phase I

Phase II

Phase III -

Phase IV

The Sensorimotor Phase encompasses the
approximate ages from birth to two years

and is characterized by rhythmical repe-
tition of circular reactions, and comprises
a progress from autism to egocentricity.

The Pre-Operational Phase represents the
characteristics of children approximately
between the ages of two to seven and is com-
prised of the progress from a sensorimotor
organization to the beginnings of inter-
nalization of actions to form operations.
The Phase of Concrete Operations is asso-
ciated with children whose ages are from
seven years to eleven years. This phase is
marked by an equilibrium between accommo-
dation and assimilation.which is revealed
by a more extensive use of reversibility in
thinking.

The Phase of Formal Operations is character-
istic of children eleven-and-a-half years

of age and older and coincides approximately
with the onset of adolescence. The adoles-

cent's thinking is more coherent in structure

28

as the two forms of reversibility are inte—
grated into a group of four transformations
(identity, inversion, reciprocity, and corre-
1ation). Further, the adolescent's thinking
is concerned much more with propositions than
with physical situations, which means that he
is able to deal mentally with the conceivably
possible rather than just the actual, and to
understand the relationship of the possible to
the actual.37
The Pre-operational Phase (Phase II) will receive more
detailed consideration in Chapter II as it corresponds to the
hypothetical predictions under study. Briefly, however, Piaget
characterizes the four to seven year old child as displaying
an "... inability to keep in mind more than one relation at
a time, ... a lack of direction in children's thinking, ...
their thinking is egocentric" and "... an inability to see
simple relations makes it impossible to compensate two re—
lations, or to make even the simplest relations between re-
lations".38
The importance of Piaget's work lies in the method and
its extent. His clinical method of investigating children's

37Boyle, D. C., A Student's Guide 22 Piaget, Pergamon Press
New York, 1969, Chapter 5.

 

38Beard, Ruth M., Ag Outline 2; Piaget's Developmeptal Ps -
chology For Students and Teachers, Basic Books, Inc., New

'York, 1969: 37—57:§§-

29

thinking is exceptional in that he goes beyond the mere
reporting of empirical evidence to seek the reasons for
children's beliefs and Opinions.39 His work involves con-
versations with each child, which differ according to the
replies given, so that the quality of thinking in each case
can be assessed regardless of whether an answer is right or
wrong.

Beard states that it is important for teachers not only
to know the order of stages in thinking, but also to know
what misconceptions to expect among children of different
ages and at what age the majority of children in a given en-
vironment reach each stage.40 Such information is valuable
as a guide to teaching methods, materials and techniques.

It is not surprising that Havighurst, using the same
chronological ages as Piaget (four to seven years), refers
to the beginning of the middle childhood years as a period
of rapid changes.

“It (moving from early childhood to middle

childhood) is more of a change than moving

from childhood to adolescence, if we look at

only the psychological changes. The period

from four or five to six or seven includes

psychological changes as profound as the psy-

chological and physical changes that signal
the transition from childhood to adolescence.

39Flavell, John.H., The Developmental Psychology of Jean
Pia eté Van Nostrand, Princeton, New Jersey, 1963, p.
40 ~40 .

4OBeard, Ruth M., 0p. cit., p. xvi.

30

The great change from age four to seven is a
change in the child's social world, from a
single small world centered in the family to
an expanding world with a second center in
the peer group."41

In the same work Havighurst presents nine "develop-
mental tasks of middle childhood education" and supports
each task with a biological, psychological, and cultural
basis with implications for the educator. or the develop-
mental task of "developing fundamental skills in reading,
writing and calculating", Havighurst states that,

"... findings concerning the importance

of biological maturation in the processes

of reading and writing indicate that children

are sometimes taught these skills before they

are 'ready' for them. As a result of these

findings, schools now put less pressure on

children to learn to read and write at age

six. Often it turns out that children learn

these skills very rapidly and easily if they

are allowed to wait until seven or eight be-

fore starting".4

Fuller concluded that research on five year olds is a
"maze of contradictions" which creates difficulties in educa-
tional planning. She further states, "A common source of con-
fusion lies in the way in which the word deve10pment is con-
strued. Development may be interpreted as unfolding gradually,

and eXpanding by the process of evolution. In this case,

41Havighurst, Robert J., Human DevelOpment and Education,
Longmans, Green and Co., New York, 1953, p. 42.

42Havighurst, Robert J., Ibid., p. 33-34.

31

then, kindergarten children develop; they are not developed.
The process thus comes from within; it cannot be placed there
from the outside."43

Although few teachers, if any, intentionally force
learning on children inappropriate for their behavioral age,
the number of school failures or partial failures as a re-
sult of overplacement in the educational system may in part
be due to unintentional forced learning. Current school
entrance practices assume that behavior typical of a five
year old is necessary before a child can effectively carry
out the work expected of a kindergarten child in most schools,
and that a six year old behavior level is necessary before a
child can do first grade work. When compared to the finding
of Eichorn and other developmental scientists it is obvious
that current school practices are in conflict with research
in that school entrance practices make the assumption that
a chronological age of five guarantees five—year-old behavior.

Inasmuch as researchers in the Gesell Institute of Child
Development prefer to deal with five year oldness in terms
of behavior, their study conducted in the Hurlbutt School in
Weston, Connecticut, in 1956 found 40% of the kindergarten
students "overplaced" according to their standards of aca-

demic achievement. Follow-up evaluation of students in first

43Fuller, Elizabeth M., "What Research Says To The Teacher:
About The Kindergarten", Vol. 22, Department of Classroom
Teachers, American Education Research Association of the
National Education Association, 1961 Yearbook, p. 7-10.

32

and second grades during the same year, as well as the
following two years, indicated that children who were ready
for the grade in.which their age placed them ranged from
34.5% to 59%. The percentage clearly showing lack of read-
iness ranged from 9% to 31%, and the number of subjects
judged to be questionable ranged from 30% to 40%.44 Fur-
ther study in a North Haven, Connecticut, school during 1963
resulted in finding slightly more children academically over-
placed for the grade in which their age had placed them.45
They concluded that the increase in percentage of unready
children could in part be attributed to the fact that exam-
iner judgements were more seasoned and less tentative as
compared to the Weston study.

For the sc0pe and limitations of this study, instruc-
tional grouping based on behavioral age encompasses academic
instruction in curricula which is traditionally classified
as kindergarten and first grade material. While some chil-
dren are estimated to be behaviorally ready for entrance
into kindergarten and subsequentially into first grade, and
move successfully through the curricula in the normal two-
year period, others who are estimated to be less behavior-

ally ready are provided with the opportunity to progress at

their own developmental rate. Based upon teacher observation

44Ilg, Frances and Ames, Louise Bates, School Readiness,
Harper & Row, New York, 1965, p. 19-27.

4511g, Frances and Ames, Louise Bates, Ibid., p. 23.

33

and the results of diagnostic, achievement and behavioral
tests, there is reason to believe that behavioral age group-
ing, in combination with curriculum presentation based upon
behavioral age, could be a contributing factor to an expected
lessening of academic failure in the succeeding instructional
levels. Therefore, this study intends to elevate to a pri-
mary position the theory of child behavior in terms of be-

havioral age as being an indicator of readiness for learning.

Assumptions Underlying The Study

The assumptions underlying this study are directly re-
lated to its purpose. It is assumed that information yielded
by this study will provide significant evidence establishing
the value of identifying behavioral age as a predictor of read—
iness for learning and academic success within the school.

It is further assumed that the 55 first-year students,
69 second-year students and the 63 third-year students in-
cluded in the study are a representative sample of middle
class children in a suburban setting population of the De-
troit, Michigan, area. It is also assumed that the Gesell
Developmental Examination as administered and interpreted

by a trained examiner and the ABC Inventory46 are adequate

46The ABC Inventory was develOped by Normand Adair and George
Blesch to determine kindergarten and school readiness on
the basis of behavioral age. The instrument is prepared
and distributed by Educational Studies and Development Co.,
1357 Forest Park, Muskegon, Michigan, 49441; Copyright 1965.

34

indicators of a child's behavioral age. The Stanford Early
School Achievement Tests, Levels I and II, and the Stanford
Achievement Test, Primary I and Primary II levels are fur-

ther assumed to be adequate indicators of early school aca-

demic achievement.

Definition Of Eggmg
Due to the variety of terms used in this study which may
lead to confusion, it is necessary to define the following:

Behavioral Agg is an index age which indicates the level
at which the child is behaving as a total organism
as measured by the Gesell Deve10pmenta1 Examination,
and/or the ABC Inventory and is frequently referred
to as "developmental level", although it is not a
measure of physical maturity in the traditional sense.
Operationally, the greater the variance between the
child's behavioral age and his chronological age the
more atypical he may be. The Gesell Developmental
Examination includes the following behavioral char-
acteristics: organization of experiential knowledge,
fine motor control, laterality and directionality
development, visual discrimination, visual memory,
language development, level of conceptual understand-
ing on an abstract and/or concrete basis, and interests.
The less complicated ABC Inventory includes a draw-a-man
test, organization of environmental knowledge, and con-

ceptual understanding on a concrete basis.

35

Forced Learning occurs when the child is presented
an instructional curriculum which is above what
he can be expected to achieve based upon his be-
havioral age.

ngpplacemgpp occurs when the child is placed in an
instructional environment beyond which he can be
expected to achieve successfully. It is assumed
this occurs when school placement is based on
chronological age.

Eippp, Second, gpg,ghipg,zgap Students are terms used
by this writer to identify instructional groups of
developmentally placed children. For example, first
year students are developmentally placed in pre-
kindergarten or kindergarten curriculum level. Sec-
ond year students are developmentally placed into a
pro-first grade or first grade curriculum level,
while third year students may be developmentally
placed into a first grade, pre-second grade or sec-
ond grade curriculum level.

Formal Reading apd Mathematicg Instruction is iden-
tified as that point at which a textbook or similar
approach is instructionally introduced to first,
second and third year students in Edmonson School.

Organismic Agg was originated by Dr. Willard C. Olson
of The University of Michigan in that he directed
attention toward the interrelations of such phases

of growth as achievement in school subjects, height,

36

weight, dental and carpal growth, growth in grip,
and mental age. All measures were translated into
an "age" category.

Academic Success is defined in terms of growth in
achievement when compared with behavioral age.
For example, a child with a behavioral age of 5.0
is expected to experience less growth in achieve-
ment as compared to a child with a behavioral age
of 6.0 when both are receiving the same formal
reading and mathematics instruction.

Immature is a term used to describe a child who has
a behavioral age of seven months or more below his
chronological age. It is predicted that the child
will experience school failure in prOportion to the
degree of negative difference between his behavioral

and chronological age.

Organizational Overview 0 The Study

Method and Design

The Gesell Developmental Examination was administered
by a trained examiner at the Edmonson School as a standard
function to establish school placement, based upon behavioral
age, of all incoming first year students as well as second
year students and a portion of third year students. Exami-

nations were administered during May and June to all children

37

concluding their first, second or third years for placement
the following September. Incoming first year students were
tested in August with a short form of the Developmental
Examination for placement in one of the kindergarten groups.
Children who received the Examination were evaluated in
terms of norms established in Center and Montowese School
Districts located in North Haven, Connecticut, over a four-
year period from 1958 to 1962. The standardization group
used in that study was 100 randomly selected children - 50
boys and 50 girls - at each grade level (kdg. - 6) whose
chronological ages were from five through ten. Ilg and
Ames provide a complete description of the standardizing
program in their text entitled School Readiness.47
In this study the administration of the Stanford Early
School Achievement Test, Level I, was administered to all
students completing their first year of school. Those chil-
dren completing their second year of school, in a pre-first
grade room,were given the Stanford Early School Achievement
Test, Level II. Students completing their second year who
were classified as regular first grade students and who re-
ceived a standard first grade curriculum were administered
the Stanford Achievement Test, Primary I Level. Third year
students classified as first graders received the Stanford
Achievement Test, Primary I Level, as did students classified

47

Ilg, Frances, and Ames, Louise B., School Readiness,
Harper and Row, New York, 1965, Chapters III & IV.

38

as second graders who received slightly less than a stand-
ard second grade curriculum. Third year students who re-
ceived a standard second grade curriculum or better received
the Stanford Achievement Test, Primary II Level, because of
their advanced level of achievement.

One alteration from the school's normal testing schedule
was the administration of the Stanford Early School Achieve-
ment Test, Level I, to all incoming first year students for
the purpose of establishing pre-school achievement levels.
The other alteration was the addition of the ABC Inventory
administered to first year students in September of 1971 and
again in late May of 1972 to establish a correlation between
this instrument and the longer more time consuming adminis-
tration and interpretation of the Gesell Developmental Exami-
nation.

Post-test scores were obtained using the same instru-
ments approximately nine months after pre-tests. However,
two minor changes must be noted. First year students com-
pleting their first year were given the full battery of the
Developmental Examination instead of the short form adminis-
tered at entrance time. Secondly, third year students clas—
sified as first graders received the Stanford Achievement
Test, Primary I Battery, instead of Level II of the Stanford
Test of Early School Achievement which they received in the
pre-test situation as the former instrument appeared to more
adequately assess the ranges of achievement by the end of

their third year.

39

Figure I graphically presents the testing design. Past
data on Groups A and B were gathered from school records and
were used in the evaluation as it related to the purposes of
this study.

The statement of design and method was intended to test
directly the stated hypotheses and secondary questions which
became evident during the course of the study. No conscious
attempt was made to change the curriculum or alter instruc-
tional groupings from the established school procedures.
Changes which did occur, such as instructional groupings
and/or homeroom assignment, were based upon the professional
judgement of the classroom teachers involved with the chil-

dren under study.

 

_ 1969-1970 1970-1971 f 1971-1972

Group BA Pre-Kng. BA Pre-lst BA lst BA
A Kng. Metro. lst SESA II 2nd SAT I
SAT I SAT II

 

 

Group BA Pre-Kng. BA Pre-lst BA
B Kng. SESA I lst SESA II

 

 

 

 

 

BA Pre-Kng. BA
KEY 61'8“" ABC Kng. SESA I
-——- SESA I
BA - Gesell Developmental '
Examination

Metro. - Metropolitan Readiness Test

SESA - Stanford Early School Achieve-
ment Test, Levels I or II

SAT - Stanford Achievement Test,
Primary I or II

ABC - ABC Inventory

Figure I
Years In School

40

Analysis pf Data

 

Often in educational research the researcher has little
or no ability to control the composition of groups or the
treatment effects within or between groups. This study was
not immune to the common problem. In addition, scores ob-
tained from the Gesell Developmental Examination.were sub-
jective by nature due to the fact that quantative responses
of children were also qualitatively judged by the Gesell ex-
aminer which is, in part, an indicator of behavioral age.
The lack of control and the subjectiveness of the behavioral
age scores limited the range of appropriate statistics.

It was conservatively predicted that a significant pos-
itive correlation would be found between behavioral age as
measured by the Gesell Developmental Examination and the ABC
Inventory with Stanford Achievement Test Scores. This re-
lationship was established by computing the Pearson product-
moment correlation coefficient for the first hypothesis.

For the second hypothesis a linear regression statistic
was applied in addition to the product-moment correlation
coefficient to test for a linear relationship between be-
havioral age scores and ABC Inventory scores as compared to
gains in reading and mathematics scores of first year stu-
dents as measured by the Stanford Early School Achievement
Test I.

The third hypothesis, indicating that students with a

behavioral age less than 5.5 years will score lower on the

41

Stanford Achievement Tests than students with a behavioral
age greater than 5.5 years, was tested using the one way
analysis of variance statistic. This statistical method
was apprOpriate in that a simultaneous comparison of many
means was in order.

Product-moment correlations were computed for hypoth-
esis four in an attempt to establish a differential rela-
tionship between Gesell DevelOpmental Examination subscores
and Stanford Achievement Test subscores.

A linear regression statistic in addition to product-
moment correlation coefficients were computed for hypothesis
five indicating whether the ABC Inventory or the Gesell De-
velopmental Examination was the most valid measure for
placement of first year students.

It should be noted that the computer programming for
the analysis of this data included programming of more sub-
stantial statistical measures to which this data was auto-
matically subjected for review. The data is reported in
Chapter IV in those instances where a stronger statistical

design yielded significant results.

Summary Statement

The report of the study is composed of five chapters.
Chapter I contains an introduction to the study and a state-

ment of the problem with accompanying rationale. A review

42

of the related literature, limited in scope to the prede-
terministic point of view, is presented in Chapter II. A
description of the design of the study is contained in
Chapter III, and Chapter IV contains the analysis of the
data. The summary, conclusions, and recommendations are

presented in Chapter V.

Chapter II - Review Of Related Literature
Introduction

In the study of child growth and development, science
and experience come together to improve ways of working
with children. Specific answers to many questions have
been obtained from investigations, while some general prin-
ciples seem to permit wise deductions in the absence of ex-
perimental evidence. Although some technical concepts in
the form of empirical data and general principles are pre-
sented in this section, the reader is encouraged to remember
that the general body of knowledge relating to the subject
is much greater then.what is herein reported.

For the purposes of this study, the writer has chosen
to begin by reviewing the philosophical foundations of child
growth and development before entering into a discussion of
current concepts and practices. Building a foundation for
the current literature is essential and germane to a cursory
understanding of such a vast body of knowledge.

Following the philos0phica1 considerations is an in
depth review of a current concept of child development and
school achievement frequently referred to as the organismic
approach, as reported by Willard C. Olson and Cecil V. Millard.
Both studies have a direct influence upon current educational
practices in elementary schools.

No review of literature on this subject would be com-

plete without some attention being given to the distinguished

43

44

work of Jean Piaget in the cognitive domain of child devel-
opment. Although much of his work was compiled during the
first fifty years of this century, the Genevian school of
thought is rapidly gaining meaning and popularity in the
United States, particularly in the area of elementary edu-
cation and curriculum development.

The predeterministic theories of Arnold Gesell follow
that of Piaget as both theories are generally complementary
of each other and differ only in minor points. Further, it
was the work of Gesell and his staff that served as a basis
for the development of the Gesell DevelOpmental Examination
which was used in this study to identify the behavioral ages
of primary school children.

The last section of this chapter summarizes the general
considerations and provides the rationale for Chapter III.
It is at this point that scientific findings combine with
experience and educational practice to improve ways of work-

ing with children.

Philosophical Considerations

The general body of knowledge concerning the child is
obtained from two broad sources often contrasted as nature
and nurture. Under nature we include all of the things

that we are by reason of membership in the human race.

45

Representative of the current philosophy is Olson48 who

states that we are born.with a prior history and are de-
signed to have a structure. He further states,

"The study of anatomy, physiology, and the

chemistry of the body tells us much about

children. All of these have an aspect which

changes with time and over which we have only

slight control. Under the term maturation we

group those in—built forces that push the child

toward the adult. However, all of these forces

fail unless there is an appropriate environment.

All things that are needed for survival and

growth are grouped under nurture. Thus the

child must have appropriate food to live and

to increase in size. Similarly, a child needs

eXperience in reading in order to grow in

ability."4

Historically, as a basic science, child development
is concerned with the discovery of general laws in its area
of special concern as an end in itself. Ultimately, such
laws have self-evident implications for the realization of
certain practical goals which have social value; e.g., better
understanding of individual children, more desirable methods
of child rearing, the guidance and treatment of deviant chil-
dren, and the improvement of education.

Over the centuries, the theories that have wielded the
most influence have either stressed an environmentally ori-
entated "tabula rasa" approach or a preformationist or pre-

deterministic approach emphasizing the contributions of

48Olson, Willard C., Chilg_D§velopment, D. C. Heath, Boston,
2nd Edition, 1959, p. 4.

49Olson, Willard C., Ibid.

46

endogenous and innate factors. From these two sources
come the current nature-nurture controversy.

If we consider the preformationist and predeterministic
doctrines which involve such movements as humanism, behav-
iorism, and "situational determinism" as being on one end
of the continuum, then we would have to place the ideolog-
ical movements relating to the "tabula rasa" approach on
the other end. AusubelsO refers to the "tabula rasa" (lit-
erally, "blank slate") approaches as being Opposite to the
preformationist and predeterministic approaches because it
minimizes the contributions of genetic endowment and of
directional factors coming from within the individual, and
concomitantly emphasizes the pre-eminent role of the envi-
ronment in determining the outcome of development. In a
very general sense,

"The analogy which likens the neonate to a

'tabula rasa' is aptly representative of

their general thesis that no fundamental

predispositions are inherent in the raw

material from which behavior and personality

develop, and that human beings are infinitely

malleable. All of the patterning, differ-

entiation, integration, and elaboration of

specific or general behavior content that

emerges during the course of development

is accounted for in terms of the unique

stimulus conditions to whic the individual
is or has been subjected."

soAusubel, David P., Theory and Problems pf Child Develo ment,
Grune & Stratton, New Yerk, 1958, p. 37.

slAusubel, David p., Ibid., p. 37-38.

47

At the other end of the continuum, preformationism
and predeterminism share basically the same ideological
foundation but differ slightly in interpretations. The
fundamental thesis of the preformationist approach is a
denial of the essential occurrence and importance of devel-
opment in human ontogeny. The basic properties of behav—
ioral capabilities of man - his personality, values and
motives, his perceptual, cognitive, emotional and social
reaction tendencies - are not conceived as undergoing
qualitative differentiation and transformation over the
life span, but are presumed to exist preformed at birth.
This theory has obvious relationship with theological con-
ceptions of man's instantaneous creation and to the wide-
Spread belief in the innateness of the individual's per-
sonality and a sense of unique identity as a person.

Ausubel concludes that the theological variety of
preformationism, allied as it was to a conception of man
as innately sinful, inspired a rigid, authoritarian and
pessimistic approach to education.

"Since ultimate form was assumed to be

prestructured and complete in all of its

essential aspects, one could at best only

improve slightly on what the individual ‘

was or was already fated to become. Hence,

it was unnecessary to consider the child's

developmental needs and status, the con-

ditions propitious for development at a

given stage of maturity, or readiness for

particular experience. Because he was not
perceived as qualitatively different from

48

the adult or as making any significant

contributions to his own development, the

arbitrary imposition of adult standards as

regarded as self-evidently defensible."5

In contradistinction to preformationism, predetermin-
istic doctrines satisfy the minimal criteria for a modern
child development approach. Successive stages of the organ-
ism are not merely regarded as reflective of a sequential
unfolding of preformed structures or functions forever fixed
at conception or birth, but as the outcome of a process of
qualitative differentiation or evolution of form. However,
because the regulation of development was conceived to be
so predominately determined by internal forces in early
predeterministic approaches, the net effect was much the
same as if preformationism were assumed. Interaction with
the environment and the individual's influence on the course
of his own development was not completely ruled out, but his
directional role was so sharply curtailed that eventual out-
come was considered minor and limited.

Among the educational philosophers, Ausubel identifies
J. J. Rousseau (1712-1778) as being the first to provide a
definitive predeterministic theory of child development which
is further traced to other distinguished followers such as
Pestalozzi (1746-1827) and Froebel (1782-1852). During the
evolution of the predeterministic theory, prominent recog-

nition was given to the child's contributions to his own

52Ausubel, David P., Ibid., p. 24.

49

development, to his developmental needs and status, to his
expressed interests and spontaneously undertaken activities,
and to the importance of an unstructured, noncoercive in-

53

structional climate. This point of view has exercised
tremendous influence on all subsequent educational theory
and practice, and is essentially identical and, in a sense,
historically continuous with present-day movements advocat-
ing a nondirective and child-centered approach to the train-
ing, education and guidance of children.

Scott54 clearly and simply adds the elements of dif-
ferentiation, organization, and maturation in his historical
account. He traces the history of developmental concepts
from the crude descriptive nature described as an "unfolding
process" to the ideas of maturation in the sense of growing
old and ripe which is also considered inadequate for today's
modern philosophy. With the addition of recent philosophical
notions of differentiation and organization,

"... maturation and learning are no longer

distinct and unrelated phenomena. Instead,

we have various processes of differentiation:

growth, physiological processes, and learning.

Some of these are very largely under the con-

trol of biological and physiological factors,

while others are much more strongly affected
by function and external conditions."55

53Ausubel, David P., op. cit., p. 1-50.

54Scott, J. P., "The Genetic and Environmental Differentia-
tion of Behavior", in The Concept pf Development, Dale
Harris, Editor, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,

1957 9 p0 59-77 0
55Scott, J. P., Ibid., p. 73.

50

In the sequence of historical events, the difference
separating the early preformationists from the predeter-
minists have disappeared. Using the common term "develop-
mentalism" both schools of thought are now considered one.
DavisS6 explains that with the use of the term maturation
as a common ground or "pivot point", the developmentalists
weld physical, social, emotional, and mental development
into a comprehensive program. Scott57 speaks of "develop-
mental behavior" which is viewed as a process and is affected
by both genetic and environmental factors. He elaborates
upon these factors by indicating two opposing tendencies in
the behavior of higher organisms; one toward variability and
the other toward consistency. Habit formation is the chief
factor that produces consistent behavior while hereditary
factors can reduce or magnify either tendency. The general
heredity of a species determines the kinds of differentiating
processes which may take place, but it does not predetermine
the behavior of an individual, which is affected by many
other factors as well.

Frank‘writes,

"Growth, development and learning, and the

emergence of the human personality are cumu-

lative processes, each step or stage giving
way to the next. Thus later developments

56Davis, David C., Patterns pf Primary Education, Harper &
ROW, 1963, po 35'

S7SCOtt, J. P0, Op. Cite, p. 74-750

51

may be compromised by the cultivation of

the earlier experiences essential to whole-

some healthy development and learning."58
The use of the term "stage" to segment developmental be-
havior is not peculiar to developmentalists. "Stage theory"
can be found in other disciplines with varying interpreta-
tions, meanings, and usages. According to Kessen59 men
seem always to have felt a need to impose segmentation on
to the course of human development. Although it has usually
been argued that development is "continuous" and without
discrete shifts, the developmentalist has called upon the
notion of "stage" or "level" to help him.understand the
speed and fluidity of change in children. Kessen attri-
butes the use of "stage theory" to Goethe's invention of
morphology, with its sequels in the search for form and the
revolution of thought in which Darwin offered the ontogenet-
icist the entire animal kingdom as possible models for the
stages of man.

The offer of "stage theory" was readily accepted by
developmentalists and has led them to a variety of disagree-
ments due to their exploration of the theoretical range of
the notion. In general, the concept of "stage" by research-

ers under study by this writer can be interpreted as emphasis

58Frank, Lawrence H., "A Good Beginning Has No End", Child-
hood Education, Vol. 36, September, 1959, p. 2.

59Kessen,‘William, "Stage and Structure In The Study of
Children", Monographs of the Society For Research in Child
Devzlo ment, Yellow Springs, Ohio, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1962,
p. 5" lo

52

on what is happening to the child as much as what is hap-
pening in the child. Characterization of stage is rarely,
if ever, free of the environment in which the child acts
and is generally used to represent sequence in development.

Havighurst aptly states the rationale bridging the gap
between the study of child development and education.

"The purpose of a nation depends primarily

upon the way its children were brought up a

generation earlier. The way to improve the

nation for tomorrow is to improve the lives

of its children today."60
Simple equations such as maturation x nurture grdevelOpment,
and maturation x experience = achievementm’ dramatize the
relationship betWeen current curriculum patterns and child
development. The developmentalist and the developmental
educator view the child as an individual who in action is
a variable learner, and who is a composite of his growth
potential and a great number of his varied and continual
experiences. The child development approach to the curric-
ulum means an effort to apply to the education of children

the lessons learned from the study of children themselves.

It also assures the child's right to be a child.62’63

6oHavighurst, Robert J., "Today's Children and Tomorrow's
World", Childhood Educgtion, Vol. 37, April, 1961, p. 356.

61Olson, Willard C., op. cit., p. 17-20.

62Jesild, Arthur, Child pevelopment and the Curriculum, Bureau
of Publications, Columbia University, New York, 1950, p. 1-7.

63Crow, Lester and Crow, Alice, Human Develo ment and Learnin ,
American Book Co., New York, 1965:p. 237-2 1.

53

Jesild continually emphasizes the importance of education
being geared to the course of human development in that
education at any growth level should be in keeping with
the individuals capabilities and potentialities. The basis
for his statement is grounded in the assumptions that "edu-
cation involves choice", "choices should be in line with
child growth", and that the "concept of human potentialities
change".
"The child developmental approach (to education)f°n°
requires a scientific study not only of children
as children, but also of children as learners, in
a school situation. Findings from a study of chil-
dren's growth and behavior will indicate how a
school program should be arranged. But such find-
ings will not per se tell how the practical de-
tails of the school's job may bgzt be carried out.
This requires experimentation."
It is in this task that the research worker in child devel-
opment and the educator join hands as scientific co-worker

in an educational cause.

The Organismic View pf Education

 

The definitions of such words as growth, development,
and maturation are not completely standardized from one

field of specialization to another. Of the three, growth

64Jesild, Arthur, op. cit., p. 7.

f.n. - Words in parenthesis added.

54

as increase in size or amount is fairly standard, and can
be indiscriminately applied to growth in inches, pounds,
or abilities in school.65’66

Olson identifies the term "maturation" as a process
which "... describes the potential capacities of an indi-
vidual", while Millard defines the term as an expression
of "... a definite point of arrival in a stated time se-
quence". Although both authors appear to have unrelated
meanings, there was no doubt as to what controlled matu-
ration.

"Maturation is the internally determined

aspect of development. Time in and of

itself increases many powers, but experi-

ence, practice, and learning are needed

for an gffective use of the maturational

power." 7
While Olson and Millard viewed the environment as a vehicle

of expression for maturation, more liberal developmentalists

included environmental elements such as desires, aspirations,

65Olson, Willard C., "DevelOpmental Theory In Education",
in Concept 3; Development, Dale B. Harris, Editor, Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1957,

p. 259.

66Millard, Cecil V., Child Growth and Development In The
Elementary School Years, D. C. Heath, Boston, 1958 re-
vised edition, p. 9.

67Olson, Willard C., op. cit., p. 260.

55

values, and feelings of security as being equally important
as genetic factors.68’69

To the developmentalists, growth is viewed as being
continuous, cyclic, involving time, and is manifested in
over-all characteristics. From an educational point of
view, this knowledge takes on new significance in terms of
individual achievement. The human push from conception to
death is to be and to become - to grow and develop in keep-
ing with new powers at successive levels of the life cycle.
Not all children, or even any two children, reach the same
level of being and becoming at any one time. Therefore,
the school's expectation for each child must be based on
the child as an individual rather than as part of a group.
Olson states,

"... educational achievement of a child is a

product of the maturational forces within him

and of the experiences provided by the environ-

ment. Thus we expect children to differ in

achievement even though they have had exactly

the same experiences in school."

Huggett and Millard further state that children differ in

their chronological ages at which cycles reach their maturity;

68Havighurst, Robert J., Human Develo ment and Education,
Longmans, Green.& Co., New Yerk, 1953, p. 4—5.

69Stansbery, Shirley, "The Child's Maturity-Security Level",
Texas Outlook, Vol. 53, May, 1969, p. 36-37.

7OOlson, Willard C., Child Development, D. C. Heath, Second
Edition, 1959, p. 141.

56

e.g., the end of the "babyhood" cycle and beginning of
"childhood" cycle. Therefore, if formal reading should
be taught at the end of the "babyhood" cycle, then, "Under
no circumstances ... can the introduction of reading activ-
ities at one time to all children within the same grade be
justified ..."71
Unfortunately the standards and practices used in pri-
mary education are not abandoned so easily as those of dress
or hair styles. Even in "innovative" programs, many teachers
use standard teaching practices, techniques, methodologies,
and tend to teach in a manner very similar to the style by
which they were taught. Havighurst72 and others remind us
that children are "selective learners". Although teachers
provide a constant supply of nurture in the academic areas,
the end result is a differential nurture uptake due to the

selectivity of the learner.
Olson states that,

"... the constant supply (of nurture) is surely
a myth, since children will seek a larger or
smaller supply from what is available, as in
the following equation: Variable maturation x
Differential uptake of nurture:==Enhanced vari-
able achievement. In effect, then, the product

71Huggett, Albert and Millard, Cecil V., Growth and Learn-
ing In The Elementary School, D. C. Heath, Boston, 1946,
p. 41.

72Havighurst, Robert J., Human Develo ment and Education,
Longmans, Green.& Co., New Yerk, 1953, p.

57

we know as development in education is an
achievement in which neither rate nor supply
is constant, and in which the outcome in indi-
viduals may consist of various mixtures of the
two.

The present development or achievement in the above equation
is essentially what educators mean when they talk of readi-
ness.

The following situation reported by Hildreth in 1936

is not an uncommon occurrence in many schools today.

"Twenty to twenty-five percent of first grade
children fail annually, chiefly because of
reading difficulty. In a certain school nearly
all first grade children fail and then have to
spend two years repeating the work of the first
year. Retardation figures in one third grade
showed that 70% of the pupils had repeated one
or more semesters, chiefly because of reading
failure. Upper grade reading is unsatisfactory
because children fail to profit from premature
instruction in the lower grades. The reading
acquired under these circumstances does not
function."

It would appear that remediation in basic skill areas

75

would solve these children's problems, but Olson and

Millard76 remind us that remediation is, in many cases,

7301son, Willard C., in Harris, op. cit., p. 262.

74Hildreth, Gertrude, Learning The Three R's, Minneapolis,
Minn., Educational Publishers Inc., 1936, p. 136.

75olson, Willard C., Child Development, Boston, D. C. Heath &
Company, 1949, p. 142-146.

76Millard, Cecil V., Child Growth and Development In The
Elementary School Iears, 0p. cit., p. 273-278.

58

unreliable. Remediated children, when reassigned to the
regular classroom curriculum, more often than not drop to
their original before-remediation pathways of academic
growth. Perhaps remedial teachers are treating symptoms
rather than the causes, but it should be pointed out that
not all children follow the pattern. Both authors agree
that remedial efforts are effective when applied in con-
junction with a period of rapid maturation and physical
growth. The problem is one of "timing" in that any instruc-
tion must be matched with the child's rate of growth.

"It is difficult for many persons to adjust

themselves to the idea that they should pace

the developing child in the early stages of

reading instead of forcing him. What appears

to be needed is an interactive method through

which experience is supplied when the child

is ready and seeks for it; then he learns

happily and successfully."77

As the result of previous studies, such as those com-
pleted by Dearborn and Rothney in their investigations of
the relationships between mental and physical growth, Olson
and Millard, in separate longitudinal studies, dealt with
the relationship between physical growth and achievement.
Their method of description was accomplished by translating
samples of growth into age units. Thus, individual growth

curves were constructed to show growth in height age, weight

77Olson, Willard C., Child Development, Second Edition,
D. C. Heath, Boston, 1959, p. 143.

59

age, carpal age, strength of grip age, dental age, mental
age, and reading age. The average of these was called

organismic age.

"When the organismic age for a child is cal-
culated for successive life ages and the points
are plotted and connected, much stability and
predictability in trend is revealed. -- Each
child tends to grow in a more steady and pre-
dictable manner when the average value of
organismic age is used than when a single
attribute is plotted. This type of evidence
suggests some central maturational tempo or
release of energy at a steady rate, with a
tendency toward balapging of the various as-
pects of the whole."

The stability and predictability of organismic age was
frequently tested and many attempts were intended to alter
the relationships of the variables tested. Results of other
longitudinal studies confirmed the studies of Olson and
Millard indicating that height, weight, or carpal patterns
of development were better predictors of a child's school
achievement than the kind of teaching he receives, the
course of study he takes or the kind of remedial work he

79,80,81

receives.

7801son, Willard C., Ibid., p. 207.

79Baller, warren and Charles, Don; The Psychology 9; Human

Development, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1968.
80Tilton, John., "An Experimental Effort To Change The
Achievement Test Profile", Journal 9; Experimental Edu-
cation, Vol. 15, 1947, p. 318-323.

81Tanner, James M., Education and Physical Growth, University
of London Press, Ltd., Warwick Square, London E.C.4, 1961.

60

In comparing mental age with reading age, it is gen-
erally conceded that one is quite predictable of the other.
The high correlations between reading scores and intelli-
gence scores represent the findings upon.which the practice
can be fairly well justified. The error too frequently
made is that of interpreting the data for the individual
child. Many children have intelligence and reading scores
which do not correspond. The same may be said for achieve-
ment in general. Millard states, "Equivalent I.Q.'s or
mental ages bespeak very little as to rates of growth,
maxima toward which each individual is progressing, and

82

ages at which maxima may be achieved." The problem

arises according to Millard because mental age can not be

tested longitudinally from birth to maturity.

"To be entirely valid ... a test should be

so constructed as to Show gain in mental

age in terms of units which, when the re-
sults are graphed, would correspond to, or
parallel, periods of over-all development.

A test should correspond to the phenomena

of maturation and should reflect the kind 0%
growth which the organism can demonstrate." 3

Achievement tests can also provide sources of error in

that (1) items selected for achievement tests fail to provide

a picture of progress corresponding with the pattern of

82Millard, Cecil V., Child Growth and Development In the

Elementary School Years, op. cit., p. 14.
83Millard, Cecil v., Ibid., p. 138-139.

61

organismic growth, (2) they provide forced ceilings for the
brighter children, and (3) comparisons of intelligence and

achievement scores are compared to a norm rather than the

84

maximum toward which the child is growing. It appears

that until these limitations are corrected it will be nec-
essary to expect among a great many children considerable
difference between mental age and achievement age. In
other words, mere immaturity can easily become confused
with deficiencies. Therefore, the instructional emphasis
in education should be on maturation rather than mastery
based upon arbitrary chronological age/grade standards.

Millard and Rothney state,

"Despite the beliefs of certain devotees of
standardized test interpretative procedure,

it appears that declining status as measured
by tests is not necessarily a sign of declin-
ing motivation, poor teaching, emotional upset,
or deprivation in environmental surroundings.
This is, of course, a possible explanation in
some cases. In others, however, there seems
to be evidence among the cases to suggest that
declining academic pattern may be representa-
tive of natural pathways, concurrent with 'nat-
ural and unaffected' physiological and mental
age trends, and compensated for by a magching
upward trend in later childhood years." 5

Practical applications of child development knowledge
are centered upon recommendations for variable curriculum

standards and instructional pacing. Since there are no

84Millard, Cecil V., Ibid.
8SMillard, Cecil V. and Rothney, John.W., 0p. cit., p. 635.

62

definite maturity limits for any given chronological age,
there can be no specific grade or age enclosures in as
much as the maturity requirements for readiness to learn
are not the same for all children. Huggett and Millard
contend that the time to teach new concepts is during a
growth spurt. "Leveling off" periods of the child's devel-
opment are considered a time of instability and a time when
new skills should not be taught. It is recommended that
techniques of drill, enrichment, enhancement of skill know-
ledge, and review be employed during these times.86

Pacing refers to the teacher's acts which ensure that
each child is provided with the materials upon.which he can
thrive.

"It also refers to the attitude which expects

from the child only that which he can yield

at his stage of maturity. ... Studies of

learning and productivity in relationship to

the goals that are set suggest that the child

will continue to strive when success is clearly

within his grasp. He will start avoiding the

experiences which are at a level of difféculty

clearly beyond his present attainments." 7

In summary and at the risk of oversimplication, let it
suffice to say that the living organism will yield as many

different data as we have the capacity to record, and if

86Huggett, Albert J. and Millard, Cecil V., Growth and
Learning ZQ_Th6 Elementary School, op. cit., p. 133:194.

87Olson, Willard C., "Developmental Theory In Education",
in Harris, op. cit., p. 273.

63

possible, measure and that all these data are related as
different dimensions to the organic field of life. Also,
since there is, among individuals, considerable variability
of functional activities and behavior response from time to
time, that variability within the individual as distinguished
from variation among individuals should receive prime consid-

eration particularly in the field of education.

The Qevelopmental Psychology 9; Jean Piage :

figme Fundamental Aspects

Of the three areas under consideration in this chapter,
the developmental theories of Jean Piaget attach the least
significance to the original predeterministic point of view.
To some extent this is due to his personal background, his
interest in phiIOSOphical considerations, and the nature and
procedures of his research techniques. However, because of
his current influence on American education which appears
to be gaining in power and because of the nature of his
findings in child development, this writer considers him
a valuable source of new information. Under his direction,
volume after volume of empirical investigations and theo-
retical discussion has emerged, many of them supporting
findings that were not only original, but almost too sur-
prising to be believable. A flurry of interest in his work
appeared in the United States around 1930; then interest

died for some twenty years before reviving activity about

64

1955. At present, there are many research efforts stimulated
by his theoretical ideas or his thought-provoking empirical
discoveries.

Attempting to summarize Piaget's work is difficult and
hazardous, for much of his work is not yet translated and
he, to an important degree, has modified some of his views
over the years. Furthermore, his approach to the psychology
of child deve10pment is unorthodox by American standards,
and his writing difficult and obscure. Basic outlines and

88 and Inhelder,89

summaries have been provided by Flavell
the latter being one of Piaget's principal co-workers.

In general terms, Piaget has dealt with the question,
"What is knowledge?" In more restricted terms, and in terms
of genesis, his attempts have been to scientifically deal
with questions such as "Under what set of laws does know-
ledge develop and change?" Inhelder9° states that his re-
search work in genetic epistemology seeks to analyze the
mechanisms of the growth of knowledge insofar as it pertains

to scientific thought and to discover the passage from states

of least knowledge to those of the most advanced knowledge.

88Flavell, John H., The Developmental Psychology of Jean
Piaget, Van Nostrand, Princeton, New Jersey, l93§.

89Inhelder, Barbel, "Some Aspects of Piaget's Genetic Ap-
proach to Cognition", Monographs of the Society For Re-
search In Child Development, Yellow Springs, Ohio, Vol.
27, No. 2, 1962.

9°Inhelder, Bartel, Ibid., p. 19.

65

Piaget's approach to the problems of psychology re-
flects his background of biological training.

"Piaget applies this biological vieWpoint to

his theorizing about human behavior. He tries

to identify the structures of each age level

and to show how they adapt to environmental

demands and to one another, and how they in

return modify what the environment demands.

For example, when the child walks, he is able

to attain goals otherwise unattainable. At

the same time, walking puts the child in a

position to have goals that he would not have

otherwise had. The interrelatedness of the

entire pattern is illustrated by the fact

that because people walk, our whole social

environment is set up to require walking."91

With a human biological structure that changes and
adapts, Piaget refers to "scheme" as being the behavioral
parallel that corresponds to the biological structure. De-
scriptions of various schemes become complicated even when
interpreted92 but in its simplest form a schema is nothing
more than a reliable response to a stimulus, e.g., the "suck-
ing reflex" of a new born. Piaget puts cognitive schemes and
sensorimotor schemes into the same class as he believes that
cognitive schemes are derived from sensorimotor schemes by
a process of internalization. Thus, schemes is a complex
concept encompassing both overt motor behavior patterns

and internalized thought processes. It includes simple,

91Baldwin, Alfred L., Theories of Child Development, John
'Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1953, p. 173.

92Flavell, John H., op. cit., p. 52-58.

66

predictable responses at the reflex level, but also complex
organizations like a person's understanding of the number
system.

The schema represents the structure that adapts.
"Assimilation" and "accommodation" are also terms used by
Piaget to describe the adaption process. Assimilation is
a term borrowed from biology. Baldwin describes the term
in the following manner: "When a person eats food, it is
digested and assimilated. The food is changed so that it
becomes usable in the physiological functioning of the body;
the digestive process does not ordinarily change to fit the
demands of the food."93 Since accommodation is a term often
used by psychologists, it can be explained easily from that
perspective. Consider an eight month old child who is un-
able to pick up a small object even though he can pick up
larger ones. To adapt to the demands of his environment,
the child's greSping schema must accommodate to the demands
of the tiny object. The gradual acquisition of the ability
to pick up tiny objects can be described as an accommodation
process. Therefore, "... assimilation means that the organ-
ism has adapted and can handle the situation presented to
it; accommodation means that it must change in order to

adapt."94

93Baldwin, Alfred L., op. cit., p. 176.
94Baldwin, Alfred L., Ibid.

67

Piaget's developmental theories are not only influ-
enced by his biological interests, but they also reflect
a broader interest in phiIOSOphical considerations, partic—
ularly in the field of epistemology. The classical con-
sideration of epistemology is whether there is any justi-
fication for assuming that one's picture of the external
world is accurate. Piaget has devoted much energy to em-
pirically investigating this problem in order to establish
a position on the issue by actual investigation of the child's
understanding of Space, time, logic, and mathematics. He re-
fers to this endeavor as genetic epistemology. Baldwin states,

"... Piaget describes in great detail the

development of the assumptions that the ex-

ternal world is stable, independent of the

child's perceiving it, and that it is com-

posed of permanent objects moving around in

Space and possibly changing their properties

over time. During childhood, this basic epis-

temological assumption is conceptualized by

the child, who also acquires the basic notions

of logic and mathematics, coming to view these

also as parts of reality. An important factor

in the acquisition of these general notions

and their conceptualizations is the fact that

the child must adapt to other people and assume

that they have much the same type of eXperience

as he has."95

Piaget divides the child's develOpment into four main
periods: the sensorimotor stage (infancy stage, birth to
two years), the preoperational stage (two to seven years),

the period of concrete operations (seven to eleven years),

953aldwin, Alfred L., Ibid., p. 179

68

and the period of formal Operations (beginning about eleven
to twelve years of age). Through these four general devel-
opmental stages, Piaget sees the development of understand-
ing or knowledge in the child as the result of a process of
elaboration based upon the child's own activity.

"Before undergoing formal tuition, the young
child progressively elaborates his first logi-
cal and mathematical constants, such as logical
classes, and the principles of conservation, of
numerical correspondences, of spatial dimensions,
and of physical matter. Those constants allow
him to handle the transformations of the physical
world in reality and in thought. The laws of
elaboration, while allowing us on the one hand
to throw light on the epistemological problems,
allow us at the same time to analyze more appro-
priately the active part played by the child in
the development of his own knowledge of the world.
For it does not seem as if the growth of know-
ledge in the child were due exclusively to a
cumulative stock-piling of information received
or exclusively to the emergence of a sudden
'insight' independent preliminary preparation.
Rather the development of knowledge seems to

be the results of a process of elaboration

that is baseg essentially on the activity of

the child."9

Piaget, like many who study or work with children and
adolescents, describes development in terms of definite
stages. Whereas somatic and perceptual development seem to

be continuous, intellectual deveIOpment takes place in stages.

96Inhelder, Barbel, op. cit., p. 20.

69

98

97 and Inhelder , Piaget organizes the

According to Baller
criteria for his stages as follows:

1. In each stage there is a period of genesis or

formation, and a period of attainment.

2. While one structure is reaching a level of

attainment, another is in its beginning or
genesis.

3. The order of stages is constant; one inevitably

follows another.

4. Each structure, as it develops, becomes an in-

herent part of succeeding structures.

Many questions come to mind in studying Piaget's descrip-
tions of stage development. Existence of definite stages has
been partially documented in the previous description of the
organismic point of view. Although both pieces of research
use the notion of deve10pmenta1 stages, questions as to the
nature of their source and the relationship of chronological
ages at which the various stages reportedly appear do not
meet with complete consistency. One explanation for con-
sistency of intellectual development of stages would be the
existence of some maturing physiological structure under-
lying the thought processes. The brain and central nervous
system is just such a structure. The English physiologist,

Tanner, offers this explanation:

97Baller, Warren, et.a1., The Psychology of Human.Develo ment,
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1963: p. 277.

98Inhelder, Barbel, 0p. cit., p. 22.

70

"In short, there is plenty of evidence that

in the brain functions appear when structures
mature, and not before. There is no reason

to suppose that the truth of these general-
izations suddenly ceases at age two, or three,
or thirteen. 0n the contrary there seems every
reason to suppose that the higher intellectual
abilities of the brain also appear only when
maturation of certain structures is complete.
... The stages of mental functioning described
by Piaget and Inhelder and the emergence of
mental abilities ... have all the character-
istics of developing brain or bodily structures.
... The stages follow in sequence which may be
advanced or delayed as a whole but not altered,
just as in a wrist bone or a cortical primary
area. ... There seems every reason to suppose
that Piaget's successive stages depend on pro-
gressive maturation or at least organization

of the cortex."99

Tanner goes on to comment on the relationship between
neural development and experience in the formation of new
stages of thought. Environmental stimulation may or may not
be necessary to create the required cell assemblies. For the
cognitive stages to emerge brain maturation is probably nec-
essary, but not, of course, sufficient. Without at least some
degree of social stimulus the latent abilities may never be
exercised.100 As Tanner comments, it is not clear at this
time just what effect, if any, environmental stimulation has
on the rate of neural development; in general the latter seems

to be primarily a matter of genetic determination. Thus it

appears that the "stages" are natural, that is, tied to neural

99Tanngr, James M., Education and Physical Growth, op. cit.,
p. 4 -500

1°°ranner, James M., Ibid., p. 52-53.

71

as well as physical maturation. What kinds of learning
experiences will encourage optimum development, and how
and at what times these experiences should be offered re-
main unclear and a major concern of current and future
research.

Piaget did not intend to address himself to developing
the kinds of learning experiences needed to encourage optimum
development, but rather, only the cognitive development of
the child which he elaborately discusses and illustrates in
each of his four developmental stages. He rather arbitrarily
attaches chronological ages to each stage and appears to be
more concerned with the order of the stages and the mastery
of material within them, which he claims is constant.
Flavell101 provides the most complete analysis of Piaget's

102 provide

stage deve10pment while Brearley and Hitchfield
a less technical explanation and some practical applications
relating Piaget's theory to the educative process. or the
four stages, the Pro-operational Stage, or Stage II, is most
pertinent to the topic at hand.

During the early part of this stage, the child's activ-
ity consists primarily of symbolic play: imitating and repre-

sentating what others do. Of course, much of his energy is

101Flavell, John.H., The Developmental Psychology of Jean
Pia at, Van Nostrand, Princeton, New Jersey, 1963.

102Brearley, MOlly and Hitchfield, Elizabeth, A Teacher's
Guide 29 Reading Piaget, Roultedge and Kegan Paul, London,
1966.

72

directed toward language development which Piaget concludes
is characteristic of a child between the ages of two to
eleven or twelve. A child in this stage is dealing with
"concrete thinking operations", where "operation" is de-

fined as an action which can be internalized and which is

103

reversible. Stage II, like other stages, is divided into

substages of development.

"From five to seven, there is a preoperational
substage during which there is much elaboration
of mental operations, made possible by the de-
velopment of language and symbolic process.

The child must reconstruct at a level of repre-
sentationel thought all that was developed on

a sensory-motor level earlier. Around age seven
a 'thought structure' is formed; it must operate
on objects, not on verbally expressed hypotheses,
but operations of classification, ordering, con-
struction of the idea of number, spatial and
temporal operations, and all the fundamental
operations if elementary logic of classes and
relations, of elementary mathematics, of elemen-
tary geometry, and even of elementary physics
may be realized."104

While many of Piaget's theories have not lent themselves
well to controlled research, his speculations about the de-
velopment of "conservation" in Stage II have provided a rich
resource of testable hypotheses. In addition, his descrip-
tions and illustrations on the same topic reveal how dif-
ferent the world of the child is from that of the adult and

how dependent the child is on momentary changes in perceptual

impressions. In dealing with the conservation of quantity

103Ibid., p. 3-4.
104Baller, warren, et.al., op. cit., p. 278.

73

or amount, Piaget reveals how the child progresses from
an intuitive stage, where he seldom grasps the abstractions
necessary to understand conservation of substance, to a
transitional stage (about age seven or eight), where he
vacillates between an answer which indicates conservation
and one which does not, to a final stage around the age of
ten to eleven, where he masters the concept and is even able
to logically reverse the process.105

In regard to the conservation of volume, Piaget gener—
alizes the content of his research in the following three
statements: (1) Below the age of six to six and a half there
is no understanding of the concept. (2) Between seven and
eight or nine, there is increasing understanding that shape
of an object may be altered without changing its volume.
(3) By about eleven or twelve years children attain under-
standing of volume as the function of length, breadth, and
height.106

As is true with the other concepts, Piaget finds a num-
ber of stages in the development of number concept. There
are three major ones. First, by about age six, when most
children have an interest in numbers and have learned to
count, Piaget feels they have only a vague, perceptually

determined notion of what numbers are really about. He

calls this the stage of "global comparison". It is

IOSFIavell, John, op. cit., Chapter 9.
106Baller, Warren, et.al., op. cit., p. 281.

74

followed by an "intuitive" stage during which the child
begins to realize that numbers are really attributes of
objects or sets of objects and are invariant even though
the perceptual field is transformed. The third period is
independent of perceptual transformation and is the "con-
crete operations" stage.107

The Genevan group has investigated other areas such as
the concept of weight, area, length, space, time, velocity,
horizontality, classification, seriation, causality and logi-
cal thinking with similar results to the above findings which
provide equally testable hypotheses in terms of age groupings
at which concepts are to develop. Many studies have been con-
ducted which confirm the developmental stages in many of the
areas studied by Piaget. However, the reader will find that
the chronological ages at which specific stages are reached
and the age at which stability of the concept is to be main-
tained has not been consistently confirmed. It is perhaps
difficult for the educator to remember that Piaget is not
concerned with establishing a rigid relationship between
chronological ages and the developmental stages, although
he attaches an approximate age range to each.

"The real difficulty in the concept of stages

is the apparent contradiction involved in be-

lieving at one and the same time in continuity

of growth and in stages of development. Piaget

explains this by demonstrating that during the
formation of a structure of reasoning each new

107Baller, Warren, et.al., op. cit., p. 282.

75

procedure depends on the one a child has pre-

viously acquired, but once that structure is

formed it becomes the starting point of a new

acquisition and relatively independent of t e

earlier steps, though inclusive of them."10
Piaget does not look on the developmental stages as mature-
tional or educational levels but as the result of assimilation
and accommodation with eventual equilibrium which in their
turn are dependent on the interaction between maturation and
experience.

In the past few years, many curricular innovations have
been aimed at the acceleration of learning in school without
much regard for the child's cognitive development in that
such programs apparently emphasize the acquisition of con-
tent as Opposed to a developmental phase of growth. One such
recent departure was proposed by Bruner:

"we begin.with the hypothesis that any subject

can be taught effectively in some intellectually

honest form to any child at any stage of develOp-

ment. It is a bold hypothesis and an essential

one in thinking about the nature of the curriculum.

No evidence exists to contradict itl considerable

is being amassed that supports it." 09

The hypothesis is indeed a bold one, but one wonders

whether it is essential for curriculum planning. The phrase

"in some intellectually honest form" may provide the needed

108Brearley Molly and Hitchfield, Elizabeth, op. cit.,
p. 168-1 90

109Bruner, Jerome S., Toward A,Theory of Instruction, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass.,-I9 , p. .

76

escape hatch; but is there in fact no evidence that con-
tradicts the hypothesis?

Inhelder tells us that "the genesis of the mechanisms
of knowledge" cannot be adequately explained in terms of
maturation, learning from experience, or social transmis-
sions. Rather, Piaget proposed "equilibration" as the ex-
planatory concept - that is, adaption is a matter of sequen-
tial changes which occur because "each organism is an Open,
active, self regulating system".110 Bruner was perhaps over-
stating the case in order to emphasize the doctrine of delayed
instruction Often attributed to child development centered
curriculums.

Bruner seemingly accepts Piaget's position on intellec-
tual development and its educational significance. It is,
therefore, difficult to understand how he can maintain "that
any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually
honest form to any child at any stage of development",111
and at the same time say, first that the "pre-operational"
child cannot grasp the idea of "reversibility", and second,
"because of this fundamental lack the child cannot understand
certain fundamental ideas that lie at the basis of mathe-
matics and physics ... It goes without saying that teachers

are severly limited in transmitting concepts to a child at

110Inhelder, Barbel, OP- Cit': p. 28'
lllBruner, Jerome, op. cit., p. 33-

77

this stage, even in a highly intuitive manner."112 The

notion of "effective teaching" in the first quotations
seems inconsistent with the ideas of the second.

Tyler states,

"Too little is known about these attempts to
teach young children more 'complex' ideas and
skills for us to be able to assess them in a
realistic sense. However, even if it be dem-
onstrated that young children can learn this

or that 'advanced' process, we should still
need to decide whether it is desirable and
appropriate to do so. Sociologically, we may
ask whether this is the best way for children
to spend their time and energy. Intellectually,
we may ask whether this is the most suitable
preparation for future intellectual activities.
Emotionally, we may ask whether 'early' system-
atic instruction in reading, mathematics, or
what have you, will have a harmful effect upon
motivation, or upon personal and social behavior.
... Just the fact that children can learn.this
or that does not by itself mean that we, there-
fore, must require them to do so at some early
age or in some early grade."11

Flavell discusses three ways in.which Piaget's findings
may be applied to education. In the first place they afford
a means of assessing the individual student's capacity for
benefiting from a program of instruction and of diagnosing
his difficulties. Secondly, they offer guidance for planning
the content of the curriculum as a whole in the light of

established norms Of development. Finally, they suggest

methods of teaching once the curriculum content has been
114

decided.
l121bid., p. 35

113Tyler, Fred, Op. cit., p. 223-224-
114Flavell, John, op. cit., p- 365-370.

78

In the light of these potential applications, it is at
first surprising to learn that there is little or no system-
atic attempt on the part of educators to apply Piaget's con-
tributions to American education. One reason may be the fact
that Piaget distinguishes development from learning which is
not a pOpular notion in the concepts of child centered or

develOpmental curriculia.

"Development, for Piaget, is a spontaneous
process linked with the whole process of
embryogenesis. ... The essential character-
istic of development is its spontaneity.
Learning, on the other hand, is not spontane-
ous but is provoked by situations. Moreover,
the changes brought about by learning are
limited to specific intellectual structures
required to deal with particular situations,
whereas development involves the totality of
intellectual structures. Therefore, we cannot
explain develOpment in terms of learning as, for
example, the sum of discrete learning experiences.
On the contrary, development is the fundamental
process, and we must explain learning in terms
of development, because learning occurs as a
function of develOpment."11

A second reason indicating a limited effect on education
is his position on the stimulus-response paradigm of classical
learning theory which he sees as being an inadequate explana-
tion of learning. He defines a stimulus as something that
sets off a response, and "a response cannot occur unless the

organism has the appropriate structure that makes the re-

sponse possible. In a sense, the response must potentially

llsBoyle, D. C. A Student's Guide 22 Pie et, Pergamon Press,
New York, 1969, p. ll3-ll4.

79

exist before the stimulus."116 Thus, S-R training will
inevitably be unsuccessful because it provides only exter-
nal reinforcement, whereas, since the learning of structures
appears to obey the same laws as the development of these
structures, the reinforcement must itself be in the nature
of the structure. Once again Piaget is led to claim that
learning is subordinate to development.

Although the issue of Piaget versus S-R theory is partly
a pseudo-issue, the last point is not. It is admittedly a
fact that traditional learning theory has not been an inspi-
ration to the profession of teaching, but then, neither has
Piaget's work. Although educators are generally agreed that
a child should be encouraged to discover things for himself,
there is no systematic theory in terms of which a teacher
can tell precisely how much free discovery, and when, should
be introduced into the classroom situation. From this point
of view, Piaget's writings are no more helpful than S-R theory.
The construction of the bridge linking psychological theory
to pedagogical practice still remains a crucial task for
educational technology.

Other reasons may be cited including the extreme criti-
cism by American educators on the issues Of unconventional
research techniques and his excessive use of verbal question-

ing of children from.which he drew logical conclusions.117

116Boyle, D. C., Ibid., p. 117.
117Beller, Warren, et.al., Op. cit.

80

Although Piaget's findings are now more widely accepted,

having been confirmed by Observations in practical situ-

118

ations, the basic issue of mental maturation versus edu-

cational experience remains. The cumulative effect of

Piaget's work "... has confirmed the initial picture of

an inward evolution".119

Gesell's Developmental Point O View

 

 

Dr. Arnold Gesell's primary interest through the years
has been in the process of growth and in the inner drive of
the organism for growth. Drawing on his scholarly background
in experimental and chemical embryology, he emphasized in his
infant studies the intrinsic relation of neural ripening to
the functioning of the organism. He bolstered the ego of
the nature proponents when they were having a hard time under
the onslaught of environmentalists like John B. Watson.

Gesell asserted:

"The nervous system grows according to its
own intrinsic pattern and thereby establishes
the primary forms of behavior. These forms
are not determined by stimulation from the
outside world. Experience has nothing spec--
ifically to do with them ... The extreme
versions of the environmentalist and con-
ditioning theories suffer because they ex-
plain too much. They suggest that the
individual is fabricated out of the con-
ditioning patterns. They do not give due

118Ibid.
119Boyle, D. C., op. cit., p. 121.

81

recognition to the inner checks which set

mates and bounds to the area of conditioning

and which happily prevent abnormal or gro-

tesque consequences which the theories them-

selves would make too easily possible."120
Gesell did not ignore the influence of culture on development.
In fact, he emphasized the point that the process of encultur-
ation made such massive demands upon the process of develOp-
ment that terms such as nature and nurture lose their value.
Culture 2; nggy}21

Historically, with the collapse of G. Stanley Hall's
(1846-1924) elaborate theory of recapitulation, predetermin—
istic theories of development received a serious setback,
but they by no means disappeared. They simply assumed other
forms more compatible with the prevailing theoretical climate.
The most influential and widely accepted of all present-day
predeterministic approaches is Arnold Gesell's theory of
maturation. Basically, it reiterates Bousseeu's emphasis
upon the internal control of development, but discards the
specific parallelisms between cultural history and individual
development which made Hall's position so vulnerable to attack.

Gesell's theory emphasizes its general resemblance to

the empirically demonstratable concept of maturation which

120Gesell, Arnold and Thompson, Helen, Infant Behavior,
MCGraw Hill, New York, 1934, p. 1-2.

121693911, Arnold and Ilg, Frances L., Infant nd Child I

The Culture 9; Today, Harper & Row, New York, 1943.

 

82

has gained considerable acceptance among behavior scientists,
educators and the lay public. Ausubel states that,

"Operationally it merely referred to incre-

ments in functional capacity attributable to

structural growth, physiological change or

cumulative impact of incidental experience,

in contradistinction to increments attrib-

utable to specificlgractice experience

(i.e., leerning)."

Gesell used the term maturation in a more global sense to
represent the endogenous regulatory mechanisms responsible
for determining the essential direction of all development,
including that conditioned in part by learning and encultur-
ation.

Gesell's embryological model encompassed all aspects of
human growth - structural, physiological, behavioral and psy-
chological - which are obedient to identical laws of develop-
mental morphology.123 In all Of these growth areas, a growth
matrix consisting of endogenous factors determines the basic
direction of differentiation and patterning, whereas, "...
environmental factors merely support, inflect and modify,
but ... do not generate the progressions of develOpment".124

Gesell theorized that develOpmental sequences are rela-

tively invariable in all areas of growth, evolve more or less

122Ausubel, David, op. cit., p. 28-29.

1236esell, Arnold, "The Ontogenesis of Infant Behavior", in
L. Carmichael, Manual Of Child Ps cholo , 2nd edition,
Wiley'& Sons, New York, 19 34, p. 335- 373.

124Ibid., p. 355-356

83

spontaneously and inevitably, and show basic uniformities
even in strikingly different cultural settings. This posi-
tion has been modified to some extent due to more modern
conceptions of genetics which indicates that the "... in-
fluence of genes on development is never complete or abso-
lute, but always reflects to a variable extent the influence
of the intracellular, intercelluler, gestational or external
environments".125 This shift in theoretical orientation,
which is generally accepted by Gesell's modern-day counter-
parts, played an important role in resolving some of the
dichotomous views of the nature-nurture controversy, and
generally creating a multi-dimensional approach to the pro-
blems of human development.

Gesell viewed mental develOpment as a process of quali-
tative change. He described the mind as a process that is
organizing, integrating, and controlling function of the
individual. Mental growth (growth of the mind) was seen by
Gesell as a process of change, a process of "behavior pat-
terning".

"The child's mind does not grow by a simple

linear extension. He has a persisting in-

dividuality, but his outlook on life and on

himself transforms as he matures. He is not

simply becoming more 'intelligent' in a narrow

sense of his misused term. He alters as he
grows.“-2

125Auaubel, David, op. cit., p. 33.

 

 

126Gesell, Arnold, et. al. The First Five Years of Lifg: A
Guide 29 The Study of The Preschool Child, Harper & Row,

New York, 1940, p. 67—

84

The concept of "qualitative changes of the mind" as
it related to "behavior patterning" led Gesell and his
associates into a study of the process of learning in the
preschool and school age child. The following statement
by Jersild is indicative of the position now held by many
child developmentalists in relation to the educative process.
"Each child has his own pattern of development. His readi-
ness to learn changes day by day as a result of his bio-
logical maturing and his daily experiences."127 Similar
statements using other words and phrases have been stated

128

by Brenner, Ilg and Ames,]‘29’130 Garrison,131 Bijou,132

and Crandall.133

127Jersild, Arthur T., "Development As A Product of Learning
and Growth", in The Child, edited by Jerome Seidman, Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, Chicago, 1963, p. 25.

128Brenner, Anton, "Re-Examing Readiness", Childhood Education,
Vol. 43, No. 8, April, 1967.

129Ilg, Frances and Ames, Louise, School Readiness, Harper &
Row, New York, 1965.

130 , Child Behavior, Harper & Row, New York, 1955-

l3lGarrison, Karl C., Growth and DeveloPment, McKay Co., New
York, 1959.

l32Bijou, Sidney W., "Learning In Children", Monographs of
the Society for Research In Child Deve10pment, Antioch
Press, Yellow Springs, Ohio, Vol. 24, No. 5, 1955.

133Crandall, Virginia C., "Achievement Behavior In Young
Children", in.ghg Young Child; Reviews 2; Research, edited
by Willard Hartup and Nancy Smothergill, National Asso-
ciation For The Study of Young Children, Washington, D.C.,

1967.

85

Crow and Crow identify the problem in adapting this
particular piece of knowledge within an educational frame-

work.

"A child enters school at about the age of
5 or 6 and is expected to progress sequen-
tially in his schooling. Formally, it was
assumed erroneously that all children are
able to profit similarly from instruction
at each age or grade level. Inability on
the part of the learner to master minimum
essentials or to keep pace with the work of
the class was explained in terms of laziness,
stubbornness, or indifference to learning.
Our failure to take into consideration the
fact that learners differ in their ability
to perform in various areas of learning,
and that there are many factors of influ-
ence in child-learning has complicated the
problem of child training."134

It is interesting to note that Gesell135 made a similar
statement at the turn of the century. Today the same appeal
is evident in the title and context of Ames'136 book, Is
Ypur Child 12 The Wrong Grade?

Gesell's interest in the maturation and development of
normal children led him into many studies involving the de-

velopmental stages of maturation which he applied to the
child's school education in addition to theories of child

134Crow, Lester and Crow, Alice, Human Deve10pment and Learn-
in , American Book Co., New York, 1955, p. 322.

135Cesell, Arnold, The Normal School Child and Primary Edu-
cation, Ginn and Co., New York, 1912, p. 194.

136Ames, Louise Bates, gs. Your Child g The Wrong Grade?
Harper & Row, New York, 1957.

86

training. His "co-twin control studies"137 frequently
cited in the literature, stressed the added maturity that
comes about from the passage of time, and the ineffective-
ness of "early" practice. Gesell and Thompson pointed out
that their conclusion, deriving from the stair-climbing
investigations, might well be limited to gross motor func-
tions. However, their general notion about "maturity" and
their doctrine of delaying the introduction of exercises
were soon adapted to educational theory and practice with
respect to motor skills and cognitive processes.

Gesell's studies of maturation led him to formulate
the ideas of "developmental trends" and "gradients" which
governed the course of both somatic and behavioral organi-

138

zation. These two ideas were extended by others to en-

compass cognitive activities of significance to school
learning. Ilg and Ames, for instance, published gradients
for arithmetic, handwriting, and reading, and they related

their gradients, which they presented by ages, to the

Gesellian concept of maturation.139:140

137Gesell, Arnold and Thompson, Helen, "Learning And Growth
In Identical Infant Twins: An Experimental Study In The
Method Of Co-twin Control", Genetic Psychology Monographs,
Vol. 6, 1929, p. 1-124.

138Gesell, Arnold, "The Ontogenesis of Infant Behavior",
op. cit., p. 339.

139Ilg, Frances, and Ames, Louise E., "Developmental Trends
In.Arithmetic", Journal 9; Genetic Ps cholo , Vol. 79,
September, 1951, p. l-24.

140Ilg, Frances, and Ames, Louise B., "Developmental Trends
In Reading Behavior", iguana; Qf'ggggtig Ps cholo ,

87

Tyler141

criticizes the use of these gradients by
educators in that they are based upon the concept of "bio-
chemical gradients" and only tell us "what is" about the
child and do not reveal "what might be" if cultural and
social effects were attributable to cognitive development.
In the writer's opinion, Tyler makes the frequent error of
perceiving these works from a fatalistic point of view as
Opposed to their intent. Ilg and Ames frequently refer to
the intent of providing parents and educators with a set of
"paths or blueprints" to assist the child in "accommodating
to the environment".142 In essence, their intent is to
study, document, and interpret what they see to describe

"what is" as Opposed to predicting "what might be". They

also add,

"... it is the child, through his multiple
relationships (with his environment)fon-
who alone can travel the path. We cannot
live for another person, but he in turn
cannot live in a vacuum. He moves through
people and experiences and makes them his
own."

One of the "blueprints" which has been repeatedly re-
vised by the Gesellians over the years deals with stages and

141Ty1er, Fred, op. cit., p. 218.

142Ilgé Frances and Ames, Louise, School Readiness, op. cit.,
p- -7-

143Ibid., p. 7.

f.n. - Words in parenthesis added.

88

cycles of growth in normal children.144 Ilg and Ames pre-

sent a pictorial representation of three cycles of develop-
ment for children between the ages of two and sixteen,145
of which each cycle is composed of six developmental stages.

The cycles of develOpment apply equally to the child's phys-

ical and mental growth. Gesell states,

"The child comes by his mind as he comes by

his body - through the organizing process

of growth. We may think of him in terms of

his physical make-up, his body build, his

nerve cells, brain and muscles. We may think

of his mind and personality, as evidenced in

his behavior characteristics. Mind and body,

environment and experience are somehow com-

bined and integrated through profound devel-

opmental forizg, which always produce a unique

individual."

Therefore, Gesell and his constituents perceive child growth
as a progression of six predictable sequential stages with
each stage being repeated in each of the three cycles.

The develOpmental approach tells and provides reasons
why no two children are exactly alike, no two children arrive
at readiness or unreadiness through exactly the same route
and with the same speed, and no two children develOp the same

readiness or unreadiness pattern. Each child is unique in

14411g, Frances and Ames, Louise, School Readinegg, Ibid.,
p. 7'12.

145Ibid., p. 10.
146Gesell, A, Ilg, F., and Ames, L., Youth: The Years 2322

Ten 22 Sixteen, Harper & Row, New York, 1955, p. 17.

89

his own sense. Like Olson, Millard, Piaget and others,
Gesell again points to the element of predictability as
being one of the most striking features of human develOp-

ment. Baldwin says,

"This predictability can be exaggerated, but
still there is a truly remarkable uniformity
to the developmental sequences of different
Children. The course of development of
motor skills, for example, is so constant
and the sequence of appearance of various
patterns of motor activity is so invarient
that it can be used as a prognostic test

of future growth. Even when there are indi-
vidual differences in the rate at which this
development occurs, there is likely to be
very little change in the order 3f appear-
ance of the various patterns."14

Like other develOpmentalists, Baldwin basically accepts
Gesell's theory of maturation and relates it to the process

of learning academic material.

"Maturation may sometimes not be evidenced
directly by growth of ability. In some cases
it seems that the result of maturation is a
greater readiness to learn an ability. For
example, reading readiness is partially a
result of maturation. Even if it were com-
pletely predictable, however, the child
would not automatically develop the ability
to read. He would develop the readiness to
learn to read. When the readiness had de-
veloped, the child could be taught to read,
but if he were got ready, training would be
ineffective."14

147ledwin, Alfred, Behavior and Development Ia Childhood,
Dryden Press, New York, 1955, p. 3 .

148Ibid., p. 369-370.

9O

Baldwin believes that maturation occurs over time and that
it has two effects: (1) to increase the efficiency of per-
formance, and (2) to increase the efficiency of learning.

However, he warns,

"In many activities there must be some
practice of a skill before a certain point
in time if the maturational potentialities
are to be realized. If practice is with-
held too long Bermanent decrease in ability
is produced."14 »

Jersild is also sympathetic to the Gesellian position
on maturation and learning but elaborates on the effect of
external conditions upon cognitive development. For Jersild,
learning is influenced, and in many cases limited by the ex-

ternal environment.

"The process of integration of learning into
the personality takes place inwardly and can-
not be achieved solely by external manipu-
lation. To help the child realize himself,
opportunities for learning must be provided
not alone in.the manual, motor, and intel-
lectual skills, but also in the sphere of
feeling and emotion, since a Child comes
into active possession of his emotional re—
sources through a process of learning Just
as much as it is true in other areas of ex-
perience.

In addition to its importance in its own right,
emotion may also be an aid or a hindrance to
learning. Granted a proper level of ability,
failure to learn is probably more often due to
the learners attitudes than to shortcomings in

149Ihid., p. 398.

91

a particular mechanical method that is used

in giving instruction. The roblem is more

personal than pedagogical."l 0

When the reader contrasts these statements with on the
spot classroom observations which reveal many children having
difficulty with cognitive development in terms of general
standards, it would appear, that for some children, the
school is deliberately designed to promote their failure.
The criticisms of public education have not changed much
over the years. Hildreth attributes the cause of school
failure to the primary school level.

"Too often the beginner's initial enthu-

siasm has given way to disappointment upon

entering school; he has become discouraged,

anxious, or insecure as the result of a

classroom atmosphere and a school program

not well suited to the characteristics and

needs of children entering the first grade.

Failure rates have been highest in the first

grade because the schools have often failed

to provide a program designed to foster whole-

some child growth at this point."151
She attributes this statement to such current limitations
as the school's failure to provide an adjustment period and
to teach the child the skill of going to school, the school's

repressive atmosphere, the pressure of academic curriculum

150Jersild, Arthur, “DevelOpment As A Product Of Learning
And Growth", op. cit., p. 31.

15lHildreth, Gertrude, 0p. cit., p. 4.

92

which hurries children into book learning, and the tendency
to overlook individual differences among children.152

While these criticisms may be justified or unjustified
in varying degrees, they cannot be totally denied or ignored.
For example, support for the contention that education has
not yet provided a satisfactory answer to the question of
school readiness, one has only to examine the criteria nor-
mally used for permitting entrance into kindergarten or
first grade. Communities have been slow to accept guide-
lines other than chronological age. Brandt points out that
the only virtue of the chronological age criterion is its
objectivity. " ... parents cannot argue convincingly about
their child being ready or not in a culture where birth date
is a matter of record and is the sole basis for school ad-
mission."153

Where exceptions to this criteria have been made, indi-
vidually administered intelligence tests have often been
used as a major supplement. But massive screening programs
of this nature have been costly, and the relative instability
of intelligence scores Just prior to the first grade indicate

a lack of value in relation to the intended purpose. Further-

more, Ilg and Ames state:

lSZIbid.

15313randt, Richard, "Ready Or Not", Childhood Education,
Vol. 43, No. 8, April 1967, p. 44 .

93

"A mere intelligence test does not or
cannot attempt to measure a child's level
of maturity. A child may be of clearly
superior intelligence but at the same time
be behind others of his age in gither phy-
sical or behavioral maturity."1

The same can be said for achievement tests. In addition,
both types of test characteristically indicate an individual
score in contrast with a chronological age group mean score
or norm. If each child is unique within.himself then, " ...
each should be Judged in terms of his own natural standard,
not in terms of norms derived from mass measurement."155

In sum, the lack of broad-based, valid measures of
school readiness, along with community pressure to admit
children as soon as possible, have contributed greatly to
the tendency for almost complete reliance on chronological
age. In addition to creating the problems indicated by
Hildreth, Ilg and Ames state:

"Possibly the greatest single contribution

which can be made toward guaranteeing that

each child will get the most possible out

of his school experience is to make certain

that he starts that school experience at what

is for him the 'right' time. This should be

the time when.he is truly ready and not merely

some time arbitrarily decided upon by custom
or by the law."156

15411g Frances and Ames, Louise, School Readiness, op. cit.,
p. C

155Crow, Lester and Crow, Alice, op. cit., p. 335-

156Ilg, Frances and Ames, Louise, School Readiness, 0p. cit.,
p. 14.

94

The net result of chronological age-grade placement
for some children is a forced learning situation. Tradi-
tionally, the teaching of reading has been considered the
chief task of the first grade. The majority of parents
expect beginners to read soon after entering first grade.
They are concerned about reading because to them it repre-
sents the first important hurdle and has come to be con-
sidered a test of the child's ability to learn. Hildreth

says of premature reading instruction,

"Although in typical schools as much as
sixty per cent or more of the school day
is devoted to reading, results show that
even with thorough drill many beginners
make little progress in learning to read;
at best only a small prOportion can come
up to the high standards of achievement
in reading that the school expects. In
typical classes fifty per cent of the
pupils will learn more slowly than the
pace anticipated in terms of the materials
and textbooks that are used. The chief
reason is that the children are too young
chronologically, mentally, or both to
achieve the learning goals set up for
them."1

This statement in many respects coincides with those of Ilg
and Ames158 mentioned in Chapter I.

Not only could adequate broad—based readiness measures

be useful in admissions programs, they could have even greater

l57Hildreth, Gertrude, 0p. cit., p. 7.
158

Ilg, Frances and Ames, Louise, School Readiness, op. cit.,
Chapter 3.

95

value in providing guidelines for grouping children for
instructional purposes in curricular planning. They are
increasingly needed as ungraded primary replaces tradi-
tional grade-level school organization and it becomes es-
sential to know children's developmental status. The need
to estimate children's developmental status prior to kinder-
garten or first grade is extensive enough that recent bat-
teries, each representing major research and development,
have been published and have widespread use in some American

159,160 Brandt161 points out that even these re-

schools.
cently published instruments have limitations such as in-
sufficient reliability of requirements for individual rather
than group administration as measures of behavior maturity
and over-all school readiness and farther, that these and
others like them tend to overemphasize visual perception
and paper and pencil tasks.

The "Gesell Developmental Examination"162 is designed

to indicate the child's developmental level at different

159Brenner, Anton, "The Anton Brenner DevelOpmental Gestalt
of School Readiness", Western Psychological Services,
Los Angeles, California, 1964.

160Frostig, Marianne, "Developmental Test of Visual Per-
ception", Consulting Psychological Press, Palo Alto,
California.

lélBrandt, Richard, "Ready Or Not", op. cit-, p- 449-450-

162Ilg, Frances and Ames, Louise, School Readiness, op. cit.,
Chapters 6-14.

96

behavioral age levels and how he is functioning in general
as a total organism. Ilg and Ames report:

"Fifty years of experience in the use of

a battery of developmental tests has shown

that the child's developmental level can be

determingg through the use of such behavior

tests."

They propose that every child be given the individual be-
havior examination and that his level of performance be
determined at the time he is being considered for school
entrance and whenever promotion to a succeeding grade is
being considered. The problems arising from variability

in chronological age and learning capacity among beginners
in the primary years can be met in part by grouping children
on the basis of behavioral age and adjusting the curricula
to match their level of maturity. The combination of be-
havioral age grouping and the nongraded school concept is
intended to minimize pressures on mentally immature children,
which causes disappointment in their early efforts to learn,
and to provide them with plenty of time for natural learning
in a stimulating school environment.

The Gesellians have no intention of reducing academic
curricula to a second place classification in favor of
grouping children on the basis of behavioral age. The in-
tent is to put behavioral age grouping and a flexible

163Ibid., p. 17.

97

primary school organization on an equal basis with academic

curriculum. Gesell and Ilg state:

"Reading, writing and arithmetic are not

only tool subjects; they are symptomatic
indicators. A discerning school system

would be less concerned to measure achieve-
ment as an end product; and more concerned

to use the measurements as indicators of

the total psychological make up of the child,
including his interests, his maturity status
and growth trends. There need be no fear of
'progressive education' when it deals posi-
tively and realistically with the assets and
liabilities of the individual child. A child-
centered school can promote maximal development
without sacrificing minimal competence in the
'fundamentaés' and in the conventions of every-
day life. "1

Discussion 9; Previous Research

The child developmental theories presented here have
indicated strong relationships between maturation and learn-
ing. The organismic theories of Millard, Olson and others
provided data indicating a direct relationship between
achievement in basic curricula to the physical growth of
the child. Physical growth in a child's heighth, strength of
grip, weight, and carpal age proved to be a better indicator

of a child's readiness to learn than his chronological age

164Gesell, Arnold and Ilg, Frances, Child Development,
Harper and Brothers, New York, 1949, p. 391.

98

or school environment. The contribution of the organismic
position to education is evident in their recommendation
that educators attempt to "fit" academic expectations to
the physical maturity level of the individual Child.

The popularity of Piaget in current educational views
is due to his detailed work in the child's cognitive devel-
opment. He is more interested in the nature of knowledge
and how it develops than he is in making his work attri-
butable to building a philosophy of school curriculum.
Through the efforts of other writers, Piaget's stages of
cognitive development have been applied on a limited scale
to the educative processes. His descriptive analysis deals
with the progression of concepts from the concrete to the
abstract in a variety of mathematical and logistical topics.
The interpretations of his findings are to be found affect-
ing primary education more than any other educational level.

Gesell's predeterministic concepts of the stages and
cycles of maturation have been softened by his constituents
to include a more realistic View concerning environmental
effects. His maturational views and analogies which are
appropriate for education have been widely accepted. The
"Gesell Developmental Examination" is based upon his mat-
urational views which he directly relates to the learning
process. As yet, no effort has been made to relate the
"behavioral age" scores to standard instruments of achieve-

ment commonly used by educators. The topic of Chapter III

99

is an effort to establish a relationship between "behavioral
age" scores of the Gesell Developmental Examination to scores

of the Stanford Achievement Tests.

Chapter III - Design of the Study
Introduction

The intent of this study was to investigate a broader
understanding of individual differences among Children by
attempting to determine the nature and magnitude of the
relationship between behavioral age and academic achieve-
ment of first, second, and third year students enrolled
in the Edmonson Elementary School. Subjects in this study
were 187 first, second, and third year students of a small
midwestern public school district. There were 55 students
in their first year of school, 69 in their second year, and
63 in their third year.

Pogulation and Sample

The Edmonson Elementary School is one of eight elemene
tary schools in the Lamphere Public School District which is
located in the city of Madison Heights, Michigan, a white
northern suburban city of Detroit, Michigan. Of the approx-
imately 34,500 city residents, an estimated 22,000 live
within the Lamphere District boundries. The school dis-
trict services a school population of approximately 5,500
students of school age which has remained fairly constant
since 1967. The vast majority of students come from young
middle-class families who have purchased their first medium-

priced brick homes, most of which have been built since 1960.

100

101

As a community, the residents have been highly education
oriented and supportative by giving approval to an inno-
vative school program and consistently passing both build-
ing and operating millage issues.

The 187 first, second, and third year students at
Edmonson School were selected as being representative of
the total population and to maintain some consistency of
test scores due to the subjective nature of the behavioral
age scores obtained from the Gesell DevelOpmental Examination.
A degree of consistency was maintained because the same devel-
cpmental examiner administered and scored all Gesell tests at
approximately the same time each year between August 1969 and
June 1972.

Subjects were automatically divided into three groups
based upon the year in which they became Chronologically
eligible to enter the kindergarten program. Achievement
and behavioral age data was collected on first year students
from September of 1971 through June 1972, on second year
students from September 1970 through June 1972, and on
third year students from September 1969 through June 1972.

The usefulness of school grade classification and
chronological age were not essential factors in the analy-
sis of data. However, for the sake of definition, the 187
students ranged in achievement from the kindergarten level
through the third grade and an average fourteen month chrono-

logical age range was common to each of the three groups.

102

In statistical terms, the sampling of students in this
study can be identified as an "incidental sampling of the
population" in that students identified in the study happened
by chance to be eligible for entrance into the school program
during the time limits involved in this study.165 In other
words, all children who became eligible by law to enter the
Edmonson School kindergarten classes during the 1969-1970,
1970-1971, or 1971-1972 school years were involved in the
study. In essence, the sample pOpulation was not randomly
selected in the traditional sense. However, according to
Cornfield and Tukey166 the reader can draw generalizations
from this type of statistical model providing the population
to which the generalizations are made is demographically
similar to the sample population. The only exceptions for
exclusion of students from the sample were in those cases
where insufficient data was available during any one given

year due to students entering or leaving the school program

mid-year e

16leownie, N. M. and Heath, R. W}, Basic Statistical Methods,
Harper & Row, New York, 1965, p. 118.

166Cornfield, J., and Tukey, J. W., "Average Values 0f Mean
Squares in Factorials", Annals 9; Mathematical Statistics,

1956, Vol. 27, p. 907-949.

103
Instrumentation

The instruments used were the Gesell Developmental
Examination, The ABC Inventory,f'n‘ The Metropolitan Read-
iness Test, The Stanford Early School Achievement Test,
Levels I and II, and The Stanford Achievement Test, Primary
Batteries I and II.

The Gesell DevelOpmental Examination, designed by
Frances L. Ilg and Louise B. Ames (1965), requires spe-
cialized training, practice, and the establishment of ex-
aminer skill. Its purpose is to determine developmental
readiness for school entrance and/or the grade level place-
ment for which the child was chronologically eligible.

In addition to other considerations,167 the validity
of the test was determined in the Weston Study (1957) by
establishing a correlation between original predictions of
school success for 81 kindergarten, 26 first grade, and 31
second grade students made in the fall of 1957, and the actual
school performance of the same children as judged by their
school placement six years later. A correlation of .74 was

found between prediction of readiness and grade placement.

f.n. - The complete battery of the Gesell Developmental
Examination and the ABC Inventory is presented in
Appendix B.

167Ilg, Frances L., Ames, Louise B., and Apell, Richard J.;
"School Readiness As Evaluated By Gesell Developmental,
Visual, and Projective Tests", Genetic Psychology Mono-
graphs, 1965, Vol. 71, No. l, p. 51-91.

104

Since the population of the Weston Study was too small
for the purpose of standardizing the Developmental Exami-
nation, 100 children (50 girls and 50 boys) at each of
seven age levels from five to ten years including age 5%
were used in the Center and Montowese School Districts in
North Haven, Connecticut.168 Each district provided approxi-
mately 100 children at each grade level, thus making random
selection of subjects at each grade and age level under study
possible. The entire program was conducted over a period of
four school years from September 1958 to May 1962 in both dis-
tricts. A list of the number of children examined at each age
with the dates when they were examined is provided in Table 1,
Appendix A. This schedule provided over 700 examinations from
which final decision of 100 records at each age level were
analyzed to establish standardized measures. The selection
of the 100 records at each age level was based upon the com-
pleteness of the examination recording rather than the ex-
cellence of performance of the individual child.

Because of its newness and lack of adequate circulation
among public educational circles, no tests of validity and
reliability in the traditional sense have been reported to
date on populations other than the standardization group.
However, the authors do identify an indication of instru-
ment reliability by reporting consistency of develOpmental
examination ratings in test-retest situations using different

developmental examiners over a three year period. According

168Ibid.

105

to Ilg and Ames, consistency was highest for the develop-
mental examination on which 78% of kindergarten, 95% of
first grade, and 79% of second grade subjects rated the
same for their respective develOpmental ages on the first
and final examinations.169

An indication of validity was established in a similar
way by comparing develOpmental test predictions during the
fall of each year to the teachers' judgement of progress
made at the end of the year. Correspondence between pre-
dictions based on the developmental examination response
and the teachers' ratings at the end of any given year were
reasonably high for kindergarten subjects. This agreement
decreased with added age and higher grade placement, possibly
because teachers became more reluctant to retain students.
For comparisons made during the first year of the study,
there was 83% agreement between results of the developmental
examination and the teachers' estimates for kindergarten sub-
jects. For first grade subjects examined during the first
year of the study, the agreement was only 68%. For second
graders seen during the first year of the study, the agree-
ment was only 59%. However, the authors report a correlation
of .74 between the original kindergarten develOpmental exami-
nation test predictions of readiness and grade placement six

years later.170

169113, Frances and Ames, Louise, School Readiness, op. cit.,
p. 2-4.

170Ibido , p. 25-270

106

When the standardization group was compared to the
subjects in this study on the basis of intelligence and
socio-economic status, the groups were approximately com-
parable. Lamphere School students have been given the multi-
level edition of the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Tests at
grades three, five, and seven for the past eight years, and
have consistently established a mean IQ score within a range
from 103 to 106 for both sexes each year at each grade level.
It must be noted that the standardization group scored
slightly higher on the intelligence measures than the sub-
jects in this study; however, the ages at which intelligence
measures were given to the standardization group were each
year from the age of six through ten years. Students in
the present study, due to school policy, are not given intel-
ligence measures until age eight or eight-and-a-half years
or older. The ages at which the two groups were given the
intelligence measures may account for some of the differences.
For the purposes of this study, the assumption.was made that
Edmonson School students were approximately equal to those
students who were involved in the standardization group.

Although these controls were a necessary part of this
study, neither the intelligence nor socio-economic back-
ground had a direct bearing upon the Developmental Exami-
nation scores. Each has its place, but this place is rela-
tive to a larger whole. The interest of the Gesell Develop-
mental Examination centers around a child's developmental

level and the quality of his behavior. The intent is to

107

better understand the source of his actions which serves
as a basis for ways to best serve him in an educational
environment.

The administration, scoring, and interpretation of the
Gesell Developmental Examination is a highly technical and
time-consuming task which demands specialized training and
time to practice the acquired skill for the purpose of
maintaining overall skill and consistency. A developmental
examiner must maintain speed and accuracy in manipulating
test materials, recording observed behaviors of the child
during the examination, and in evaluating the quality of
observed behaviors.

The complete battery of tests, presented in Appendix B,
which is the Gesell Deve10pmenta1 Examination used in this
study may appear to the reader as a potpourri. Actually
many similar tests have been devised by other examiners and
have been used with good success. It can not be over—empha-
sized that any test is only as good as the person administer-
ing and interpreting it.

The battery of tests used in this study include: (1)
The Initial Interview, (2) Paper and Pencil Test, (3) The
Right and Left Tests (an adaption of Jacobson's Right and
Left Tests), (4) Form Tests, (5) Naming of Animals for sixty
seconds, (6) The Gray Oral Reading Test, (7) Numbers Test,
and (8) The Concluding Interview. The above batteries of
tests were used to obtain basic quantative and qualitative

behavioral information on each child in the study.

108

In the Initial Interview, questions are asked of the
child about his age, date of birth, birthday party (includ-
ing favorite activity and present received), siblings, and
father's occupation. The general purpose of this section
is to establish rapport with the child, however, it is
during this time that the child first exposes his general
behavioral picture to the examiner in terms of his general
level of intelligence, powers of organization, and his in-
terests.

The Paper and Pencil Tests consist of the child's writ-
ing his name or letters in his name, numbers from one to
twenty, copying of six basic forms (circle, cross, square,
triangle, divided rectangle, diamond in two orientations),
two, three-dimensional forms (cylinder and cube in two ori-
entations), completing the Incomplete Man figure and giving
his facial expressions. These tests, particularly the copy
forms, tap the subverbal levels of the brain in terms of
developmental quantity of responses, which when combined with
the examiner's observation of quality of responses during the
tasks, reveals much information about the child's level of
cognitive development.

The Right and Left Tests consist of the child's ability
to identify and name parts and sides of the body and the
carrying out of single and double commands. It has been
observed that a great deal of confusion exists about sided-
ness, especially in children between the ages of four and

seven years. The confused child generally is found to have

109

other confusion patterns as well, especially as to the ori-
entation of letters and numbers. Even single letters or
numbers pose considerable problems for these children. It
is not uncommon for teachers of early elementary children
to become frustrated and confused themselves as to how to
teach children to read, write, spell and copy exercises
from the chalkboard when.the child exhibits developmental
problems of laterality confusion.

The Forms Tests consist of Marion Monroe's Visual One
Test (matching forms), Visual Three (memory for designs) and
mental projections into the forms. The Visual One Test de-
mands of the child the understanding of direction, the carry-
ing out of orders, the ability to sustain, and to repeatedly
find one's place. Unlike the Visual One, which has little
usefulness as a test after the age of six, Visual Three has
longitudinal potential and reveals much about the growing
child's power of recall. The projective technique used
with the Visual Three forms gives the examiner clues as to
the age of the child's response and his way of seeing. Also,
since the subtests of the Gesell Developmental Examination
are short on language tests, it gives the examiner some
indication revealing the child's level of thinking and his
use of language.

The Naming of Animals for sixty seconds is an old Binet
item. The test in itself gives the examiner clues about the
child's tempo, the organization of his thinking, his capacity

110

and range of basic information and his ability to sustain
for sixty seconds on one tOpic which is no small task.

The Gray Oral Reading Test is in its original form.
This test allows the examiner to identify the Child's ap-
proximate oral reading level, and his ability to decode and
encode what he reads. At the same time, each age group of
children reveal their particular difficulties involved in
reading as well as special methods of attack.

The Mathematics Test used in this study was not part of
the originally designed Gesell Developmental Examination,
but was developed later by the Gesell Institute personnel.
It is merely a test of the Child's ability to count by ones,
twos, threes, fives, tens, and to successfully handle simple
addition, subtraction, and multiplication problems. The
intent of this test is to determine whether the child demon-
strates his ability on a concrete or abstract level of oper-
ation.

Supporting psychometric data as to coefficients of
validity, reliability and objectivity are too numerous to
mention here as they are reported for each test item which
in turn is categorized according to sex at each age level.
Complete information may be located in the numerous tables

presented in Ilg and Ames' book, School Readiness.171

171Ilg, Frances L. and Ames Louise B., School Readiness,
Harper & Row, New York, 1965, Chapters 7 through 21.

111

Collection of data from the Gesell Developmental Exami-
nation on the subjects under study was accumulated during
the three year period as a part of standard operations for
the Edmonson School's Developmental Coordinator. All students
entering their first year of school during the duration of
this study were screened for placement in kindergarten on
the basis of a shortened version of the Gesell Developmental
Examination. All examinations of first year entrees were ad-
ministered during the month of August or September of the year
the child became eligible by law for the kindergarten program.
No child eligible by law to attend kindergarten was denied
permission to do so on the basis of the Gesell Developmental
Examination or any other criteria. During the months of
April, may, and June of each year, all Children were tested
using the full battery of tests apprOpriate for their age
level from the Gesell Developmental Examination for group
placement the following year. In other words, each year's
group of kindergarten children received two developmental
examinations; the initial screening in the fall of the year
and the full battery of tests the following spring. After
the first year in school, children were tested using the
full battery only once during the spring. It must also be
noted again that the same developmental examiner administered
all Gesell Developmental Examinations during each of the three
years of the study.

The ABC Inventory (see Appendix B) designed by Normand
Adair and George Blesch of muskegon, Michigan, is a straight-

112

forward and direct instrument to determine kindergarten readi-
ness and is considerably less complicated and time consuming
when compared to the Gesell DevelOpmental Examination. Al-
though the construction of the two behavioral age instruments
are not related, the inexperienced ABC Inventory examiner can
become comfortable and effective in presenting the questions
to children of beginning kindergarten age in the approximate
ten minutes needed to obtain the information. Scoring was
accomplished by the examiner, in this case the writer, as the
examination was conducted with the total raw scores being
easily converted to a "readiness age score" from the conver-
sion table. The ABC Inventory is divided into four parts.
Section I is a "Draw-A-Man Test" in which children score on
the basis of quantity of items included in this drawing. Sec-
tions II and III demand short answers to the examiner's ques-
tions which can be classified as basic environmental infor-
mation. Section IV consists of four demands having mathe-
matics and geometrics as the basis for the child's response.
The principal purpose of the ABC Inventory as reported
by Adair and Blesch is to identify children.who are immature
for a standard kindergarten school program. Although the
ABC Inventory is not an absolute sCale, the authors state
that if it is used as prescribed it does successfully identify
those children whose maturity for school is questionable.
However, they hasten to add that no child should be denied
school entrance on any single criteria, and it is highly

recommended that scoring in the questionable range be

113

carefully studied for the purpose of helping him avoid
early academic difficulties.

Construction of the ABC Inventory was begun in 1960
with final standardization of the instrument being estab-
lished as the result of a three-year study between 1962 and
1964. The standardization group throughout consisted of
boys and girls whose ages ranged from four years nine months
to four years eleven months with the average age being four
years ten months. No effort was made to separate the scores
of boys and girls or to make allowances for socio-economic
differences. The fifteen schools involved in the study in-
cluded kindergarten through twelfth grade systems in areas
with 400 total enrollment to moderate sized systems enroll-
ing over 5,500 students. Because the number in the stand-
ardization study was (N == 166) and the age range small,
biases in selection were believed to be negligible.

Reliability was established by matching comparable
groups and assuming group equivalency. Scores for children
of the same age who enrolled in the same school districts

two years apart were compared with the following results:

114

Table 5
Reliability of the ABC Inventory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1962 Group 1964 Grou
__Ngmber In Both Groups 166 314i
Means For Both Groups 65.51 66;?1
Standard Deviations 22.66 21.78
Standard Error 0f Means 1.76 1.23

 

Mean Differences . . . . 1.20
Standard Error . . . . . 2.08
Critical Ratio . . . . . .58

 

 

 

According to Table of t, there was no significant difference
between the means.

Validity was determined by comparing "pass-fail" fea-
tures between children in the upper and lower half of the
score distribution. Eighty-three children in the standard-
ized group obtained scores of 68 and above while eighty-
three scored below 68. 0f the forty-three children in the
standardization group who failed their first year of school,
86% were identified accurately by the ABC Inventory. 0f
the remaining seventy-seven who scored 68 or better, 63%
were accurately identified by the instrument. (tetrachoric
correlation = .70)

The "readiness age scale" was constructed by combining

all test scores over the three-year period (N == 619) into a

115

frequency distribution and examining its resemblance to the
normal bell-shaped curve. The index called "readiness age"
approximates the mental age features described for most in-
telligence tests and carries similar implications. The
scale was established by comparing the ABC Inventory ready
age with the Stanford-Binet mental age. In a small sample
study (N == 14), the product moment correlation between ready
age and mental age was reported to have equaled .78. How-
ever, it was noted that investigation of this relationship
was being extended and that subsequent statistical measures
may not yield so high a correlation.

The purpose of including the ABC Inventory in this study
was to determine the extent of its adequacy in establishing
school placement and predicting academic success for first
year students as compared to the Gesell DevelOpmental Exami-
nation. It must be noted that because of the ages of chil-
dren upon which the ABC Inventory was standardized it is
considerably limited in terms of longitudinal value as com-
pared to the Gesell DevelOpmental Examination. However, if
the two instruments accomplish basically the same task with
approximate degrees of adequacy for beginning first year
students, reliance upon the ABC Inventory for placement
and predictive purposes of first year students would save
the Gesell Developmental Coordinator many hours of valuable
time at the beginning of each school year. Where the ABC
Inventory can be administered and scored in approximately

ten minutes of time, the Gesell Developmental Examination

116

screening takes a trained examiner approximately twenty
minutes to administer, with an additional thirty to forty-
five minutes per examination to properly score and evaluate.

The ABC Inventory was administered to all first year
students for the 1971-1972 school year involved in this
study (N :: 55). Examinations were given on a one-to-one
ratio in private surroundings during the third week of
September 1971.

The achievement tests used in this study included the
MetrOpolitan Readiness Test, Form A, 1965 edition, The Stan-
ford Early School Achievement Test, Level I, 1969 edition,
The Stanford Early School Achievement Test, Level II, 1970
edition, The Stanford Achievement Test, Primary Battery I,
Form W, 1964 edition, and the Stanford Achievement Test,
Primary Battery II, Form.W, 1964 edition. Since these in-
struments are often commonly used by educators, a discussion
of the psychometric data will not be presented. The reader
is encouraged to review the technical data which is set
forth in the Technical Supplement.l72

The use of these tests in this study was again a normal
function of the school's testing program rather than a func-
tion of this study. The only exception.was the administration
of the Stanford Early School Achievement Test, Level I, to

1"7‘2Klelley, T. Madden, R., Gardner, E. and Rudman, H.,
Stanford Achievement Test Technical Su lement, Harcourt,
Brace & World, Inc., New York, 1970.

117

first year students in September of 1971. The test was ad-
ministered at this time and again during the last week of
May 1972 for the purpose of establishing gain scores for a
comparison with results from the Gesell Developmental Exami-
nation and the ABC Inventory. All other testing procedures
and test instruments were a normal part of the school test-
ing schedule which was the administration of an apprOpriate
achievement test to all students during the last two weeks
in May of each year. Classroom teachers administered and
scored all achievement tests for classroom groups of chil-

dren other than their own.

Design.p§ Study

Because of the combination of instruments used, this
study can be more appropriately classified as an exploratory
study in terms of its design as Opposed to a true experi-
mental design which would have been more desirable. However,
a strength of the design can be attributed to the availabil-
ity of longitudinal data covering a maximum of three con-
secutive years for one group and two consecutive years for
the second group. The third group, representing kindergarten
students who had completed their first year in school, more
appropriately lent itself to procedures of design and in-
strumentation which are characteristic of controlled experi-

mentation.

118

The population involved in the study were assigned to
classroom groups on the basis of behavioral age scores indi-
cating the school's nongraded approach to primary education
with its emphasis on continuous progress. The school or-
ganization created problems in identifying the usual age/
grade assignment classification of children in the tradi-
tional sense which would have been clearer to the reader.
Although neither chronological age nor grade classification
were variables involved in the study, the next best method
of identifying children was the number of years they had
been in school. Therefore, it was possible to identify
three distinct groups of children for the purpose of estab-
lishing a relationship between behavioral age and school
achievement.

Those children identified as Group A (see Figure 1,
Chapter I) represent the group for which longitudinal data
was available over a three year period of time. The group,
by law, was admitted to school as beginning first year stu-
dents in September of 1969 and continued to be enrolled in
the school program through June of 1972. Children identi-
fied as Group B were admitted as beginning first year stu-
dents in September of 1970 and continued to be enrolled
through June of 1972. Thus, Group B represents the group
of children for which the same data was collected over a
two year period of time. Children identified as Group C
became eligible for enrollment as first year students in

September of 1971 and continued to be enrolled through June

119

of 1972. The necessary data for this group was available
over a one year period of time. The resulting design not
only allowed a study of relationships within groups but
between groups as well.

The testable design, which was classified as exploratory
in nature and included a planned analysis of data by comput-
ing product-moment correlations, simple linear regression,
and one way analysis of variance, was accepted due to the
many uncontrollable variables involved. For example, the
study lacks a control group primarily because random assign-
ment to this experimental group and a comparable control
group of children in a surrounding school district could
not be guaranteed. Another school within the Lamphere Dis-
trict could have served as a control group were it not for
the fact that all Lamphere elementary schools group first,
second, and third year students on a variety Of criteria
which includes placement and instruction, in part, on the
basis of behavioral age. Therefore, any elementary school
within the district which might have served as a control
group would have presented a host Of additional confounding
variables. This major limitation had profound affect upon
a more sophisticated testing design.and statistics used.

The present design allowed for descriptive, and in
some cases predictive, statistical measures to be used.
However, even within.the present design there were problems
Of possible contamination which need mentioning. First is

the possible contamination.due to increased proficiency on

120

the part of the develOpmental examiner during the three year
study. Although no subjects were used who were tested dur-
ing the two years prior to this study by the same develOp-
mental examiner for the purpose of exercising some control
over the proficiency problem, it must be noted that the
examiner gained some degree of additional proficiency dur-
ing the three year study. Although the problem of matu-
ration on the part of the examiner may be cited as an
additional variable such as an increase in average score
assignments during the three year period, it can also be
assumed that the children being tested also matured in
their proficiency at an equal rate. In other words, matu-
ration of the examiner and Of the students taking the tests
can be considered to be equally manifested.173

Another problem commonly inherited in longitudinal stud-
ies where achievement tests are used is the reliability fac-
tor involved when different forms of the same tests are used
which may differ in terms of content and factors with dif-
ferent grade levels. The Stanford Achievement Tests were
selected to measure achievement growth in this study be-
cause they have one of the highest reliability ratings
between tests and between factors within each test. Relia-
bility coefficients as reported in.the technical supplement
fall within a range from r =:.79 to r =:.94 for within test
items. The Correlation between tests is equally high.

173Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C., Experimental
And Qpasi-experimental Designs For Research, Rand McNal y
and COO, ChicagO, l9 , p. 7-9, 14.

121

The problem of attrition commonly associated with studies
of this nature did not present a major problem. Few students
left the school or entered the school during the period of
time involved. If students were enrolled long enough to
gather one year's amount of data, they were included at the
proper level of the study. If they were not enrolled for a
full year and only partial data was available, the datum
was excluded.

The collection of data for all students was a standard
function of the school program during the three years. Chil-
dren beginning their first year in school or who were com-
pleting their first, second, or third years in school cus-
tomarily received the Gesell Developmental Examination and
an apprOpriate Stanford Achievement Test. with the exception
of the administration of the ABC Inventory to the 1971-1972
first year students, no unique testing was accomplished for

the purposes of this study.
All children enrolled for their first year Of school

were given the Gesell Developmental Examination Screening

for purposes of placement in September of each year. The
full Gesell Developmental Examination and an appropriate
Stanford Achievement Test for their number of years in
school was administered during the month of May. Behav-
ioral age data was collected from the examiner's files and
Stanford Achievement Test data from each child's school re-
cord. The information.was recorded on a composite summary

sheet of all appropriate information from which a keypunch

Operator punched the data processing cards.

122

The deviations from this process were minimal and dealt
with instrumentation rather than processes of data collection.
The MetrOpolitan.Readiness Test was the achievement test used
with children in Group A at the end of their first school
year rather than the Stanford Achievement Test. Since no
other achievement test information was available on this
group at that time, the data had to be used to maintain
some consistency as to achievement measures within the
group. The administration of the Stanford Early School
Achievement Test, Level I, to all beginning first year stu-
dents in Group C was an addition to the normal testing sched-
ule. The additional use of this instrument in combination
with the use of the same instrument with the same group at
the end of the year provided a design which was subjected
to the stronger model of statistical analysis known as a
one way analysis of variance. The ABC Inventory was also
included as additional data with this group to test for
reliability as compared to the more time consuming Gesell
DevelOpmental Examination Screening normally given to be-
ginning first year students. If the two measures are com-
parable, the ABC Inventory would represent a less expensive
and time consuming instrument which could be used for initial
placement Of beginning first year students. The task could
then be accomplished in a shorter length of time by kinder-
garten teachers, which would be of assistance to the develop-
mental examiner as her role and responsibilities were defined

by the school.

123

Testable Hypotheses

The formulation of the major problem statement identi-

fied in Chapter I led to the following testable hypotheses

and their alternatives:f°n'

Nu11 Hypothesi

 

3_ 1: No linear relationship exists
between behavioral age as measured by the Gesell
Developmental Examination and the-ABC Inventory,

and achievement as measured by the Stanford Achieve-

. 6

GES,SAT €ABC,SAT =0
Legend: €GES,SAT = POpulation correlation

ment Tests.

S bolicall : H
Ym Y 01
coefficient between the Gesell Developmental
Examination and Stanford Achievement Tests;
<3ABC,SAT == Population correlation coefficient
between the ABC Inventory and Stanford Achievement

Tests.

Alternate Hypothesis: A positive relationship exists

between behavioral age scores, as measured by the
Gesell DevelOpmental Examination and the ABC In-
ventory, and achievement mean scores, as measured

by the Stanford Achievement Tests.

All hypotheses were accepted at a significance level
of .0 .

124

Legend: GES,SAT == Population correlation CO-
efficient between the Gesell Developmental Exami-
nation and Stanford Achievement Tests; €ABC,SAT =
POpulation correlation coefficient between the ABC

Inventory and Stanford Achievement Tests.

Null Hypothesis g: Gains in reading and mathematics

 

scores of first year students as measured by the
Stanford Early School Achievement Test, Level I,
will not be related to behavioral age of first
year students as measured by the Gesell Develop-
mental Examination and the ABC Inventory.

Symbolically:
H°28 GESBaGR: €GESB96M: pABC:GR: €ABC:GM =0

legend: F = Population correlation coefficient;
GESB == beginning Gesell Developmental Examination
scores; ABC == ABC Inventory scores; 03 = gain in
reading scores as measured by the Stanford Early
School Achievement Test, Level I; GM == gain in
mathematics scores as measured by the Stanford

Early School Achievement Test, Level I.

Alternate Hypothesis: The behavioral age of first
year students as measured by the Gesell DevelOp-
mental Examination and the ABC Inventory will be
related to a gain in reading and mathematics as
measured by the Stanford Early School Achievement
Test, level I.

f )

 

125

Symbolically:

H12‘ (GESB,GR, €GESB,GM, €ABC,GR, €ABC,GM >0
Legend: = POpulation correlation coefficient;
GESB == beginning Gesell DevelOpmental Examination
scores; ABC == ABC Inventory scores; GR == gains in
reading scores as measured by the Stanford Early
School Achievement Test, Level 1; GM == gain in
mathematics scores as measured by the Stanford

Early School Achievement Test, Level I.

Null Hypothesis 3: No difference will be found in

 

achievement as measured by the Stanford Achievement
Tests between groups with a behavioral age less than
5.5 years and groups with a behavioral age greater
than or equal to 5.5 years as measured by the Gesell
DevelOpmental Examination.

Symbolically: H03: [(1:42

Legend: /?1 == Stanford Achievement Test scores of
children.with a behavioral age of less than 5.5
years; ‘72 == Stanford Achievement Test scores of
children with a behavioral age equal to or greater

than 5.5 years.

Alternate Hypothesi : Students with a behavioral age
less than 5.5 years as measured by the Gesell Develop-
mental Examination will score lower on the Stanford
Achievement Tests than students with a behavioral

age equal to or greater than 5.5 years.

126

Symbolically: H13: /41 ‘1/4;

Legend: ”Ki == Stanford Achievement Test scores of
students with a behavioral age of less than 5.5 years;
4fl72 == Stanford Achievement Test scores of students
with a behavioral age equal to or greater than 5.5

years.

Null Hypothesis,4: There is no significant correlation

 

between Gesell DevelOpmental Examination subscores
and Stanford Achievement Tests subscores.
Symbolically: H04: €(GES,SAT)1 = 0

Legend: <? ==Popu1ation correlation coefficient;
GES == Gesell Developmental Examination subscores;
SAT == all Stanford Achievement Test subscores;

i =: 1, ..., n; n ==total number Of possible

correlations.

Alternate Hypothesis: Gesell DevelOpmental Exami-
nation subscores will be differentially related
to Stanford Achievement Tests subscores.
Symbolically: H14: €(GES,SAT)1 ¢ 0
Legend: <?==Population correlation coefficient;
GES == Gesell Developmental Examination subscores;
SAT == all Stanford Achievement Test subscores;

1 == 1, ..., n; n ::total number of possible

correlations.

127

Npll,HypothesisԤ: The Gesell DevelOpmental Exami-
nation is less valid than the ABC Inventory for
educational placement of first year students.

Smbolically: H05: €::S #5:?

GE8 RABC

Legend: '43ABC:=: slope of the regression line as

determined by the ABC Inventory scores; ‘ahES ==

slope of the regression line as determined by the

Gesell Developmental Examination scores; SERABC===

standard error of the regression for the ABC Inventory;

SERGES := standard error of the regression for the

Gesell Developmental Examination.

Alternate Hypothesi : The Gesell Developmental Exami-
nation is better than or equal to the ABC Inventory

for educational placement of first year students

Symbolically: H15: GES = ABC

SERGES =5 SERARC
Legend: 'fiABC :: slope of the regression line as
determined by the ABC Inventory scores; flGES =
slope of the regression line as determined by the
Gesell Developmental Examination scores; SERABC==
standard error of the regression for the ABC Inventory;
SERGEsl== standard error of the regression for the

Gesell Developmental Examination.

128

Analysis 93 Data
0f the five basic hypotheses identified in this study,

 

four have been subjected to statistical analysis models in-
volving a correlational study and/or a study of correlation
and simple linear regression. According to modern statis-
tical methods, it is pp; necessary to make any particular
assumptions about the distribution, the variability of Y
scores within X columns or arrays, or the true level of

measurement represented by the scores.174

Therefore, no
particular attention was given to establishing such assump-
tions for the analysis of hypotheses one, two, four, and
five. Hypotheses one and four were statistically analyzed
by obtaining a correlation matrix from which correlations
of interest were tested for significance.

Hypothesis three was subjected to a different statis-
tical analysis model known as a one way analysis of variance.
Since it was anticipated that inferences from the sample data
might be expanded to include inferences about the existence
of population effects, several assumptions must be made. The
assumptions are as follows: (1) traits for the sample popula-
tion were assumed to be normally distributed; (2) the variance
for each normally distributed pOpulation were assumed to be

the same; and (3) the errors associated with any pair of Ob-

servations were assumed to be independent. In short, the

174Hays, William L., Statistics, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

129

Observations were regarded as being independently drawn
from normally distributed pOpulations, each having the same
variance, and with error components independent across all

pairs of observations.

Summary

The basic thesis of this study was to establish a
relationship between behaviOral age of first, second, and
third year students as measured by the Gesell Developmental
Examination and the ABC Inventory, and their school achieve-
ment as measured by the Stanford Achievement Tests. Involved
in the sample population were 187 students of the Edmonson
Elementary School which is located in the middle class com-
munity of Madison Heights, Michigan, a northern suburban
city of the Detroit, Michigan area. Behavioral age and
achievement data was gathered for a period of three years
(September 1969 through June 1972) on 63 children identi-
fied as Group A. Similar data was also gathered for a
period of two years (September 1970 through June 1972) on
69 children identified as Group B. The same data was gath-
ered on 55 first year students identified as Group C for a
period of one year (September 1971 through June 1972).

The data for all three groups was subjected to tests of
correlation and simple linear regression for the items of

interest as stated in four of five major hypotheses. The

130

third hypothesis was subjected to a different statistical
test known as a one way analysis of variance. The results
of the five major hypotheses, their respective alternatives,
and additional minor hypotheses which were generated as a
result of computer programming are reported in that order

in the following chapter.

Chapter IV - Analysis of Data

The presentation Of data in this chapter is consistent
with the order of hypotheses as previously presented. The
.05 level of significance was the accepted criterion measure.
Each major hypothesis is restated specifically relating the
instruments used for its testing.

Null Hypothesis 1A: NO linear relationship

exists between behavioral age as measured by

the Gesell Developmental Examination, and

achievement as measured by the Stanford
Achievement Tests.
H°1A3 e: 0

Correlations calculated for Group A (three year students)

Symbolically:

indicated a rejection of the hypothesis. Table 6 provides a
summary of the sixteen possible correlations for Group A of

which twelve exceeded the significance level.

Table 6

Correlations 0f Behavioral Age With
Achievement For Group Af-n-

n SESA II n SAT Io n SAT 11 n SAT II
BAO 23 0.890* 60 0.577* 40 0.326* 20 0.126
RAl 23 0.817* 63 0.767* 40 0.576* 23 0.364
BA2 23 0.016 61 0.546* 40 0.536* 21 0.536*
BA3 21 0.096 57 0,529. 40 0.529* 17 0.517*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f.n. - BAG indicates the Gesell Developmental Examination
given to students at the beginning of their first year
in school. BA1,BA2 and BA were measures of the same
examination given to studenté at the end of their re-
spective first, second and third years in school.

An asterisk (*) indicates a significant correlation
at the .05 level.

131

132

The correlations between behavioral age total scores
and achievement total scores indicate a majority of signifi-
cant positive correlations. No significant correlations were
found between SESA II total scores and BA2 and BA3 total scores
or SAT II and BAo and BAl.

Table 7 summarizes the correlations for Group B and

Table 8 for Group C on the same measures.

Table 7
Correlations 0f Behavioral Age With
Achievement For Group B
n SESA I n SESA II
BAl I68I0.534* I20I-0.048I
BA2 I60I0.649* I20I 0.348 I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8

Correlations 0f Behavioral Age With
Achievement For Group C (n = 55)

 

 

SESA Io SESA 11
BAo [0.502* I 0.362*_I
BAl I0.652* I 0.388* I

 

Nu11 Hypothesis pp: No linear relationship
exists between behavioral age as measured by
the ABC Inventory, and achievement as measured
by the Stanford Early School Achievement Test,
Level I..

Symbolically: HOlB: (7:: 0

 

133

Scores from students in Group C (n =:55) were used to
calculate the correlations between the ABC Inventory admin-
istered at the beginning of the student's first year in
school. The Stanford Early School Achievement Test, Level I
(SESA 10) was also given to students at the beginning of
their first year in school and again at the end of the school
year (SESA I1). The correlation between the ABC Inventory
and SESA ID was 0.661 and the correlation between the ABC
Inventory and SESA I1 was 0.632. Since both correlations
were significantly and positively related to the measure of
behavioral age, this portion of the hypothesis was rejected.

Enough evidence was available to reject the first hy—
pothesis in its original and combined form. Although SESA II
scores were not found to be Significantly correlated with be-
havioral age measures BA2 and BA3 for Group A or BAl and BA2
for Group B and SAT II scores were not found to be signifi-
cantly correlated with behavioral age measures BAo and BAl
for Group A, all other achievement and behavioral age corre-
lations were found to have significant positive correlations.

Null Hypothesis 2A: Gains in reading scores of

first year students as measured by the Stanford

Early School Achievement Test, Level I, will not

be related to behavioral age of first year students
as measured by the Gesell Developmental Examination.

Symbolically: H02A: €GES, GR = 0'
The correlations of Group C (n.=:55) for gain in reading

 

achievement at the BAC level was -0.163 and a -0.244 at the

BAl level. Neither of these correlations were significant

134

at the .05 level which indicated that no statistical dif-

ferences exist given this sample population.

Null Hypothesi; gp: Gains in reading scores of
first year students as measured by the Stanford
Early School Achievement Test, Level I, will not

be related to behavioral age of first year students
as measured by the ABC Inventory.

Symbolically: HOZB: eABC’ GR = 0

The sample correlation between the ABC Inventory and
gain in reading achievement was -0.l43. Again, no signifi-
cant statistical difference was established.

Null Hypothesip'gg: Gains in mathematics scores of
first year students as measured by the Stanford Early
School Achievement Test, Level I, will not be related
to behavioral age as measured by the Gesell Develop-
mental Examination.

Symbolically: H020: eGES: GM 2 0

A significant negative correlation of -0.303 was found
between the gain in mathematical achievement at the BA(O)
level and a -0.033 at the BA(1) level. While there is a
significant correlation indicating an inverse relationship
at the BA(O) level, there is no statistical difference at
the BA(1) level.

Null Hypothesis 22: Gains in mathematics scores

of first year students as measured by the Stanford
Early School Achievement Test, Level I, will not

be related to behavioral age of first year students
as measured by the ABC Inventory.

Symbolically: H021): €ABC’ GM = 0

135

The correlation between gains in mathematics scores
and the ABC Inventory was -0.l36 which indicated that no
Significant statistical difference could be found.

The data collected for hypotheses two supports the
combined original statement: Gains in reading and mathe-
matics scores of first year students as measured by the
Stanford Early School Achievement Test, Level I, will not
be related to behavioral age of first year students as mea-
sured by the Gesell Developmental Examination and the ABC
Inventory. However, the gain in mathematics at the BA(O)
level was found to be negatively significant. Table 9

summarizes the above correlations.

Table 9

Correlations 0f Reading And Mathematics
Gain Scores With Behavioral Age (n = 55)

 

 

 

Reading Mathematics
Gain Gain
BAo -0.l63 -0.303*
BAl -0.244 -0.033
ABC -0.143 -0.l36

 

 

 

 

Null Hypothesis‘3: No difference will be found

in achievement as measured by the Stanford Achieve-
ment Tests between groups with a behavioral age
less than 5.5 years and groups with a behavioral
age greater than or equal to 5.5 years as measured
by the Gesell DevelOpmental Examination.

Symbolically: H03: [(1:42

 

136

A one way analysis of variance statistic was independ-
ently calculated for Groups A and B. For Group A, the sig-
nificant probability of the F statistic was 0.008 while the
F statistic was 7.569 which strongly indicated sufficient
evidence to reject the null hypothesis with behavioral age
as the independent variable and the SAT I as the dependent
variable. However, the F statistic for Group B with be-
havioral age as the independent variable and SESA II as the
dependent variable was not found to be statistically sig-
nificant. Tables 10 and 11 summarize the F statistics for

each group.

Table 10
ANOVA Table For Group A

 

 

 

 

- Probability
Source Sum of Squares d.f. x Squares F of F
Between
Groups 175 0673 1 175.0673 7.569 0.008
Within
Groqgs 1,410.9327 61 23.1300
Total 1,586.0000 62

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

137

Table 11
ANOVA Table For Group B

 

 

_ Probability
Source Sum of Squares d.f. x Squares F of F
25:33:” 9,202.1883 1 9,202.1883 0.1523 0.698
Within

Groups 2.657.959.7247 44 60,408.1756

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total 2,667,161.9130 45

 

 

Null Hypothesis 4: There is no significant
corre ation between Gesell Developmental Exami-
nation subscores and Stanford Achievement Tests
subscores.

 

SWbOlically: H04: €(GES,SAT)1 = O

A large number of correlations were generated in the
analysis of this hypothesis of which only the ones of inter-
est are reported. The correlations of interest were divided
into two parts for each group which include comparing corre-
lations between a behavioral age measure at the beginning of
the school year with its corresponding achievement measure
at the end of the school year. The other correlations of
interest were between measures of behavioral age and achieve-
ment which were collected at approximately the same time of
year.

Table 12 summarizes the low correlations found for
students in Group A between the Gesell Developmental Exami-
nation (BAl) subscores Obtained at the end of their first
year in school with the Stanford Achievement Test, Level I

subscores at the end of their second year in school.

138

zssueem

ooww mouse
Hue. an:
wa.mhd. Henna
<Hucmw H
deuomw HHH
weOuoonuobm
bbpamwm
womapbm
zmdmoamwpnm

amuwo Hm
oOHHOHmnHOnm OH mbw mscmoouom apnw mba H

woe 9.95 b 9 "H3

O mnemooumm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scam wmemmemuw aduw macaw
Eemnubm :mmbpbm <Oomczwmew momwwubm meHHm bupdvaonHo
0.00H4 o.mwm* o.mem o.mmo* o.mwm o.muV*
no.Hwe 0.0HH o.woe no.0mH o.wom no.oeH
uo.on o.eem o.ewo o.moo o.emm so.mHo
o.owH 0.000 o.oww o.wwm o.oem o.HHo
o.mwm* o.mwo* o.mwo* o.eom no.emo o.mmm*
o.mww* o.mwm* o.mme* o.mnm* no.mmm o.mew*
o.eHo o.Hom o.mmm* o.~wv o.emm o.mwm
o.Hme o.mwm no.Hmm o.mmm :o.mmm 0.0mm
o.uew* o.memr o.mHmu o.mmm* no.wqm o.qmm*
no.mow 0.0Ho o.mmw* 0.0Ho o.uowu no.mnm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

139

Tables 13 and 14 summarize the correlations between
the Gesell DevelOpmental Examination (BA2) subscores
obtained at the end of the second year in school and the
Stanford Achievement Tests, Levels I and II subscores for
students in Group A obtained at the end of their third year
in school.

Table 15 summarizes similar correlations for Group B
between Gesell Developmental Examination subscores Obtained
at the end of the first year in school with Stanford Early
School Achievement, Level II subscores obtained at the end
of their second year in school.

A similar correlation matrix was evident in Group C.
Table 16 summarizes correlations for Group C between the
Gesell DevelOpmental Examination subscores obtained at
the beginning Of the first year in school with the Stan-
ford Early School Achievement Test subscores at the end of
the first year in school.

0f further interest were the correlations for Group A
between the Gesell DevelOpmental Examination subscores at
the end of the first year in school with the Stanford
Achievement Tests subscores (SAT 11 and SAT II) at the
end of the third year in school. Tables 17 and 18 (Appen-
dix A) summarize the equally low correlations for both

matrices spanning the two year period of time.

emuwo Hm

oouumwmdponm on wbm mzumooeom spam mpg HH mzuuooeom
woe 9.95 b Ca " eov

 

 

 

 

140

Scum vmemmumuv sour macaw

zoobwbm zombpnm <Oomuzwmnw vaHHHSm meHHm bepnmsmnpo
zcscmuu o.mem* o.nHw* o.eqw* o.mwm* o.aov* o.ame*
nova woesu to.HHo no.Hme o.H0m no.0ew no.0mH o.owo
Hun. nub o.oow o.Hem o.ewm* o.Hem o.mmm o.eonr
w¢.wna. Henna o.amm* o.emo* o.emw* o.eoe* o.wmm* o.wmwr
<Hmsmw H o.wme* o.eomr o.wwq o.wmw* o.wmmc o.emo*
<Hazmw HHH o.wHH o.mwm o.Hme o.wom o.Hmw o.wom*
vacuonnpobm o.mmmr o.mwu* o.emu* o.mww* o.mmm* o.weH*
beBmHu o.wHe o.mme o.qu o.qu o.~ww o.mmo
womapnm o.mwwr o.qmo* o.eem* 0.0mm; o.mmm* o.wmur
Kenmoamupom o.mnmr o.nem* o.mHm* o.wHH* o.mmq* o.mqmr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

141

zssdoem

oouw woasm
HSO. gm:
means... Honda
<Hm¢mH H
<HmumH HHH
VHOuOonHobm
beBmHm
wommHSm
gunmesmduom

HmaHe He

nOHHOHmduonm OH wbm madmoouom stm mba HH madmoouem

mo». 9.9% b an "H3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sown vmemmumvv souw manna pawns. henna.
Emmbpbm Kembuom moOHHHbm meHHu hmbmcmmo nose. ooboevdm
o.wmm o.~em no.qu no.0em no.0eq o.mmw o.muo
o.mem o.mmo o.HHo o.mHm 0.0mm no.0mm o.mom
o.wmm o.~om o.moa o.www o.me o.wmw o.m~e
no.0em no.0mm no.0mw no.0wo no.Hnm uo.Hom no.Hmw
o.uHm o.~oo o.eoo o.wqw o.mmo o.emu o.eem
no.mmm no.o~e no.eoq no.eeo no.emo no.mHm no.mHm
0.0mm o.mmw no.sme no.wHo no.MHm 0.0mm no.Hme
no.~ww o.mmo no.HmH no.0mm no.mmw no.mmm no.omo
o.www o.wmo o.mHo o.mmwa o.mmma o.mpm o.umo:
0.9mw o.wa o.wmw o.wmo o.emw o.mmwr o.mewc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

142

deHO Hm

nouuewmnpobm OH wbw modmoouem sudw mwmb HH madmooeom

zeauoum

oovw mouam
Hbo. Ema
w&.wb¢. Honda
<HmfimH H
<HmamH HHH
unaueaanobm
beBmHm
wmmmHSm
gnaweamduom

woe 9.9% w an" m3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bondeum w bfiamH sown menu.

mS4HH. Knew. menace nose. zwmbubm :emSHSm
o.~mo 0.8mm o.~mo 6.4m» o.wmm -o.eoo
0.0mm o.mmm no.0aw no.0wm 0.0m“ no.woe
no.omw o.wHw no.0em o.mne 0.0mm no.wmw
o.OMH :0.MMH no.Hm~ o.Hoe I0.HwH no.mww
o.ome no.umw o.wmm o.ome so.MHm no.0mo
o.Hem o.Heo no.Hmw 0.90; no.0wm no.Hum
no.mmq o.eom uo.oww o.wmw o.meH o.Hmm
no.Hwo no.~em no.0mm no.0em no.mem* o.Hmm
no.wwu no.HHo o.Hem no.ewm* o.mom o.meH
o.mew no.0Ho no.mmw o.mwm 0.0me o.eHw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

143

Table 16

Correlations of BAD Subscores With SESA Il
Subscores For Group C (n = 55)

Letters & Aural

 

 

 

 

Envir. Math. Sounds Comp.
Numbers 0.332* 0.235 0.449* 0.456*
Copy Forms 0.357* 0.237 0.181 0.245
Inc. Man 0.394* 0.289* 0.336* 0.245

 

 

 

 

 

The second set of matrices for each group includes
correlations of behavioral age and achievement subscores
obtained at approximately the same period of time during
the year. Tables 19 and 20 summarize the low correlations
found between the Gesell Developmental Examination subscores
with Stanford Achievement Tests subscores obtained from
Group A at the end of the second year in school.

The correlation matrix for the same group at the end
of the third year presented a different picture. Table 21
summarizes the relatively high correlations for Group A
between Gesell DevelOpmental Examination subscores and

the Stanford Achievement Test, Level I subscores.

144

emuHo Ho

noeHOHmnHOnm on mp» mcmeOHOm aHnm mum» HH mnemoouem

acauoam

oovw mouse
Hun. ENS
warmer". Honda
<HmsmH H
<HmsmH HHH
mucueoapobm
beBmHm
womaubm
Redwoamnuom

won 965“. b g H mwv

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

baseman w bemH .aoua mend.
mS<Hu. gens. mozbom nose. :mmSHSm zombunm
o.owu o.eee* o.mme* o.MHo o.eom* o.Hmn 1
o.mHH* o.mm# o.me o.Hom o.ewe* o.Hmm
o.meHr o.wm> o.meo no.0um 0.0Ho o.HHq
o.Hmm o.wqq o.wow o.wmm o.mwu* o.emq*
o.mm¢ o.muo o.HOH o.HHm o.wmm o.Hmm
o.eou o.mwo* o.MMH 0.0mm o.Hmo o.Hom
o.mHm o.mwww o.mmw* 0.4Ves o.www o.wmo
o.wmw o.wee o.WHm o.HmH o.mme o.mon
o.HQH o.emH* o.mowr o.w0H o.emm* 0.0mm
o.Hnm o.mwm* o.wmo* o.mmm o.wee o.Hmw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

145

afladoem

oouw woeam
HSO. gob
maker? Henna
<HmfimH H
dumfimH HHH
vHOuooawosu
beamHm
memoHSm
Kenmoamdpom

HmUHO m0

noeeeHmuHoSm OH mp» mnemooemm Spam mbe HO msumooumm
wow 9.8.0 b An" #8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

seem wounmemvw seed manna
zombpbm Koobpnm <oood¢Hmuw mvoHHHSm mWHHHe pHHdSBOdHo
10.0MH 10.0ew :0.Hm0 0.00s 10.0wH 0.MQH
0.0mm 0.mHe 0.00w 0.Hwe n0.Hme 0.Hmm
0.0mm 0.H00 0.~0H 0.mmm 0.H0m 0.HHm
0.m00 0.wewr 0.H0m 0.wmm* 0.Hnw 0.wew*
0.wum* 0.e0H* 0.0w0 0.wuH* 0.0moh 0.wmme
u0.mHm :0.m0w :0.ee0* n0.w0m :0.w00 10.0mHs
10.0wm 0.000 0.Heu n0.0H0 0.00u :0.Hm0
0.00m 0.mww 0.00m 10.00» 0.m0w :0.MHw
0.m00* 0.emw* 0.wnm* 0.ew0r 0.0mm; 0.eeH
0.HHO 0.mm0 0.MMH 0.mem 0.mm0 0.m0H*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

emcHe NH

ooueeHdeobm Ow wbw madmooumm Suns mba HH mccmcoemm
Woe mean b as H #3

 

146

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sown vmummemvw idea mwsaw

zombpbm KemSHSm <oomchmew vaHHHSm meHHm bHHnUBOnHO
Zfisueem 0.wuu* . 0.40m; 0.Hoe 0.mom* 0.mmm* 0.wmnu
novw mouse 0.0em 0.000 0.0ww 0.H0m 0.H00 0.Hmm
Hon. Emu 0.0wm 0.Hmm 0.NHV 0.HHO 0.0mm 0.Hvo
wagers. Honda 0.wwm* 0.wmw* 0.emm* 0.wm0* 0.mem 0.H0m
<HmomH H 0.emm* 0.wmm* 0.wmm* 0.30..n 0.e00* 0.Vme*
<HmzmH HHH 0.wum* 0.w00* 0.ewm* 0.ewe* 0.mem 0.mmm
VHOuoonHobm 0.wqm* 0.me 0.mem 0.wnm* 0.me* 0.wmm*
beBmHm 0.wmm* 0.wem* 0.wwH* 0.m0u 0.000 0.00%
womapom 0.qmer 0.w00* 0.wme* 0.0mmu 0.u0m* 0.me
KmameamnHom 0.0Hur 0.000s 0.00Ho 0.0m04 0.0nmr 0.0nmc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

147

The correlations for Group B at the end of each year
were found to be similar to those of Group A for the same
two years. Table 22 summarizes the correlations for
Group B between the Gesell Developmental Examination sub-
scores and the Stanford Early School Achievement Test,
Level I at the end of the first year and Table 23 the ma-
trix of measures obtained at the end of the second year.

For Group C, measures of behavioral age and achieve-
ment appear to have the characteristics of Group A corre-
lations found at the end of the third year. Correlations
for Group C on measures at the beginning of the school year
and at the end were relatively high. Table 24 summarizes
the correlations between Gesell Developmental Examination
subscores and Stanford Early School Achievement Test, Level I
at the beginning of the year, and Table 25 summarizes the
datum obtained at the end of the year.

Based upon the various matrices for each group, the
null hypothesis was accepted. With the exception of the
correlations for BA2 and BA3 with SAT I1 for Group A, BAD
with SESA I0 and BAl with SESA 11 for Group C, all other
matrices summarized low correlations between measures of
behavioral age subscores and achievement subscores obtained

nine months apart or during the same time of year.

148

Table 22

Correlations of BAl Subscores With SESA I
Subscores For Group B (n = 68)

Letters & Aural

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Envir. Mathematics Sounds Comp.
Numbers 0.264* 0.190 » 0.492* 0.220
COpy Forms 0.261* 0.148 0.379* 0.287*
Inc. Man 0.212 0.191 0.466* 0.112
Rt~&lm. Tests 0.328* 0.484* 0.304* 0.299*
Visual I 0.160 0.138 0.173 0.131
Visual III 0.291* 0.210 0.304* 0.236
Projections 0.320* 0.322* 0.335* 0.288*
Animals 0.319* 0.295* 0.238 0.164
Reading 0.168 0.318* 0.611* 0.261*
Mathematics 0.226 0.282* 0.241 0.338*

 

 

 

 

 

 

149

amdwo Nu

oouaowwapobm on wbm mfidmooaom swab mum» HH mSUmoouom
wow 06050 w A5.Humov

zsavonm

000% wousm
Han. awn
wukhd. woman
<Hmfimw H
<Hucmw HHH
vaoumonnobm
bbpamwm
wmmoHnm
Emdvoadeom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

honnoum w bramw scam moan.

ma<pa. Emdu. mofibam 0050. Eombnbm Zombubm
n0.Hn0 0.mH0 0.wmu 0.Hwo 0.Hom I0.0Hw
0.0Hu 0.000 0.HHV 0.H00 :0.m#0 n0.m0H
0.¢w# 0.me 0.0Hn no.0HH 10.000 :0.wum
n0.H0> u0.wm0 0.0mm 0.Hmo 10.0mw :0.wwm
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.Hmm 0.00m n0.0mw 0.mmH 0.NOH 0.mm#
0.Hmo 0.0mm 0.w00 n0.H0¢ n0.09m u0.0m¢
n0.0um u0.mwn 0.me n0.Hm# :0.Hmm 0.Hhm
no.0w0 0.H0m 0.mm0* :0.Hnm 0.¢mm* n0.oum
0.0em 0.p0# 0.0mk 0.Hmm 0.00m :0.HeH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

150

Table 24

Correlations of BAO Subscores With SESA Io
Subscores For Group C (n = 55)

Letters & Aural

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Envir. Mathematics Sounds Comp.

NUmbers 0.295* 0.338* 0.530* 0.157

COpy Forms 0.417* 0.569* 0.462* 0.217

Inc. Man 0.537* 0.471* 0.410* 0.254
Table 25

Correlations of BAl Subscores With SESA Il
Subscores For Group C (n = 55)

Letters & Aural

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Envir. Mathematics Sounds Comp.
NUmbers 0.270 0.365* 0.334* 0.273*
COpy Forms 0.383* 0.370* 0.201 0.305*
Inc. Man 0.387* 0.366* 0.284* 0.285*
Rt.&Lt. Tests 0.330* 0.367* 0.350* 0.247
Visual I 0.308* 0.159 0.160 0.062
Visual III 0.331* 0.303* 0.366* 0.248
Projections 0.259 0.311* 0.260 0.436*
Animals 0.217 0.322* 0.359* 0.526*
Reading 0.350* 0.318* 0.606* 0.492*
Mathematics 0.443* 0.452* 0.179 0.440*

 

 

 

 

 

 

151

Null Hypothesi§.§: The ABC Inventory is less

valid than the Gesell Developmental Examination

for educational placement of first year students.

Symbolically: H05: Ml< M2

An unrestricted least squares procedure was used for
correlating the ABC Inventory with the Gesell Developmental
Examination using the Stanford Early School Achievement Test,
Level I gain scores as the dependent variable. An F statistic
of 7.045 at the 0.01 level of significance was calculated
using the Gesell Developmental Examination scores as a pre-
dictor. An F statistic of 3.936 at the 0.05 level of sig-
nificance was calculated using the ABC Inventory as a pre-
dictor. A significant positive correlation of 0.343 was
found to exist between the Gesell Developmental Examination
and SESA I gain scores while the correlation between the ABC
Inventory and SESA I gain scores was only 0.263 and did not
attain the appropriate level of significance. Although the
F statistic for both measures were within the acceptable
significance level, the null hypothesis was rejected in
favor of the Gesell Developmental Examination as being the
better of the two instruments to predict educational place-

ment of first year students. Tables 26 and 27 summarize

the data for each instrument.

152
Table 26
Gesell Developmental Examination As A Predictor
0f Placement

Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Squares F Sig.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regression 819.1999 1 819.1999 7.045 0.010
Error 6,162.7272 53 116.2778
Total 6,981.9272 54

Table 27

ABC Inventory As A Predictor Of Placement

Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Squares F Sig.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regression 482.6896 1 482.6896 3.936 0.052
Error 6,499.2376 53 122.6271
Total 6,981.9272 54

fiasaazx

The first hypothesis was rejected in favor of the
analysis which established a linear relationship between
total scores of behavioral age and achievement measures.
Specifically, significant positive linear relationships were
established between the ABC Inventory and the Stanford Early
School Achievement Test, Level I; between the BA0, BA1 scores
and the Stanford Early School Achievement Test, Level II; be-
tween the BA0, BA1, BA2 and BA3 scores with the Stanford

 

153

Achievement Test, Levels Io and 11; and between the BA2 and
BA3 scores and the Stanford Achievement Test, Level II.

Data analyzed for the second hypothesis indicated that
gains in reading and mathematics scores of first year stu-
dents were not significantly related to either of the be-
havior age measures at that level. A significant negative
correlation was found between the BAC scores and gains in
mathematics scores.

A one way analysis of variance statistic was used to
evaluate hypothesis three to determine if a significant
difference in achievement could be found in groups with a
behavioral age equal to or greater than 5.5 years as com-
pared to groups with a behavioral age less than 5.5 years.

The results indicated a significant difference for Group A
but no significant difference was found for Group B.

To evaluate hypothesis four, a series of correlation
matrices were computed for each group to determine if sub-
scores of the Gesell Developmental Examination and the various
Stanford Achievement Test subscores were significantly corre-
lated. With the exception of correlations between BA2 and BA3
with SAT II for Group A, the BAC with SESA Io, and the BAl
with SESA 11 for Group C, all other matrices indicated a low
correlation of subscores between the two instruments. Al-
though the significant correlations between the BA2 and SAT I1
scores were obtained one year apart, all other exceptions

noted were measures of behavioral age and achievement that

154

were obtained at approximately the same period of time
for each group.

The last hypothesis compared the validity of the ABC
Inventory with the Gesell Developmental Examination for
educational placement of first year students. Although
the data for both instruments fell within the accepted
level of significance, the hypothesis was rejected in
favor of the Gesell Developmental Examination in that its
level of significance exceeded that of the ABC Inventory.

Table 28 summarizes the acceptance or rejection of

each major hypothesis by groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 28
A summarization Of The Major Hypothesisf°n‘
Accept Reject
Groups A B C A B C
Hypothesis 1 X. X
Hypothesis 2 N.C. N.C. X N.C. N.C.
Hypothesis 3 X N.C. X N.C.
Hypothesis 4 X X X
Hypothesis 5 N}C. N.C. N.C. N.C. X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f.n. - The initials N.C. indicate that the group was not
included in the analysis.

Chapter V - Summary And Conclusions

Summary

With the present emphasis upon how elementary school
children increase their mastery in achieving and using know-
ledge, it was believed that many young children are expected
to perform academically at Operational levels above their
functional and developmental levels. A fair amount of the
current professional literature on instruction is devoted to
remediating academic problems of young children, whereas only
a small portion deals with preventing the problems. There-
fore, the purpose of this study was to examine the nature of
the relationship between academic achievement as measured by
appropriate Stanford Achievement Tests and behavioral age as
measured by the Gesell Developmental Examination. The intent
of this study was to add some knowledge to the area of pre-
venting academic learning problems common among primary school
age children.

The child develOpmental theories presented in Chapter II
indicated strong relationships between maturation and learn-
ing. The maturation theories of Millard, Olson, Hughes and
others provided data indicating a direct relationship be-
tween achievement in basic school subjects and develOpmental
age. These studies indicated that physical growth in a
child's heighth, strength of grip, weight, and carpal age

were better indicators of readiness to learn than his

155

156

chronological age or school environment. The conclusion was
that educators ought to "fit" academic expectations to the
physical maturity level of the individual child.

The pOpularity of Jean Piaget in current educational
literature is due to his impressive and detailed work in the
child's cognitive develOpment. He is more interested in the
nature of knowledge and how it develops than in making his
work attributable to building a philosOphy of elementary
school curriculum. However, through the efforts of other
writers, Piaget's stages of cognitive develOpment have been
applied on a limited scale to the educative processes. Since
his descriptive analysis deals with the progression of mathe-
matical and logistical concepts from the concrete to abstract
levels, the interpretations are found to be affecting primary
education.

Gesell's original predeterministic concepts of the
stages and cycles of maturation have been softened by his
constituents to include a more realistic view concerning
environmental effects. His maturational and behavioral
views have been widely accepted by teachers and curriculum
developers. The Gesell Developmental Examination, designed
by Frances F. Ilg, M.D., and Louise B. Ames, Ph.D., is based
upon Gesell's maturational views which he directly related
to the learning processes.

The basic thesis of this study was to establish a
relationship between "behavioral age" scores of first,

second, and third year students as measured by the Gesell

157

DevelOpmental Examination and the ABC Inventory, and their
school achievement as measured by the Stanford Achievement
Tests. The sample population consisted of 187 students
of the Edmonson Elementary School which is located in the
middle class community of Madison Heights, a northern sub-
urban city of the Detroit, Michigan area. Behavioral age
and achievement data was gathered for a period of three
years (September 1969 through June 1972) on 63 children
identified as Group A. The same data was gathered for a
period of two years (September 1970 through June 1972) on
69 children identified as Group B. Similar data,including
ABC Inventory scores, was gathered on 55 first year students
identified as Group C for a period of one year (September
1971 through June 1972).

The formulation of the major problem statement led to
the following testable hypotheses:

Null Hypothesis‘l: No linear relationship exists

between behavioral age as measured by the Gesell

Developmental Examination and the ABC Inventory,

and achievement as measured by the Stanford

Achievement Tests.

Null Hypothesis g; Gains in reading and mathematics

scores of first year students as measured by the

Stanford Early School Achievement Test, Level I will

not be related to behavioral age of first year stu-

dents as measured by the Gesell DevelOpmental Exami-

nation and the ABC Inventory.

Null Hypothesis 3; No difference will be found in

achievement as measured by the Stanford Achievement

Tests between groups with behavioral age less than

5.5 years and groups with a behavioral age greater

than or equal to 5.5 years as measured by the Gesell
Developmental Examination.

158

Null Hypothesis 4: There is no significant
correlation between Gesell DevelOpmental Exami-
nation subscores and Stanford Achievement Tests
subscores.

 

Null Hypothesis 5: The ABC Inventory is less
valid than the Gesell Developmental Examination
for educational placement of first year students.

Conclusions

The following results of the analysis are presented
in the order of the above hypothetical statements:

HYpothesi§.l

a. For Group A, the Stanford Early School Achieve-
ment Test, Level II (SESA II) was found to be
significantly and positively correlated with
Gesell DevelOpmental Examination measures of
behavioral age at the BAC and BAl levels but
not at the BA2 and BA3 levels.f'n' The Stan-
ford Achievement Test, Level I (SAT Io and SAT 11)
was found to have a significant positive correlation
with BA0, BA1, BA2 and BA3. The Stanford Achievement
Test, Level II (SAT II) was found to have a signi-
ficant positive correlation with behavioral age
measures BA2 and BA3 but were not significantly
correlated at the BAC and BAl levels.

f.n. - BAo indicates the Gesell DevelOpmental Examination
given to students at the beginning of their first
year in school. BA1, BA2, and BA measures were
given to students at the end of t eir respective
first, second and third years in school.

159

In Group B, a significant positive correlation
was found between SESA I scores and the BAl
and BA2 scores. There was no significant
correlation between behavioral age and SESA II
scores.

For Group C, measures of behavioral age (BAG
and BAl), including behavioral age as meas-
ured by the ABC Inventory, were positively

and significantly related to SESA Io scores
from the beginning of the school year and

SESA Il scores at the end of the school year.

Hypothesis g

a.

A significant negative correlation.was found
between gains in mathematics scores and the
BAC measure of behavioral age.

Other measures of behavioral age, including
the ABC Inventory, for first year students in
Group C were not found significantly corre-
lated with gains in reading achievement or

gains in mathematics achievement.

Hypothesis.3

a.

A significant difference in achievement was
found in Group A between students with a
behavioral age less than 5.5 years when com-
pared to students with a behavioral age equal
to or greater than 5.5 years. However, there

was no significant difference found in Group B.

160

Hypothesis 3:

a. Significant correlations were found in
Group A between BA2, BA3 and SAT 11 sub-
scores, and in Group C between BAo and
SESA Io subscores and BAl and SESA 11 sub-
scores. With the exception of BA2 and SAT I1
measures which were obtained nine months apart,
the other measures for both groups were admin-
istered at approximately the same time of year.
All other correlations were not significant
between behavioral age subscores and achieve-
ment subscores obtained nine months apart or
during the same time of year.

Hypothesis‘fi

a. Although the ABC Inventory and the Gesell
Developmental Examination attained the ac-
cepted level of significance, the Gesell
DevelOpmental Examination was superior to
the ABC Inventory for educational placement
of first year students as its level of signi-
ficance exceeded that of the ABC Inventory.

Discussion

In varying degrees, this study has established that
there is some evidence of positive and significant corre-

lations between behavioral age as measured by the Gesell

161

DevelOpmental Examination and achievement as measured by the
Stanford Achievement Tests. Although the evidence is some-
what limited in this study due to the nature of the hypoth-
eses and population under study, the data does provide
indications for future research.

One of the major pieces of evidence indicating signifi—
cant positive correlations between behavioral age and achieve-
ment was the results of the first hypothesis which represents
a linear relationship between.the total scores of both instru-
ments. Although eighteen of the twenty-four possible corre-
lations had a significant positive relationship, six behav-
ioral age measures were not significantly correlated with
achievement measures, four of which were localized within
the SESA II measure. Since each achievement test has limi—
tations as to its validity, reliability, and range of use-
fulness to the educator, it may be inapprOpriate to expect
a significant correlation between the SESA II scores obtained
at the end of the second year and the behavioral age scores
(BA3) at the end of the third year. Had it been possible
to make comparisons between the SESA II test and behavioral
age scores beyond the BA3 level, a more definitive answer
might have been provided.

In reverse, the same situation was apparent in corre-
lations between the SAT II and behavioral age levels BAO
and BAl. Again, it may be inappropriate to expect signifi-

cant positive correlations between behavioral age measures

162

obtained during the first year with an achievement measure
at the end of the third year.

The SESA II test had the least amount of significant
positive correlation with any level of behavioral age meas-
ure. The instrument was not significantly correlated with
behavioral age measures BA2 and BA3 for Group A or with BAl
and BA2 for Group B. Although the question of general use-
fulness and limitations of achievement tests offers a possible
solution to comparisons spanning two or three years, it does
not explain the low correlations found in Group B between BAl
scores at the end of the first year and BA2 scores at the end
of the second year with SESA II scores at the end of the second
year. Low N's for Groups A and B was another possible solu-
tion for the low correlations between behavioral age meas-
ures and SESA II as well as two of the four SAT II corre-
lations. The nature and format of the SESA II test must
not be overlooked as another possible solution for the low
correlations. A comparison between the SESA II and SAT I
tests, both of which were designed for second year students,
reveals that the SESA II test has twenty-two pages as com-
pared to the ten page SAT I test. Further inspection reveals
that the SESA II test took more time to administer, required
more teacher direction during examination periods, and relied
more heavily upon the student's ability to identify correct
responses through pictorial representations as opposed to
graphic representations in its SAT I counterpart. Therefore,

the lack of significant correlations with behavioral age

163

measures may have, in part, been due to student fatigue
and/or a degree of boredom with the long test, inapprOpriate
procedures on the part of the examiner, or the format of

the test.

The possibility that the low correlations between the
six variables in question were due to some fallacy of the
Gesell DevelOpmental Examinations is not to be ruled out.

The subjectivity of the examination is a problem in any
statistical design due to the fact that the examiner is
constantly charged with the responsibility of assigning
behavioral age subscores on the basis of qualitative judge-
ments of the student's performance as opposed to computing
numerical scores on an achievement test. Thus, the statis-
tical problems encountered in comparing a qualitative measure
with a quantitative measure can be numerous and may appear

to lack statistical significance.

many of the above possibilities may again be cited for
the inability of the statistical data to reject the second
hypothesis. Again, the achievement test, in this case SESA I,
totally relies upon the child's skill in identifying the cor-
rect pictorial response based upon the teacher's oral command.
In essence, the test is necessarily a test of aural compre-
hension as opposed to a test of the child's skill in compre-
hending meaning from graphic symbols.

In addition to the above possibilities for lack of
significant correlation between the two behavioral age meas-

ures and gains in reading and mathematical achievement, the

164

variable of curriculum content was perhaps a more realistic
possibility. The curriculum content for these first year

or kindergarten students was not particularly conducive to
identifying gains in reading and mathematics skills; i.e.,
no special or unusual effort was made by the classroom
teachers to teach students reading or mathematic skills
with the intent of producing gains in the areas. The
kindergarten curriculum was, as it traditionally has been,
based upon social adjustments to school and the group setting
with the listening skills and academic readiness activities
being held in reserve until the last half or last quarter of
the year.

From a child development point of view, physical growth
for the four and five year old child is slow but steady while
the social and integrative aspects of the child attempt to
catch up with chronological age. Thus, the first year or
kindergarten student may appear to mature more than he
grows physically. Since the growth curve very closely
resembles the gains in achievement as indicated in Chapter II,
it was perhaps unreasonable to attempt to identify a signifi-
cant relationship between gains in academic areas and be-
havioral age. It may have been more appropriate to attempt
to identify these variables among six—and-a-half through
eight year old students where the physical growth pattern
picks up speed as compared to the four and five year old.

The problem of physiCal growth as compared to growth in

achievement may also offer a partial rationale to the apparent

165

statistical dilemma established by a partial acceptance and
a partial rejection of the third hypothesis. Groups A and B
were separately analyzed with each group being divided into
two subgroups which were composed of students with a be-
havioral age less than 5.5 years in one subgroup and stu-
dents with a behavioral age equal to or greater than 5.5
years in the other subgroup. Since the two groups were
analyzed separately, the results may have been due to group
differences such as Group A being a slightly older chrono-
logical aged group during the time they were second year
students as compared to Group B.

In addition, the dependent variables for both groups
were different. The dependent variable for Group A was the
SAT I test scores while the dependent variable for Group B
was the SESA II test scores. Since the possible problems
involving the SESA II test have already been discussed, the
reasons for a partial rejection and partial acceptance of
the third hypothesis may have been due to the differences
between Group A and B and/or the dependent variable measures
used.

Failure to reject the fourth hypothesis which attempted
to significantly equate Stanford Achievement Test subscores
with Gesell DevelOpmental Examination subscores was, again,
attributed to the statistical problems encountered when a
qualitative instrument is compared with a quantitative in-
strument. While Stanford Achievement Test subscores are

numerically calculated and total scores can be obtained by

166

statistically weighing the subscores or through simple
addition, the Gesell DevelOpmental Examination subscores
are not. The only Gesell DevelOpmental Examination sub-
test least free of examiner judgement was the Visual I sub-
test. Even though a numerical score may be computed on such
subtests as the Right and Left Tests, the Visual III and the
Projections Test, the examiner must make an evaluative judge-
ment of the child's quality of performance as compared to the
standardized and established norms of performance. Since the
subscores were not additive, total scores were again arrived
at in the same manner; i.e., the examiner's overall evaluation
of the child's performance and quality of performance on the
various subtests. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that
future attempts to relate the subscores of both instruments
will continue to produce low relationships until new statis-
tical measures are designed or the Gesell DevelOpmental Exami-
nation scoring procedure becomes numerically orientated and
similar to the scoring procedures used in achievement tests.
The results of the fifth hypothesis indicated that the
Gesell Developmental Examination was a better predictor of
educational placement for first year students than the ABC
Inventory. Although the F statistics for both instruments
attained the accepted level of significance, the Gesell
DevelOpmental Examination.was significant at the 0.01 level.
Further, the correlation coefficients between the Gesell
DevelOpmental Examination and SESA I gain scores was signifi-

cant while the correlation coefficient between the ABC

167

Inventory and SESA I gain scores was not. The squaring of
each correlation coefficient indicated that the Gesell Devel-
opmental Examination and the Stanford Early School Achieve-
ment Test, Level I contained more common variance than the
ABC Inventory and the same achievement test.

A review of the minimum and maximum behavioral age
scores for both instruments indicated that the ABC Inven-
tory produced a higher behavioral age score and has a
greater frequency range than the Gesell DevelOpmental
Examination. The mean behavioral age for the Gesell De-
velOpmental Examination was four years four months as com-
pared to the mean behavioral age of the ABC Inventory which
was five years three months. The minimum behavioral age
values for both instruments were the same (4 years, 0 months)
but a difference of one year eight months existed between the
two maximum values. The maximum behavioral age value for the
Gesell Developmental Examination was five years zero months
and for the ABC Inventory was six years eight months. There-
fore, the ABC Inventory appeared to be equal to the Gesell
Developmental Examination at the lower behavioral age levels
but very quickly became unequal to the Gesell DevelOpmental
Examination, as judged by the differences between the means,
in its ability to identify corresponding behavioral age
scores. The ABC Inventory might be more accurately used to
identify the behavioral age of four year old children and

their readiness for a pre-school class.

168
Implications For Further Research

For the educational researcher, the implications for
further research are numerous. To be specific in relation
to this study, it is the writer's opinion that there does
exist among children of the same chronological age varying
degrees of behavioral age which has a direct relationship
to the child's overall academic performance during the ele-
mentary years and possibly in the later grades. Although
the data from this study did not indicate the relationship
as strongly as was expected, further research using more
controlled statistical designs and larger N's may produce
the desired results. If the correlations of behavioral age
and achievement scores can be further validated with the
same chronological age group represented in this study as
well as with older children, then it further stands to
reason that behavioral age and overall gains in achievement
scores will also be highly correlated. Further replication
and expansion of this study would resolve some of the apparent
conflicts created by this data such as low and/or negative
correlations which at this point have been blamed on statis-
tical deficiencies and other variables affecting the pOpulation.
The insignificant correlations involving the SESA II test
also need further study. Although low N's may be involved in
its apparent lack of efficiency as compared to the other tests
used, its length and format may continue to prove to be an

inappropriate instrument to use with second year students.

169

The author's of the ABC Inventory state that the
instrument is useful to the classroom teacher in predict-
ing "readiness" for kindergarten curriculum. When compared
to the Gesell Developmental Examination, the instrument
appears to be of little use in predicting gains in achieve-
ment. It is suggested that the norms be updated and/or
that a similar instrument be designed and based upon a
larger metropolitan pOpulation.

The Gesell Developmental Examination is certainly not
free from problems. It's deficiencies exist in its length
of administration time, subjectivity, and is limited in use
to the trained examiner. A parallel instrument equal to or
more valid than the present instrument needs to be devised
so that the general educational practitioner can easily
use it.

Assuming that behavioral age and academic performance
are further validated for the elementary aged child, the
educator is faced with the problem of what to do with the
information once it becomes available. Such basic questions
as at what behavioral age is it apprOpriate to begin "formal-
ized" instruction in reading, phonics, handwriting, English,
and mathematics will quickly become apparent. It may be as
unrealistic to teach phonics to the 5.0 behavioral aged
child with any significant degree of comprehension and re-
tention as it is to teach a three year old to ride a bicycle
or a six month child to walk. The "formalized" phonics

instruction might attain better results if delayed until

170

the behavioral age of 6.0. In addition, the time to begin
one academic area may be different from another as well as
different for certain groups of children.

The nongraded school and its general concepts of indi-
vidualized instruction provides the organization under which
this approach to instruction can succeed. Only when teachers
and administrators have a thorough understanding of child
growth and behavioral development in conjunction with a valid
and adequate measure of behavioral age can they be expected to
produce quality decisions aimed at preventing school failure

among elementary school children.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Ames, Louise B. Is Your Child IQ The wrong Grade? Harper &
Row, New York. 1937.

Ausubel, David P. meory and Problems of Child Development.
Grune & Stratton, New York. _1958.

Baker, Roger; Kounin, Jacob; and Wright, Herbert. Child
Behavior and DevelOpment. mcGraw Hill, New York. 1943.

Baldwin, Alfred L. Behavior and Development In Childhood.
Dryden Press, New York. 1955.

. Theories pf Child Development. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York. 19

Baller, Warren R. and Charles, Don.C. The Psychology pf
Human Development. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
1968.

Bayley, Nancy. Studies lg DevelOpment 9; Young Children.
University of California Press, Berkley, California. 1940.

Beard, Ruth M. Ag Outline pf Piaget's Developmental Ps -
chology For Students and Teachers. Basic Books, Inc., wa
York. 1969.

Boyle, D. C. A Student's Guide To Piaget Pergamon Press,
New York. 1969.

Brearley, Molly and Hitchfield, Elizabeth. ,A Teacher's
Guide T9 Reading Piaget. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
1966.

Breckenridge, Marian C. Growth and Develo ment of the Young
Child. W'. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia. 1958.—

Bruner, Jerome S. Toward A Theory p; Instruction. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1966.

and others. Studies ip Cognitive Growth. John
Wiley & Sons, New York. 1966.

171

172

Butler, Annie L. Current Research lg Early Childhood
Education. Association of Elementary Kindergarten and
Nursery Educators, Washington. 1970.

Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C. Eyperimental
And Quasi- -experimenta1 Designs for Research. Rand McNally
and Co., Chicago. 1966.

Carmichael, L. Manual 9; Child Psychology, 2nd edition.
Wiley & Sons, New York. 1954.

Crow, Lester D. and Crow, Alice. Child Development and
Adjustment. MacMillan, New York. 1952.

. Human Develo ment and Learning. American Book
Co., New York. 1955.

Davis, David C. Patterns 9; Primary Education. Harper &
Row. 1963.

Dearborn, Walter F. and Rothney, John.W} Predicting The
Child's Development. Sci-Arts Publishers, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. 1941.

Dechant, Emerald. Diagnosis and Remediation Lf Reading
Disability. Parker Publishing Co., West Nyack, New York.
19

deHirsch, Katrina, et.al. Predicting Reading Failure.
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. 19 .

Downie, N. M. and Heath, R. W'. Basic Statistical Methods.
Harper & Row, New York. 1965.

Flavell, John H. The DevelOpmental Psychology Lf Jean
Piaget. Van Nostrand, Princeton, New Jersey. 1963.

Frgst, Isle. Child DevelOpment. McGraw Hill, New York.
19 4.

Gene, Roma, et. a1. Teaching Young Children. World Book
Co., New Yerk. 1952.

Garrison, Karl C. Growth and DevelOpment. David McKay Co.
New York. 1959.

Gesell, Arnold. The Normal Child and Primary Education.
Ginn and Company, New York. 1912.

, and Amatruda, Catherine. DevelOpmental Diagnosis.
Hoeber Medical Division, Harper & Row, New York. 19 7.

173

Gesell, Arnold and Ilg, Frances. Child pevelopment, 5p
Introduction 29 The Study'gg Human Growth. Harper &
Brothers, New York. 1949.

. Infant and Child In The Culture Of Today.

Harper & Brothers, New York. 1943.

Gesell, Arnold; Ilg, Frances and Ames, Louise. The Child
From Five 2p Ten. Harper & Brothers, New York. 194 .

. Youth: The Years From Ten 29 Sixteen. Harper &
Row, New York. 1955.

Gesell, A. and Thompson H. Infant Behavior. McGraw Hill,
New York. 1934.

Gesell, Arnold, et.al. The First Five Years 9: Life: A

Guide 29 The Study 9; The Preschool Child. Harper & Row,
New York. 1940.

Godin, Paul. Growth During School Age, Its Application

2p Education. Translated by Samuel L. E y. R. G. Badger,
Co., Boston. 1920.

Goodenough, Florence L. and Mauer, Katherine M. The Mental
Growth of Children From Two to Fourteen Years. University

of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 1942.

Harris, Dale. The Concept 2; Develo ment. University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 1937.

Hartup, Willard W. and Smothergill, Nancy L. (editors).
The Young Child: Reviews Q; Research. National Association
For The Education of Young Children, Washington, D. C. 1967.

Havighurst, Robert J. Human Develo ment and Education.
Longmans, Green & Co., New York. 1953.

Hays, William L. Statistics. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York. 1963.

Hildreth, Gertrude. Learnin The Three R's. Minneapolis,
Minnesota, Educational Publishers Inc. 1936.

. Readiness For School Beginners. World Book Co.
New York. 19 0

Huggett, Albert J. and Millard, Cecil V. Growth and Learning
ip the Elementary School. D. C. Heath & Co., Boston. 194 .

Ilg, Frances. Parents Ask. Harper & Brothers. 1962.

174
Ilg, Frances and Ames Louise B. Child Behavior. Harper &
Brothers, New York. 1955
. School Readiness. Harper & Row, New York. 1965.

Jersild, Arthur. Child DevelOpment and The Curriculum.
Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, New York. 1950.

Kelley, T.; Madden, R.; Gardner, E.; and Rudman, H. Stan-
ford Achievement Test Technical Supplement. Harcourt, Brace
and World, Inc., New _York. 1970.

 

Lane, H. and Beauchamp, M. Understandipg Human Develo ment.
Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New York. 1959.

 

Martin, William E. and Stendler, Celia B. Child Behavior
and Develo ment, 2nd edition. Harcourt, Brace & World, New
York. 1959.

. Child Development: The Process of Grm in Up IQ
Society. Harcourt, Brace & Co., New York. _l953.

. Readin s In Child Development. Harcourt Brace &
Co., New York. 1954. ,

McGraw, myrtle B. Johppy and Jimmy. Appleton-Century-Crofts,
New York. 1935.

Millard, Cecil V. Child Growth and DevelOpment in the Ele-
mentary School Years. D. C. Heath & Co., Boston. W58

. School and Child: A Case History. State College
Press, East Lansing, Michigan. 1954.

and Rothney, John.W. The Elementary School Child.
Dryden Press, New York. 1957.

Olson, Willard C. Child Development. D. C. Heath & Co.,
Boston. 1949.

. Child Develo ment, 2nd edition. D. C. Heath &
Co., Boston. 1959.

and Hughes, Bryon 0. Growth 9; The Child A§,A
Whole. McGraw Hill, New York. 1943.

Remmers, Hermann H., et.al. Growth, Teaching and Learni g.
Harper & Brothers, New York. 1957.

Seidman, Jerome (editor). The Child: A Book Of Readings.
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Chicago. 1953.

175

Stendler, Celia Burns. Readings In Child Behavior Lnd
Degelopment, 2nd edition. Harcourt, Brace & WOrld, Inc.
19 4

Stott, Leland H. Child Development, An Individual Longi-
tudinal Approach. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Chicago. 1967.

 

Tanner, J. M. Education Lnd Physical Growth. University of
London Press Ltd., Warwick Square, London. 1961.

Periodicals

Abrams, Jules C. "An Interdisciplinary Approach To Learning
Disabilities", Journal 9; Learning Disabilities. Vol. 2:11.
November, 1969.

Ames, Louise Bates. "Prevention of Learning Problems Better
Than Cure", Journal 9; Learnipg Disabilities. Vol. 2:6.
June, 1969.

Barlow, Bruce. "Perceptual-motor Activities In The Treatment
of Severe Reading Disability", Readipg Teacher. Vol. 24, No. 6.
March, 1971.

Biber, B. "Challenges Ahead For Early Childhood Education",
Young Children. Vol. 24. March, 1969.

Boehm, C. H. "New Priorities in Early Childhood Education",
Pennsylvania School Journal. Vol. 117. November, 1968.

Brandt, Richard. "Ready Or Not?", Childhood Education.
Vol. 43, No. 8. April, 1967.

Brenner, Anton. "Re-Examining Readiness", Childhood Edu-
cation. Vol. 43, No. 8. April, 1967.

Caldwell, B. M. "On Reformulating the Concept of Early
Childhood Education, Some Whys Needing Wherefores", Youpg
Children. Vol. 22. September, 1967.

Doehring, Don G. and Rabinovitch, M. "Auditory Abilities
of Children.With Learning Problems", Journal 9; Learning
Disabilities. Vol. 29. September, 19 9.

Eichorn, Dorothy H. "Variations In Growth Rate", Child-
hood Education. Vol. 44, No. 5. January, 1967.

Fellendorf, G. ‘W. "Right To Make Mistakes", Volta Res
Vol. 70. May, 1968.

 

176

Fischer, B. B. and Fischer, L. "Toward Individualized
Legrning", Elementary School Journal. Vol. 69:6. March,
19 9.

Frank, Lawrence K. "A Good Beginning Has No End", Child-
hood Education. Vol. 36. September, 1959.

. "Play Is Valid", Childhood Education. Vol. 44.
March, 1968.

. "The Problem of Child Development", Child Develop-
ment. Vol. 6. 1935.

Frostig, Marianne. "Reading, Developmental Abilities, and
the Problem of the Match" Journal 9; Learning Disabilities.
Vol. 2:11. November, 1969. ‘

Gilbert, D. "Educational and Growth Needs 0f Children In
Day Care", Child Welfare. Vol. 49. January, 1970.

Griffiths, Anita N. "Self-concept in Remedial Work With
Dyslexic Children", Academic Therapy. Vol. 6, No. 2.
Winter, 1970.

Harmer, E. "Classroom Methods and the Development of the
Learner", Theory Into Practice. Vol. 5. April, 1966.

Hartlage, Lawrence C. "Differential Diagnosis of Dyslexia,
Minimal Brain Damage and Emotional Disturbances In Children",
Psychology In The Schools. Vol. 7, No. 4. October, 1970.

Havighurst, Robert J. "Today's Children and Tomorrow's
World", Childhood Education. Vol. 37. April, 1961.

Ilg, F. and Ames, L. "Developmental Trends In Arithmetic",
Journal 2; Genetic Psychology. Vol. 79. September, 1951.

________, "Developmental Trends In Reading Behavior",
Me; 9.1”. Esaaiia _z___gxPs cholo - Vol. 76. June, 1950.

Keliher, Alice V. "Many Dimensions Of Readiness”, Childhood
Education. Vol. 43, No. 8. April, 1967.

Klefer, Roberta. "Behavioral Predictors of Learning Problems
in Young Children: A Checklist for Parents and Teachers",
Journal 2; Learning Disabilities. Vol. 2:11. November, 1969.

Kyle, D. G. "How Child Growth and Knowledge Make A Differ-
ence", Childhood Education. Vol. 44. January, 1968.

Margolin, E. "Crucial Issues in Contemporary Early Child—
hood Education", Childhood Education. Vol. 45. May, 1969.

177

Milton, J. E. Senn, M.D. "Early Childhood Education: For
What Goals?", Children. Vol. 16. June, 1969.

Murphy, L. B. "Child Development Then and Now", Childhood
Education. Vol. 44. January, 1968.

. "Contributions of Lawrence K. Frank to the
Understanding of Young Children", Young Children. Vol.
24. January, 1969.

Olson, Willard C. "Experiences For Growing", Journal pg
the National Education Association. Vol. 36. October, 1947.

and Hughes, Bryon O. "The Concept of Organismic
Age“, Journal 2; Educational Research. Vol. 35. 1942.

Peltier, G. L. "Sex Differences In The School: Problem and
Prgposed Solution", Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 50. November,
19 .

Scott, Betty and Ames, Louise B. "Improved Academic,
Personal, and Social Adjustment in Selected Primary School
Repeaters", Elementary School Journal. Vol. 69:8. May, 1969.

Stansbery, S. "Child's maturity-Security Level", Texas
Outlook. Vol. 53. May, 1969.

Stix, H. "Norms of Early Child Development", Forecast Home
Econ. Vol. 12. March, 1967.

Tilton, J. W. "An Experimental Effort to Change The Achieve-
ment Test Profile", Journal pf Emperimental Education. Vol.

15. 1947.

Ullmann, Charles. "Prevalence of Reading Disability as a
Function of the Measure Used", Journal pf Learning Disabil-
ities. Vol.2, No. 11. November, 1969.

VanTil, William. "The Key Word is Relevance", Toda '5
Education. Vol. 58:1. January, 1969.

Yearbooks, Monographs and Reports

Bijou, Sidney W. "Learning In Children", Monographg pf
the Society For Research Ip Child DevelOpment. Antioch
Press, Yellow Springs, Ohio. Vol. 24, No. 5? 1955.

178

Braine, Martin D. S. "Piaget On Reasoning: A Methodological
Critique And Alternate Proposals", Monographs Of The Society
For Research In Child Development. Yellow Springs, Ohio.
Vol.27, No. . 1962.

Brozek, Josef, editor. "Physical Growth and Body Composition".
Papers from the Kyoto Symposium on Anthropological Aspects of
Human Growth, Society for the Research of Child Development,
University of Chicago Press. 1970.

. "Child Psychology", National Society for Study
of Education, 1963 Yearbook. Washington, D.C.

Cornfield, J. and TUkey, J. W. "Average Values Of Mean
Squares in Factorials", Annals pf Mathematical Statistics.
Vol. 27. 1956.

Dearborn, Walter F. Data pp the Growth 2; Public School

Children. Society for Research in Child DevelOpment,
National Research Council. Washington, D. C. 1938.

. Early Childhood Education Today. Association
for Supervision and Curriculum DevelOpment National Edu-
cation Association. Washington, D. C. 1968 Alexander
Frazier, editor.

Fleming, Rachel M. ‘A Study of Growth and Development: pp-
servation in Successive Years _pp,phg Same Children. The
Medical Research Council, Published by His Ma esty' s
Stationery Office. London, England. 1933. 28eria1 Re-

port Series No. 190).

Fuller, Elizabeth M. "What Research Says To The Teacher:
About The Kindergarten". Vol 22. Department of Classroom
Teachers, American Education Research Association of the
National Education Association. 1961 Yearbook.

Gesell, A. and Thompson, H. "Learning And Growth In
Identical Infant TWins: An Experimental Study In The

method of Co-twin Control", Genetic Psychology Monograph .
Vol. 6. 1929.

Growth and Development of the Child. White House Conference
on Child Health and Protection, Committee on Growth and
Development. The Century Company, New York. 1932. Vols.
I, II, III & IV.

. "How Children Develop". Ohio State University,
College of Education, Columbus, Ohio. 1946

Ilg, F.; Ames, L. B. and Appell, R. J. "School Readiness
As Evaluated By Gesell Developmental, Visual, and Pro-
jective Tests", Genetic Psychology Monograph . Vol. 71,
No. l. 1965.

179

Inhelder, Barbel. "Some Aspects Of Piaget's Genetic

Approach To Cognition", Monographs pf pp; Society £2;
Research 1p Child Developmen . Yellow Springs, Ohio.
Vol. 27, No. 2. 1962.

Kelly, Harriet J. Anatomic Age and Its Relation 39 Stat-

ure. University of Iowa Studies, Iowa University, Iowa
City, Iowa. 1937.

Kessen, William. "Stage And Structure In The Study Of
Children", Monographs p£_the Society for Research 33 Child
Development. Yellow Springs, Ohio. Vol. 27, No. 2. 1962.

. "Kindergarten Education In Public Schools 1967-
68". National Education Association Research Report.
Washington, D.C. 1969.

. "Kindergarten Practices, 1961". Research Division,
National Education Association, Research Monograph 1962 M2.
Washington, D.C. April, 1962.

. "Let‘s Look at Kindergartens". National Education
Association, Department of Kindergarten-Primary Education.
Washington, D.C. 1955.

. "Multi-age Grouping". Department of Elementary
Kindergarten-Nursery Education, National Education Associ-
ation. Washington, D.C. 1968.

. "Prevention of Failure". Department of Elemen-
tary Kindergarten-Nursery Education, National Education
Association. Washington, D.C. 1965.

. Publication of the Fels Research Institute for
the Study of Human Development. 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965,
1966, 1967, and 1968. Yellow Springs, Ohio.

. Report pf the Consultative Committee 9; the
Primer School. Great Britain Board of Education Her
ma3esty's Stationery Office. 1931, reprinted 1956.

 

Shuttleworth, Frank K. ”The Physical and mental Growth of
Girls and Boys Age 6 to 19 in Relation to Age at Maximum
Growth", Society E9; Research lg Child Development. Na-
tional Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1939.

Tyler, Fred T. "Issues Related To Readiness To Learn".
National Society {pg Th3 Study 9; Education. 63rd Yearbook,
"Theories of Learning and Instruction“. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, Illinois. 1964.

APPENDIX A

180

Table 1

Testing Schedule: Center and Montowese Schools,
North Haven, Connecticut

30 FIVES
(411-54)

30 FIVE AND A HALFS
(5 -510)

65 8%68968)

65 EIGHTS
(80-88)

65 FIVES

65 SEVENS

65 NINES

65 FIVE AND A HALFS

65 SIXES

35 FIVES (random)

65 NINES (random)

65 EIGHTS

65 TENS

35 FIVE AND A HALFS
(random)

65 SEVENS
65 TENS (random)

First Year: 1958-1959
Group A
Group A
Group B
Group C

Second Year: 1252-1260

Group D
Group B
Group C
Group D

Third Year: 1260-1261

Group D
Group G
Group F
Group B
Group C
Group G

Fourth Year: 1261-1262

Group D
Group F

October
may, June
February

March, April

October
February
March
April

October
November
January
February
March
may

October
January

181

Table 2

Intelligence Scores for 25 Selected Girls Compared
On The California Mental Maturity Scale and
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

 

Intelligence Scores Compared for

 

 

Name Age CMM WISC or Stanford Binet
6 years 6
Girl A 6 129 111
Girl B 65 122 92
Girl C 66 128 92
Girl D 66 110 103
Girl E 62 122 96
7 years
Girl F‘ 73 102 92
Girl G 611 107 97
Girl H 75 130 121
Girl I 73 132 108
Girl J 710 110 84
8 years
Girl K 85 115 96
Girl L 81 125 100
Girl M 84 108 95
Girl N 87 121 123
Girl 0 82 111 109
9 years
Girl P 811 132 116
Girl Q 811 118 106
Girl R 90 119 126
Girl 3 96 115 105
Girl r 95 120 89
10 years
Girl U’ 102 119 125
Girl v 106 114 105
Girl w 100 128 115
Girl x 106 124 129
Girl Y 105 105 85
Mean Median
CMM 118.7 122.0
WISC 104.8 105.0

182

Table 3

Intelligence Scores for 25 Selected Boys Compared

On The California Mental Maturity Scale and

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

 

Intelligence Scores Compared for

 

Name Age CMM WISC or Stanford Binet
6 years
Boy A 62 122 89
Boy B 66 122 100
Boy 0 66 114 95
Boy D 65 124 110
Boy E 67 117 99
7 years
Boy F 70 125 108
Boy G 70 126 110
Boy H 77 120 101
Boy I 70 134 103
Boy J 73 110 116
8 years
Boy K 81 112 107
Boy L 81 112 104
Boy M 711 129 106
Boy N 89 127 125
Boy 0 87 119 120
9 years
Boy P 811 111 104
Boy Q 93 117 107
Boy R 811 111 111
Boy 3 94 118 104
Boy T 98 115 109
10 years
Boy U 911 120 105
Boy v 105 115 101
Boy w 101 116 111
Boy X 103 109 96
Boy 1 109 111 103
Mesa .M22122
CMM 118 118
WISC 106 106

183

 

 

Table 4
Socio-Economic Status of Parents (North Haven)
(Percentage)
Current Minnesota
Class Government Scale Scale
I. Professional 34 5
II. Semiprofessional,
managerial 13 22
III. Clerical, skilled
labor, retail
business 4 40
IV. Farmers 3 3
V. Semiskilled, minor
business 26 10
VI. Slightly skilled l5 16
VII. Day laborers 5 5

emcwo HQ

ooeeowmawonm on wbw madmooeom Swab mba HH mnemooeom
Woe 9.9.6 b as N H3

184

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mewnm NMMMMMMMU <oomd¢Hmew muowwpbm sommpwwwaw bewnvsodpo
zcausum -o.pro -o.oeu -o.~m~ -o.~om -o.~mH -o.mmm
cove eons» -o.~ws -o.mom -o.wow -o.Hmm -o.meu -o.w>H
He? 55 6&3 -0.qu -9me .95... .6me ..oamm
warmed. amuse o.mom o.~mm o.~sw o.~mm o.Hw¢ o.omu
<HmSmH H no.wm+ no.mmH no.¢Hm no.mmm no.qu no.6wm
<Hmsrp HHH -o.~um -o.~mn -o.umw -o.mwe -o.meo -o.wmo
enouaodposu o.wmm o.s~o o.~ow 0.666. o.w»o o.wm~
papery“ -o.~wm -o.-u -o.~mm -o.omw -o.~m+ -o.mo»
mamausm -o.Hew -o.pwo -o.~eo -o.poe -o.~H~ -o.~m4
:sdsmemduom -o.wmm -o.wm~ -o.ueo -o.wwm -o.»wo -o.sqo*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

185

zcevmem

nova woeam
Han. Emu
waiwhn. aomdm
<Huzmw H
<Hmcmw HHH
veoucodnobm
bbpamwm
womaubm
Kmaroamnuom

epdwo Hm

ooeeowmapobm on why mnemoouom suns mba HH mnemoouom

woe 9.an b An" H3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sown vmummemvw sown macaw bakes. buses.
zombHSN zombpbm meowwpbm meHHu boomsmmo nose. ooboounu
o.#mm§ o.m#m* o.mmw* o.m#m* o.#wH* o.mwm* o.mow*
o.mum o.m©m o.mmw o.mww o.wHo o.mwu o.me
o.mww o.wwu o.mmo o.mmH o.wwo o.wnm o.mmm
no.o¢m no.0Hm no.00v no.0w# no.0mm no.0mw no.0uu
o.wmm o.wmo o.wqm o.wmo o.uVH o.umw o.wwm
o.wam o.so~ o.wor o.w6H o.wmo o.wmm o.wHu
o.oum o.Ham 0.000 o.HHm o.~mm o.Hmm o.HHo
0.H#~ o.HOH o.om¢ o.owm o.Hmh 0.0w9 0.000
o.mHo* o.mmw* o.mov* o.#mm* o.mom* o.me* o.mwm*
o.aoe 0.6mm; o.awm o.wwo 0.6mm 0.609 o.sww

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

186

THE GESELL DEVELOPMENTAL EXAM

Copyright, 1965
Gesell Institute of Child Development

187

FACE SHEET

Recommended Group Name Age at Exam
Birthdate
School
Present School Placement
Date
Examiner

G. I. Recommended Group

 

Comment for Cummulative Card

 

Thumbnail Physical Description3(;nclude teethigg)

 

Thumbnail Summary of Exam Behavior

 

Teacher's Evaluation

 

Additional Information (Shifts in placement: Parent comments, etc.)

I

188

INITIAL INTERVIEW

Name
Age
How old are you?
When is your birthday? Month? Day?

 

 

Did you have a party? (who came)

What did you like to do best?

What was your favorite present?

How many brothers and sisters?
(Names, ages)

What does your daddy do?
(where does he work?)

 

189

Pencil and Pepe;

Write letters or name, last name Name
(6-7 yrs.), date (7-8 yrs.),
address (8—9 yrs.), lst name Age

with non-dominant hand.

Copy forms R L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  O
' O

 

Write numbers 1 to 20 -

 

Incomplete Man (look like; order of parts & comments)

Facial Expression (How can you tell?)

How does he look?
How does he feel inside?
Happy or sad?

How can you tell?

190

191

RIGHT AND LEFT

Naming parts of body
1. Eye
2. Eyebrow
3. Palm
4. Elbow

Naming R & L

2
(3)

4
(5)

R hand (point to child's R hand)
Show me your R hand (if can't name R hand)

How do you know?

I.hand (point to child's I.hand)

Ex-er's R hand (show)
How do you know?

Single
Commands
() 5 yr. items

Sec. Method

(1) EYe

2 Index

3 Ring

4 Middle

(5) Cl. eyes

bend head

(6) Bend head,
tap fl.
with heel
Raise head,
open mouth

) R ear

) R thumb

) L index
(5 yrs.-L big)

Total Av.

lllll lllll

Summary Comments:

Double
Command

() 5 yr

Name

Age

Thumb

Index (pter)
Middle (2-2)
Ring (wear)

Little

. items

(1) R thumb-
R little

2 L hand-
L knee

3
4
5
6

(7)

10

(I)
whwhhwhwwhhw

L ring-

R eyebrow
R elbow-
palm L hand
middle-
cheek
thumb-
thumb
middle-
little
little-
ring
middle-
index
thumb-
ring

Total

Sec.

llllllllll‘l

Naming Fingers () 5 Yr. items
1

Method

Av.

Visual 1

0000

0000
0000

 

Visual 3

 

1.

 

 

p. u: n)

 

192

Name
Age

Comments on Visual l and 3

 

 

Visual 3 - Projections

 

0
Ch

 

 

 

Q) .L UXL

 

 

 

C)
no
*1
o.
.p

 

F49

 

 

 

 

£4

193

Name
Age
Visual 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A E].
\7 ——1
e 4?— w
3 7'7 Au
E—E b >——>
:3 C! <—<
one o-|o| ODAO
ADO who came

 

 

 

 

194

Name
Age
Visual 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

195

ANIMALS AND INTERESTS
Name

Age
Naming Animals (60°)

Interests - what do you like to do best?

At school indoors:
At school outdoors:
At home indoors:

At home outdoors:

 

Tooth eruption Physical items:
(fat,muscular,slender,etc.)

R. Upper L.

 

 

2nd lst lst 2nd

6 6 12
MBBCLICICILICBBMM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lower

ZHNHHICQ'TJNUOwP

Spont. Point

ha I4 >4 =5 <1 :3 we a: 2n £> 'o c3 :2

196

Spont. Point

[.4 Wu H- 33 012 "b (D

B

Spont. Point

in '1 .0 ’d

:3 d-

Spont. Point

 

()(DVICDV‘I‘kUJND-J

3...:
O

Spo t.

Point

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Spont.

Point

197

Spontaneous

Counting

1's to 40
10's to 100
5'5 to 100
2'8 to 20
3'3 to 30

Store:
2 - 5
4 - 10
12 - 15
4 - 25

Add. and Subtraction:

2 +‘3 7 4‘3 14 *‘3
5-2 6-4 16-4
1 +-4 5 +-3 18-+ 5
5 - l 9 - 1
Multiplication:

2 x 3 7 x 4 8 x 2
4 X 5 6 x 3 8 x 6
3 x 3 7 x 7 9 x 7

4 x 4 5 x 6 7 x 8

198

THE

ABC INVENTORY

To Determine

Kindergarten And School Readiness

Administration And Scoring Procedures

For

Examiners And Teachers

Research Edition

COpyright, 1965
Normand Adair and George Blesch
Muskegon, Michigan

199

ADMINISTRATION AND CONDITIONS FOR SCORING

The ABC Inventory is straightforward and direct. With
very little effort, the examining person will become comfort-
able and effective in presenting questions. Usually eight or
nine minutes is all that is necessary to obtain the information
needed. Suggested correct answer in italics follows questions
that have no obvious answer. Scoring can be accomplished as
the examination is conducted and final raw scores can be read-
ily interpreted. A supply of paper out into six inch squares
approximately the weight of typing paper, a few large pencils
like the ones used in the early elementary grades and the ABC
Inventory are all that are necessary.

Other than a normal regard for the comfort of the child,
no special conditions for testing are required. The kinder-
garten classroom is a likely test setting as the furnishings
and equipment accommodate physical features of small children.
Keeping the child at ease by reassuring and encouraging him
should be a primary concern. It is often helpful to put the
child at ease by asking the name of a sibling or requesting
him to name some simple object in the room.

The inventory is constructed in four sections and items
are placed according to difficulty but sequential progression
is not essential. Instructing the youngsters to draw a man
(Section I) is perhaps a good method for introducing the ABC
Inventory and for establishing initial rapport. Frequently,
children find this threatening and will reSpond more securely
to other items such as a request to copy a square. Essentially,
an examiner will want to establish a friendly relationship with
the child and only determine whether or not the child knows the
answer to any given item regardless of its placement or sequence
in the test form. Fill in all identifying information on the
test form face sheet and do necessary subtraction to obtain age
in years and months (ignore days).

The ABC Inventory is not an intelligence test. It is not
a highly complicated questionnaire. Items and tasks included
in the inventory are familiar to educators and long have been
recognized as pertinent to growth and development aspects.
It has been used with a high degree of success in identifying
children who subsequently demonstrated inadequate school per-
formance. Hopefully, its use will provide a greater under-
standing of maturation as related to learning, reduce the
risk of academic difficulties and failure, enhance better
mental health and self concepts among children and provide
a basis for better parent-teacher understanding.

200

Section I

Provide the youngster with a large pencil and the test
form. Place the form with the space for drawing a man, face
up on the table before him and say, Draw a man right here.
Touch or tap the blank space provided under Section 1. If
the child seems vague or confused restate the instructions
with friendly encouragement. Only 2% in the high scoring
group refused such a request, whereas, 30% of the low scor-
ing group would not draw a man in spite of firm urgings.
Offer whatever encouragement you feel will be helpful in
making the child secure and responsive. However, make no
reference to any specific part of a man. Do not say, for
example, "Draw his eyes", "Draw his arms", etc. Instead,
keep instructions general. A child may stop after drawing
the head. Encourage additional effort by saying, That's
nice - draw the whole man. If a youngster shows no further
attempt or seems to be satisfied with his effort, continue
with the testing. Drawings may be poorly coordinated, dis-
jointed, inverted or with parts impr0per1y placed. However,
do not penalize for clumsy effort or poor art work. If a
child appears to be aware of a concept, score four points
regardless of placement or body connection for any of the
items listed on the test form for Section I. Where more
than one article of clothing is drawn, score four points
for each article. Ordinarily, youngsters include seven to
ten of the suggested items. Some not listed may appear for
which four points per item is scored.

Section II

In this section, preface each sub-scale (a-b-c) item
with the main question. For example, What has wings? Tell
me the color of grass. What time of the year does it snow?
and so forth. To item (c) in question 2, many will say a
banana is "White". Question further for the color of the
peel by requesting the color of the "outside part" or the
"part thrown away". If still unable to answer "Yellow" do
not give credit and continue without further help. Young
children who do not know an answer will often offer the last
alternate stated by the examiner. Therefore, in Section II,
it is important in items 3, 5 and 7 to mention the preferred
alternate first. Such as: Which is larger - a Qgg or a cat?
Which is faster - a 92; or a horse? When presenting item 7,
suggest the seasons for item (a) such as: When is the 4th
of July - summer or winter? However, add no assistance for
item (b). A youngster receives two points for each sub-item
he answers correctly. A full score of 32 is possible for
this section.

201

Section III

Section III requires little explanation. The questions
are merely stated as they are written and they are scored
two points when right. Frequently a child will answer "Gone"
for item 1. Follow by asking, "What is left when ice is gone?"
If he answers, "water" give credit. Score two points for
each correct answer. Twelve points are possible in Section III.

Section IV

Section IV will, perhaps, require greater attention to
administration and scoring. This section, on the other hand,
was found to be most discriminating in the group studied.
Two-thirds of the lower group failed in items 2, 3 and 4.
Counting up to four was seen to be the easiest of the items
for the immature children. Even so, only one out of two in
the lower group succeeded in this task. All of the children
in the upper group were able to count four items correctly.
Also, in the upper group, more than two-thirds succeeded in:
folding a paper triangle; in repeating digits; and, nine out
of ten c0pied the square accurately.

Item 1: counting up to four. Many children at an
early age will count to five or ten with accuracy, however,
they often fail in counting separate objects. Therefore,
the examiner should determine that a child has awareness
that the number he states is related to the objects he is
counting. Place the form with the heavy black squares to-
ward the child and ask, How many of these are there? Some
children.will count with their fingers, some will merely
look and answer. The important thing is that they give
you a correct total. For example, if the child touches
each square and says, "one-two-three-four", the examiner
must still ask, Yes, now, how many are there? If a child
is unable to say "Four" as a single thought he is scored
a failure for the item. Score eight points for a plus
answer.

Item 2: folding a triangle. Take a paper square and
say, Watch me. Fold the paper once diagonally to form a
triangle, then fold it once again to make a smaller triangle.
Execute the steps slowly making certain that the child is
attending. Place the paper triangle before the youngster
and give him an unfolded paper square saying, New you fold
yours just like mine. Point to your example. Do not allow
it to become unfolded. Give ample time and encouragement,
but no assistance or suggestions. A fold is acceptable if
the corners are within a half-inch of meeting. Credit 8
points.

202

Item 3: repeating digits forward. Secure the child's
attention and say, I'll say some numbers and when I'm
through, you say them just like I do. Ready? Now, listen.
Say the first series of numbers at one second intervals
and when finished, say, You say them. If the child fails
say, Alright, but this time, say them the same way I do.
Listen now, and say the next series. Repeat instructions
for the third series of numbers if necessary. Score 8
points for success in any one of three series.

Item 4: copy a square. The criteria for success on
this test are (l) the preservation of squareness and (2)
four reasonably good right angles. All sides need not be
of exact length, but height and width should be fairly
equal. Give the youngster the pencil and place the form
in front of him. Say, Make one just like this - make it
right here. Indicate the space next to the example square.
If the first effort is a failure, trace the illustration
square with your finger while saying, Make another square.
Be sure to make it just like this one. Make it right here.
Point out an apprOpriate blank area on the form. If the
child is successful in either of two trials, score 8 points.

USING THE RESULTS OF THE SCALE

Combine the totals of each section. This total test
score may be used in different ways. For example, in a
study group of 166 pre-schoolers a total score less than
70 correlated highly (r = .71) with failure in kindergarten.

When screening young pre-schoolers, the following ex-
planation of scores for children legally admissable to
school before age 5 will be useful.

Interpret the test according to the category the score
is in. The paragraph that applies to a child should be read
carefully. If the score is near the top or bottom of a par-
ticular bracket the interpretation can be affected somewhat
by the appropriate adjacent paragraph. Interpretive Data
refers to those children.who are younger than five years
of age.

Score

203

Children whose scores are above 95 have a very good
chance of succeeding in kindergarten. Progress in
kindergarten is expected to be above average and
youngsters scoring in this numerical range can be
regarded as having suitable readiness for school.

 

Those whose scores range from 70 to 94 are believed

to be average and above for their age group. However,
their success in kindergarten when compared with their
"older" classmates may not be outstanding. The chil-
dren who have scored in this range should have little
difficulty achieving in the kindergarten and it is
believed that they will be able to meet the require-
ments of first grade the year following.

 

Children whose scores are in the 50 to 69 range may
find considerable difficulty in making adjustments
in kindergarten. Their general readiness for the
more formal aspects of school is questioned and when
they are expected to meet the demands of first grade
some youngsters in this group will likely falter.
Their present readiness for school is believed to

be marginal. Their parents may want to be advised
to their child's limitations and want to consider
holding them out of school until added growth pro-
vides them with a greater advantage.

 

If enrolled in school this coming year, children who
have scores less than 50 on this survey, face the
greatest possibility of failure and their school
years ahead are apt to be difficult and frustrating.
Their parents should be alerted to their youngster's
disadvantages and they might be encouraged to have
their child remain at home for another year. Readi-
ness for school for children.who score in this range
definitely is lacking.

 

 

A "zero" score indicates the results are invalid and
suggests that a child may be disturbed in his personal
adjustment skills. His potential for school readi-
ness is not clearly understood and it may be masked

by excessive shyness or highly resistant behavior.

At any rate, early school progress might be observed
closely and apprOpriate school management be accom-
plished promptly.

204

Raw scores may be converted into "readiness ages"
also as suggested by the Ready-Age table below and on the
front of the test form. Merely read the years and months
adjacent to a given total score. For example, a total
raw score of 90 suggests a readiness age of 5 years and 6
months regardless of the child's calendar age. A "zero"
score indicates the results are invalid and the child should
be evaluated more closely.

Ready Age Table

Total R-A Total R-A Total R-A
Raw Sc. Yrs.Mos. Raw Sc. Yrs.Mos. Raw Sc. Yrs.Mos.
25-29 3 - 6 65-66 4 - 8 94 5 - 8
28-30 3 - 7 67-69 4 - 9 95-96 5 - 9
31-33 3 - 8 70-71 4 - 10 97-98 5 - 10
34-36 3 - 9 72-77 4 - 11 99-100 5 - ll
37- 38 3 - 10 78-79 5 - 0 101-103 6 - 0
39-41 3 - 11 80-81 5 - 1 104-105 6 - 1
42-44 4 - O 82 5 - 2 106-108 6 - 2
45-47 4 - 1 83-84 5 - 3 109-110 6 - 3
48-50 4 - 2 85-86 5 - 4 111-114 6 - 4
51-54 4 - 3 87-88 5 - 5 115-118 6 - 5
55-57 4 - 4 89-90 5 - 6 119-120 6 - 6
58-60 4 - 5 91-93 5 - 7 121-122 6 - 7

61-62 4 - 6
63-64 4 - 7 N: 6119 kindergarteners

NOTES ON CONSTRUCTION

There are administrative advantages in enrolling children
for school on a chronological age basis. However, from an
educational and psychological point of view, a child is seri-
ously disadvantaged when daily academic requirements excell
his capabilities. Increasingly, more educators are examining
school readiness at admission in order to avoid some of the
problems among children in the early academic years.

School can be equally rewarding for all children when
their growth and learning skills are comparable. Initial
entry into school on a chronological age basis ignores the
concept of individual differences in learning and it defeats
many children at the very onset of their education. Dif-
ferences in abilities are very subtle when first entering
school, however, they do exist. When daily demands exceed
the maturity of the child, an enduring matrix of negative
life experiences is formed predisposing him to later learn-
ing and behavior problems. His vagueness, frustration and
confusion may eventually become rebellion and resistence
with an active rejection of all educative efforts.

205

The principle purpose of the ABC Inventory is to
identify children who are immature for a standard school
program. Operationally, the inventory serves best when
used in pre-school screening and it has been designed with
this function in mind. Aims in develOping the inventory,
were to: (l) devise a screening technique that was reliable
and valid; (2) construct a format that was easily managed
by inexperienced examiners; (3) outline administration,
scoring and inter retation procedures that were direct and
uncomplicated; (4? maintain economy by minimizing equipment
needs and time consuming procedures; and (5) be suitable to
children in the pre-school age range. Construction of the
ABC Inventory began in 1960. Item analysis, weighting and
refinement continued through 1962. The standardization
group throughout consisted of boys and girls whose ages
ranged from 4 years 9 months through 4 years 11 months. The
average age was 4 years 10 months. No effort was made to
separate the scores of boys and girls or to make allowances
for socio-economic differences. The fifteen schools involved
in the study included K—l2 systems in areas with 400 total
enrollment to moderate sized systems enrolling over 5,500.
Because the number in the standardization study is large
(N ==l66) and the age range small, biases in selection are
believed to be diluted.

Reliability was established by matching comparable groups
and assuming group equivalency. Scores for children of the
same age who enrolled in the same school districts two years
apart were compared with the following results:

 

 

 

 

 

1962 Group 1964 Group
No. In Both Groups 166 314
Means For Both Groups 65.51 66.71
Standard Deviations 22.66 21.78
Standard Error of means 1.76 1-23

 

 

 

Mean Difference . . . . . . . 1.20
Standard Error. . . . . . . . 2.08
critical Ratio. 0 o o o o o o .58

According to Table of t, no significant difference
between means.

 

 

 

Validity was determined by comparing "pass-fail" fea-
tures between children in the upper and lower half of the
score distribution. Ei hty-three in the standardization
group obtained scores 6 and above while 83 scored below 68.

206

Forty-three children failed their first year of school. Of
those failing, 37 or 86% were identified accurately. Seventy-
seven or 63% passing, scored above 68. (tetrachoric corre-

A ready age scale was constructed by combining all test
scores over a 3 year period (N: 619) into a frequency dis-
tribution and examining its resemblence to a normal bell-
shaped curve. Features of divergence from symmetry were
studied for significance. The test for skewness and kurtosis
was not significant. Deviating scores were measured from the
mean and on a basis of their percentile rank were given an
age index. This index, called a "readiness age", approximates
the mental age features described for other tests and carries
similar implications. This treatment was tested by comparing
the ABC Inventory ready age with the Stanford-Binet mental
age. In a small sample study (N==:l4), the product moment
correlation between ready age and mental age equaled .78.
Investigation of this relationship is being extended and
subsequent statistical measures may not yield so high a
correlation.

The research edition of the ABC Inventory has been
found to be reliable and valid. It approaches closely the
aims originally outlined in the section under Purpose. The
ABC Inventory is not an absolute scale. However, used as
prescribed, it can identify successfully children whose
maturity for school is questionable. One is always reminded
that a pre-school child should not be denied entrance or
admission on the basis of a test score alone (or on any
other single criterion). Although, children scoring at a
level where maturity to meet the demands of school is ques-
tionable, should be studied carefully. Experience indicates
that deferred entrance is one good solution for avoiding
early academic difficulties. A pro-school nursery or other
adjusted entry situation for such children could be possible
alternates.

207

Gray Oral
Reading Paragraphs
Test

STANDARDIZED ORAL READING PARAGRAPHS
By William 8. Gray

NameOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAge TOdaYOOOOOOOOOOOO
years months

Race...O...0....C'seXOOOOOOOOOOOO...GradBOOOOOOOOOOOOO
CitYOOOO......OOOOStatBOO......ODOOOIDateOOOOO00......

SChOOIOO0.00.00.00.00......TeaCherOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00...

Directions to the Teacher

Each child should be tested apart from the others
in a room by himself. Give him an unused folder. Take
another folder and fill in the above blanks before be-
ginning the reading. As the child reads, record his
efforts, using the marks presented on the class record
sheet, and following the directions printed there as
accurately as possible.

208

l

A boy had a dog.

The dog ran into the woods.

The boy ran after the dog.

He wanted the dog to go home.

But the dog would not go home.

The little boy said,

"I cannot go home without my dog."
Then the boy began to cry.

2

Once there was a little pig.

He lived with his mother in a pen.

One day he saw his four feet.

"Mother," he said, "what can I do with my
feet?"

His mother said, "You can run.with them."

So the little pig ran round and round the
pen.

3

Once there was a cat and a mouse. They
lived in the same house. The cat bit off the
mouse's tail. "Pray puss," said the mouse,
"give me my long tail again."

"No," said the cat, "I will not give you your
tail till you bring me some milk.

4

Once there lived a king and a queen in a
large palace. But the king and queen were
not happy. There were no little children in
the house or garden. One day they found a
poor little boy and girl at their door. They
took them into the beautiful palace and
made them their own. The king and queen
were than happy.

209

5

One of the most interesting birds which
ever lived in my bird-room was a blue-jay
named Jackie. He was full of business from
morning till night, scarcely ever still. He
had been stolen from a nest long before he
could fly, and he had been reared in a house
long before he had been given to me as a pet.

6

The part of farming enjoyed most by a
boy is the making of maple sugar. It is
better than blackberrying and almost as
good as fishing. One reason why a boy likes
this work is that someone else does most of
it. It is a sort of work in which he can
appear to be very industrious and yet do but
little.

7

It was one of those wonderful evenings
such as are found only in this magnificent
region. The sun.had sunk behind the
mountains, but it was still light. The
pretty twilight glow embraced a third of the
sky, and against its brilliancy stood the dull
white masses of the mountains in evident
contrast.

8

The crown and glory of a useful life is
character. It is the noblest possession of
man. It forms a rank in itself, an estate in
the general good will, dignifying every sta-
tion and exalting every position in society.
It exercises a greater power then.wealth,
and is a valuable means of securing honor.

210

9

He was approximately six feet tall and his
body was well pr0portioned. His complexion
inclined to be florid; his eyes were blue and
remarkably far apart. A profusion of hair
covered the forehead. He was scrupulously
neat in.his appearance; and, although he
habitually left his tent early, he was well
dressed.

10

Responding to the impulse of habit Jo-
sephus Spoke as of old. The others listened
attentively but in grim and contemptuous
silence. He spoke at length, continuously,
persistently, and ingratiatingly. Finally
exhausted through loss of strength he hesi-
tated. As always happens in such exigencies
he was lost.

11

The attractions of the American prairies
as well as of the alluvial deposits of Egypt
have been overcome by the azure skies of
Italy and the antiquities of Roman archi-
tecture. My delight in the antique and my
fondness for architectural and archaeological
studies verges onto a fanaticism.

12

The hypotheses concerning physical phe-
nomena formulated by the early philoSOphers
proved to be inconsistent and in general not
universally applicable. Before relatively ac-
curate principles could be established, phys-
icists, mathematicians, and statisticians had
to combine forces and work arduously.

11111111111