.. qubln ‘ .3'mtyyaljlllllu 1.... ...f|0 1.19‘w‘. ELIE/1 AN It We reading kindergart reading, emNoyed t F Tr c1asses 1r ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF TWO READING READINESS PROGRAMS WHICH WERE ADMINISTERED BY PARENTS TO THEIR POST—KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN ON MEASURES OF READINESS, LISTENING, AND BEGINNING READING By Elaine Marie Weber It was the purpose of this study to determine the effect of two reading readiness programs administered by parents to their post- kindergarten children on measures of readiness, listening, and beginning reading. The two readiness programs differed in the methods they employed to develop reading readiness. The two methods represented were a language experience approach and a phonics approach. The subjects in this study were the children from kindergarten classes in two elementary schools in Flint, Michigan, whose parents volunteered to administer a six-week readiness program to their own children in their homes. All kindergarten children in the two schools were randomly assigned within each classroom to a pretest of the Metropolitan Readiness Test Form A or to a coloring book experience. Children whose parents volunteered for the program were randomly assigned within each school building to one of the two reading readiness programs. Parents of the subjects attended two training sessions in preparation for the program and weekly guidance was offered by a trained paraprofessional at each school building site. The instructional materials of variam significa building, Elaine Marie Weber materials were in the form of weekly packets which included daily instructions directed to the parents. Subjects were tested with the Metropolitan Readiness Test Form B the following September and subse- quent follow-up tests of the Cooperative Listening Test in late January and the Gates MacGinitie Reading Tests in June. A multivariate analysis of variance and a univariate analysis of variance were the statistical tools employed with the level of significance set at .05. Independent variables were pretest, school building, and program. 0f the twenty-one null hypotheses tested, five were rejected. The multivariate analysis of variance revealed significant differences between subjects from the two school buildings on measures of readiness and beginning reading and the independent variable, building, further contributed to the significant interactions of mean scores identified on the same measures. The univariate analysis of variance revealed that a significant difference existed between subjects who had received the phonics program and subjects who had received the language experience on the Cooperative Listening,Test favoring the language experience program. AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF TWO READING READINESS PROGRAMS WHICH WERE ADMINISTERED BY PARENTS TO THEIR POST-KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN ON MEASURES OF READINESS, LISTENING, AND BEGINNING READING By Elaine Marie Weber A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education 1975 DEDICATION To my fill/Cantu Bettye .16nt6 and Manganet Hermie/won who taught me how .to 6pm Ph.D. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS F01 a moat chenéahed expemience, I woufid iihe to thank My committee Dr. James Snoddy, my chairman, for his guidance and encouragement throughout my entire graduate program and for never losing faith that chapter one would be written. Dr. Eileen Earhart, for modeling a most compatible blend of feminity and professionalism and for generously sharing her knowledge and personal experiences. Dr. Donald Nickerson, for his continual friendship and his assistance in keeping the nouns and verbs in working order. Dr. Ted W. Ward, for his penetrating insight and for offering guidance in the use of x's and 0's beyond putting them in one of nine squares for a game of tic tac toe. My fill/fiends in the M011: IMWQ 604 Conmunx'xy Imp/Lovemcnt Dr. Clyde M. Campbell, Dr. Howard Hickey, Dr. David Dean, Dr. Carlton Hoffman, Jacquelyn Nickerson, Dr. Andre Van Niekerk, Jerome Halverson, Irene Becker, Lu Elmquest, and Linda Carey for their love and encouragement. and upeu'aLCy to Ernest Adams, for his tolerance in listening to "dissertation talk" and for blending his ta ka pa's into words of guidance and direction. and Janet Chappa, my workshOp partner, for patiently driving to all the workshops and for listening to chapters one, two, three, four, and five instead of “The Carpenters." and Patti Wilson, my secretary, for typing and typing and typing and typing and typing and typing and typing until it was finished. A finiend in need LA a finiend indeed Dr. Lawrence Lezotte, for offering guidance in uses for the computer readout sheets beyond organizing them in numerical and alphabetical order. My’fiamLCy Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Keyworth, for sharing their value of education. and a veny ApeeLaK thank you to Clark 0. Berry, my friend and life companion, for never losing sight of the goal and never failing to mention it to me daily. iv LIST OF Tl Chapter 1. TI LIST OF TABLES .......................... Chapter I. II. III. THE PROBLEM DESIGN AND PROCEDURES TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ..................... Purpose of the Study ................. Need for the Study .................. Definition of Terms ................. Summary ....................... REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............... Introduction ..................... Studies that Correlate Home Factors and Success of the Child .................... Programs that Intervene with Parents Exclusive of Home, School and Child ............. Programs that Involve the Parents in the Educative Process of the Child Through Home Visits ...... Programs that Intervene with Parents and Child Through a Combination of Traditional Classroom Instruction and Home Visits ............ Programs that Involve Parents Working Directly in the Classroom .................. Investigation of the Literature on the Comparison of Methods of Teaching Reading ........... Summary ....................... Introduction ..................... Population ...................... Procedures ...................... Treatment ...................... Instructional Materials ............... Sketch 'N' Tell . . . ............. Parents TeaCh1ng Reading ............. The Design ...................... Treatment of Data .................. Page vii 1—1 —‘kD\l\l-' 13 15 20 23 28 31 38 42 44 44 .45 46 48 49 49 so 53 55 Chapter Wendi SELECTE Chapter Page Statement of Hypotheses ................ 58 Summary ........................ 63 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA .................... 65 Hypotheses ...................... 65 ReSults of Data .................... 66 Hypotheses lA, 2A, and 3A ............... 66 Hypotheses lB, 28, and 3B ............... 73 Hypotheses lAB, 2A8, and 3A8 ............. 76 Hypotheses lC, 2C, and 3C ............... 80 Hypotheses lAC, ZAC, and 3AC ............. 84 Hypotheses 18C, 28C, and 38C ............. 88 Hypotheses lABC, 2ABC, and 3ABC ............ 92 Summary ........................ 97 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 99 Summary ........................ 99 Theoretical Foundations .............. 99 Purpose of the Study ............... l00 Procedures .................... l00 Results ...................... lOl Conclusions ...................... lOl Statistically Significant Differences Between Buildings .................... lOl Statistically Significant Interactions of Independent Variables .............. l02 Statistically Significant Differences Between Programs .................... 103 Limitations of the Study ............... l05 Recommendations .................... l06 Reflections ...................... 108 Appendix A. SKETCH 'N' TELL (A Sample of One Week's Lessons) . . . . lll B. PARENTS TEACHING READING ................ 136 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................... 182 vi lable l0. R' Rmac ll. Rmas 12. Rmso l3. RSSL l7. l8. Table 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Results of the multivariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects categorized by building (Gundry and Brownell) and pretested and not pretested on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test ..... Results of the univariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects categorized by building (Gundry and Brownell) and pretested and not pretested on the Cooperative Listening Test ................ Results of the multivariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects categorized by building (Gundry and Brownell) and pretested and not pretested on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test ...... Results of a multivariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Tests ........... Results of a univariate analysis of variance between scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 on the Cooperative Listening Test ...................... Results of a multivariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test ........... Results of the multivariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects categorized by building and program on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test ...................... Results of the univariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects categorized by building and programs on the Cooperative Listening Test ........ Results of the multivariate analysis of variance between the mean scores of subjects categorized by building and program on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test ....................... viii Page 79 80 82 83 84 86 87 88 Table 20. N. 22. 23. 24. Table 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Results of the multivariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test ...................... Results of the univariate analysis of variance between the mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the Cooperative Listening Test ....... Results of the multivariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 and the mean scores of the subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test ................. Results of the multivariate analysis of variance between the mean scores of subjects categorized by building, pretested/not pretested, and program, on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test ....... Results of the univariate analysis of variance between the mean scores of subjects categorized by building, pretested/not pretested, and programs on the Cooperative Listening Test ................ Results of the multivariate analysis of variance between the mean scores of subjects categorized by building, pretested/not pretested, and programs on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test ...... ix Page 90 91 92 94 95 96 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The role of parents in the intellectual development of their children has moved to the extreme point on a continuum from its begin- ning, which is described by Gordon in an address to the American Educational Research Association Convention in April of 1972. He states: The concept of parents as teachers has an ancient and honorable tradition . . . in Leviticus, the ancient Hebrews were enjoined to take the principles of their beliefs and told: Thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, speaking of them when thy sittest in thy house, when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down and when thou risest up.1 From the above position, educators have gradually assumed this role in almost total exclusion of the parent. It is not uncommon to hear teachers express such statements as, "Let the parents take care of the child's physical and spiritual growth and let the school take care of his intellectual growth." Research, as well as common sense, tells us that this position is totally unrealistic since a child's intellectual achievements are strongly influenced by experiences of 1Ira J. Gordon, "What Do We Know About Parents as Teachers?" (Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association in Chicago, Illinois, April 3-7, 1972), 10 pages in ERIC, Ed 065788, p. l. hs whole Ay educa further c l and F ers c buree has I at hc role destr 1 he educa MS evlde Children' that most more he EaCh 0the l estal SCh0( to W? the ( test Itnt of Dartlcul mmflpula his whole world and the all-pervading influence is that of his parents. Why educators moved to this position on the continuum is explained in further comments by Gordon when he says: In modern times professional educators have developed and preached that parents are unable to be effective teach- ers of their children. As we have professionalized and bureaucratized education, and, of course subject matter has become far too complex to be handled in simple fashion at home the parent has been told that he not only has little role as a teacher, but that his efforts may even be destructive.2 This extreme position taken regarding the parental role in the educative process of children has been reevaluated and research has evidenced that school cannot assume total responsibility for children's intellectual growth. Research in child development indicates that most of the intellectual development of the child has taken place before he enters school. Schaefer in an article entitled "Learning from Each Other," from Childhood Education says that: The mean level of intellectual development tends to be established as early as age three years of age and the schools don't change it; they merely educate at the level to which the family and community have initially developed the child's skills. I found that most socioeconomic groups test at their own level by age three.3 Programs have been designed to enhance the intellectual develop- ment of children by intervening in the relationship of parent and child particularly in the verbal interactive process. Studies indicate that manipulation of the parent-child interactions have rendered measurable 2Ibid., p. 1. 3Earl S. Schaefer, "Learning from Each Other," Childhood Education 48, No. 1 (October 1971): 3-4. effects 0 asa resu project i develOpme by their E hnam fomnl ec the chilc and a le< I when socl envi cept have incl know Why in N abon ftequen: questior Brocess l. effects on the intellectual development of the child. Weikart states as a result of his work with parents and children in a preschool project in Ypsilanti, Michigan: "Significant gains in cognitive development can be made by children who are taught in their homes by their parents."“ Even when it is acknowledged that the events in a child's home have a great influence on what happens and what can happen to a child's formal education, the school in most instances deals exclusively with the child. Grisson, a school social worker in Indianapolis, Indiana and a lecturer at Butler University, stated: We readily accept the truism--that what the child is when he comes to school is crucially influenced by the social, cultural, economic, psychological and spiritual environment in which he has lived from the moment of con- ception until formal education begins. But sometimes we have been guilty of trying to work with the child without including his family. We have tried to know him without knowing his mother, father, siblings, grandparents.5 Often parents are confused or indifferent about what role they play in the education of their children as evidenced by questions they ask about specific academic areas. Artley compiled a list of questions frequently asked by parents about the reading program. Implicit in the questions are concerns about their responsibility in the educative process: 1. What is a readiness program? Why aren't children given readers on their entrance to the first grade? I'David P. Weikart et a1., "Perry Pre-School Progress" (Monograph from Ypsilanti Public Schools, Ypsilanti, Michigan, 1965), p. 17 5Catherine E. Grisson, "Parents and Conferences," Childhood Education, December 1971, p. 139. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. How can children learn to read if they don't know their ABC's? Shall I teach them the ABC's before they go to school? Is phonics taught in our schools? How can children recognize a word if they don't know the sounds of the letters? Is the alphabet ever taught in sequence? When? Why are children grouped for reading? Why aren't all of the children reading from the same reader? What provisions are made for the retarded readers in the room? What percentage of the group is retarded in reading? Is phonics the only procedure that is of value in attacking unfamiliar words? What can I do about the comicbook problem? How are children being taught to read mathematics, science, and geography? Shouldn't children be expected to attain a certain norm or standard before promoted to the next grade? What books and magazines should be recommended for home reading? What methods are being used in teaching reading today? How can I help my child with his reading at home? What is the reason for a child's inability to perceive the new words he meets in unfamiliar material? Not only are these questions indicative of their concern for their role as teacher of their child, but also of their role as a support system for the learning taking place at school. Without 6A. Sterl Artley, "What Do Parent's Questions Mean?" Ihg_ Reading_Teacher, October 1956, p. 17. knowledge support t l the paren help chil percent 0 their chi children interest interests their Chl 1 children they can can shar for pare the educ tantri by SPECthe most re, ed.r in I GdL \l tier 1; knowledge of the sequence of learning, it would be difficult to support the child in his academic endeavors. In 1956 Larrick surveyed parents and found that 40 percent of the parents wanted to know how reading was taught and how parents could help children develop their reading skills further. Approximately 60 percent of the parents indicated they were interested in increasing their children's reading interests and in learning how to guide their children in further developing them. Even though parents indicated an interest in helping their children develop reading skills and reading interests, they seemed to be at a loss to recommend specific books for their children.7 Parents are interested in the intellectual development of their children and have a vested right to be educated and informed so that they can give support to the educational endeavors of the school and can share in the responsibility for educating their children. In order for parents to assume this responsibility, we must broaden our view of the education process to include all events of a child's life that contribute to his intellectual development. Schaefer, claims that modern research calls for a new per- spective on education and that education is still thought of in its most restricted sense. He states: It is still quite common today, when we talk about education; to mean what happens to a school-age child in a classroom under the supervision of a professional educator who seeks to help him learn academic skills 7Nancy Larrick, "Lets Enlist the Parents," Education 76 (May 1956): 522-535 throur When 1 mean ' educa S the publi fanilies Thus the the schoo 35 Partne tddlies tUtlttion. Wd nee I Educatior 10 make r {Erlter’ Effects child. 0f effOl‘ through formal instruction, usually with a grade sequence. When we refer to the U.S. Office of Education, we really mean the U.S. Office of Schooling. If this model of education was ever functional, it no longer is.° Schaefer advocates the new perspective be family-centered. The public school would be responsible for providing support for families so they, in turn, can care for and educate their children. Thus the reform called for is to move the focus, which is totally on the school as the educating institution, to both the home and school as partners in this endeavor. Therefore attention would be given to families and how they function and not just to schools and how they function. The existing view of the family as part of the problem would need to be altered to a view that it is part of the solution.’ In 1970 Elliott Richardson of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare stated that the challenge of the seventies was to make every home a learning center. Even though all homes are learning centers some are obviously more effective than others.10 In accordance with this challenge to make every home a learning center, programs aimed at that goal need to be assessed as to their effects on specific aspects of the intellectual development of the child. Both parents and educators need to be cognizant of the results of efforts expended by parents toward this goal. 8Earl S. Schaefer, "Learning from Each Other," Childhood Education 48, No. 1 (October 1971): 2. 91bid- 9 pp. 2‘5. 1°Ibid., p. 2. children to be dei 0f the cl the “351% be VlfOrr f1“"195 they wit I to New Purpose of the Study_ This study has three main purposes: 1. To determine the effects of two fundamentally different reading readiness programs, which have been administered by parents, on a standardized measure of readiness. 2. To determine the effects of two fundamentally different reading readiness programs, which have been administered by parents, on a standardized measure of listening. 3. To determine the effects of two fundamentally different reading readiness programs, which have been administered by parents, on a standardized measure of beginning reading. Need for the Study Programs that are prepared for parents to interact with their children in specified ways for enhancing intellectual development need to be defined as to their outcomes in terms of the intellectual growth of the child. If the present educational institutions are to assume the responsibility for guiding parents toward this new goal, they must be informed and the information must be based on sound research findings. Methods proposed must be defined by the specific effect that they will have on the intellectual development of the child. In order to adequately prescribe methods, research must be conducted using different methods that are generalizable to the unique setting in ehich tl because trained the most has difi to their comes oi Institut the pare variety dures fc has made affected the Earl SUpplmet DTOCEdUr 0f the c for Da avert; which they are proposed. Existing research on reading methodology, because it was conducted in traditional educational settings with trained teachers, is not usually generalizable to parents, who for the most part are not trained teachers, nor the home setting which has different features than a classroom. Institutions which provide programs for parents to administer to their children must investigate and define for the parents the out- comes of such endeavors. One such program was offered by the Mott Institute for Community Improvement, Michigan State University, to the parents of post-kindergarten children. The program provided a variety of materials which reflected fundamentally different proce- dures for development of the skills of reading readiness. No attempt was made to define those aspects of readiness or reading that were affected by the various methods. This particular parent program of the Mott Institute called the Early Elementary Education Project evolved from a program which supplemented reading readiness skills with highly individualized procedures along with the traditional readiness program. Parents of the children in this program wanted some means of continuing this reading readiness instruction over the summer months when no formal classroom instruction was offered. Instructional packets were developed for parents to use with their children during the summer months. Since that first program was launched in the summer of 1970, the endeavor has continued with the same basic structure, except that a variety of instructional materials were offered to the parents. "any time readiness determi n< Selectior httle c< reason, 1 the vari< dearly c onthe de stills. l,— EXperienc SDeal leve' abil SDea dEVe Voca the meth a I' flfiehgg Many times the materials reflected a variety of methods for developing readiness skills. Until this study there had been no attempt to determine the achievement outcomes of any part of this parent program. Selection of instructional materials had been left to the parents, with little concern for the effect it may have on the achievement. For this reason, more information was needed to be known about the effects of the various instructional methods. This study is an attempt to more clearly define the specific effects of two reading readiness programs on the development of readiness, listening, and beginning reading skills. The following terms are defined as they relate to this study. Definition of Terms LanguageiExperience Method: The basis of the language experience approach is defined by Sheldon and others. Reading Instruction is based upon the listening and speaking skills which the children bring to each reading level. Phonetic principles are developed from a child's ability to distinguish the sounds of the words in his speaking and listening vocabularies and new concepts are developed from ideas and impressions contained in his vocabulary of familiar words.11 The Language Experience Method is classified as analytic since the method of perception begins with recognition of wholes as units of meaning from which their elements may be analyzed. 11William D. Sheldon and others, Teacher's Manual at Home, Here and Near, Here and Away(Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1957), pp. 3142 of singl identif' of percr synthet‘ recogni ‘ view of prerequ' identif' heading heading instrum 01‘ beha' parent TO Phonics Methods: The phonics method employs the sounds of single letters or groups of letters as auditory clues to word identification-recognition. Phonics is further classified in methods of perception, along with the alphabet and the syllable method, as synthetic. Synthetic refers to those methods which build to recognition of wholes from constituent parts. Strang, McCullough and Traxler divide their structured view of teaching reading into four main categories: product, process, prerequisites and procedures. In this structure, phonics has been identified as one of five skills used to recognize words in the sub- heading "Word Recognition Skills,“ a subheading found under the main heading, “Products."‘z Standardized Test (Standard Test): A Standardized Test is an instrument for assessing individual differences along a given dimension of behavior. The standardization is achieved by a process of collecting normative data on the test. Standardization tests are further characterized in terms of their reliability and validity.13 Parent-Administered: The role of "teacher" to be assumed by a parent to instruct his or her child in cognitive skills which are usually taught to the child by a classroom teacher in a traditional school setting. 12Ruth Strang, Constance McCullough and Arthur Traxler, Ihg_ Improvement of Reading, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1955). 13Walter R. Bor and Meredith Gall, Educational Research--An Introduction, 2nd ed. INew York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1974), pp. 133-134. or ano parent in the the pa or the partic istic . are no of Micl ‘33 org teacher inleic in the range f Executi QWde 11 Home Visits: A program whereby a representative of the school or another agency visits the home of a child to intervene with the parents or with the child for the purpose of bringing about change in the child's development. The visitor may deal exclusively with the parent to provide intervention in existing parenting procedures or the visitor may intervene directly with the child. Reading Readiness Skills: Reading Readiness skills are those particular behaviors which readiness research indicates are character- istic of development at the time a child is ready to learn to read and are not exclusively dependent on maturation. ‘ Mott Institute for Community_Improvement: A cooperative effort of Michigan State University and Charles Stewart Mott Foundation which was organized to study and experiment with alternatives for training teachers for the inner city. Pargprofessional (Teacher Aides): This term refers to individuals who, although not certified as teachers, work with children in the classroom to assist teachers in a variety of tasks. These tasks range from handling the clerical operations of the classroom to executing teaching prescriptions. Summar It is acknowledged that the pendulum indicating the parent's role in developing intellectual skills is moving away from the point of total exclusion and many programs have been developed to train and guide parents in this renewed role of educators of their children. t i The idllo' that new iron the 12 The following chapter is an attempt to provide an overview of programs that were developed specifically for this aim and to identify findings from the research on such endeavors. investig studies develoo of the via hon ciassro classro gation teachi n Organiz CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction A review of the literature for the study necessitates an investigation of the previous research done in the area of correlational studies of the home factors and various aspects of the intellectual development of the child; programs that intervene with parents exclusive of the school, the home, or the child; programs that involve the parent via home visits; programs that combine home visits and the traditional classroom instruction; and programs that involve parents working in the classroom with the child. The review further necessitates an investi- gation of research on comparison of reading methods employed in the teaching of reading and reading readiness skills. The following organizational structure is used for this review: . The first section establishes the foundation of the home factors having an effect on the intellectual development of the child. 0 The second section reviews programs that intervene with parents exclusive of home, school, and child. . The third section explores programs that intervene directly with the parent or with the child via home visits. 13 IT subsequfi used by This PEo it the a IntEFaci of Mg of trim-I inStFuC is ”9C9 f Spelej 14 . The fourth section reviews programs that intervene with parent and child through a combination of traditional classroom instruction and home visits. 0 The fifth section explores the various programs for involving parents in the classroom working directly with the child. This includes a study of a program of the Southwest Regional Labora- tory called "The Parent-Assist Learning Program" which, in some respects, parallels this study. . The sixth and last section gleans from the research on methods of teaching reading in the traditional classroom, implications for research of methods of teaching reading in the home by parents. A review of literature presents a framework whereby the subsequent examination of data pertaining to specific learning programs used by parents with their children can be viewed with greater clarity. This review of literature is intended to serve as a basis for looking at the importance of home factors and particularly the quality of interaction between parent and child. It further presents a spectrum of programs designed to involve parents in the intellectual development of their children. In an effort to assist parents in developing the most effective instructional interaction with their child for a specified outcome, it is necessary to look at research studies which identify the effects of specific methods on certain aspects of reading and reading readiness. Even thc dassroc inplicat within l factors investig backgrou interact those va Studies tonducte Wind 0 that the 3611(3) r 15 Even though this research has utilized classroom teachers in traditional classroom settings, it is essential to glean from the research those implications which are generalizable to methods employed by parents within the home setting. Studies that Correlate Home Factors and Success of the Child The following studies attempt to determine the effect of home factors on the academic achievements of the child. The home factors investigated include socioeconomic status and cultural-educational background of parents as well as material possessions and the interactive processes of the parent-child dyad. Early studies correlating environment variables focused on those variables relating to social class alone. One of the first studies that looked at environmental factors within the home was conducted by Wolf. This study investigated the environmental back- ground of fifth grade Caucasian children in a Chicago suburb and found that the correlation of .690 between intelligence and the total environ- mental ratings exceeded the correlation between intelligence and social class position found in other studies.1 The above findings necessiated further investigations to determine specific environmental factors within social classes. 1R. M. Wolf, "The Identification and Measurement of the Environmental Process Variables Related to Intelligence" (Chicago: University of Chicago, June 1964), p. 102. hone le tive cor aeasures attitude intellec follouir achi noul is t more and high he highl. titted w exPetien tttectiv ht the c Hid age hltluded hhh chi l! \ no u htid U .959). 16 Keeves, of Australia, spent three hours per home investigating home variables of approximately 231 Australian children. A high posi- tive correlation between home environment variables and achievement measures was obtained. Keeves emphasized the importance of mother's attitudes and the facilities for stimulation in the home of the intellectual development of the child. Keeves also made the following statement: Thus to ascribe differences in the levels of educational achievement to class or father's occupation as is common would seem to oversimplify the relationship involved; it is the attitude and practices of the home which have the more direct influence.2 In Utrecht, Holland, Rupp studied the home variables of low and high achievers from low income families. The factors found to be highly related to reading success were the extent to which parents talked with children, played games with them, provided enriching experiences and the concept the parent held as to their own effectiveness as a parent.3 A study conducted by Moore correlated measures of the quality of the child's home environment at age 2% with 1.0. scores at age 3 and age 8 and reading success at age 7. The home investigation included: (1) amount and nature of verbal interaction between parent and child, (2) if conversation were encouraged by parents, and (3) the 2J. P. Keeves, "The Home Environment and Educational Achieve- ment" (Australian National University Research of Social Sciences, Department of Sociology. October 1970), p. 30. 3J. C. C. Rupp. Opvoeding Tot School-Weerbaarherd [Helping the Child to Cope with School]‘(Groninger, Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff, 969 . kinds of found an nay not Enuironn froin Pac follows: 1. the Fir Thhard 1972): 17 kinds of books and toys found in the home. A high correlation was found and it was concluded that the key to improving reading skills may not lie in what happens at school as much as what happens at home.“ A shortened version of the Wolf Questionnaire called the Home Environment Review (HER) was developed by Garber. A brief description from Packer and Cage of each of the nine scales on the (HER) are as follows: 1. EXPECTATIONS FOR CHILD'S SCHOOLING--The level of education the mother expects her child to achieve. 2. AWARENESS 0F CHILD'S DEVELOPMENT--Mother's under- standing of child's strengths and weaknesses as related to school behavior. 3. REWARDS FOR INTELLECTUAL ATTAINMENT--Mother's system of rewards and punishment in terms of consistency. 4. PRESS FOR LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT--Mother's awareness and effort in helping the child develop language skills. 5. AVAILABILITY AND USE OF SUPPLIES FOR LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT--To what extent are books, magazines, and newspapers available to the home. 6. LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES OUTSIDE THE HOME--Parents' effort to provide learning experiences for the child outside of home. 7. MATERIALS FOR LEARNING IN THE HOME-~Extent to which materials and situations for learning are provided in the home. ' 8. READING PRESS--Effort made by mother to use library books and reading materials in teaching her child. 9. TRUST IN SCHOOL--Extent to which mother trusts school.s “T. Moore, "Language and Intelligence: A Longitudinal Study of the First Eight Years," Human Development, October 1968, pp. 88-106. sAthol B. Packer and Bob N. Cage, "Changing Attitudes of Mothers Toward Themselves and Education, Theory Into Practice 11, No. 3 (June 1972 : 197. relatior The sang grade Fr environr dimensic Caldwel‘ indicate ment am the HER home, 5 SUCCESS crucial researc family for Dev SpecifiE to Chile 05erat1c instrUct extetna‘ “‘-~J heft 18 Garber and Ware used the above HER scale to examine the relationships of home environment and a measure of intelligence. The sample consisted of Caucasian poverty level children in a first grade Follow Through Program in a North Central State. The home environment was measured by a fifteen minute rating on the nine dimensions of the HER scale. The achievement was measured by the Caldwell Preschool Inventory. The results of this investigation indicate a relationship between the quality of a child's home environ- ment and the child's achievement in school. Of the nine variables on the HER scales, the seventh variable, materials for learning in the home, seemed to be the most important variable in predicting school success.6 Specifically, those environmental factors which are most crucial to the child's achievement in school have been identified by researchers and practitioners in their work with young children and family intervention programs. Gordon in his work at the Institute for Development of Human Resources at the University of Florida specified nine cognitive and ten emotional factors which related to child performance. These are: (1) academic guidance, (2) cognitive operational level and style, (3) cultural activities planned, (4) direct instruction of the child, (5) educational aspirations, (6) use of external resources (nursery, kindergarten), (7) intellectuality of home, 6William B. Ware and Malcolm Garber, "The Home Environment as a Predictor of School Achievement," Theory Into Practice 11, No. 3 (June 1972): 190-195. {8) vert mnageme (15) beel (ll) INCL (19) wor of paren independ (3) cons for succ home, (8 home env identif 1' parent The pro WVEO a it was KEQVQS' ghhups. 19 (8) verbal facility, (9) verbal frequency, (10) consistency of management, (11) differentiation of self, (12) disciplinary pattern, (15) belief in internal control, (16) protectiveness, babying of child, (17) trusting attitude, (18) willingness to devote time to child, and (19) work habits.7 Hess offers a more recent list which includes nine categories of parent behavior that influence child development. They are: (l) independence training, (2) warmth and high emotional involvement, (3) consistency of discipline, (4) explanatory control, (5) expectancies for success, (6) parents' sense of control, (7) the verbalness in the home, (8) parents' direct teaching, and (9) parental self-esteem.a The studies reviewed indicate that the variables within the home environment predict the child's performance. The variables identified were either situational, referring to being within the parent or the home, or transactional between the parent and the child. The product refers to some measure of the child's performance. Since the Wolf study, the trend in correlational studies has moved away from using social class as a major independent variable as it was used earlier. Since that time many studies such as Rupp's and Keeves' are finding variability of home environment within social class groups. The thrust of such investigations is to find desirable parental 7Ira J. Gordon, Parent Involvement in Compensatory Education (Urbana, Ill.: University oflIlTinOTs Press, 1970). 8R. E. Hess et a1., "Community Involvement in Day Care," in Day_ Care: Resources of Decisions (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity,*Jfihe 1971). attri but beings. environrn of the p variable gran des change i Post of interact Cmnunic l Progress This cor being a contact 0f Ddl‘e ts tare hhntcaf the fol 20 attributes rather than to label large classifications of human beings. The previous studies simply show the importance of the home environment by inspection of the variables compared to certain aspects of the produced child's development rather than attempts to manipulate variables within the home environment. The following studies or pro- gram descriptions attempt to manipulate the parent in some way to cause change in the product which is the child's intellectual development. Most of these studies or programs manipulate the process or the interaction of the parent-child dyad. Programs that Intervene with Parents Exclusive of Home, Sohool and'Chde' A systematic procedure which is most commonly used for communication between school and parent is a written report of academic progress sent to the parents monthly or at the end of each semester. This communication most typically is one sided with the parents' input being a signature to indicate the report was received. The person contact is usually limited to meetings of an association comprised of parents and teachers. Usually this touches only a few parents and is rarely a representative sample of the school community. Other com- munications are via open house, come-and-see nights, or pupil programs. The following programs involve parents as part of the educative process in a more systematic method. G school's (2) teach and (5) p level (1) the resul of the ct 21 Gordon suggests five levels of parent involvement in the school's program. They are: (1) audience, bystander-observer, (2) teacher-trainer of the child, (3) volunteer, (4) trained worker, and (5) participant in decision-making.9 Most attempts are aimed at level (1) audience. The following programs either describe or show the result of parents involved at level (2) which is teacher-trainer of the child. One attempt to involve parents at least at the awareness level, in the educative process is a series of classes for parents offered by the Division of Career and Continuing Education of the Los Angeles City Schools. The classes attempt to make the parents aware of their role in the educative process of their child in academic accomplishments. During the first two years, 250 classes were offered and it is now a part of the on-going parent education program. Another program offers ideas to parents regarding specific interactive methods to be used with their child. This program is offered via television and is aired at least once each year.1° The above programs represent an effort toward including the parents in the learning process of their children. Other efforts include articles concerning the parents' role in the learning process and special sections in local newspapers that give parents specific 9Ira J. Gordon, Parent Involvement in Compensatory Education (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1970), pp. 27-28. 1"Evelyn M. Pickarts, "Learning to Read with Parental Assist," Today's Education 62, No. 2 (February 1973): 31. procedur to make educativ Douglas found th had four as the c advantat N 0f the i at his or sit at his indiffe to beco hf thei School 5 hhhhprc N t 4 “Ln. for thfi 22 procedures for teaching their children to read represents an attempt to make the parents aware of their role as teacher of their children. Research indicates that endeavors of parents involved in the educative process pay off in educational achievements of their children. Douglas researched 5,000 children in England, Scotland, and Wales. He found that the quality of parental involvement in a child's education had four times as much influence on test scores at eleven years of age as the quality of the school attended.n Liddle in his book, Educational Improvement for the Dis- advantaged in an Elementary School Setting discusses the influence of the parent on the child when he states: During the most formative years in life, parents have a tremendous influence on the definition of the world and his place in it. It is here that the child learns to trust or to fear, to approach or to withdraw from new persons or situations. . . . No one else has such a strong influence on a child's motivation, his value system, his self-concep , and his place in the world as do his parents and teachers. 2 Liddle further refers to the need to overcome parental indifference to education and that ways must be found to assist parents in becoming participants in a joint effort in the educational enterprise of their children. Children spend more time at home than at school and schools can make little headway with a child, if the home offers inappropriate attitudes and habits.13 11J. W. Douglas, The Home and the School: A Study of Ability and Attainment in the Primary_School (London: McGibbon and Kee, 1964). 12Gordon P. Liddle and Robert Roehwell, Educational Improvement for the Disadvantaged in an Elementary School Setting_(Springfield, Ill.: Charles Thomas Publisher, 1968), pp. 38-39. 13Ibvd.. pp. 38-39. visiting aimed at send tea home to Health, was twen They wet reading thildrer cedureg Preschor account Childre tehedia Home Pr them to 23 Programs that Involve the Parents in the Educative Process of the Child Through Home Visits The programs that have used the intervention method of Visiting the parent at home, have for the most part been programs aimed at parents of infants or very young children. These programs send teachers, student teachers, or paraprofessionals directly to the home to work with the parents. Tewksbury describes a program funded by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare under a title one proposal. The target \nmas twenty-five "deprived" preschool children ages 2 to 5 years of age. 'I‘hey were identified by older school age siblings enrolled in remedial Ir‘eading classes at the public elementary school. Parents of these 1::hildren were trained by a visiting remedial reading teacher in pro- <::edures for developing language skills and concept formation in these I:>reschool children.1“ Although there were no results reported in the ialccount of this program, the unique method of identification of the ‘::hildren involved in the program and a most unusual role for the "“emedial reading teacher merited the inclusion in this paper. Levenstein, Director of the Verbal Interaction Mother-Child- Home Program, Freeport, New York, employed paraprofessionals and trained 1them to be "toy" demonstrators. The "toy“ demonstrator used toys and taooks that could be used for verbal interaction between mother and ‘<:hild. The paraprofessional took the toy or book to the home of a \._ 1"Robert Tewksbury, "An Innovative Program for Prevention of FReading Failure in Disadvantaged Preschool Children by Home Interven- 1tion," ERIC, Ed 068175, November 1971. young ch thly s fision 0 toy or b procedur for 32 v: given ar mean l.t Proiect similar 1 intelli interve 24 young child and demonstrated the toy or book to the parent using a highly structured verbal interaction. The mother then, under super- vision of the paraprofessional, interacted with the child using the toy or book. The toy or book was left in the home for a week. This procedure was employed with 67-70 parents of two and three year olds for 32 visits over a seven-month period of time. The children were given an intelligence measure and it was found after this program the mean 1.0. of the group was raised 17 points.15 Gray and Klaus reported a study made by the Early Training Project of Peabody similar to the Levenstein study which rendered a similar increase in mean 1.0. scores. However, later measures of intelligence indicated a substantial decline in 1.0. mean after the intervention ceased.16 In another study by Gray sponsored by the Parent Project in the Demonstration and Research Center for Early Education, it was found that it is possible to make the mother a more effective teacher or eduational change agent through a series of weekly home visits over a period of eight months. Even though the work focused on one child, they found the effect spilled over to other children in the family. This phenomena has been termed "vertical diffusion." They have lsPhyllis Levenstein, "Cognitive Growth in Preschoolers Through Stimulation of Verbal Interaction with Mother" (paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of American Orthopsychiatric Association, New York, April 1969). 16Susan W. Gray and R. A. Klaus, The EarlygTraining Project--A Seventh Year Report, John F. Kennedy Center for Research on Education and Human Development, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1969. further nc became int replicate of the int the diffu: II Gray list: 1. TI gum: .4.z: mmU-J-1O #O'Z—bfl. Q1: L/ Educan‘ 25 further noted that parents living in the proximity to the target homes became interested in the research project and had often tried to replicate the intervention program in their own home. The effect of the intervention spilled over into the neighborhood children and the diffusion became horizontal as well as vertical.17 In characterizing the home visit program at Peabody College, Gray lists the distinguishing features as follows: 1. The first of the "essential characteristics" is the common goal of all our programs, to enable the parent to become a more effective educational change agent with her small children. Our general approach to the situation is through a recognition of the basic concerns of the parent. Even in a situation that appears to be most unpromising we begin with the recognition of the parent's deep concern and interest for her children, a respect for her dignity, and a recognition of the inherent worth of the child. We focus on the parent rather than the child because if an hour or so a week is to have lasting effect, some way must be found to sustain what is learned. The parent is the most available sustaining agent and the one most interested in the child's welfare. We do not exclude any family member from the lesson during the home visit. This policy may make the visit difficult, but it promotes rapport; parents often find it hard to make arrangements for the other children. More important, other children, watching or joining in, benefit from the lesson. Older children and fathers may learn new ways of interacting with the younger ones. We make heavy use of learning materials that are easily available or simple to construct from inexpensive items such as outing flannel or discards around the home, things like plastic containers and coffee cans. l7Susan W. Gray, "The Child's First Teacher," Childhood Education 48, No. 1 (December 1971): 127-129. 10. Th Go designed 1; lead to th 10. 26 We attempt over the series of home visits to move the parent toward increasing initiative and independence in planning for her child. We give the parent help and guidance in using simple reinforcement procedures. As the mother becomes more effective with her own children, we have tried to help her toward better copying skills in all her life experiences. Our approach is highly individualized. The long-range goal of our home visiting program is to help provide more options for the parents, to enable them to take advantage of the options already available and develop new ones for themselves.‘° Gordon's "Florida Parent Education Follow-Through Program" was designed to work directly in the home, so that the home situation might lead to the child's improved school performance. The goals of this program were as follows: 1. The development of non-professionals as parent educators and as effective participants in the actual classroom teaching process. There are two mothers assigned to assist the teacher in one classroom. The development of appropriate instructional tasks which can be carried from the school into the home to establish a more effective home learning environment. The develOpment of parents as partners in the educational program of their children.19 The mothers in the Florida Follow-Through Program were trained in the role of parent educator and teacher auxiliary helper. The 18Ibid.. 00- 128-129. 19Ira J. Gordon, "Florida Parent Education Program" (a paper presented August 27, 1970 from the Florida Follow-Through Program), pp. 4-6. teachers w paraprofes once-a-wee learning t the child' and social supplement Th Program of adalitation The Dfirent and Specia' gains by U ture, H0w1 their l‘Ole Th Hashingmn home Visi t Parent Was this StUdy 1N HaShj n COHege QT 28 exDErip Alton-n9 ( \ 20] 27 teachers were taught to effectively use these mothers as paraprofessionals. The parent educators' duties consisted of once-a-week home visits to demonstrate and teach other mothers learning tasks which have been devised in the school to increase the child's intellectual competence, as well as enhance their personal and social development. The learning tasks were game-type learning supplements. The classroom teachers train the parent educators; but the program offered the flexibility for the parent educators to make adaptations of materials and activities used during the home visits. The parent educators received a six-week pre-service training program and special monthly in-service sessions.2° Results of any academic gains by the children from this program were not found in the litera- ture. However, reports of attitude changes of the parents regarding their role in the schooling of their children were noted. The infant Education Preschool Breakthrough Program of Washington, D.C. differs from the above described program in that the home visitor worked directly with the infant. In other studies the parent was trained to work with the child. The target population of this study was black male infants from a low socioeconomic neighborhood in Washington, D.C. The tutors in this study were black and white college graduate students who were trained to work with infants. The 28 experimental infants were tutored beginning at age 15 months and tutoring ceased at 3 years of age. The tutoring sessions were for one 2°Ibid., pp. 4-5. hour a day infant anc encouragec If given meas were made scores beg Program sh continued was in not h)"llaSSing work with . In this ro‘ 28 hour a day, five days a week. The tutors worked directly with the infant and parent participation, although not discouraged, was never encouraged. The 28 experimental subjects and 30 control subjects were given measures of intelligence and it was found that initially gains were made in test scores, however, after the end of the tutoring session, scores began to decline. The director, Schafer, commented that this program should have started with the infants at an earlier age and continued longer than age 3. He felt the greatest error of the study was in not involving the parent in the tutoring sessions. By the tutor by-passing the parent, it implies that the parent is not competent to work with the child and perpetuates the helplessness of the parent in this role.21 Prggrams that Intervene with Parents and Child Through a Combinathn of Traditional Classroom Instruction and Home Visits Some studies have tested unusual combinations of home visits and classroom instruction. Scott and Thompson describe a study of a Home Start Program in Waterloo, Iowa. The program studied dealt with families in four target areas that housed people who were primarily economically disadvantaged. The two groups of the study include one group of four year olds, which was called the horizontal group and one 21Earl S. Schafer, "Learning from Each Other," Childhood Education 48, No. 1 (October 1971): 2-7. group of t year old g The two ye until age identical the Iowa 1 Tests evid vertical 9 1 Programs main obje means of of an Chi E Period of bach‘tll‘OUn abdut 2,5 5 Home Star. h- Tc 29 group of two year olds, which was called the vertical group. The four year old group was given a regular preschool classroom experience. The two year old group was visited in the home by trained paid aides until age four when they were given a preschool classroom experience identical to that of the horizontal group. Testing both groups with the Iowa Test of Preschool Deve10pment and Primary Mental Abilities Tests evidenced a statistically significant difference between the vertical group and the horizontal group.22 This particular program is only one of sixteen Home Start Programs which were funded by the Office of Child Development. The main objective of the Home Start Program is to help parents as a major means of directly enhancing the intellectual and physical development of all children and particularly those of preschool age. Each Home Start Program costs about $100,000 for a 12 month period of time and reaches about 90 families of widely varying ethnic background. The total project, including all sixteen programs, served about 2,500 children.23 Scott and Thompson presented the objectives of the Waterloo Home Start Program: 1. To enable parents to become more effective teachers of their preschooler. 2. To help their child become better prepared for classroom learning. 22Ralph Scott and Helen Thompson, "Home Start I and II," Child Today 10, No. 6 (January 1973): 34. 23Ruth Ann O'Keefe, "How About Home as a Place to Start," Ihg_ Urban Review 6, No. 5-6 (1973): 35-37. was launch after the I visits beg 4. Ti data founc Ar approaChec Educa'CT'On three-Way T a week, a tobne Un by the te \ 211 2S 3O 3. To help prepare the child for curriculum expectations and strategies of the elementary school teacher. 4. To foster communication between schools and community agencies. 5. To increase community support and understanding of preventive education. 6. To conduct research designed for a better understanding of learning process and procedures.2“ Based on the Waterloo, Iowa, Home Start findings, Home Start II was launched in the Fall of 1971 and was a three-year program designed after the program used with the vertical group. This included the home visits beginning at age 2 and the preschool classroom experience at age 4. This revision of the initial program was in compliance with data found in the Home Start I study.25 Another program employing both the classroom and home visit approaches to preschool education is the Home-Oriented Preschool Education (HOPE) Program developed by the Appalachia Educational Laboratory in Charleston, West Virginia. This program utilized a three-way approach to educate three to five year olds. Television programs, mobile classrooms, and home visits were used. The procedure included 30-minute session broadcasts, five days a week, and a two-hour session in a classroom which was housed in a mobile unit stationed near the home. These mobile units were driven by the teacher or the paraprofessional. The third strategy included 2"Scott and Thompson, p. 34. 25Ibid., p. 34. avisit t to delive supplies. the home 0 system in. member wa: upon whicl tested thy and a one- in Ohio, 1 gains in c areas . 25 class,00m tedChe’.‘ 80mhtlmes in ”Mar . 4 Vdrlet 26’ 31 a visit to the home by a trained paraprofessional. The visits were to deliver the Parent's Guide, activity sheets, books, and other supplies. There were four home visitors for each 150 children, and the home visitor visited 30 homes per week. Quality was controlled through an information feedback via a system incorporated into the HOPE implementation process. Each team member was responsible for providing and/or exchanging specific data upon which the continuing program was based. The program was field- tested three years in a four-county area of Southern West Virginia and a one-year operational test with 1,000 children at seven sites in Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Children evidenced gains in cognitive skills, psychometric growth, and in the affective areas.26 Programs that Involve Parents Working, Directly in the Classroom It would not be unusual, upon visiting a typical elementary classroom, to find another adult working along with the classroom teacher. This adult is usually a person not accredited in the teaching profession and more than likely is a mother from the school community. Sometimes these mothers are paid paraprofessionals or teacher's aides, in other instances, they are volunteer mothers. They can be found doing a variety of tasks from general housekeeping chores; i.e., collecting 25Roy W. Alford, "Home Oriented Preschool Education Institution," Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Charleston, West Virginia. nflk money mstructio Co County Pub and Parent Sc deeply acknow educat reacti t0 the ment a school out 0 way t face 1 Ti Education through St School to the tradifi Be as outhlne Pa reDl‘es NE D] StrUC. learn wWkly 32 milk money and running duplicating machines to supervising recess and instruction or tutoring individual or small groups of students. Conant, Supervisor, Child Study Programs, Prince George's County Public Schools, Maryland, says in an article entitled "Teachers and Parents: Changing Roles and Goals" that: Schools must take steps to involve parents more deeply in an educational partnership. If schools do not acknowledge this responsibility in their roles as the formal educational agents of society, they will find themselves reacting rather than acting--and not always constructively-- to the demands of parents for more information, more involve- ment and more control of school policies and practices. The schools will also find they are the poorer for having missed out on a productive liaison with parents--who seem on their way to being acknowledged as an equally great educational face in the lives of their children.27 The models for this partnership are being developed in early education programs and evidence of the effect of parent participation through studies of these programs. Reluctance on the part of the school to try out these new models means breaking the stereotype of the traditional roles of teachers and parents. Benefits to be gained by this new role for parents are multiple as outlined by Conant: Parents working as volunteers in the schools still represent resources largely unexplored by most school systems. The profits can be enormous. Parents discussing and con- structing curriculum materials under professional guidance learn about what the school is teaching and why. Parents working in the classroom as aides under the teacher's direction learn at first hand and by good example how different children are and how one can respond to these differences. Acting as resource persons in their own specialties, parents give variety, spice and enrichment 27Margaret Conant, "Teachers and Parents: Changing Roles and Goals," Childhood Education, December 1972, p. 115. to the for ot about how th Being triump and re ways t Ch their pare Ch gainin them a attent ticula Import them.2 On “thin the The progra "Saturday a three-ye ofsan Fra H herritol I variety of hehd‘tl‘lp and mantle 33 to the learning day. They can lead study-discussion groups for other parents to learn more about how children grow, about how parent-child relationships can be bettered, about how they can guide their children's growth more effectively. Being on hand, they can share with the teacher the daily triumphs and mishaps of school life, gain understanding and respect for the school's programs and problems in ways that no oral or written description can provide.28 Children, on the other hand, benefit from this new role of their parents in many ways: Children see their parents in new and positive roles, gaining tangible evidence of their parents' interest in them and in their school. They receive more individual attention--which often seems more crucial than the par- ticular teaching techniques--and see two of the most important adults in their lives working together for them.29 One program that offered a variety of roles for parents within the classroom was reported by Elliott of Berkeley, California. The program which germinated in the Spring of 1969 as an eight-week "Saturday School" for kindergarteners and their parents blossomed into a three-year program with help from grants from the Rosenberg Foundation of San Francisco. The site of this program was the Castro School in El Cerrito, California. Parents participated in the program in a variety of ways. The roles included general schoolkeeper, librarian, field-trip coordinator, preparer of materials and instructor. The program was initiated by the kindergarten teacher and further directed and planned by the teachers and the parents. This project was not set up as a carefully controlled educational experiment. The project was 28Ibid., p. 116. 29Ibid. developed revealed group fac groups. with the A pupil con moderate , with the 34 developed on evidence from several nationally recognized studies which revealed the importance of the differences of home background and peer group factors on school achievement.3° The effects of parent involvement in a classroom setting was studied by the Early Education Program of Ypsilanti, Michigan. Children in a compensatory preschool program were divided into three matched groups. The maternal involvement was intense with one group, moderate with the second group and void for the third group. All children in each group received the same amount of teacher- pupil contact activities. The mothers of children in the group with moderate maternal involvement were present during tutoring sessions with the child, and the intense maternal involvement group included the above plus small group meetings conducted by a social worker that focused on child rearing practices related to child development. Children were pretested and posttested with the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. One year later a follow-up study was made of one-third of the youngsters of the original group. They were then given the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. No significant difference was found between the three groups after the year of treatment. However, on the follow-up study, children who 3°David L. Elliott, "Project 88: Parent Participation in the Elementary School," ERIC, Ed 071751, 1971, pp. 1-23. had been i greater ga Ma child and such progr reading sir University findings t Sequence c A comparing hiUtor‘ed by two expert “my hig Si tutoring i UMVEl‘Sitb (1) letter (3) COmpr~E \ 31 Pl‘e.sch00 heVe \how ._1 . 'r-v i 32 Tutorsn . WESQnted 35 had been in groups with parental involvement showed significantly greater gains on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.31 Many programs aim at specific cognitive development in the child and develop very structured and specific roles for parents. One such program is a structured tutoring program which aimed at improving reading skill. It was developed by von Harrison of Brigham Young University. Von Harrison's tutoring manual is based on Durrell's findings that reading difficulties can be prevented by an instructional sequence of letter naming, sounding, blending, and sight words. A study was conducted on this particular tutoring program comparing children tutored by paid high school tutors and children tutored by parents. No significant difference was found between the two experimental groups. However, the tutored groups scored signifi- cantly higher than the untutored group used as a control.32 Similar findings were reported by Keely from a programmed tutoring program developed by the Psychology Department at Indiana University. The mothers were trained to teach the reading skills of (1) letter and word recognition, (2) phonic and context clues, and (3) comprehension skills. The tutored students scored significantly 31Norma Radin, "Three Degrees of Maternal Involvement in Pre-School Program: Impact on Mothers and Children," Child Development 43, No. 4 (December 1972): 1355-1364. 32Reba L. Keele, "The Effect of Parent's Using Structured Tutoring Techniques in Teaching Their Children to Read" (a paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, New York, 1971). higher tht Achievemer 0. were condr by Ellson higher on in-classrr A Niedenneyt ducted by Deve10pme, gate the ( itOl‘lliance kindergar. LaboratOr‘ \ 33 hhflluzt 6 3H TUIOrjng: W 35 ngranme i968, pp. 36 111 37 | REadi "g T pp. 281-21 Home," 36 higher than children not tutored on two subtests of the Metropolitan Achievement Tests, word knowledge, and reading comprehension.33 Other studies using parents as tutors for reading improvement were conducted by Ellson, Banner, Engle and Kampwerth.3“ Another study by Ellson, Harris, and Baker found tutored children scored significantly higher on measures of reading achievement than children who received in-classroom instruction.35 A study closely paralleling the proposed study is described by Niedermeyer36 and also by Sullivan and LaBeaune.37 The study was con- ducted by the Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Research Development, Inglewood, California. The study was designed to investi- gate the effects parent monitored practice at home had on pupil per- formance in reading. The study used as an instructional vehicle a kindergarten reading curriculum prepared by the Southwest Regional Laboratory. 33John Keely, "My Mom can teach reading too," Elementary School Journal 6, No. 1 (March 1970): 34. 3"G. Ellson, L. Barner, T. Engle, and D. Kampwerth, "Programmed Tutoring: A Teaching Aid and a Research Tool," ReadinggResearch Quarterly, Fall 1965, pp. 71-127. 350. G. Ellson, P. Harris, and L. Baker, "A Field Test of Programmed and Directed Tutoring," Reading Research Quarterly, Spring 1968, pp. 2, 207-367. 36Fred C. Niedermeyer, "Parents Teach Kindergarten Reading at Home," The ElementaryASchool Journal, May 1970. pp. 438-445. 37Howard J. Sullivan and Carol LaBeaune, "Parent's Summer Reading Teachers," The Elementary School Journal, February 1971, pp. 281-285. followi 1. 37 The Parent-Assisted Learning Program differs from the following study in the aspects listed below: 1. The Parent-Assist Learning Program was carried on during the school year as a supplement whereby the proposed program took place in the summer when the children were not in a formal learning setting. The Parent-Assist Learning Program materials were supplemented to the on-going classroom instruction, whereby, the proposed program materials taught or reviewed basic reading readiness skills but was not coordinated with either the kindergarten or first grade curriculum. The Parent-Assist Learning Program mailed the weekly instruc- tional (practice exercise) to the parents whereby the proposed study provided weekly meetings for the parents to pick up the week's instructional materials, select library books to take home and discuss any problems they may be experiencing administering the materials. The Parent-Assist Learning Program employed one post test while this study uses one post test and two follow-up tests during the school year. The Parent-Assist Learning Program provided one type of instruction materials (practice exercise) whereby this program compares two different types of instructional materials representing two different teaching methods. that pos represen LaBeaune Laboratov not part Parents . LaBeaune readr enrol disc” the y trat« heading r of ready, conductec faciyitaf 1 reading, 38 6. The Parent-Assist Learning Program provided tests or data on similar students, one year prior to the study, to determine normal academic regression over the summer. Findings of the Southwest Regional Laboratory study indicated that post-summer performance was higher than pre-summer performance representing a reverse of the normal trend. However, Sullivan and LaBeaune stated that one problem not solved by the Southwest Regional Laboratory Program was the fact that parents of the poor readers did not participate in the study to the extent of the better readers' parents. One reason for this problem was suggested by Sullivan and LaBeaune: Another possible reason why some parents of poorer readers did not participate regularly after initial enrollment is that they or the children may have become discouraged because the children did not do so well on the program activities. Their discouragement or frus- tration may have caused them to drop out of the program.38 Investigation of the Literaturg;on the Comparison oerethods of Teaching Reading In light of the fact that this study compares two different reading methods, it is necessary to review the literature on comparisons of reading methods. Research on methodology for the most part has been conducted with traditional classrooms using a trained teacher as facilitator. Although this study compares two methods of teaching reading, the setting for the teaching-learning is in a home setting 38Ibid., p. 284. with teacl To V' under or me the p sitio and a first are u: encour is ana and th "Ords, Clearly that di become . DIOCeSS! Gray Drc that hav defined hatter p an firs 39 with one teacher and one student. The teacher is both parent and teacher and usually is untrained in any kind of reading methodology. To view the literature on reading methods, it seems important to first understand the underlying differences in reading methodology. Initially, reading instruction should be viewed from the method or methods it embraces. Reading methods are very broadly classified by the psychological processes involved in some of the steps in the acqui- sition of reading skills. Universally these are classified as synthetic and analytic--synthetic referring to the process of induction, focusing first on the parts and then to the whole. In reading, these processes are usually labeled by the language unit used in the first reading encountered, i.e., alphabetic, phonic, syllabic. The other process is analytic which is a deductive process, focusing first on the whole and then the parts. The language units first encountered are either words, phrases, sentences, or stories. Early reading programs were clearly either analytic or synthetic. Research on early programs found that different methods produced very different reading behaviors. In an attempt to improve reading instruction many programs have become eclectic and embrace a combination of the two psychological processes and interweave them to achieve all the skills of reading. Gray proposes that a different classification is implied in the methods that have evolved. Although not mutually exclusive, these methods are defined as the eclectic trend and the learner centered trend. The latter procedure focuses on the learner as the main purpose of school and first considerations are given to readers' interest, immediate concern, in contev further 1 three tyy (3) intec i material to readi highly 1' reading initial rim/er fj Show tha reading anahir'tl'c chhhdren \ 3 nathHa] land, 19 '1 ho 79a '4 4O concern, previous experience, special aptitudes and deficiency both in content and methods of teaching. Learner centered procedures are further classified by the nature of the reading matter which is of three types (1) author prepared, (2) learner-teacher conceived, and (3) integrated instructional program.39 Other classifications of reading methods are categorized by materials and procedures employed. Tuinman describes five approaches to reading as: (l) the developmental guided basal approach, (2) the highly individualized language experience approach, (3) individualized reading program, (4) independent learning activities, and (5) the initial teaching alphabet.“° It is concluded that there is a need for many methods because: "over fifty years of research and countless studies have failed to show that one approach to teaching reading is consistently better than any other for use with all children.“1 A typical research study comparing two distinctly different reading programs is one reported by Putnam in May of 1972. It compared analytic and synthetic methodology in beginning reading on disadvantaged children. The controlled group was given reading instruction with a 39William Gray, The Teaching_of Reading_and Writing, an inter- national survey for United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, 19 Avenue, Kleber, Paris--l6, Imprimerie Atar, Switzer- land, 1956. pp. 87-89. l"’Jaap J. Tuinman, Approaches to the Teachin of Readin : Wh Do Teachers Have Different Ways of Teaching Reading? ational Reading Center Foundation, Washington, D.C., ERIC, Ed 059011. “Ibid., p. 2. basal rea was used control c and Compv Grade, hr control g beginning year, pm Synthetir test scov 1 Could 59. are as f d. 41 basal reader which utilizes the analytic approach. A synthetic approach was used with the experimental group. At the end of first grade the control group (analytic) was significantly superior in both Vocabulary and Comprehension on the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. By second grade, however, the experimental group had become equivalent to the control group."2 In the same year Hartlage reported a study comparing three beginning reading approaches. The findings from the study after one year, produced opposite results from the Putnam study. The two synthetic approaches gained significantly higher results on post test scores than the analytic approach."3 Gray, in his survey for UNESCO, reviewed all the studies he could secure on comparison of reading methods and his final conclusions are as follows: a. The results of the research do not indicate conclusively which of the various methods now in use is best. b. Specific methods of teaching reading do not secure equally good results among all members of a group. c. Contrasting methods of reading produce different results. d. Good initial progress in reading results from emphasis on both meaning and word recognition.““ “zLillian R. Putnam, "A Comparison of Analytic and Synthetic Methodology in Beginning Reading for Disadvantaged Children" (speech given at the Annual Convention of International Reading Association, Detroit, May 10-13, 1972), ERIC Ed 064675. “3Lawrence C. Hartlage, "Does It Matter Which Initial Reading Approach Is Used?" (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Education and Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 1972), ERIC Ed 061277. l"'Gray, Chapter VI, p. 116. the home ment of have bee methods the rese Child as 0f the c Physical lDVOlVen in some that the Wilmer r the StUd done 0nl all the COnsjste COuld be ' I 42 Summar Since the Wolf study, in which it was found that factors within the home environment have a greater effect on the intellectual develop- ment of the child than social class alone, many environmental factors have been identified as crucial to this develOpment. As a result, methods to intervene and alter these factors have been studied and the research indicates changes in the intellectual development in the child as a result of this intervention. Programs that include parents in the intellectual development of the child have provided a variety of models. The models vary in the physical setting for instruction and the degree and type of parent involvement. The goals of these intervention programs were aimed at the enhancement of the intellectual and academic growth of the child. The study which was done by the Southwest Regional Laboratory in some respects, most closely parallels this study. That study found that the parent-assisted learning program reversed the previously noted summer regression trend of test scores of post kindergarten children in the study. Studies comparing reading methods have for the most part been done only in traditional school settings. The literature reveals, in all the studies reported, that no conclusion could be drawn as to a consistently better method of teaching reading to all children. Although no study comparing reading methods used by parents could be found, it seems that comparative research with methodology in the traditional classroom with a trained teacher differs enough from my learning in ti is that amp that :he Hopet 111; from :on‘ readi mg l ident ify readi lg t will Jut desig i 0 and 1 1e 43 from instruction parents might offer their children in a very different learning-teaching situation to warrant an investigation of methodology in this rather unique setting. Further, if programs are to be developed that employ parents as teachers of their children, then it is imperative that the best possible methods for that particular situation be used. Hopefully, these decisions can be based on empirical data collected from controlled research projects. This study is an attempt to define two methods of teaching reading readiness, used by parents with their own children, by identifying those aspects of readiness, listening, and beginning reading affected by the procedures employed. The following chapter will outline in detail the procedures followed in this study, the design of the study, the instruments for collection of the data, and the statistical tools used to treat the data. Browr all to 96 “ti 3 Sl) we WES ll ide t0 de Iel strm tUr for i jen aUdil )ry that ver readi ies of la ‘9“ of t, a C ”3'“ m the F Ire Rite, th 0” ’6 ml CHAPTER III DESIGN AND PROCEDURES Introduction For three years the parents of kindergarten children in the Brownell and Gundry Community Schools in Flint, Michigan were invited to participate in a parent-administered reading readiness program for a six-week session during the summer. Each year an arbitrary decision was made about which materials the parents would use with their children to develop reading readiness skills. During the first summer of the program, parents used a very structured synthetic approach which carefully developed the skills for identifying letters by sound and provided a review of visual and auditory discrimination skills. The following summer, the materials that were used represented an entirely different approach to teaching readiness skills. This approach basically employed an analytic method of language experience whereby the reading words encountered were those of the child's own vocabulary, however, the program did not provide a systematic method for teaching phonic skills. During the third year, the parents were allowed to select the method to use with their child. After three years, little was known about the effect of either method on readiness or beginning reading and a decision to use one method over 44 another define t of readi the prev two Flin to parti program. industri The DOpu and rela it is H would ha indusuy for that the fasth Years be from the 45 another could not be defended. The purpose of this study was to define the two programs by looking at the results of a post test of readiness and follow-up tests of listening and beginning reading. The sample for this study was drawn from the same source as the previous programs. The parents of kindergarten children in the two Flint elementary schools were again invited for the fourth year to participate in the summer parent administered reading readiness program. Population Flint, Michigan, the city selected for the study, is an industrial city located in the lower half of the lower peninsula. The population of 200,000 residents depend largely upon the automobile and related industries for employment. In times of economic prosperity, it is likely that the majority of middle and upper-lower class children would have one or both parents employed in some phase of the automobile industry. The two elementary schools, Brownell and Gundry, were built in the past 20 years to accommodate the rapid development of residential areas in the northeast section of the city. The school's communities border on the east and west and provide the public elementary education for that northeastern section. This particular section has experienced the fastest population growth and turnover in the city in the past l0 years because the flow to the northwest has been the major exit route from the overpopulated urban-renewed inner core of the city. innel oi the nne perilhert a la! k 0 the' ast COlTITl tme an 9 r0] tota k1 270 :lSt the amp and iund to tlelr abOU ; a Dare,ts Work an) iden?lCa Dare.t c hOUr 0f diffl‘er 46 Both schools' communities housed relocated or newly located inner city residents along with a sprinkling of residents who fled the inner city fifteen years prior to find a bit of "country" in the periphery of the city. It was suspected that upheaval of people caused a lack of community and school loyalty among parents and children. In the past, programs for parents have experienced greater success if the commitment was for a short period of time. Each of the two kindergarten through sixth grade schools had an enrollment of above 800 students at the time of the study. The total kindergarten population in the two schools was approximately 270 distributed in nine classrooms and it was from this population the sample of 42 subjects was self selected. Procedures In early Spring of 1973, all kindergarten children in Brownell and Gundry Schools were given a notice in the form of a letter to take to their parents, notifying the parents of an informational meeting about a summer program for parents and kindergarten children. Many parents in these two communities work in automobile factories and may work any of the three shifts, therefore it was necessary to schedule identical meetings during the morning, afternoon, and evening. The parent could select from three identical meetings held at different hours of the day. Each school held their own three meetings with different personnel directing the meeting. with the program Materia‘ parent I intereS' and phor was to e PFOg ram Sl'Sllled l "ho had to this “We to Signed l 0f read adminisi DP‘OQram. Dl‘intjn the letl policy grade t they ha. parents “her f 47 These informational meetings lasted approximately 45 minutes with the objective being to inform the parents of the purpose of the program and of the commitment necessary to participate in the program. Materials were displayed and a short slide presentation of former parent programs was shown. If the parents thought they might be interested in participating in the program, their names, addresses, and phone numbers were written on a list. Part of the parents' commitment to participate in the program was to attend two training sessions prior to the beginning of the program. The first training session involved all parents who had signed up for the program at the first meeting and any other parents who had changed their mind and decided to participate. Invitations to this first training session were by letters the children carried home to their parents and by phone calls to those parents who had signed up for the program at the first meeting. The agenda for the first training session included an overview of reading readiness skills and the teaching skills necessary for administering the program to the child. One skill crucial to both programs, that parents needed to master, was the manuscript form of printing used at the school. Since the children would learn to print the letters it was important that parents be consistent with the school policy on the manuscript form of letters they printed. Thus, one first grade teacher from each school presented this skill to the parents and they had an opportunity to practice this skill on primary paper. Later parents used this skill by role playing both parent and child with each other for experience in printing dictated stories. assigned so that group. ings dep 'Parents assigned concentr dl’ads, r Child wi They wer thEir r0 S“miller ; one day library at eaCh parent E material each WEE for the "Merl, iMDOSEd 48 After the first training session parents were randomly assigned within each building to one of the two instructional programs. so that parents and children from both schools were in each experimental group. The second training session was divided into two separate meet- ings dependent on the program assignment. The parents assigned to "Parents Teaching Reading" met together and separate of parents assigned to "Sketch n' Tell." The focus of this second meeting concentrated on the instructional materials. The parents worked in dyads, role playing with each other the role of the parent and of the child with each parent taking turns playing both parent and child. They were encouraged to offer each other constructive feedback in their role as instructor. Treatment One week after the closing of the 1972-73 school year the summer program began. Parents came to a designated room in the school one day each week to pick up the week's instructional packet. Also library books, appropriate for kindergarten children, were available at each site. To offer further guidance and encouragement to the parent a paraprofessional was on duty at each site. The parents spent approximately one hour each day using the materials with their children. A portion of the materials were returned each week to be handed to the supervising paraprofessional in exchange for the new packet of materials. Turning in portions of the completed materials helped keep parents on schedule with their instruction as it imposed a weekly deadline. At the e refreshn complrec rien e W m6thld. I §K§£2h ' \ 49 This treatment continued each week for six consecutive weeks. At the end of the program, parents and children were treated to refreshments and both were given awards for completing the program. Instructional Materials The instructional materials represent the two methods to be compared. The Sketch 'N' Tell Program represents the language expe- rience method and the Parents Teachinngeading reflects a phonic method. Sketch 'N' Tell Sketch 'N' Tell described in Creative Experiences in Language Development by the authors, Marsh and Prins, is "a teacher-directed creative language development program." It is further described by its intended use: "Sketch 'N' Tell can be used with equally effective results as a language experience supplement because it readily complements most language and reading programs now in use."1 The materials include six consumable student booklets with accompanying instruction manuals for teacher or parent use. The books are organized according to an interest order of children which begins with self and builds out from that base to include friends, family, objects, fantasy, and personal thoughts. lHerman E. Marsh and Jan Prins, Sketch 'N' Tell, in Creative Experiences in LanguageADevelopment, Electronic Futures, Inc., 57 Dodge Avenue, North Haven, Connecticut 06473, l97l, p. l. for the booklet languag cation. Appendi Parents by Elai Mott In Brownel booklet: for the Student DFESent, fmmlWOI 50 Each student booklet develops a topic by providing a structure for the language development and an accompanying art experience. Each booklet centers on self and moves from that point to capitalize on the language and experience of the child through oral and written communi- cation. A sample of a Sketch 'N' Tell booklet can be found in Appendix A. Parents TeachingReading Parents Teaching_Reading is an unpublished program compiled by Elaine Weber, Carolyn Farquhar and Bettye Jennings for use in the Mott Institute for Community Improvement parent program at Gundry and Brownell Elementary Schools, Flint, Michigan. The phonic program is a series of six consumable student booklets which include activities for the student and instructions for the parent's use. Each booklet provides activities for the student to explore a consonant letter visually and auditorially when presented as a single letter and when grouped with other letters to form words. The six consonants presented are S, T, B, D, F, and M. Each booklet presents graduated activities for making gross to fine visual and auditory discriminations. Also included in the daily lesson is a story which makes use of alliteration of the con- sonant being presented. The stories are accompanied by structured questions for discussion of the story. The booklets are further designed so that previously presented letters are reviewed throughout the later booklets. A sample of a Parents Teaching Reading booklet can be found in Appendix B. lest, L llacGini as both erative Primary nine-mo Mary E, Brace a listeni which i are two and rel Dre san des rel rel and gar alt are kl'r| l'nt Yearbo 51 Tests used in this study include the Metropolitan Readiness Test, Listening Test of the Cooperative Primary Tests and the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. The Metropolitan Readiness Tests were used as both pre- and posttest measures. The Listening Test of the Coop- erative Primary Tests was used as a five-month follow-up test. The Primary Test of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests was used as a nine-month follow-up test. The Metropolitan Readiness Test by Gertrude H. Hildreth, Mary E. McGauvron, and Nellie S. Griffiths was published by Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., in 1969. Six subtests which are word meaning, listening, matching, alphabet, numbers, copying, and a seventh test which is Optional (draw-a-man) constitute this readiness test. There are two forms (A and B) of this test. Dykstra of the University of Minnesota reports on the validity and reliability of this test. He states that: predictive validity is reported for a number of different samples. . . . The test authors do a convincing job of describing the validity of the test by discussing the relevance of the content by demonstrating the test's relationship with other measures of school readiness and by relating success in later achievement.2 He further reports on the reliability of MRT when he states: Reliability data, reported for first grade and kinder- garten children, were computed using both split-half and alternate form techniques. Reliability for the total test are generally above .90 for pupils tested at the end of kindergarten or early grade I. The reliability of the test appears adequate for the purpose for which it is intended.3 2Oscar Krisen Buros, ed., The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook, vol. 2 (New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1972), p. 1776. 3Ibid., p. 1176. of the ( EdUCdtl( are six LlStenll The LlS‘ by a re« 0f the ‘ mg. SerI tes- sam can obt 0f the two not' sam flc' Y‘ep the USed as Arthur 52 The five-month follow-up test used was the Listening Test of the Cooperative Primary Tests. These tests were published by Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey in l967. There are six test titles in the Primary Test Series: The Pilot Test, The Listening Test, Word Analysis, Mathematics, Reading and Hriting Skills. The Listening Test is a group paper and pencil test and is administered by a regular classroom teacher. Listening as defined by the authors of the test refers to comprehension, recall, and interpretation. In a March l969 review of this test in American Education Research Journal, Kaya reports: In reviewing tests published by the Educational Testing Service one need not be concerned with whether or not the tests are reliable, the norms are based on representative samples, or the forms are adequately equated. Indeed, ETS can hardly be surpassed in efficiency and thoroughness in obtaining and reporting test data.“ Hanna points to three deficiencies in the reliability section of the handbook: First, no data on reliability over periods exceeding two weeks are reported. Second, reliability data are not reported for separate schools but only for pooled samples of several schools. Third, reliability coef- ficients and standard errors of measurement are not reported at all for various levels of performance on the respective tests.5 The Primary A Test of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests was used as the nine-month follow-up measure. This test was written by Arthur 1. Gates and Walter H. MacGinitie and was published by Teachers “Ibid., p. 24. 5Ibid., p. 25. Colleg A Test vocabu Gates- the tr, He fur' range ‘ interes reliab' ‘0 appr this St buildin l'llpossi sets an “2(2) (1 Ex "in. 063, I 53 College Press, Columbia University, New York, in 1965. The Primary A Test is designed for use at the end of first grade and measures vocabulary and comprehension. Van Roekel of Michigan State University reports that: “the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests have been carefully standardized and the tryout samples and norming group appear to have been adequate."6 He further discusses the reliability: “The alternate form reliabilities range from .78 to .89 except on speed and accuracy subtests. Also the interest correlations fall substantially below alternate-form reliabilities."7 The Design In formulating the design for this study an attempt was made to approximate a true experimental design. However, the subjects for this study were drawn from nine separate classrooms housed in two buildings, and random assignment of the sample to two groups was impossible. Therefore, it was necessary to randomly assign within sets and the design became a modification of quasi-experimental design (lZC) described by Campbell and Stanley.8 The Quasi—Experimental design lZC titled, "Separate Samples, Pretest-Post Test Design," utilizes separate samples and could be 6Ibid.. p. 1082. 7Ibid., p. 1082. 8Donald Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, Experimental and Qpasi- Experimental Designs for Research (Chicago: RandlMcNally and Company, 1963), p. 40. modifiel for thi: 1 Building Building 7 treatmE testinE the efl DFOCQdL adviSe manife'» modified to accommodate this study. The modification which was used for this study is diagrammed as follows (Figure l). .3 l x] ,3 '- 1 :2 S 1 m X2 2 3 4 an X .5 l x; EEC“ 1 x1 5 x2 2 3 4 1 Metropolitan Readiness Test (Form A) 02 Metropolitan Readiness Test (Form B) 03 Cooperative Primary Test (Listening) 04 Gates MacGinitie Primary Reading Test X1 Parents Teaching Reading (Phonics) X2 Sketch 'N' Tell (Language Experience) Figure l. Model of Quasi-Experimental Design. The pretested and not pretested children are represented in both treatment groups in each building. The purpose served by randomly pre- testing the children was to rule out the plausible rival hypothesis of the effect of testing or of maturation. Campbell and Stanley discuss procedures for control of these sources of internal validity when they advise: "Maturation and testing are controlled in that they should be manifested equally in experimental and control groups."9 9Ibid., p. 14. Pretes within buildi treatmi dassn each bl DrEte51 to be ( COODerg Test ar BUlldin Variab] (l. Pre W three t indeDen indeDen l e., ( and Pl‘e 55 The design in this study differs from the Separate-Sample, Pretest-Post Test Design in that the samples were randomly assigned within each classroom for pretesting and the volunteer group from each building was randomly assigned within each building to one of the two treatment groups. The random assignment to the pretest within the classrooms and the random assignment to the two treatment groups within each building created three variables in this study, i.e., building, pretest, and programs. The following design diagrams the eight cells to be compared in this study (Figure 2). The six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test, the Cooperative Listening Test and the Gates MacGinitie Primary Reading Test are the dependent variables. The Independent Variables are Building, Treatment, and Pretest/Not Pretest. Treatment of Data Each subject in the study was categorized by the independent variables, i.e., (a) Building--(l. Gundry and 2. Brownell); (b) Pretest-- (l. Pretested and 2. Not Pretested); and (c) Program--(l. Parents Teach- ing Reading and 2. Sketch 'N' Tell). Comparisons of raw scores of the three tests which were dependent variables were made for each of the independent variables individually. Then the interactions of the independent variables were compared, in all possible combinations; i.e., (l) Building and Program, (2) Building and Pretest, (3) Program and Pretest, and (4) Building, Program, and Pretest. .mcowuargummo F_mo .N mczmwm 56 N “5.53:. 8332a 8 F 2953: uoz m. , m... N pcmapmmg» .w umummpmea .c P pcmsummcp N 95.5me.. 3539:. ma — 2953.; poz m N Newspowgh .w umummumca .L F pcmsumogp c i or w «id... 3 32238.8 @2332, 3.23m: m m d .4 5 ea 252308 m. m m w a we :2 rest“. m N m m. w. .w «£532 323 1 5 .w pump mmocwcomm cmuwpogogpwz 57 Two analyses of variance techniques, univariate analysis of variance and multivariate analysis of variance, were used in this study for establishing significant differences between means. The analysis was conducted in three phases. In phase one the multivariate analysis of variance was employed with the three independent variables and inter- action combinations with the raw scores of the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test. Since the second phase included all independent variables and interaction combinations, but only one dependent variable, the raw score of the Cooperative Listening Test, a univariate analysis of variance was used. Multivariate analysis of variance was used in phase three because it included multiple dependent variables; i.e., the raw scores from two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Primary Reading Test and the three independent variables and the interaction combinations. Multivariate Analysis of Variance was used for phase one and phase three of the analysis because the six raw scores of the subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test were used as six dependent variables and the two raw scores of the subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Primary Test were used as two dependent variables. Rationale for selection of this analysis of variance is offered by Bock and Haggard in Chapter III, "The Use of Multivariate Analysis of Variance in Behavioral Research," in Hhitla. Typical multivariate problems in behavioral research involve both multiple independent and multiple dependent variables. Some of the independent variables may represent classes or cross classifications of an experimental design. va th le Pr 58 Others may be continuous measures carrying information about the experimental units (usually subjects). The purpose in applying multivariate statistical analysis to these problems is to determine how and to what extent the independent variable explains or predicts the responses of the subjects represented in the dependent variables.'° Multivariate Analysis is further defined by Cattells. Multivariate analysis of variance, like the more familiar univariate analysis of variance, focuses upon differences between groups or between experimental con- ditions. In analysis of variance, the matter at issue is that of systematic differences in performance between groups of subjects, with groups defined by the levels of classification of one or more independent variables.11 The level of significance was set at .05 for each dependent variable. The level of significance for each of the six subtest of the Metropolitan Readiness Test is .05 divided by six or .008. The level of significance for the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Primary Reading Tests is .05 divided by 2 or .025. Statement of Hypotheses A number of null hypotheses were tested in the study. Since the purpose of the study was to determine any differences caused by the effect of the program, it first was necessary to determine the effects of the other two variables, i.e., building and pretested on the three measures and the effects caused by their interaction. 1°Dean K. Nhitla, ed., Handbook of Measurement and Assessment in Behavioral Science (Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1968), p. 100. 11Raymond B. Cattell, Handbook of Multivariate Expermental Psychology (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966), p. 2451 differ neasur lA. it was the pm the ef 28. 59 The first three null hypotheses were generated to determine differences that may have been caused by building on each of the three measures . 1A. 3A. Null Hypothesis: No difference will be found between the mean scores of subjects in Gundry School and the mean scores of subjects in Brownell School on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test. Null Hypothesis: No difference will be found between the mean scores of subjects in Gundry School and the mean scores of subjects in Brownell School on the Cooperative Listening Test. Null Hypothesis: No difference will be found between the mean scores of subjects in Gundry School and the mean scores of subjects from Brownell School on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. Since the subjects were randomly pretested, within each building, it was necessary to determine differences that may have been caused by the pretest. The following three hypotheses were generated to determine the effects of the pretest on the three measures. 18. 23. Null Hypothesis: No difference will be found between the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test. Null Hypothesis: No difference will be found between the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and 33. mi ab three 1A8. 2A8. 3A8 . 3B. 60 subjects who were not pretested on the Cooperative Listening Test. Null Hypothesis: No difference will be found between the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. In order to determine if there was an interaction of the two variables, building and pretest, on the three measures, the following three hypotheses were incorporated in the study. 1A3. 2A8. 3A8. Null Hypothesis: No interaction will be found in mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and Brownell School and mean scores of the subjects that were pretested and subjects that were not pretested on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test. Null Hypothesis: No interaction will be found in mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and Brownell School and mean scores of the subjects that were pretested and subjects that were not pretested on the Cooperative Listening Test. Null Hypothesis: No interaction will be found in mean scores of subjects from Gundry and Brownell Schools and the mean scores of subjects that were pretested and subjects that were not pretested on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. the on de‘ re‘ pr: 61 To determine if there was a difference in the effects of the two experimental programs on the mean scores of the subjects on the three measures, the following three null hypotheses were develOped. In each statement of hypothesis the term "Program l" refers to subjects who received Parents TeachingiReading (phonics program) and Program 2 refers to subjects who received Sketch 'N' Tell (language experience programs). 1C. 2C. 30. Null Hypothesis: No difference will be found between the mean scores of subjects who received Program l and the mean scores of subjects who received Program 2 on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Tests. Null Hypothesis: No difference will be found between the mean scores of subjects who received Program l and the mean scores of subjects who received Program 2 on the Cooperative Listening Test. Null Hypothesis: No difference will be found between the mean scores of subjects who received Program l and the mean scores of subjects who received Program 2 on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. The following three hypotheses were developed to determine the interaction effects of the two variables, building and program. lAC. Null Hypothesis: No interaction will be found between the mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and Brownell School and the mean scores of subjects who received Program I and Program 2 on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test. ZAC. 3AC. 62 Null Hypothesis: No interaction will be found between the mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and Brownell School and the mean scores of subjects who received Program l and Program 2 on the Cooperative Listening Test. Null Hypothesis: No interaction will be found between the mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and Brownell School and the mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and Program 2 on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. To determine effects of the interaction of the two variables, program and pretest, on the three measures, the following hypotheses were developed. lBC. ZBC. 3BC. Null Hypothesis: No interaction will be found between the mean scores of subjects who received Program l and Program 2 and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test. Null Hypothesis: No interaction will be found between the mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and Program 2 and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the Cooperative Listening Test. Null Hypothesis: No interaction will be found between the mean scores of subjects who received Program l and Program 2 and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. 63 To determine effects of the interaction of the three variables, building, pretest, and program, on the three measures, the following hypotheses were developed. lABC. 2ABC. 3ABC. Null Hypothesis: No interaction will be found between the mean scores of the variables, building, pretested and not pretested, and programs on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test. Null Hypothesis: No interaction will be found between the mean scores of the variables, building, pretested and not pretested, and programs on the Cooperative Listening Test. Null Hypothesis: No interaction will be found between the mean scores of the variables, building, pretested and not pretested, and programs on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. Summary This study of parent-administered reading readiness programs was conducted with post kindergarten children of parents who volunteered to participate from two elementary schools in Flint, Michigan. The subjects were randomly pretested and randomly assigned to one of two different reading readiness programs within each school. Training sessions for parents, separated by school and program, included general instruction skills and familiarization with the instructional materials. In each school a paraprofessional supervised this six-week. parent- administered program by meeting weekly with the parents to collect and distribute the instructional materials. 64 The design of this study is quasi-experimental with randomized samples of pretested/not pretested subjects and both programs within each of the two buildings creating three independent variables, i.e., building, pretest, and program. Each set of four cells from both buildings contain a randomized sample of subjects by pretest and program. Subjects were post tested in September with the Metropolitan Readiness Test and two follow-up tests; i.e., The Cooperative Listen- ing Test and the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. A multivariate analysis of variance and a univariate analysis of variance were the statistical tools used to process the data. The level of significance was set at .05. ' Twenty-one null hypotheses were tested in this study. Nine of the null hypotheses were tested to determine the effect the three vari- ables, building, pretest, and program, had on the three measures. The other twelve hypotheses served to determine if there was an interaction of mean scores on the three measures. Findings from the tested hypotheses will be reported in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Hypotheses Twenty-one null hypotheses were tested in this study. Six of these hypotheses were developed to determine any effects on the three measures that may have been caused by the independent variables, building and pretest. To determine if a statistically significant interaction of the independent variables existed on the three measures, twelve null hypotheses were tested. The remaining three hypotheses were designed to test for significant differences that may have been caused by the two reading readiness methods on the three measures of readiness, listening, and beginning reading. 0n the hypotheses that stated measures that produced multiple dependent variables; i.e., Metropolitan Readiness Tests and Gates MacGinitie Reading Test, a multivariate analysis of variance with the total level of significance of difference set at .05, was the statistical technique employed to test the hypotheses. Hypotheses that stated measures producing a single dependent variable, i.e., The Cooperative Listening Test, a univariate analysis of variance with the level of significance of difference set at .05, was the statistical technique used to test the hypotheses. 65 66 Results of Data The following three tables, Table l, Table 2, and Table 3, are to identify the standard deviations and mean scores of the eight cells produced by the three independent variables; i.e., building, pretest, and program, and their cell frequencies which totaled 42. Each table identifies the mean scores and standard deviations for one of the three dependent variables. Table 1 reports the results of the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Tests given as a posttest measure of readiness. Table 2 identifies the results of the follow-up measure of listening; i.e., The Cooperative Listening Test. To report the results of the beginning reading measure, the third table (Table 3) was included to list the mean scores and standard deviations of the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. Hypotheses lA, 2A, and 3A In Hypotheses lA, 2A, and 3A the mean scores of subjects from Gundry School were compared to the mean scores of subjects from Brownell School on the three measures: readiness, listening, and beginning reading. The null hypothesis lA was: HOlA: There are no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and subjects from Brownell School on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test. Analysis of data suggested that a statistically significant difference existed between the mean scores of subjects from Gundry 67 .meoum mg» mo Neon mzu co xum>wuomwazm mmcwzcmc mcwxaou ummuoam one a .umwpmga a cm>vm uoc muummnam --nmpmmumcm poz ucm mummupmoa m mm ammk mmmcwummm cmgwpoaogpmz ms» cm>wm mpumhnamiiummumca ”ppmp .z. coumxm--N Emcmoca mmcwnmmm macummH mpcmgmaiip Emgaoca “cmmwcowz .ucw_u .Foocum PpmczocmuiN mcwc_w:m ”cmm_50wz .ucwpd .Foocum xgncaoi-F mcwupwsmm Neuz M. m mm. no.m mo.m mm.a_ mm.— oo.mF mm. mm.op mo.N mm.P~ mP._ No.0_ w Eccmoca Mwnw em. a. m. N we.m m¢.m mw.N oo.N_ oo.F oo.mp om.N PN.NF ow.F ep.o~ mm.m om.w N Emcmoca p. nu p d m N FN. om.e mN.N om.o_ mm.o om.m mm.e om.w «N.e oo.m NF.N om.m o Emcmoca a 7a m. S o_ 00,— om.w mm.N om.mpg mN.m ON.mP mN.m oN.m m¢.m oo.m FF.m op.m m Ewcmoca mm m _¢.P oo._p ¢¢.¢ 0N.m_ mm._ oo.¢P NN.< om.mp Pp.m ow.m No.P oo.m a Emcmoca m. m.wu 344 m. m No.m oo.PP ON.m om.v_ em. ON.m_ mN.F oo.- —v.F oo.N_ NP.N oo.NF m Emcmoca m. ”u p d m o wo.m mm._p mN.m NF.m~ mN.p Nm.¢_ _m.¢ o—.op em. om.op mN.F 00.x N Eocmoca m u. 1+ m e mm.N oo._P om.m mN.oP om. mN.m_ op.N oo.o— om.m om.F_ mm._ oo.pp F Emcmocm mw z .o.m .w .o.m .m .o.m .m .o.m .m .o.m .m .o.m M” .02 mmmpnmwcm> Pqu acwucmamucu nmcwxaou mgma532 pmnw;a_< E mcwgupmz m:_cmumw4 mcwcmmz ucoz mummwnam xwm so; mcowpmw>mv egoucmum ucm wands Fpmu .Apmmupmogv ummh mmmcwwmmm couppoaocumz any mo mu_=mmm ._ mpame 68 Table 2. Cooperative Listening Test (five-month follow-up test), cell means and standard deviations a Cell __ Independent Variables No. X 5.0. N Program l 32.50 13.30 4 Pretested Program 2 2 27.00 7.51 6 Building 1 Gundry School Program 3 31.40 3.78 5 Not Pretested Program 2 4 29.80 6.38 5 —T——fl_—f——__r———J Program 5 22.60 8.25 10 Pretested Program 6 25.50 6.36 2 Building 2 Brownell School Program 7 32.43 4.83 7 Not Pretested Program 8 36.00 5.20 3 ==42 aProgram 1--Parent Teaching_Reading: Program 2--Sketch 'N' Tell; and Pretested--Subjects who were given the Metropolitan Readiness Test as a pretest: Not Pretested--Subjects who were given no pretest. .ummumca o: cm>wm mew: on: muumwnzm -ivmummumca poz mummumga a mm pmmN mmmcwummm cmpwwoaocpmz mg“ cm>Nm mew: o5: muomnnzm uuumummumca can uppmh .z. gupmxmiiN Emcmoga mmcwummm cmgummN pcwgmauip Emcmosam 69 Neuz m = mo.N Nm.NN =op.m Nm.me N Emcmoca umummpmca . . . . poz N oo 0 me PN mm NP oo mm N Emcmoca Noosum Npmczocm N No.N oo._, Nm.m. oo.mN N seemoea N N=PU_P=N vmummumga op mm.m om.m_ mm.w oe.Nm N Emcmoga . . . . an m .ifi oo o oo mNAw NN m ow me N Emcmoga umammumga . . . . go: o mN.o No.NN om.op N_.om N Engage; N occupwzm umummpmca e «N.o mN.om we.m mN.Ne N smgmoga z .o.m .m .o.m .m mmmpnmwcm> pcmucmamucm = :oncmszasoo xgopznmuo> mcowumw>mu ucmvcmpm Npmu um>gmmno ucm mcmme Npmu um>cmmao .Nmpmmpnam 03pv pmmN mcwummm xcwswca wwuwcwuumz mmumw .m mNnmN 70 Nquz Nooo. Nomw. memo. NmeN. opmp. NovN. cusp mmmN a .MMI . oo.m mo.m_ Nm.mN oo.op mm.m Nm.m Noozum Npmczogm . N mcwup_=m ON oN.__ mN.m_ om.¢N ON.NN om.op mN.m Noogum agucaw N mcwu—Nsm z mcwxaou mcmaszz uwnm;a_< mcwgoumz mcwcmpmNN mcwcmmz mm—nmwcm> ago: pcmucmamuca Nooo. gasp mam, a mNNm.NN uwpm_uapm :2. o .d.o pmmN mmmcwummm cmpwpoqogpmz mcu No mummgazm me mzu co Noocom NchzoLm Eoce muumwaam new Noocum xcuczu soc» mgomnnzm No mucoum come msg :mmzpmn mucmwgm> mo mwmxpmcm mpmwcm>wppss a No mupzmmm .e mpnmh 71 School (Building 1) and subjects from Brownell School (Building 2) (Table 4). An "F" statistic of 12.517 yielded a probability less than .0001 and the null hypothesis was rejected. The analysis of data further suggested that statistically significant differences existed between the univariate mean scores of the sixth subtest (copying). An "F" statistic of 62.426 yielded a probability of .0001 which is below the level of significant set at .008 for each univariate. The null hypothesis 2A was: H02A: There are no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and subjects from Brownell School on the Cooperative Listening Test. Analysis of data suggested that there was no significant difference between the mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and subjects from Brownell School on the Cooperative Listening Test (Table 5). Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected. Table 5. Results of a univariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and subjects from Brownell School on the Cooperative Listening Test D.F. 1 "F" Statistic .8213 p less than .3712 Independent __ Variables X N Building 1 Gundry School 29.90 20 Building 2 Brownell School 27.82 22 72 The null hypothesis 3A was: HO3A: There are no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and subjects from Brownell School on the two subtests of Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. Analysis of data suggested that statistically significant differences existed between the mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and subjects from Brownell School on the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test (Table 6). An "F" statistic of 6.4031 yielded a probability less than .0045 and the null hypothesis was rejected. Table 6. Results of a multivariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and subjects from Brownell School on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test D.F. 2 "F" Statistic 6.4031 p less than .0045 Independent Variables Vocabulary Comprehension N Building 1 Gundry School 40.30 25.75 20 Building 2 Brownell School 38.82 18.55 _22_ p less than .0279 .0010 N=42 Subjects from Building 1 (Gundry School) produced a higher mean score on both univariates and the analysis of data suggested that a statistically significant difference existed between the univariate 73 mean scores of the subtest, Comprehension. An "F" statistic of 13.1893 yielded a probability less than .001 which is below the univariate level of significance set at .025. The subtest, Vocabulary, produced an "F" statistic of 5.2793 which yielded a probability of .0279 which was close to the univariate level of significance set at .025. Hypotheses 18, 2B, and 3B In hypotheses 18, 2B, and 33, the mean scores of the subjects classified by subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested were compared on the three measures of readiness, listening, and reading. The null hypothesis 1B was: HolB: There are no significant differences between the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Tests. Analysis of the data suggested that there were no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the Metropolitan Readiness Test (Table 7). Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected. Neither group produced consistently higher mean scores on all six subtests. However, the group that was pretested produced a mean score on the subtest, alphabet, that approached the significance level set at .008 with p less than .0280. 74 Nmpm. Nmmm. omNo. Nomw. mama. mNNN. can» mmmp a flaw. om.m Nm.m_ om.m_ Pm.o_ mN.oN mN.m omummumca #02 NN No.0 oo.m_ mm.v_ N¢.oN NN.oN om.m umummumca z mcwxaoo mcmne:z pmamcap< mcwgupmz mcwcmpmNN mcwcmmz mwNnmNLm> ego: ucwucmqmccH NNNN. gasp mmm_ a _ NNNN._ uppmwuepm =2: e .a.o mammN mmmcwummm cmpNNoaocumz any No mummunzm me co umummpwca no: mew; on; mpumwnzm use umummamca mew: ox; mpumnnzm No mmcoom came :mmzumn mocmwcm> No mwm>_mcm mpmwcm>wgpze a No mupzmma .N mNamN 75 The null hypothesis for 28 was: H02B: There are no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the Cooperative Listening Test. The univariate analysis of data suggested that there were no statistically significant differences in the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the Cooperative Listening Test (Table 8). Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected. Table 8. Results of a univariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the Cooperative Listening Test D.F. 1 "F" Statistic .0490 p less than .8254 Independent ._ Variables X N Pretested 28.45 26 Not pretested 29.37 _1§_ N=42 The null hypothesis for 38 was: H038: There are no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. 76 Analysis of data suggested that there were no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test (Table 9). Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected. Table 9. Results of a multivariate analysis of variance between the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test D.F. 2 "F" Statistic 1.5563 p less than .2261 Independent Variables Vocabulary Comprehension N Pretested 35.27 21.42 26 Not pretested 39.56 22.87 _16_ p less than .4861 .3956 N==42 Hypotheses lAB, 2AB, and 3AB In Hypotheses 1A8, 2A8, and 3AB the mean scores of subjects from each of the two buildings and the mean scores of subjects that were pretested and subjects who were not pretested within each building were compared to determine if there was an interaction effect of these two independent variables on the three dependent variables of measures of readiness, listening, and beginning reading. The null hypothesis lAB was: 77 HolAB: There are no significant interactions between the mean scores of subjects from Building 1 and Building 2 and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test. The analysis of data suggested that a statistically significant interaction exists: mean scores of subjects pretested and subjects not pretested in Building 1 versus mean scores of subjects pretested and subjects not pretested in Building 2. An "F" statistic of 3.8497 yielded a probability of less than .0061 and the null hypothesis was rejected. The analysis of data further suggested that the difference between the mean scores of subjects pretested and subjects not pre- tested in Building 1 was different from the difference between the mean scores of subjects pretested and subjects not pretested in Building 2. One possible contributing factor to the total significant interaction is the subtest, word meaning, in which the probability was less than .0093 which is very close to the individual univariate level of significance set at .008. The null hypothesis 2AB was: HOZAB: There are no significant interactions between the mean scores of subjects from Building 1 and subjects from Building 2 and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the Cooperative Listening Test. The analysis of data suggested that no statistically significant interaction existed between the mean scores of subjects from each school 78 mNNN. omom. memo. oNON. mvNN. mmoo. can» mmmF a Nwi. om.m om.m_ ON.__ ON.N 04.0. ON.o_ uapmaamea “oz Fooeum NPaczOLN N mcwupwzm NN NN.¢ Nm.e_ em.m_ mm.op N¢.m N¢.w nmwmmumca Noocum Npmczocm N mcwupwam NF NN.NN w_.mN eo.ep mN.NN m_.oN NN.m cmummumgm poz Noocom Ngucau _ newep_=m m oo.NN mm.m_ NN.mN mm.op mN._N om.NN umummumgm Noozum zguczw _ mcwupwsm z mcwxaou mcmnE:z umnocap< mcwcuuoz mcwcmpmNN mcwcmmz mmNDNNLo> pcmucmamucH ego: Nooo. seep mma_ a NmeN.N uwpmwpmpm :2. m .a.o pmmh mmmcwuomm cmpwpoaocpmz mg“ No mummpnzm xwm mgu :o umummamga no: age umpmmumga use Appwczocm new xcvczwv mcwu_wsn ma umNNLommumu mpumnazm No mmgoom came cmmzumn mocmwgm> No mwmxpmcm mpmNLN>NNN=E ms“ No mppammm .ON mNDNN 79 and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested within each school on the Cooperative Listening Test (Table 11). Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected. Table 11. Results of the univariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects categorized by building (Gundry and Brownell) and pretested and not pretested on the Cooperative Listening Test D.F. 1 "F" Statistic 1.7732 p less than .1919 Independent Variables 7' N Building 1 Pretested 31.89 9 Gundry School Not pretested 28.27 11 Building 2 Pretested 26.65 17 Brownell School Not pretested 31.80 __J§ N=42 The null hypothesis 3AB was: H03AB: There are no significant interactions between the mean scores of subjects from building 1 and subjects from building 2 and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. Analysis of data suggested that no statistically significant interaction existed between the mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and subjects from Brownell School and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested within each school on the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test (Table 12). Therefore the hypothesis was not rejected. 80 Table 12. Results of the multivariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects categorized by building (Gundry and Brownell) and pretested and not pretested on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test D.F. 2 "F" Statistic .9719 p less than .3890 Independent Variables Vocabulary Comprehension N Building 1 Pretested 40.22 28.22 9 Gundry School Not pretested 40.36 23.73 11 Building 2 Pretested 32.65 17.82 17 Brownell School Not pretested 37.80 21.00 __3; p less than .5276 .1743 N-42 Hypotheses 1C, 20, and 3C In Hypotheses 10, 2C, and BC the mean scores of subjects who received Parents Teaching,Reading_(Program l) were compared to the mean scores of subjects who received Sketch 'N' Tell (Program 2) on the three measures: reading, listening, and beginning reading. The null hypothesis 1C was: H010: There are no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test. Analysis of the data suggested that there were no statistically significant differences in the mean scores of subjects who received 81 Program 1 and the mean scores of subjects who received Program 2 on the Metropolitan Readiness Test (Table 13). Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected. Subjects who participated in Program 2 produced higher mean scores on all univariates than subjects who participated in Program 1. Analysis of data suggested a statistically significant difference between the mean scores on the third subtest, matching. An "F" sta- tistic of 8.5222 yielded a probability less than .0062 which is below the level of significance set at .008 for each univariate. The null hypothesis for 20 was: H020: There are no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and the subjects who received Program 2 on the Cooperative Listening Test. Analysis of data suggested that statistically significant differences existed between the mean scores of subjects who participated in Parents TeachipgAReading (Program 1) and subjects who participated in Sketch 'N' Tell (Program 2) on the Cooperative Listening Test (Table 14). An "F" statistic of 7.0468 yielded a probability of significance level of .0120 and the null hypothesis was rejected. The null hypothesis lC was: HolC: There are no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and the mean scores of subjects who received Program 2 on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. 82 eNmm. Nmeo. NNmo. Nooo. eNmm. mmNN. ems» mmmp a a: 8N 8.2 3.: 3.2 2.2 m: :3 .z. :38; N Emgmogm NN mc.N No.4. NN.mN up.m mm.m «N.m ucwummm mcwcummh pcmcma _ Emcmoca z mcwxaou mgNgEsz pmamgap< mcwgupmz mcwcmumNN mcwcmmz mmpnmwco> ucmocmamucH use: come. cusp mmm_ a eNmo.N UNNmNpmpm =N= o .N.o mummN mmmcwummm cmgwpoaocpmz mcu No mummunam xwm mg“ no N Emcmoga um>wmomc on: mpomnaam ccm N Emcmoca um>wmumc 0:3 muumnaam mo mmgoum some :mmzpmn muzmwcm> No mwmemcm mumwcm>wupze w No mppammm .mN mNamN 83 Table 14. Results of a univariate analysis of variance between scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 on the Cooperative Listening Test D.F. 1 "F" Statistic p less than .0120 Independent Variables 7' N Program 1 Parents Teachipg Reading 25.86 22 Program 2 Sketch 'N' Tell 32.05 _gg; N=42 Analysis of the data suggested that there were no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of subjects who received Parents Teaching Reading (Program 1) and subjects who received Sketch 'N' Tell (Program 2) on the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test (Table 15). Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected. Subjects who participated in the Sketch 'N' Tell program (Program 2), produced higher mean scores than subjects who participated in Parents Teaching Readipg_program (Program 1) on both subtests. 0n the subtest,comprehension, an "F" statistic of 5.3555 yielded a prob- ability of less than .0269 which approaches the univariate level of significance set at .025. 84 Table 15. Results of a multivariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test D.F. 2 "F" Statistic 2.6091 p less than .0888 Independent Variables Vocabulary Comprehension N Program 1 Parents Teaching Reading 35.00 19.64 22 Program 2 Sketch 'N' Tell 39.00 24.55 _gg_ p less than .1974 .0269 N=42 Hypotheses lAC,‘2AC, and 3AC In Hypotheses lAC, 2AC, and 3AC mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and subjects from Brownell School and mean scores of subjects who received Parent Teaching_Reading and subjects who received Sketch 'N' Tell within each building were compared to determine if there was a significant interaction on the three measures of readiness, listening, and beginning reading. The null hypothesis lAC was: HolAC: There are no significant interactions of mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and subjects from Brownell School and mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test. The analysis of data suggested that no statistically significant interaction existed between the mean scores of subjects from Brownell 85 School and subjects from Gundry School and the mean scores of subjects who received Parents Teaching Reading and subjects who received Sketch 'N' Tell within each school on the Metropolitan Readiness Test (Table 16). Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected. The null hypothesis 2AC was: H02AC: There are no significant interactions between the mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and subjects from Brownell School and the mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 on the Cooperative Listening Test. The analysis of data suggested that there was not a statisti- cally significant interaction between the mean scores of subjects from each building and the mean scores of subjects participating in the two programs on the Cooperative Listening Test (Table 17). However, the "F" statistic of 3.8364 yielded a probability of less than .0584 which was close to the level of significant difference set at .05. The probability exceeded the level of significance and the null hypothesis was not rejected. The null hypothesis 3AC was: HOBAC: There are no significant interactions between the mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and subjects from Brownell School and mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. The analysis of data suggested that a statistically significant interaction existed between the mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and subjects from Brownell School and the mean scores of 86 .PNmN .z. cuumxmuiN Eggnog; new mcwuwmm.mmwsoomp pcmcmanip Emgmogam Nun ommN.. NeNo. Nmmo. NmNe. omNm. emmm. sag“ mmmp a .NNI om.m oN.N_ oo.m_ oo.NN om.op oc.m N actuate Noogam _chzoam N mcwupwam NF om.¢ mm.NN Nm._N mm.m oo.m mm.m N Emgmoga Noocum Npmczocm N mcwupwam ON oo._N om.ep om.¢N om.NN om.o_ om.oN N Emgaoca Noozum Agucaw N mcwupwzm op ON.N_ om.m_ om.¢~ o_.o— om.o_ 0N.m up smcmoca Noocum Aguczo N mcwupwsm z mcwxaoo meane:z pmnmgap< mcwgoumz mcwcmpmNN mcwcmwz mmpnmwgm> acmucmgmucm ucoz ONNN. can» mmmp a NNNN.N ovumpuagm :2: m .a.o ummN mmchnmmm cmpwpoaocpmz mgu No mpmmpnam xwm mg» co Emgmoga use mcwuppzn >9 umNNcommpmo mpomnnam No mmcoum came cmozpmn wocmwgm> No mpmapmcm mumpcm>wppas mzu No mu—smom .mN wNnmN 87 Table 17. Results of the univariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects categorized by building and programs on the Cooperative Listening Test D.F. 1 "F" Statistic 3.8364 p less than .0584 Independent Variablesa 7' N Building l--Program l 29.20 10 Building l--Program 2 30.60 10 Building 2--Program l 23.08 12 Building 2--Program 2 33.50 .QUI N=42 aBuilding 1, Gundry School; Building 2, Brownell School: and Program 1, Parents Teaching Reading; Program 2, Sketch 'N' Tell. subjects who received Parents Teaching_Reading and subjects who received Sketch 'N' Tell on the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test (Table 18). The "F" statistic of 3.2220 yielded a probability of less than .0528, lower than the criterion set at .05 for the study. The null hypothesis was accordingly rejected. A possible contributing factor to the statistically significant interaction was the univariate, comprehension, which produced an "F" statistic of 4.6979 which yielded a probability of less than .0373 which is very close to the individual univariate level of significance set at .025. 88 Table 18. Results of the multivariate analysis of variance between the mean scores of subjects categorized by building and program on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test D.F. 2 "F" Statistic 3.2220 p less than .0528 Independent Variablesa Vocabulary Comprehension N Building l--Program 1 38.80 25.70 10 Building l--Program 2 41.80 25.80 10 Building 2--Program 1 31.83 14.58 12 Building 2--Program 2 36.20 23.30 .QUl p less than .8105 .0373 N=42 aBuilding l, Gundry School; Building 2, Brownell School; and Program 1, Parents Teaching Reading: Program 2, Sketch 'N' Tell. Hypotheses 1B0, 2B0, and 3BC In Hypotheses lBC, 280, and 380 the mean scores of subjects who received Parents Teaching Reading and subjects who received Sketch 'N' Tell and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested were compared to determine if a statistically significant interaction existed on the three measures of readiness, listening, and beginning reading. The null hypothesis lBC was: HolBC: There are no statistically significant interactions between the mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test. 89 Analysis of the data suggested that no statistically significant interaction existed between the mean scores of subjects who received Parents TeachingAReading and subjects who received Sketch 'N' Tell and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the Metropolitan Readiness Test (Table 19). Therefore the hypothesis was not rejected. The null hypothesis 28C was: HOZBC: There are no statistically significant interactions between the mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the Cooperative Listening Test Analysis of the data suggested that no statistically signifi- cant interaction existed between the mean scores of subjects who received the Parents Teaching Reading program and the subjects who received the Sketch 'N' Tell program and the mean scores of subjeCts who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the Cooperative Listening Test (Table 20). Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected. The null hypothesis 3BC was: H03BC: There are no statistically significant interactions between the mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. 90 Ne momm. mmNN. Noeo. emem. NNNm. ONNo. one» mmo_ a .mi m: 2.2 $4: NNNN N3: mg .8332“. 302 :3 .z. :89; N Eecmoco NN mN.N oo.eN mo.m— oo.N_ Nm.oN N_.o_ eopmouoco NNoN .z. copoxm gopoxmiiN Eocmoea m me.m oo.eN Nm.N_ mN.m N_.oN mm.m eopmoooca ooz moweeomimowcoeoN mucoceaiip Eocmoco eN NN.o e_.eN mN.m_ No.m NN.m mm.m eoumopoco moweeomimcwzoeoN mococooiip Eecmoeo z mcwxooo mcooaoz pooeeo_< m:_;opez mcwcmomNo mc_ceoz moNQeNLe> pcoecoooecH ego: 8:. :2: 3.2 a $8; 0.558% a: o 2.0 .umoN mmocweeom cepNNoooeuoz one mo mpmopoom me on» :o eoomoooco woo mom; on; mpoomoom ece eoumoooeo mom; on; muooheom mo moeoom cows mop ece N Eeemoeo eo>woooe on: moomeoom ece N Eocmoco eo>Nmooc on: moooeoom mo mocoom some coozooo oocewce> No mmepece muewee>wp_:e on» mo mu_:mom .mF opoek 91 Table 20. Results of the univariate analysis of variance between the mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the Cooperative Listening Test "F" Statistic .2449 p less than .6240 - Cooperative Independent Variables Listening N Program 1 Pretested 25.43 14 Parents Teaching Reading Not pretested 26.62 8 Program 2 Pretested 32.00 12 Sketch 'N' Tell Not pretested 32.12 __31 N=42 Analysis of the data suggested that no statistically signifi- cant interaction existed between the mean scores of subjects who received the Parents Teaching Reading program and the subjects who received the Sketch 'N' Tell program and the mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test (Table 21). Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected. 92 Table 21. Results of the multivariate analysis of variance between mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 and the mean scores of the subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test D.F. 2 "F" Statistic 2.5739 p less than .0915 Independent Variables Vocabulary Comprehension N Program 1 Pretested 35.36 19.57 14 Parents Teaching Reading, Not pretested 34.37 19.57 8 Program 2 Pretested 35.17 23.58 12 Sketch 'N' Tell Not pretested 44.75 26.00 __31 p less than .0321 .0781 N=42 Hypptheses lABC, 2ABC, and 3ABC In Hypotheses lABC, 2ABC, and 3ABC mean scores of subjects categorized by the three independent variables of building, pretested/ not pretested, and program, were compared to determine whether a statistically significant interaction existed on the three measures of readiness, listening, and beginning reading. lABC was: HolABC: There are no statistically significant interactions between The null hypothesis the mean scores of subjects categorized by building, pretest and not pretested and programs on the six subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Tests. 93 Analysis of the data suggested that no statistically significant interaction existed between the mean scores of subjects categorized by building, pretested and not pretested, and programs, on the Metropolitan Readiness Tests (Table 22). Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected. The null hypothesis 2ABC was: HOZABC: There are no statistically significant interactions between the mean scores of subjects categorized by building, pretested/not pretested, and programs on the C00perative Listening Test. Analysis of the data suggested that there was no statistically significant interaction between the mean scores of subjects categorized by building, pretest/not pretested, and programs, on the Cooperative Listening Test (Table 23). Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected. The null hypothesis 3ABC was: HOBABC: There are no statistically significant interactions between the mean scores of subjects categorized by bu1ld1ng, pretested/not pretested, and programs on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. The analysis of data suggested that there was no statistically significant interaction between the mean scores of subjects categorized by building, pretested/not pretested, and prOgrams on the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test (Table 24). Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected. 94 .NNoN .z. :opoxm .N Eeemogo «moweeom mewcoeoe mueoeoa .N Eeemoco ece “Noocom Npoczoem .N cheNNom ”Nooeom xeecow .P mowepwome Neuz mNmo. NmNe. o_No. Noom. N_Nm. em_N. can“ mmm_ a .m. No.0 mm.m_ oo.m_ mm.o_ NN.NN No.0N eaomwomea “oz--N Eecmoea--N m:_e_w=m N me.m oo.N_ oo.m_ NN.N_ e_.o_ oN.N emommomaa “oz--N smamoea--N mcoeNP=m N om.e om.oN om.m om.o oo.m om.m empmmomea--N Ememoea--N o:2e_wgm ON om.e om.mN ON.NN ON.N oo.m o_.N emomoooea--N saemoea--N mc_eNN=N m oo.N_ ON.mP oo.eN oo.m_ ow.m oo.N eoomaomea “oz--N Emeooaa--_ meeeN_3m m oo.NN oo.eN ON.m_ oo.N_ oo.N_ oo.NN empmmomea “oz--_ Eeemoea--_.m:_e_wsm 0 mm.__ N_.mN Ne.ep oN.o_ om.oN oo.N emommomea--N Eazooaa--_ meoeNN=m e oo._N mN.oN mN.m_ oo.o_ om.__ oo._N emommpmca--_ actuate--N accepwsm z mcwxoou memosoz pooecoN< mewsouez mcwcopmwo mcwceoz emopoewge> ucoecoooecH e203 omme. can“ mmm_ a mmpo._ ovumwueum =m= o .N.o omoN mmocveeom cepwpooocooz one wo mpmoooom me one co .Eecooco ece .eoumoooco oo:\eopmoooeo .cheroo an eoNNLomoooo mpooeoom No mmgoom some on» coozooo mocewco> No mwmeece ouewce>wupos one No mp_:mom .NN oNQeN 95 Table 23. Results of the univariate analysis of variance between the mean scores of subjects categorized by building, pretested/ not pretested, and programs on the Cooperative Listening Test D.F. 1 "F" Statistic .0996 p less than .7543 Independent Variablesa 7' N Building 1--Pretested--Program l 32.50 4 Building l--Pretested--Program 2 27.00 6 Building l--Not pretested--Program l 31.40 5 Building 1--Not pretested--Program 2 29.80 5 Building 2—-Pretested--Program l 22.60 10 Building 2--Pretested--Program 2 25.50 2 Building 2--Not pretested--Program l 32.43 7 Building 2--Not pretested--Program 2 36.00 __31 N=42 aBuilding l, Gundry School; Building 2, Brownell School; 21nd Program 1, Parents Teaching Reading; Program 2, Sketch 'N' Tell. 96 Table 24. Results of the multivariate analysis of variance between the mean scores of subjects categorized by building, pretested/ not pretested, and programs on the two subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test D.F. 2 "F" Statistic .1976 p less than .8217 Independent Variables Vocabulary Comprehension N Building l--Pretested--Program l 42.75 30.25 4 Building l--Pretested--Program 2 36.17 22.67 6 Building 1--Not pretested--Program l 38.20 26.60 5 Building 1--Not pretested--Program 2 45.40 25.00 5 Building 2--Pretested--Program l 32.40 15.30 10 Building 2--Pretested--Program 2 29.00 11.00 2 Building 2--Not pretested--Program l 33.00 21.43 7 Building 2--Not pretested--Program 2 43.67 27.67 _3_ p less than .9822 .6095 42 97 Summary To determine the effects of the two reading readiness programs on dependent measures of readiness, listening, and beginning reading, twenty-one null hypotheses were developed in this study. Six hypotheses tested the effect of the independent variables, building and pretest, on the three measures. Twelve hypotheses were developed to determine statistically significant interaction effects and the remaining three hypotheses were developed to investigate any statistically significant differences in mean scores that may have been produced by the two reading readiness programs. 0f the null hypotheses tested to determine the effects of the independent variables, building and pretest, two hypotheses were rejected. There was a statistically significant difference produced by the independent variable, building, on the Metropolitan Readiness Test and the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. Therefore one cannot rule out the building effect on these factors. Two of the twelve hypotheses developed to determine statis- tically significant interactions, were rejected. 0n the Metropolitan Readiness Test the independent variables pretest and building, the data suggests that a statistically significant interaction existed between the independent variables, program and building, on the Gates MacGinitie Test. Thus it has been determined one cannot rule out the effect of the interaction of mean scores on the two measures, the Metropolitan Readiness Test and the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. 98 0f the three null hypotheses developed to determine the effect of the two reading readiness programs on the three measures, one hypothesis was rejected. The data suggested that on the Cooperative Listening Test the subjects who received (Program 2) the language experience program, Sketch 'N' Tell, produced a statistically sig- nificant higher mean score. Thus it has been determined that one cannot rule out the effect of programs on the Cooperative Listening Test measure. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Theoretical Foundations The review of the literature lends credibility to the concept of employing a program that involved parents in the cognitive skill development of their own children. It established contingency of success in cognitive development on specific factors that have been identified within the home. Programs that involve parents directly in the cognitive skill develOpment of their own children are still in the experimental stages and modéls for such involvement are in the defining process. Studies, however, of such programs have indicated that programs promoting parent involvement with the cognitive skill development of their children have had positive effects. Justification for exploring an already well-trod ground of research on reading methodology is in the assumption that research done in classroom settings, because of the restricted physical area, the teacher-pupil ratio and the teacher-student relationship, is not generalizable to the home setting, in which there is a one-to-one ratio and where the relationship of parent and child is unique. ”waherefore, it was felt that there is a need to know more about the 99 100 effect two methods for teaching reading readiness in a situation very different from situations used for the research on reading methodology. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was basically to determine the aspects of reading readiness that were affected by two reading readiness programs administered by parents to their own post- kindergarten children during a six-week period during the summer when no formal schooling was offered. The most obvious limitation of this study was that only parents who volunteered to administer a reading readiness program to their children were included in the study and thus limited the number of subjects in the study. Procedures In order to isolate those effects on reading readiness caused by the two reading readiness programs, it was necessary to first identify effects caused by the other two independent variables, i.e., building and pretest, and their interactions. Thus, in total, twenty-one null hypotheses were developed to determine the effects of the three inde- pendent variables on the three measures of readiness, listening, and beginning reading. A multivariate analysis of variance and a univariate analysis of variance were the statistical tools used to test the null hypotheses. The multivariate analysis of variance was used with those measures that produced multiple subscores and the univariate analysis of variance was used on the measure that produced a single score. 101 Results Of the twenty-one null hypotheses tested in this study, five were rejected. Two null hypotheses were rejected on the basis of findings that mean scores differed to a statistically significant degree between subjects from Gundry School and Brownell School on both the Metropolitan Readiness Test and the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. The data further suggested the rejection of two null hypotheses which showed that a significant interaction existed. It was found that the mean scores on the Metropolitan Reading Test of subjects, who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested within each of the two buildings, interacted to a statistical significance. A significant interaction of mean scores on the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 from each of the two buildings also existed and the null hypothesis was rejected. The fifth null hypothesis was rejected when the data suggested that there was a statistically significant difference between mean scores of subjects who received Program 1 and subjects who received Program 2 on the COOperative Listening Test. Conclusions Statistically Significant Differences Between Buildings One of the major findings of the study was that a statistically significant difference was found between the mean scores of subjects from Gundry School and subjects from Brownell School on the Metropolitan 102 Readiness Tests and the Gates MacGinitie Reading Tests. On both measures the differences favored Gundry School. These two schools appeared to be well-matched as far as location within the city and attributes of the p0pulation such as socioeconomic status, race, and the stability of the community. However, upon closer inspection, Gundry Community (although it borders the Brownell Community) is on the leading edge of the flow of residence from the inner portion of the city and has had a longer history of community upheaval and thus has been for a longer period of time the recipient of special academic programs to accommodate this changed and changing population. Brownell School, on the other hand, at the time of this study, was just in the process of instituting programs to cope with the changes of population within the community. The basic academic programs appear to be similar since they are part of the same school district and adhere to the same educational goals and prescribed curriculum. However, Gundry School has had a longer history of specialized programs such as head start, preschool, special reading and math teachers aimed at countering the effects of inner city poverty. Many of these special programs involved the use of parents for support in the academic areas and relied upon parents to become directly involved with the cognitive skill development of their own children. Statistically Significant Interactions of Independent Variables The two null hypotheses that were rejected because of statistically significant interactions in mean scores pointed again 103 to the differences produced by the two buildings. There was a statistically significant interaction of mean scores of subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested within each building on the Metropolitan Readiness Test. The difference between the mean scores of pretested subjects and subjects who were not pre- tested in Gundry School was different from the difference between subjects who were pretested and subjects who were not pretested in Brownell School. The second null hypothesis that was rejected on the suggestion of the data that a statistically significant interaction existed was also contingent upon the differences produced by the independent variable, building. Subjects who received the language experience program in Brownell School scored much higher mean scores on both subtests of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Tests than subjects who received the phonics program. However, subjects who received the language experience program from Gundry School scored an almost identical mean score as subjects who received the phonics program. Thus combining the scores without regard for the independent variable, building, would cause the differences to appear to be attributed to program differences rather than differences created by building. Statistically Significant Differences Between Programs The fifth null hypothesis was rejected because the data suggested a statistically significant difference existed in the mean scores of subjects receiving the language experience program l ire—4" "T i . 104 and subjects receiving the phonics program on the Cooperative Listening Test. The difference favored the language experience program. The C00perative Listening Test which is part of the Cooperative Primary Test Batteries, is defined by the author as: "Listening, as used in the title of these tests means more than receiving the spoken word. It includes comprehension, recall and interpretation."1 In the Gray's UNESCO report in the chapter on research findings of comparisons of methods, he states: "The evidence from research indicated that the real issue is not which of the two procedures under discussion is better, but rather what is the role of each in contri- buting to development in reading."2 He further concludes that: experimental studies of the relative merits of specific methods of teaching reading do not show conclusively which method is best: they indicate rather that some methods further progress in certain aspects of reading and other methods in still other aspects.3 Clearly the significance of this finding, in accordance with Gray's conclusion is in determining that the language experience program produced a significant difference on the listening comprehension of the subjects who received that program. The emphasis of the language experience method is the meaning of the words. If there is a higher ‘Cooperative Primary Tests Handbook, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1967, p. 8. 2William S. Gray, The Teaching of Readin and Hritin , an international survey, UNESCO, Switzerland: 1956, p. 106. 3Ibid., p. 106. 105 form of meaning-emphasis methods, the language experience approach would probably occupy that position. The words and sentences the child codes and decodes are those that were generated from his own experiences and thus hold meaning for him. Since the order, sequence, and pattern of words to be read are those of the child's, then lexical, grammatical, syntactical and rhetorical problems are basically overcome and the context serves the child in word recognition. Since the meaning of words is the clue to word recognition in this method, when a high priority is given to comprehension of words and sentences, then it is logical that the difference revealed by this study was in the area of comprehension. The phonics program, particularly in the initial stages, emphasizes the components of words and the meaning of words or sen- tences are treated incidentally. Selection of words to be read are those which are phonetically consistent and not necessarily relevant to the interest of the child. Since initially, the meaning of words and sentences is not emphasized this method would probably not enhance comprehension development as was revealed by this study. Limitations of the Study It was not the purpose of this study to determine a best method or procedure for parents to use with their children to develop reading readiness skills. This study was limited in scope to a com- parison of the effects of two reading readiness methods administered by parents during a limited period of time on subsequent measures of readiness, listening, and beginning reading. 106 This study was further limited by: 1. Only subjects whose parents volunteered to participate in the program were included in the study. 2. The population for the study was drawn from two neighboring elementary schools located in an urban area in Flint, Michigan. 3. Each method is limited to a representative of only one program. 4. Each method was represented by a finite set of materials. 5. Measures of the effects of each program were limited to three standardized measures of readiness, listening, and beginning reading. Recommendations As this country finds itself midway into a ten-year commitment at the national, state, and local level of government to eliminate illiteracy it seems that we must look beyond the traditional procedures for educating children which have to date produced inadequate results. Although refining existing procedures is commendable, it seems necessary to explore other viable avenues for achieving, enhancing and more efficiently arriving at the goals of education. It appears that timewise, we are in the dawn of exploration of the total world in which a person develops intellectually and in many cases, the most influential factors are those outside the classroom doors. The literature reflects efforts to identify those factors within the home which seem crucial to the acquisition of intellectual skills. Programs that intervene in the home or attempt to coordinate 107 the efforts of the home with those of the school, have also been researched and isolated studies have reported some substantial gains. In order to give adequate guidance to parents in their efforts to assist in developing their child's intellectual skills to their maximum potential, further investigations need to be made into aspects of the home and parenting techniques and their effects on this development. This study is but one tiny glimpse of the effect of two programs reflecting two methods of teaching reading readiness in a unique setting. This study has implications for further investigations. 1. One possible follow-up study would be to investigate listening comprehension at a later time to determine if the statistically significant difference would be sustained for any period of time. 2. A follow-up investigation of parents to determine, if, after the study, they attempted to continue instructing their children or attempted to replicate the program with younger brothers or sisters. 3. A study investigating attitude changes that might have taken place with parents regarding their role in the cognitive development of their own children. 4. The programs employed by the parents in this study were dependent upon a finite set of materials. It would be interesting to investigate the effects of a program that continued through the school year and rather than a given 108 set of materials, parents were instructed to use situations and items naturally found within the home. 5. The parents who administered the programs in this study were mothers of the children and it would be interesting to investigate the effects of having the fathers assume this role. 6. The instruction in this program took place exclusively in the home; it might be worthwhile to design a combination of home and school instruction. The parent would assume an instruc- tional role within the child's classroom on a regular basis as well as the one—to-one instruction within the home. 7. It would be interesting for a future study to compare the identical study using a different population. Reflections As the literature revealed, curriculum research, whether it be in a traditional setting or one that is unique, seldom renders defini- tive answers. The above study did not produce any eternal answers for developers of curriculum intended for parents to administer to their children. The study did, however, reveal some significant differences in mean scores categorized by the independent variables, building and program. The most consistent differences identified in the study were differences between mean scores of children from Gundry School and mean scores of children from Brownell School. Gundry School children 109 scored higher mean scores on every subtest of all three measures used in the study. On two of the three measures, the Metropolitan Readiness Test and the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test, the differences were signif- icant. These two schools were selected for the study because they appeared to be closely matched in p0pulation, location, and academic achievement. The differences revealed by this study, however, indicate the possibility that academic differences exist between the two schools' populations. Closer inspection of auxiliary programs instituted to accommodate the special needs of the changed and changing community population indicated that Gundry School was about two to three years ahead of Brownell School in providing special programs and facilities. On one of the measures, the Cooperative Listening Test, chil- dren who received Sketch 'N' Tell, the language experience program scored a significantly higher mean score than children who received Parent Teaching Reading, the phonics program. One possible reason for this difference could be that the language experience method emphasized word meaning and comprehension. Another possible cause for the difference could be in the ease in which the parents could administer the language experience program over the phonics program. In the language experience program, the activities are more closely related to the activities that parents naturally engage in with their children. The use of the child's vocabulary and experiences, in a rather informal transfer from the spoken word to the written word, would lend itself to parent administration. In contrast,the phonics 110 program, which teaches letter-sound association as a substep to word recognition would be an unnatural and rather artificial activity for parents. From this study it would be well to keep in mind when developing programs for parents to administer to their children, that the programs include methods which have been proven to enhance the development of the desired skill or skills and that the methods lend themselves to ease in parent administration. If the methods of the delivery system in the program are closely related to the activ- ities that a parent naturally engages in as part of the parenting role, they probably will be continued beyond the program and incorporated into the existing parenting procedure. APPENDICES APPENDIX A SKETCH 'N' TELL (A Sample of One Week's Lessons) 111 .ho:.oaia «nu on 3oHHo> ecu eon zuw>om eaoonoomuo can on unaoanom no\e:o uuuonpo moan ecnw on coneaunu osu wanxoo no on cocoa ecu Aoaanv «mom n0>oo may no nouou as» couuauz .Aenoonxuosu oSu nov manna announce osu cu mannnomon .coneanno ozu on once mono ofiunu any econ van 0 am noquunnumoH nonoooy onu anowo scam .ouom no>oo eon .onoana..onoenom any onnnunuono .oHnouauoou one menu yuan noneanno «nonunon on nonooaoone noon on uuaoaumaonno wan>n~ noon venue uau .eouoooaon hannonoQEUu «no no .eouooeo one .ounonoa nouuom nun3_o>n~ on: aoneanno ou nnoao on Nunez .nanene nose no;_eaa .onnnauu a.uonuo noon noose anooa HHn3.hu£u uoau ecu hanauw coo cu: noose xoop a mans HN«3_eH«£u some uuAu aonu wcnanou an nonconuone onu ecu :.oenonnu no oo>nuuaon nosuo snea.o>na oaoo “nunuom ecu nonuos_n=oh :un3.o>na uaoo "nuance noon £u«3_o>aa no» mo oaom .nnon o>o£ «Boo nononanu no «nonuonn noncooh upon oaoo unnouono ecu unannona noeao one: no» no «How .uconommne on hafiaum hno>o ecu .huaauw o 0pc: Han on: .mou cosy .odbnu-onv anon» on ecoaoon cu hunoaunoooo osu coneanso Honopoa o>no :Noaon no ou>ua hawauu noon on «mac 0&3: :NQOh quay noeao no nowanoh bus» and: :Nonouuno no onosuonn had «>1: ooh oe .hsaom: "no noonuoonv noon nonennsu can xu< 3000 < .xoon so: n=o mo oaunn can 50% eoon oa.qu: .hou ecu «mom conuosnuooH nonoooa onsu a: eaom :.uconomwne Ham one o: aunnz_nn ho3.n05uo:o ooh Haou ou unu3_H: .huu dosh .eoaonuaoa noose inomwne «no enoonxamso any so ucnnm .nowmne husu song: on ohoa.o£u ozone xaou on noneannu any unannooam .aoneannu can an mouoonommae wcnecoaoonnou van ecu owauhone nnonu eouoagaoo o>on soneannu onu nuns: cu oh¢3.uconommne any uao nanom .nxoon nnonu an moose :oeoun: cacao «no vans: axoon nnonu aonm owoo vain «nu wawnoso ecu :mdneoon: mango oxou coneango on» o>ou .039 xoom no «no xoom nonuno mo monooo eououoaoo nnonu :uw3.oooau 03» mo unonm on eaouo ou.conefinao Hono>oo oun>cH :.nNNaum n: gonna! .a "muonmoomm .ouaonom can on anon on on nouuoa can mo oaNHnso on now cease o.no£ooua «an mom on "enuonwuu no no enooanISu «an no H «mom eon ouom nu>oo.aonu muscuaoo van «Nuns any "N moan Nev "Neuunaue on eonon¢N-onao «mam wmyoo NNV Nauoxuaz aNV “.noeNom ANV “zonn2 abon< moon < mom abdm ZOHHonmamzH ammooo nnonu Eonm maunu «nu :emon: conefinno onu wcn>on mp oonuomna oew>onm .N .o 113 020.00 0. 200 00 0. 0:0. 0.: .0 05.50 :0 .0. 00.00 0.2.0000. 0.: 00m .wnoz .020: .0 0.... 0...... 0.00E0E >_.E0. 0.020. 0. .0: 0.5.0.20 0.: 2:... 0.02.0... 2.20. 0.020. .0 02:0: .0... 0.: .00.. act: 0:0 020.. 0.0: 0 00.0. o. 0. 20:20.00 20:: 20.29000 .....030:.0:.. 0 20.. >0... .0... 5.0.20 0.: :0» .N 0.03 0.: 0:02.002. :0. 0....0 0.: 0.00 0.0 00> :23 00000.0 0:: .00000 .>..E0. 20.: .0 0.0020... 0.020. 0200 020: o. c0.0....0 0:0..0> x0< 00:00.: 200.0. 2:3 000:: :00 0:>> ..0.0.0 >.: 0:0 .050... >E 0.0 >..:.0. >2 .0 0.0020... 29:0. 020?. dc. >00 >0 50.0.0 0.0.2.0... >..:.0. 0.0:.0. 20.0...0 .3000 E00. ....s >2: 30:020. .0... c0.0....0 0.: =0... .0 20:20:. :0 0.0.0 0:0 22.00 0.00.0. ..0.: c. 00000 022020020... 20 0. 5.0.20 0.: x0< .0. 50> 5.3 0:20 020200 0.: :000... 000.0 20...... 0.: 2.01 0020200 0220200 ..0.: .000... 0:0 00:00 ..0.: 30:0 0. c0.0....0 20.0...0 0:...00 >0 00:00.0 00.3.0 .0 .000: 00 >0... 0.000. 02000.0 .0 .. 0q|00 :0 .0002 0.: 20.. >000 >0E >0... 60.0.20 0.: .0. 00:0200 0.: 20.0200 >0... 00> “Man. .03... .000 0.: .0 .260 0.: .200 .0. 0020020.: .0 0.30.0 0.: 0.20200 3. ...0.m0.0. c0 00030.0 00000 0.: c. 00:00 0.: 0:0 0.03 0.: 05:30 >0 020200 0.: 0.20200 .0. .0. 0.0 >05. .:o:20.:00 .0. 02: 20.: 30:0 0:0 5.0.20 0.: o. 8.00. 2.30:0. 0.: 20.0.0 .0 00:020.. 0.: :000... 0.050 2...... 020 0000200 0.: 0: 00.0.0: 053 0.0. o. :0.0....0 20.0...0 x00 20...: .. 0a00 ..0.: c0 00 0200 0.: 0.0 00.03 0.: 2.: 20 2.00 0:0 :0.0..:0 0.: 0. .. 0000 0.0002020 0.: :0 020200 0.: o. 2.00 .0 0:2 020200 0.: 0: 20.0 .N .006: 2.000 050 0.00.0 0...: .00000 0.0.. 0.: c. >..E0. 0.03 0.: 0.00.05 50> 5.3 >...:0. >00 5.220 0.: .2 0:0 00:00 >E .0000 .000 0 0. 0...... u:.>00 0.0 00?. >00 0:0 0.30.0 0.: 30.00 020200 0.: o. 2.00 ...>..E0..:0>.:000..000.:0> 2.0.0.. 0.0 30> 0.20.0 0.... c. .JI>..E0. 50> c. c0800 20:00:... >2. 0 .0 05.0.0 0 0. 0...... >00 0:0 0.20.0 0.: 0. 5.20.2 0:20.20 0.: :00 .00u0 3:00:05 .2000: 0:: 30:0 0:0 . 0u00 .00 0:0... .. .mmDOwOOE I8 000.. 5:3. :- 5000 0.000 0 :9. 20.6200... 00:000. .380. mlzo 2.2.00 H4 .00.: :0 00: :00: c.. : ...:00c0:00..00:.30..00 000:0 >0:. .00505 >..50. 20520:. .0 0530.0 0 0. .. 30:0 0. 0.00.. 0.... 0.0.0500 .0. 000:0 >0:. 0.03 0:. 5.3 3:023 0... 0.20500 .0. ”0. 0.0 >0: 0. 22.20500 .0. 05.. 50:. 30:0 0:0 :0.0..:0 0:. 0. 0200. 0532.0. 0:. 520.6 .0000 ..0... :0 x00 0:. 5 .. 0.0..0 0. 50.: ..0. .000 ...3 >0... 0.03 :0.03 00.000 :0.0..:0 0< .00c0.:00 50:. 0.0.0500 0. .:03 >05 0.03 0:. 0000:0 0:0 00:0200 0:. ..000... 0. :0.0..:0 20.0...0 0.0.0 00.00 0.03 0:. :0 000:. 00 0500 0:. 0.0 x00 0.: 5 00.03 0:. .0:. .00 2.00 .m 0000 :0 x00 0:. c. 00.03 0:. 0. 0:0 00:2:00 0.205005 0:. 0. c0..c0..0 020.020 0:. ..00 0.02.05 0:. .00 0000 .2050. .0 0.05 .0:..0 00 :00 50000 .0:. .00. 0.: c2205.. .2050. 0 0. 2'00 :0 0000000 .....mm :0 00 0.000 .. l0.0>.. .:0.0..:0 0. >.000 0.0005000 0:. :0 0.03 0:. 2:3 .0 0.00 0.03 22.09000 0:. 00 0.0:. 0.0 ..lc00 ..2lfla ..0:.05 :0..:0.: :0.0..:0 0< >..50. 50:. .0 0.00505 2050. c5205 0. :0.0..:0 0:. 20.0 ..dfllcfl. 0 0. 0:3 >..50. .00> .0 .00505 0 .0 0.0.0.0 0 00 ...3 .. 0.0.0.0 0:. 00.0.0500 0>.00> c002... .:0.0..:0 0:. ..0... .>030.:0.. 00.0 0.: 000:0: >0000: .. :0.0..:0 0:. 250.0 ...:0503 0 .0 ...0 010.050. 0 .0 .0... 00 .005 0.0.0.0 0:. 00 0539.0 .....0 .0 000.0 0 .0 52.00 0:. .00 0... .00.. 00.0.0.0 0.:. .0000 20.0...0 0550500 05 ..0. :00 0:>>.. .>0w 0.0.0.0 0:. .0 >..0.0.00 ..00. 0. 50:. ..0... .:0.00000.0 0:. 05.00 050:. 0:0 0000 .00.. :003.00 5.0. 0:0 .000 .20. 0. :0.0..:0 0:. :0» .mufllmmqn. c0:00..0:. .0:000.. 00 0.01 .mlefl .00 0:0... ..0.:0.000:0.0 0500 :00. 050: .0 0.... .0: >05 >0... :000:..0 >..50. 0 .0 0.00505 00 ....0 :00 0:00.00 .0:. 00.00005w 0.0 >030 0:0 050: .0 05>: 0.00505 >..50. 000..0> 2.0: 0500 0.00505 0.0 >.0> .0 0:09. >.0> 2.0: 0500 00.0. .0 ..050 0.0 0500 .0:. 5 20.2.6 0.0 02:50. .0:. .00 .500 0.83 >:05 :. 20.2.6 00 >.0000.0 ...3 02000 50:. .0:. 0:0 20.2.6 0. >..50. :000 .0:. :0.0..:0 0:. 05500 00000 000:. 50.. 0020200 0:. 05000. 0:0 00.0.0.0 0:. 0539.0 >0 ...l0nm0l0. 0:0; 0:. 30300 0.00.0. 50:. 00.05 205:0.000 2.03050: 0 00 0.0 >0... .0:. 0.00505 >..50. 2050. .0 0.0.. 50:. .00 0. :0.0..:0 0... .00 0:0 0.00.0. 0:20.20 0:. 0.05.2... 03 .w Umm.......n.m00E0 0.0!000..0:0 0:. :0 .0 .00...0 0.00000. 00.00 0.03 :0 .m 0:0 0 00000 50.. 00.03 0:0 000:0.c0m .0. .m 0:0 N 00000 .0. 0.02.0.2 .m. 0.00.00 ... .ZO....<0<0w00 0|3u.. 000.. 5.0.0. .0. .0000 0.000 0 :0. 000.. 20:00:52. 00:000.. 0.”... £3.00 115 0.00.00 0.0800 0.00 00. 02.0 000. 000 00.2.00 00 .0 0.00808 >..80. 0.080. .0 00800 00. .00 00.. 0. .2000 00.0020 000 00. 0. .0..8.0 0.00 0 0.0020 0. 00...» >08 00> “a. .0800 .0 00.2. 0.00808 >..80. 0.08 0. .0._ 0.00.2.00 00. ..8... .300080. .00000 0. 02.08.08. .00. 02.0 000 >..80. ..00. .0 0.00 -808 0.08 00. .0 00800 00. .00 00.. 0. 00.2.00 00. ..0< .0403 8.0. 00. 20 00> 00 00000.0 000 8.0. 00. 0.0.0.6 >..80. ..00. .0 0.00808 0.48. 80.0...0 .0000 .00 2... ....s >00. 30:080. .00. 00.2.00 00. :0... 0.2.0.08 ..0 0.0.0 000 .0260 0.020. ..00. 0. 00000 00.0.0800 ..00. 000.0 00.2.00 00. 0.8... .00. .000 .. 30.5. .0000. .0. 0.0005000 00. .0 00.00 0.03 0.... 000 000.0 0000.000 00. 003 02.00... .0.0 .0000. .0. 000.03. 00 >08 0.000090 00 h ....0000. 0. 0800 3.. .>00 000. 000 2.00 00... ....0000. 0. 0800 g... .>00 000 000.0 00. .0 00> 000808 >..80. 0.080. ..00. .0 ..00 00. 00.0.0. >0 .00->0.0 00.2.00 0000 o. .003 .098 00> .00000. -000 00.0.0800 ..00. ..000... 000 00.0.20 ..00. 3000 00.2.00 .:0.0..:0 00300 >0 ...". 000 a“. 3030: ..00808 >..80. 0.080. 00. .0 00.30... 00. 0.0.0800 .0. 030.0 0.80 >00. .00808 >..80. 0.080. 00. .0 0800 00. 0...: .000..00.. 00. 000 0000.000 00. 0.0.0800 .0. ”0. 0.0 >00 .0 02.0.0800 .0. 08.. 800. 32.0 000 00.2.00 00. 0. 00.00. 00.0.2.0. 00. 0.0.0xm 00008805220800 0. .00808 >..80. 0.080. 0 00.800 0.0.... 030 ..00. 000 0. 00.2.00 820:... 32.0 0. 00.0000 .800. 0. 00.03 00. 000. 000. ..00 .. .000 ..00m 0. 00000000. 0.0.0 >00. 0000000 00.03 00. .0 ..0 .0 0800 .008080. >08 00.2.00 08cm .00.>00 0. 000 .003 ..000... 000 >000>00 .. 0.00 .000... .00> 0... .00> «00.0.0. 0. 00.5.. 0.0.0 .00....0. 0. 000.00 0 03000 .. .00. 0.0.0.3 0.00.. 00. .0 .00.. 00. 0. ..000..00.. 00. 0. 8.00 00.0. .00 00.. 000 >00. .00. 0.00808 >..80. 0.080. .0 00800 00. .00 00.. ..020 00.5 00.2.00 00. :00 0.00 30.0 ....s 000 N 0000 00 030.0 0.60 >00. .00808 >..80. 00. .0 0800 00. 00> ..0. 00.2.00 80.0...0 .00 |.||Il0. 0800 .01.. 00.2.00 00. 0. >00 000 0.0.20 00. .0000 0000.000 0.208000. 00. .00 8.00 00.0... 0000 02.02.00. .000000. 00 20: .wl0q0d 00 03000 000.00 0800 00. 03300 03000 000.00 00. .00. 000.0 -.0000 >00. 0.00 0.0 00> ...00 0.000 ..00. .0 .0.0>00 0...... 000 02000.0 00.2.00 00. .0 ..0 0...; 0.000090 00. .00000 lull. .00> .0 0.0.0.0 0 00.0 0. 0.0.... .>00 000 2.00 0 0. 00.0 .. 0u00 02.02.00. .00000... 00 200 .000 .0 0000.000 00.0.0800 00. ..000... 000 000 000 0.00.0 00. 00 00 0.0.0.0 0.0 200 0000 0.81 0.00808 >..80. 0.080. 80.0...0 00.3000 g3§088 ..00. 0...: 000.0 0. 00.2.00 .8260 000000 0:80.. so 000: N .w .mMDow 0000 00.!» 03.. glut-dag 00.. 000.. 200.0008... 00:03» 3.80. 0)» 8.8.00 116 .gfig c2827.... .0280.. :0 30:00.6 9: 32.8 .8523 ..9: E 359. .369... >=E£ 2a... 9: .o 9.36.: 9: 929:3 3. 0.03 25.35% 9: 9...»: 09.95» 9.: 929.60 A8 “9 9.. >9.» 60:23.8 .2 9:: E9: 323 new c9230 9: 2 9.3. 9.36:2 9: £290 ..BEoE 2.55 29.. a 9:9. >9: an $20 09.9%» 9: 929.50 2 69: 38:35 .359: .9: 9.25.. x3 9: E v.03 9: 20.8 2 c9220 9: =9 .vocozcoe 9a «.369: 2.69 299:: 2 .26.: :5 .9: .369: 2:5. 29.. 523 E9: .23 new 5.2.20 9: 2 039:3 9: :31 3.33.20 9: co .8 a...» c.8992 9: :0 8523 9:3 9: 2 new coma 9: .o Eozon 9: 6 852.9." 9: 2 5.293 :9: :5 .2929 .o 29.. .056 9. can 538 v.95 9: .9: Emma 3:55. 6.39:9... 9: co v.03 9: 9:! .0 Eco v.03 92.33% 9: a: £9. new 39.0.2.9: a. :03 mm v can... :0 x9. 9: c. 3.03 9: 2 .90: $an 9m 9.3 2:52 :9: .0 99.69.. 2.0.9:: 9:9. 2 £9: xm< .cuE u .0 >09 alga... a .o g 93 .05 m2: :9: c9230 9: ..mh wanna c2529.. .mnoume m7: 395 6.3.9.. 9: U5 aim. So 9...: .220 9: >9 32.8 on 2 .93... a 9.5.3 >9 .0 09.305 8QO 9: E 0.03 9: 9.2.3 3 So... 99.. down :9: :0 26.: >9: .380... 2.59 29:9 9: .0 9:9. 9: =9 2 >9. 26:65 9: m. mama 929:8 ran on; c9220 .2 09.9.0 a 9.30... .303 ..9: =39: c9220 9: 9.39. >9 393m .980 EutoEac 5 9m woman ..9: .9: mom 2 E9: in 6.9:. .9022 :9: E E9593“. {02660: a mm :6 >9: .9: m.mnEmE 3.58 29: :0 9m: :9: Sn 2 c9220 9: ..mm Ucm 99:0. 9: 939.55 .p HNEDOmOOsE .8500520 9: co .8 35m 0.3992 :0 m can v 3me .2 3.3 v.03 new «098.com A: ”m. can v mmmma 8V ”99.9.2 .8 6.9.3“. E ”ZO_._.2 5 9. x n < :9. 93:. 295352. 5:05» 3...: C533 117 0.0.2. 0.... 8.0.00.8 .68.... .09.... >0... .. 0.30.0... >..50. .0 8...... 0... .00 00.. 0. .00... 00.0.00 000.00... >..50. 0.0.00. 0 .0 0.0.0 0 .0000 0009.0 >00. >0... .0... 000 >000. ..0... .0 .0900... 00.0.00 0 .0000 ..0. 0. 0009.0 .0...000 .00 ...... >0... 3000.00. .0... 00.0....0 0... :00 0.0090... ..0 0.0.0 000 .0003 .00... 0.00.0. ..0... 0. 00000 090.003 ..0... 000.0 0. 00.0....00... ..0< 500000.. 0.00.0. .0000. .0. 0.000...0..0 0... .0 00.00 0.02. 0... 000 000.0 0000.000 0... 003. 00...... mu00 00:03.00. .00000... .0 0.. 0. 0000 00 >..E0. ..00. .0 M00290 0.0... 0... 00 .00 00.0....0 20.0.00 0030.. >0 00.00.80 .0000 00> 00000.00... ..00. ..000... 000.... 0000 00000 ..00. 0.000 082.00 .00.0...0 0030.. >0 00:00.0 0030.0 .. 0.0. 0000 0.: .0 ..00 .0... 0.0.0.000 000 >0... .00. 0.00.090 >..E0. 0.0.0 ..00. .0 00.000 0... .30 00.. ..00.0 9.3 00.0....0 0... 00.0.00 00006.0 00000 9.. 0. 0.000 0... 05.5.0 >0 .0 0.000 0... .0 .0000. 0 00.0.3 >0 020.20 0.0.. 0. 0000 >90 00> flHdd .0 0000 00 00 00.0.0.0 9.. 0.0.0.000 .0. 30.0 ...... >0... 50.090 >..E0. 0.0.0 9.. .0 0.000 9.. 00.0.... >0 ..000..00.. 0... 000 0000.000 0... 0.0.0.000 .0. .0. 0.0 >00... 0020.00.00 .0. 00... .00... 30:0 000 00. 0....0 0... 0. 0x00. 00 050:0. 0... 0.0.0.0 00090000... 0.0.0.000 0. .0009: >..E0. 0.00. 0 .0 0.000 0... 000 090.20 .00.0...0 .0. 0.000 000 0.000... 00.2.00 .0. .0. 0000.000 0... 0000 000:0. 0. 000.00 0 03000 .. .0.: 092.00 9.. 00.0.0. 000 ..000..00.. 0... 0. ....00 000.000. >..E0. 0.0.0 0 .0 0.040 0... 0...... .. 0.0.0E00 00.0....0 .00.0...0 .0. 0. 00.0000 .0000.000 9.. 0000 00.000520 0.: .0. 00.0 0000.000 9.. 00 000 0.0.0.0 0... .00.... 0000.000 0.0.0.0000. 9.. .00 .0.00 .0)... 0000 00203.00. .000000 0: 0.0... ... 0m00 00 30.0 >0... 000.00 0E00 9: 0. m 0u00 00 0. 00.. 0... .0... 0090.000... 00.2.00 0... .0.: 0.00 0.0 00> 000 0002.090 0000 9.0.. v 0000 00 00.0.. 0.00.090 >..E0. 0.0.0 ..0 ...00 0.0000 .0.0 0.... .00000 000.00 0.000 0.: .0 0. .x00 00 ....s 0.. 00.0.0.0 9.. .0.: .0... 00.E0. 00.2.0.0 0... 0. .00 .....0E >..50. 0.0.0 0... 0000000. 0000 0< filod0l0v..0... ..000... 000 3000 0. 000.0 0. 00.0....0 00000.. x0< 0.005 0.30.0.0 .N ... .mc30m00¢0 g... u0<0 >Ji¢0 >3 52¢ :00- ( 800 was. 20.5.03Fp02. «5203.. ..00.-90. UUIE §5< 118 .0050 0000 00:03:00. .000000 00 000:00..0 0... 30:00 000.000. >..50. 0.... .0 0530.0 0... 0.0.0.000 .0. 000.390 00000 0... 0. 0000.000 0.: 0.0.0.000 .0. .0. 0.0 >9. ... 00:20.03 .0. 0.0: .00... 30:0 000 00.0.0.0 0... 0. 0x00. 0532.0. 9.. 0.0.0.0 300.390 0 ....3 .00E00.0. 0. 0.... 0.303 30> 0.003 .>...0.000.0. >030 0. 9.3 .0. 30> ....3 0.... .00 0000 003 2:00. .30> 0. 00000.00 0.0... 0... .....30.0 0. 0.... 0.303 30> .0... >..E0. .30> 0. 000.00 3.0000 0 9.0.. 30> 00.. 0.0.. Amanda-u 000 mmflolmu .80.... 0.0 002.0098 9.... >..0.0. ..00. .0 $00.00. >00 .00E.0 .0 0.3.0.0 0 30.0 >00. >0... .0... .00.: :0... .00300 30> 00 >..0.0 0000.000 9.. 0.0.0.000 00. 0:00 .00.0...0 0>0I .0E00 9.. 0.0 00.03 0... .0... 000 000 00.2.00 0.... .0... 00 0.000.:000 0... 00 0000.000 0... 0. .0.00 .0 0...» 0000.000 0... 03 0.0... 000 030.0 .. 0000 0.3.0.0 0... .0003 0000.000 0.0.0.0000. 9.. 0. 00:09.0 ..00. :00 30.0 ...3 >0... 000.00 9:00.000 00.03 0.03 0... .x00 0.0009000 00. 0. -:00 9.. 0.61 00.03 .00E0E >..0.0. 0.00. ....3 0.300090 00.00 0... 30:00 00.3 >0... .. 0.0.00. 0 .0 .0... 0530.0 9.. 0x00. >0... >0... 0.00.090 >..80. 0.0.00. .0 000.00 ..0 0.0 00.03 009.. 000.0 ..00. 090.20 0... :0» 0.00 0.03 0.0009000 00. 03 0.0.. 000 0.3. 0. 0000 >00 .0903 .00E0E >..0.0. 0.0.00. 00.03.00. .80 9.. 0. .060 .00..» ...oz 00.0.00. 0 .0 0.0... 0 0... ._ 0.0000 .0. ..0. 000>00 ..00.. ...00 000 0.30.. 0... 0. 00:09.0 0.00.0000 9.. :00 @0700 00:03:00. .00000... 0.... 300m 0.0.00.0 9.. 000 g .30 000I 0.0 .9000 .0 00.3.. 0.00.00... >..0.0. 0.0 >.0> 0.0 0.0... 00.9.3 0.00.00... >..E0. .00030> 0.0 0.0... .05003 .>..E0. 9.. .0 00.0 0... 00.03.00. .0>03 >..0.0 0. 0.0.00.0 0. >..0.0. 0.000>.0>0 .0... 000 >..0.0. 0 00:. 000>.0>0 .0... .00... 90000.0. >0 3030. 00. 00w ..0...0 00:000. ..00. 00.03 0. 0>03 00:00E 0. 00.2.5 0... .2 00009000 9.. ..000... 0.00.0 0:03 00000 ..00. 3000 00.0.0.0 0.0.00.0 00.30.. >0 30300 ..00.0 .00..0E3c 0. 00000 00.0.0800 ..00. .30 E0... 030... 000 00.2.5 0... 0. 0.00.0. 0.... 9300.05 UNEDOmOOE... 00.0... 0.0. 0. 00. 0:00 .0. 0.00 9.. .0 0.0.000 0 .0. 00.30 0.9.000... 9.. 00M .0. 000000.000 0... 00 .0. 0.00000. 00 >000 0 00900 .0. 00.00 0.03 000 00000.00m .0. .n 000 m 00m00 .8 0.00.5.2 3. 0.00.00 .5 20.050.53.00 a w0(0 >4.I(0 >3 PDOO< 8000 < £00 U0¢0 20:03:02»! ¢w10(mh p.300 Pk.>_._.0< 119 >00 00.322 00. 00 000.20. 00 2 0. 200 00. .00. E0... 00.0.0. 000 200 00. 00.0..00 00. 020 >..0.0. ..00. .0 0.30.0... 000.0 00. 000 .0000:0> 00. 003.0000. 0.00 0 200.00 ..00. 0.0.. .0. 05.0 2 0. 00.03 300.00.000 2.030.000 .05000 0.6... >00. .00. 00.0..00 00. ..0. 000 h 0.0.200. ..0 0.20 000 60:00 0.00.2 ..00. 0. 00000 020.0800 ..00. 000.0 00.0..00 00. 0.01 0 00.320 00. 20.00.00 .0. ..000..00.. 00. 0. .00E00. >..0.0. 00. .0 0E00 00. 203 . 0 . 30.0 ...3 >00. .000.00. >..0.0. 00. .0 00.00 00. 000 a... .0 «fl .0000 00.000 0002000 00. 20.00.00 .0. .0. 0.0 >00... 0000.00.00 .2 05.. 0.00. 30:0 000 022.00 00. 2 0202 00 .30. .2 00. 0.0.0.6 m .020 0002000 00. E0... ..000... 2 00.0..00 .2260 .2 2.02.0000 00. 0030.0 52.00.00 0.0.00: 0.0 >00 2 000... .2 00:00. 0. 00.00 .04.“. .00 0.003 0002000 020.00.00 50> 00 0.00: 50> .0 0. 0.20.0 50> .002... .>00 000 6.000 -...000 00. .0. 00.0 0.00000. 00. 00 000 0.20.0 00. .000: 0002000 20.0.0000. 00. 2 00002.0 ..00. :00 .0 .demm 00 x00 00. 0. 0.03 20002000 00. 0.0. .0 2 00.0. .00 00. ..0.. .0 0020.000: ..0 >00. 0.00 0.0 00> ...00 >..0.0 0000.000 00. 20.00.00 0.00. 00300 000.0 00. 2.3 30300 0. 00.00 ”MIT... .00.>00 000 0.03 00. .0 0000.00 0.00.2 .0. 0.0. .00000 0. 0.000 0.1. .>00 0.003 00> 000 .... .>0.0 000.00.40.03 00. 2 .060 ......00E00. >..0.0. 0.00. 0 30.0 >000. 30...: ...0< .0 0000 00 30.0 >00. .0060... >..50. 00.00 00. .0 00 ...3 0.20.0 0.0. .00. 00.0..00 00. :00 ”Maw... 00:02.00. .00000h 0.0. 300w 0.02.0.0 00. 000mm“... .30 000... .m .0300 2.0 000 >0: 2.000 00. 2 0.00 0.03 00. 00.20. 30. 0000 0. 0:00 .00. 00. ...0: 0.2 0 02.2 30. 000m .0300 000 000 .0..0 00.000 0:00 00. 2 0.00 00. 00000 .0002000 0.0 ..0000... 0.00 0.03 0 003 0:00 00. 0.000020 00. 00.0.6. .000 0. ...00.02 .00 ..00000 000 30. .00.. 00. 0. 0.00.. 000>.0>0 .00. 00 020.. 000 00.03 2 00.0..00 00. ..0... 0000.00. >..0.0. 00.00 00. 00.0.00 0.00 0.03 00. 00.0.00 0.20 .00.000 00.000 0: 00.0.. .0 30. 300 0 000.20 .0000 000 0.00 0.03 0 00.0.0.0 0.2 0 0.00 00.0..00 ..0 .00. 00 0.000020 0.0. .0002. 0.00 0.03 00. 00.0.00 0.000 00. .0 00.0 0.00.2 .0 0.00. 00. 00 000.0 8.0 0.00 000 0.00 0.03 0.0002000 00. 0.... 0000 .0 ....0.0.. 0.... .0. .000 ... 0000.00. >..0.0. 0 00800 0203 0002000 020.00.00 0.0 ..000... 000 0 0000 00 30.0 00 0.20.0 00. 3000 2 0:00 000 .0.. 0000000000. 0. 0.000 ...3 00.30.00.0E.0 < .3 .0E .0000.0E 0.00. 00. .0 .00.. 00. .0 0.0005000 00. .0 0000 2.00000 00. .0000 .0.0.0.> >..00.0 0.0 >00. .00. 00 >00 ..00.. 00. 00 0.00520 >..0.0. 0.0.02 000 0.0:. .2 00.00 0.03 00. >0.00.o 00.2.00 00. .....3 m 0000 30300 a U9030de05. 22.00 00!. 5.80. >.- .5004 2000 0 000 005. 20:00:52. 002040.. 00.0.8. 000. >035... 120 00.2 0000 00202.00. 5.500% 00 00020000 02 30:0“. .0 >..0.0. ..02 .0 .00E00. .000000> 02 .0 00.320 0220.00.00 .0. 00.03 03. .0 000 2.3 0002000 02 20.0 E00 .0. 20.0 >000 0020.00.00 .2 00... 0.02 30:0 000 00. 0:00 02 2 0200. 00.3002 02 0.0.0.0 .0 00.000 0 00.0..0 0>00 00.0..00 ..0 .02 000 2 ..0000 .0002000 0.0 20.00.00 2 00: ...3 00 00.03 .0 0.03 02 0.0..0 2 0:00 0000 0.00 000 00.00 0.03 02 00 000 .80 02 0. 00.03 02 50 .060 .0 .0020 -.000: 0.02 .0 ..0 050 0.0 00> ...00 00.0..00 .2260 .0 0.2 x0< .03 00.>00 >0 0002000 02 20.00.00 2 .20.0 .0 .0220 .000:0> 0 2.00 000.0 003 >00000.00 0.00 000... .20.0 a .0 .0220 an... >00 2 0:00 02 60.0.0 ... 0.0.0.000 2 .20.0 .0 .0220 .0050> 0 2.3 0:00 0 000: ..00 000 0002000 02 0000 ... 00.0.. 2 00: ...3 >02 00.03 .0 0.03 .003 5000 0.0.2 2 000 0002000 02 000. 00> 00 020.. 2 00.0..00 00. ..0.. 020005000 02 .0. 0.20 0.00002 02 00 000 0.20.0 02 .000: 0002000 20.0.0000. 02 50 .0.00 .0 .>..E0. ..02 0. .0000:0> 020.0 >02 ..20..0.0 .0220 .000:0> 0 2.00 ..000 >00. .. .02 0.0.0.6. .20.0 .0 .0220 .00000> 0 00.>00 002000. ..00.0 003 00.0..00 .2260 .0 0.2 x0< ..0._.m >..0.0. 50> 0. 000000» 02 0. 00.5 .20.0 .0 .0220 0.0.. 0 2.00 ..000 00> .0 00.09 .>00 000 0 0000000» 002 02 0020.000: >02 .02 050 0.0 00> ...0: .20.0 .0 .0220 .00000> ..02 5000 ..2 0800 .0. 000 00.0..00 .020 2.3 0.2 .0000”. ..000> 0.0 >..0.0. 50> 0. 500000» 02 .00 0..:0> 000.... .0000000. 003 0:00 0 2 >0m .....>..0.0. 0.0 0. .20.0 .0 .0220 02.. 0 000 00>? ...0< ...000:0> .0 .0006... 0.003 >0000E00 30.0 >0E 0000 .02 00 000 050.. 0.00.2 0 .0 0.00. 0 30.0 .66 0000 .02 00. 03000 0. 0000 0.000.00 02 >.00 0.0.0. >02 >03 00.0.00 >0 2E20 02 000005 02% .002 00:20. ..02 .02 >03 .02000 3000 ...3 0000 0.0. .02 00.2.00 02 ..0.. 00100 00:02.00. 50000.. 0.2 03 0.01 0.00.00. 02 000 0 0000 So 0000 .m _ 20.00.00...v 00.2. 0. 003 00.00 .0 >..0.0. 00. .0 0.00E0E 0.0 >.0> .0 0000> >.0> 0.0 0.02 .02003 >..0.0. ..00. .0 00.0 02 00.03.00. .0>03 >000. 0. .200 0050.0. .02 >..0.0. 0 000 000>.0>0 .02 0.02 00.00.60. >0 3030. 02 00m. .0002000 ..00. ..000... 2 0.020 230. ..00002000 0... 0. .00E00. >..0.0. E2200 0 000: 00.5.. ...00 .0000 20002000 0000 .200 .00000 ..00. 00 000.0 30.2 00.0..00 .020 02 0:03 030.0 0000 0 ..000... 00.0..00 0.0.2.6 00.>00 >0 00000 020.00.00 >.030.>0.0 ..0 30320 0.00.2 0.00.0..00 02 05020.0 2 HmmDDmUOm0 0.000.:000 02 00.0 0.00000. 00 m. 000 3000M 0.0.. 00.03 000 0000200m .0. 00.000 3000M .0. ”0.02.02 .0. ”0.00.0... .... 20F..50.. >2 .502 2000 0 00. 0000 20:02:02. 002000» 0.0.. £50.04 121 00.00 .0 >..0.0. ..00. .0 ..0 3000 0.000000 0 0>00 ...3 >00. 30.. 00.0. .00. 0.00. :0... _0.0..0.0E ..0 0.0.0 000 .00..00 .000. ”0.00.0. ..00. 0. 00000 ..00. .0 ..0 .:0 0. 00.0..00 00. :0» ..000.000. 0. .20 0.00: ..030 .0. .020. .0 .00.00. ..00. 0.020 0. .0003 .000.0 02 00 0.0220020 .0 0.00.00. ..000.0 0>00 0050.0. 00.00 .00. 000 .0000:0> 00. 0. 0.00. .0 000 0.00.0 0. 2.03 00.000 0030> >.0> 0>00 00:000. 00.00 .00. 000.00. >00. >000. .00. .50 .0.00 ..00.0...0 ..0 0.0 mfi 00 .0:. 0>03 >00E 0. .00.0...0 0. >..E0. 0.>000>.0>0 .00. 000 >..0.0. 0 000 000>.0>0 .00. 00.0..00 00. 00.00.0.0. >0 00.000020 00. 00w ..00E0E >..0.0. 02 .0 00.00 02 .0:. .00 000 0000000. ..00. 0. 0002000 20.00.00 00. 00: 2 00.0..00 02 00050000 .0002000 .00. 0000 .0. >..0.0. 50> 0. .000.0 00. 003 03000 .00. 05.0.0 00. 0: 0.00 302 .0002000 50> 000m .0. >..0.0. 50> 0. .000050x 02 003 03000 .00. 05.0.0 02 0: 0.2.... .>00 30> 00 000000. 0. 00.0..00 .00.0...0 000.00 >0 00:00.0 00.>20 00.320 0220.00.00 .0. 00.0..0 0>00 >00. 00.03 00. 00.0: 0000.000 02 20.0500 .0. .0. 0.0 >00» .00..0.0E00 .2 00... 0.00. 30:0 000 00.0..00 00. 0. 0.00. 00.322 00. 0.2006 .00.000 ..00. 00.00.00. 0>00 00.0..00 02.0 ..0 ...0: >..>..00 0.0. 055.000 .00.03 0000. 0.0..0 00.0..00 02 2.01 >..0.0. ..00. 0. 000.00 .000.0 00. 00.00 30> 00 0000 ..00. 00.2 0. 00.0..00 00. 0.00 000 0 0000 00 00.80 0.03 03. 02 0. 000.00 .00E0E >..0.0. 0.00.0. 000 0.00. 00. 0000 0020.000: 00.0..00 02.0 :0.00. 050 20 50> 000 0030 0000 000 00000000. .0 >.0..0> 0 ...05 00000.0 0.0. .00000 0.0005000 00. 00 .2203 00. 203 .0 0.00 0.03 20002000 00. 0: 0.00 002 000 000: 0:00 00. .20.03 00. 2 .0.00 .0002000 00. 00.0.. 2 00.0..00 .00.0...0 0.00 000 .000 00. .0 00:00 05.0.0 00. .0002 0000.000 20.02000. 02 000. 000 0. .200 :0.0..:0. 0 .0 0.00. 0 .02.0 00 0500 >..0.0 0.000>00 0. 000.00 .000.0 00. 0020000 0.00. .0 0.0E0. 0 .0 00 0500 .02 05.0.0 0 0. 0.01.. .>00 00.2 0 00 00:02.00. 80003 0: 0.01 .0 0000 50 0001 ...0. >..E0. 0. 0. .0006 00.003 .50 000 ...03 .0000 .0. >.00”. 0. 0. .0000:0> 00. 003 300.. 03 302.. .>00 .0000.0.. 0:00 0000 0< .0002000 ..00. ..000... 000 0 0 00 00.0.0E00 ..00. 3000 o. 00.0..00 .00.0...0 ..0< ..000.0 0.03 00. 00302.0. 000 .000030> 0:2 00. 30.80 .P H0030m0000 0:.: 00...... 5.25. .5 .509. ..000 < 00.. 00:. 2095:0002. 00:05.. 20.. 230.04 122 0.0.0.06 ..0 220 0:0 80:00 .2020: :05 :. 00.000 020.0600 :.05 S0 0: :0:0..:0 05 0.0 or 00.000 0.:050 :000 ..002.. 0: 0:0 00:05.8 0: 605 0005005 000:0 ..060 0 :. 02060020 206 :0 0:0 0: :0 000.0 25:0 05 0: :05.0 ..000:.. 0: 00:05 0 0.0: 0.00:0 :0:0..:0 ..< .:050 :000 0: 00.000 020.0600 :.05 ..002= 0: :20..:0 0:: 0020005 .0 06.020 0:0:00 00000 05 :0 :00:0 05 0.00:0 .0:.000 0.:20..:0 05 0:.0 00.3:050 :0 0.006 .0 .:0>00 :000 05 0:0 I 0000 23050.0 60:... .:00:0 .00.:060: :. 00000 :.05 ..0 S0 :0:0..:0 05 2.0... .... .:0.:0:0.0x0 :.05 c. 0.060: 0:0 “0.06 0000.0 0000033 06:2 05 00: 0: 0:0 000:2 -:00 20.0600 00: 0: :0:0..:0 05 0005005 .320 >05 0:00606 3.60: 05 5000 ..2 0: 605 :0: 06.: 30..< 5:60: :.05 :0 220.0 05 000.0 05 :05 0:0 .:050 :000 30:0 0: :0:0..:0 05 :0: 06.: 00.>0:0 .0 .>_.Ea::.0£:0058.00320 3. x. .60: x6 5.3 00:2:00 05 20.0600 .0. .0: 0:0 >05. 00.0.0600 :0: 06.: 605 32.0 0:0 55:00 05200.00: 0632.0: 05 60.0.0 .0 0:00:06 05:00 0000 .v .::0600: 0:60: 00 000: 00 >06 8:009:05 05 00 ..03 00. 00:00 0:03 0:0 00.50 00:2:00 2000000. .:05000: 00:2:00 05 000: 000.0 0.0:3 05 0>0I 00:2:00 05 20.0600 0:0 ..000:.. 0: :20..:0 ::20::.0 23:. 002:0 05 .:05 .0:0 00:2:00 20.06006 05 .0:: 0000 5.60: x6 000::0 05 0:0 00:2:00 20.06006 05 50 6.00 .0 .320 0: 0:0 >05 :33 0:0:0:00:0 ..0 >05 0:00 00.06 0: :0:0..:0 .2260 :0 0.5 x0< :0200606 3.60: 0.06 05 00 ...3 0:3 00:20.0 :00.» :. 30:0 ...3 00> :05 200606 .0.. -60: 0.060: 0:: 00 ...3 0:2... .0..:0 0 x0< .605 5.3 00>: 0:3 3.60: :.05 :. 0530.6 0630.0 230.0 0 30:0 ...3 >05 >000: :05 :0:0..:0 05 ..0h ..0I0m0 :0.:00::0:. :0:000.r 0.5 30:0 .0: M000 :00 0:01 .0 .605 :0.::06 >05 00 0: 0005000 05 :0 0:00: 0005 :03 00.260: 0.:050 :000 5000 30:0. 05 .0:3 :20..:0 60:05.0 x0< .00000 020.0600 ..0 ..0:.000: .0:0:0.. >0 3030: .:00:0 .00.:06 -0: c. 605 S0 0: :05 0:0 :30 00000 :.05 ..0 0x0: 0: :0:.: 55.60 05 x00 0:0 200.0: 05 20050.0 .: H92.59.0000 00.80 05 2.0:... :0: 0.2:an :28 :o 0.020 .3 ”000010000 0:0 d 0100.000 .0. 0:955. .0: ”0:00.00 8 ”20.55.0000 8000 95* 0232.0 I a Sub. UO’. >§2 so: 800. ( 800 “0‘5 ZOKSCFQQ: GUIDE xi.“ tsp“: 123 0.000 :8: 055.3 00: :0: 60:: 0:0:0 0:0 60:00 00520: :000 0>00 00.000 05:0 ..0 :0:; .0 0000050 .0:0.:0:::0:. :0: 60:: 060: 00:0.0600 00: 000.0 05 :0:3 00.000 0.0.60 :.05 :0 :0 03.000: ...3 >05 :0:: 605 20000 0:0 00::20: 00 0: 0:0 0x000 0:: >:3 60.0.8 0: 060 -:00 0:: >502 .362 :.05 :0000 ..000:.. 0: 00:0:0 0 0:6: ...3 000.0 0:: :. :0:0..:0 :0::0 :0:: 00 0.000 0:000 :.05 06:0 0: 605 06600 .06200 :.05 0: ..000:.. 0: 060: 0:00: :.05 2.0: >06 :0:0..:0 0: h .0 020.0 600 30: 0x000 00:5 0:: 0:060 00.:0:0.:0.2 05 000 0: :0:0..:0 0:: 0.0: 0: 00 ..03 00 00.020 :0::00 0:0.:0~..0:0:00 :0.06 05 0:0:0:00:: 0: :00000 :0:0..:0 0:: :0: :0 :050:3 0:.6:0:00 0: :0.:0~.:066:0 0.5 00: :00 00> 00:222 :0: 0.00..0>0 0006 >.000320 0::0:0 050301 >060“: >6 500.0 :000 < 0:0 .0:0.:0 g 6090 0.000 4. .0:: :000< :000 < :. 60:03.0 0:0 0.0000 :0:: 00::00. 0>0: >05 0>03 0:: :0 0206630 0: 603 >06 00> 620.60 0:: :0 :000 :0.::0::0 0:0 000 0:: :00: 060:0000 .0 .20.. 062.03 >:0 0: :20: 0: 605 30:0 :0 .>000 0:0 00000 05 :0306: 0.000 0.00. :0:0..:0 05 :0. .:0:0..:0 0:: >0 0220.0 00 00:03 0:: 2:3 >08 0: 60:: :0: :0000 :0 00:0 :0 0.0006 2.:3 >06 30> 2200606 >..60: :0 0060: 0:: 06020:: :0.3 >05 00:03 >:0 2.:3 >06 >05 :05 :0:0..:0 0:: 06600 .3 0000 :0 :6200 00:03 NE 0:: 0: :0.::0::0 :.05 :00 .m .:050 :000 0.0: 0: :0:0..:0 05 0020060 0:0 600200 :0 0:0.0 0: 00.0 00 .0050 00:2:00 0:0 00:00 0:03 000:0 0:: 0:.0: :0.:.:0000: 0:03 :0: 3032 00:0 0600 00320 0: :03, >06 00> 02.000 :. 0:009:05 0:: :0 0:0 0:00 0:03 05 :0 0:03 0:: :00 6.00 0:0 000.0 0:03 :000 0000 .:6300 0.000 :02 :. 00:03 302 05 :. 020.. 0:0 .500 :.05 :. 00:03 30: 05 :0:: 0.0.0.0 .0000 :0.:0:::0:. 0:000: 0.:: 30:0 0:0 :000 :30 :.05 c. C 0000 0: E2 0: :0:0..:0 0:: ..0... .m ._:::.:::0600000>:.>.:000.:::.06.: :006 00 0:000 000.0 00.000 :.05 ..000:.. 0: :0:0..:0 05 060.00 >0 3032 0:0 200.0: 05 20050.0 .: Hmm:3n:m00:00 .00: 00 0: 03 0:0 .00.::0 00:2:00 0:20 000: 2032.65 _.< .0. :0:0..:0: .0. ..00.0:. 9.000 8.0.088 5.3. 0.00.0: E ”20.022000: x00. NE 02.540300 a ZUBJN U04:I3 SO: 8000 < ‘00 8(1 20:83:02. CNZUE g EES 124 000000 .0602 0.2.0033 ! ”5'00 .CCOU (0)01 (0.002 .35)‘ .0000 50 .02. .IIIDSE U-ZDEIJU @ 02:: 0.000 000m... .2. IUEVG 02;“. :2 :62 V.30 < 00:: moon >6 0:000 0.000 0 0. 0.:... Q U 125 .025 .... n 126 fi'llll'll'l'l' '------------------ .................. 6.0000 .:000060:0:w .:000.0. .uczm .:00006 'I'I'I'Il""h .................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................... 00......— 0.000 127 0. 060 ax: \x'. - .'. ..\\\\ .05.-F J00“ 0.0E0000I 128 lull-nullnla Azm20u" - - 9553223 - .nguognn Azuc: .Lozum.. - 02...: moon 2. 3 EC. 3:: .38 2 oEmc :I 3 25: x2 130 .538 355083me 08596:me .33: .3503 .uczm .22.: ...mfoE .353 r------------------‘ ‘------------------ out: soon AU 131 00...: moon 2 2:2. m z m u I n u w. u - oI - 'Illlllll 132 I'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJ - .mE .538 xEu .uczm x8 .32.: xEm ...o 2.4. x . x u u . E 350.5 E" I'l'II'I'IIIIIIIII'IL .- - - - - - - u - u r- 00...» soon 3 szfl x8 5 “newczox of. 133 .533 xE .3532.me xE 3.050533% E: .3595 E: .33.; E: 6.2.: E: .ucaa xE 335$ xE .359: E: 00...: soon 3 szE E: E 3320 of. H w 134 o. I - - - u r .szS x8 «0:.: «.000 135 3:35 A: 09:: soon 350Eu:2w umuwcag 353233 33:: 352 33; 32:3 ”.320 £33 3508 350.3 :. ucza zoom A: .... 3:3: 332 APPENDIX B PARENTS TEACHING READING (A SampIe of One Week's Lessons) 138 M 0 N D A Y Directions for Page 1. Have the child look at each picture. See if he can guess what letter each of the pictures begin with. Stress the Fff (F) sound to be certain that the child hears the first sound of each word. Show the child the position of the 1ips,tongue and teeth when the F sound is made. Directions for Page 2. Give the picture of the large F to the child. Discuss the picture saying that the boy is hot and a fffan blows the air so he feels cooler. Explain how a P is made. Let the child color the F and the picture. Directions for Page 3. Show the picture of the football and helmet to the child. Have the child cut out the puzzle letter pieces that are at the end of Monday's directions. Match them to the shapes at the bottom of page 3. Paste the puzzle pieces with flour and water paste - a teaspoon of flour or starch mixed with a few drops of water. Say the word and look at the letters as you say them. Directions for Page 4. Read the story "A Football for Frank" and ask the questions at the end of the story. This might be a good time to talk about other kinds of balls -- baseball, softball, basketball, volleyball, etc. Directions for Page 5. Give the child page 5 and read the directions to the child at the bottom of the page. Show the child the Ff in the center of the page and explain that all the objects on the page begin with the letter F. This is a good review of the colors also. Do the following finger play for the child, then do it together. Help him learn the rhyme as well as the motions. "Counting the Fingers" 1. Thumb is one, (Hold up thumb) Have some fun. (Clap hands) 2. Pointer is two, (Hold up pointer) I see you. (Cup hand to shade eyes looking around) 3. Tall man three, (Hold up middle finger) Like a tree. (Outline shape of tree with hands) 6. Ring man four, (Hold up fourth finger) Now one more. (With other hand motion one more) 5. Little man five, (Hold up little finger) Swim and dive. (Take a swimming stroke with arms and then motion a dive into water) 139 The following are finger plays that your child may enjoy: "Hear My Feet When I Go Out" (In this poem are the different sounds a child makes with his feet when he goes out of doors in different seasons. Encourage him to make these sounds *with you, expecially when they are repeated in the last line.) In summer I go out. I splash in water from the hose. Hear it splashing on my toes! Swish, swosh, swish, swosh. Hear me splashing near the hose! In winter I go out. I tramp and break the crusty snow. Hear my tramping to and fro! Creak, squeak, creak, squeak. Hear me tramping on the snow! Creak, squeak, creak, squeak. "Freddy Blew The Fire" Freddy blew the fire; Puff, puff, puff! First he blew it gently; Then he blew it rough. o t o f b a! In In automn I go out. I shuffle through the golden leaves. That have fallen from the trees. Crinkle, crackle, crinkle, crackle. Hear me shuffle through the leaves! Crinkle, crackle, crinkle, crackle. In spring I go out. I step or stamp in every puddle. See it ooze! See it bubble! Squish, squash, squish, squash. Hear me wading in the puddle! I fell down. What a mess! (Blow) (Puff gently) (Blow hard) 143 A FOOTBALL FOR FRANK One day Frank's mother and father went downtown shopping. They told Frank to be a good boy and help his auntie take care of ' his little sister, Felicia. Father said if he was very good, they would bring him a surprise from downtown. All day long Frank was a very good boy and did as his father told him. Frank also thought about the surprise that his father had promised bin. He thought about many things that the surprise might be. When his mother and father returned from shopping they had a package for Frank. Frank lifted the package and found that it wasn't very heavy. He could hold the package in one hand or in two hands. Frank quickly Opened the package to find his surprise. It was brown and shaped like an egg except that it had points on each end. When he touched his surprise it felt just like his new leather shoes. Frank could hold it in one hand and he could throw it or kick it. One side had lacing on it like a shoe has lacing. Questions ‘ 1. Do you know what Frank's Surprise was? : . 2. “hat did Frank's father and mother ask Frank to do while they were away? ~ -‘ 3. "here did Frank's father and mother 90 shopping? 4. What did you think Frank's surprise was going to be? 5. To what kind of store would yOu go to buy'a football? feather 146 T U E S D A Y Directions for Page 6. Give the child the sheet. Put a circle around all the capital F's in the first two columns. Then have the child find each small f in the next two columns and put circles around them. Directions for Page 7. Show the picture of the farm to the child and ask him to name all the things in the picture that begin with the fff sound -- farm, farmer, fire, fork, field, furrow, fish, fishing, fishing pole, fox fence, feet, face, fuel, fingers, fieldhand, feather, father. Directions for Page 8. Show the child the picture of the frog. Have the child out out the puzzle pieces and paste them to the bottom of frog picture. Sound out the word as you point to the letters that make the sounds. Directions for Page 9. Read the story "Big Frogs, Little Ikogs" and ask the questions at the end of the story. Directions for Pagg_10. Give the page to the child and tell him.to look at the cubes at the left and see how many cubes are missing. Then he should find that amount of cubes at the right and put an X on them. Review the finger play "Counting Fingers" from MOnday's directions. Directions for Page 11. Give the child the sheet and read the directions. Read one directionait a time and let the child follow that direction before reading the next direction. Call attention to the beginning sound of all the objects. Read the following words to the child and ask the child which of the three words does not begin with F. 1. football snake fish 2 . fire farmer monkey 3. flag ball foot 4. train feather frog 5. fast father mother Directions for Page 12. Show the child the word in the center of the first box at the top of the page -- fun. Have him draw a line to the other words in that box that begin with f as fun does. Complete page. Tuesday 147 Here is a finger play for your child to learn: "Bullfrog” Here's Mr. Bullfrog Sitting on a rock Along comes a little boy Mr. Bullfrog jumps, KERPLOP! (Left hand closed, thumb upright, Mr. Bullfrog) (Walking motion with index and third fingers) (Thumb makes diving motion) 149 .A-- QI/l; llllllll W- Q’i-‘v‘ ‘ ‘4 waum 150 9 Big Frogs, Little Frogs by Patricia K. Miller Iran L. Seligssn Big Frogs. Little frogs. Leaping frogs. Sleeping frogs. Swimming frogs and tadpoles. Listen to the frog! Crook! Crook! Beep! G-r-runpl Tadpoles are baby frogs. Tadpoles are born eggs. They live like fishes in the water. Fr eggs look like jelly Ea?! has a black dot that is the beginning of a tadpole. Fish like frog eggs. Some fish est frog eggs. In seven days the eggs hatch. The tadpoles are born. little tadpoles are hungry. They eat tiny plants that grow in the water. The plants are so little-that you cannot see them. The tacboles are growing. Oh, how fast they grow! They are growing into frogs. HOP. hep. hoe The frogs like to play in the grass. Don't you wish that you could jump like a frog? If you could, you Would Jump high and far. A hungry frog uses his long tongue to catch food. He especially likes flies and nosquitoes. hany frogs are green. Sane frogs turn brown to hide fron their enemies. 151 F won't bite or hurt on. Yves» hold themyznud which then and care fir then. 9 (cont.) Big frogs. Little frogs. Leaping frogs. Sleeping frogs. Swiami-ng frogs and tadpoles. Questions b “at do frog e gs look like? mush: days es it. take for the eggs to hatch? es s frog eggs. that are tstboles? How do frogs catch food? Wot do frogs eat? “at color are frogs? Can pick up a r09? "tern frogs live? How big is a frog? PPPf'Pw-PP’P!‘ 10 152 —.-_— -. . 153 11 This is a five. . The farmer is working. This is a four. Draw a blue line under the fish. Draw a red line under the farmer. Draw a green line under the fan. Draw a blue line under the four. The fish swims. Draw a brown line under the five. to Sun me Sun two do . IT ‘now 1. saw We Train he ,doj boy . 'Pun boll "Fish four, [El] I lay - baby pig $55.. big SI"? Train To? ‘Fun see in? 19007 ; (bag shelter, . 53's 139 56* lo I 9 ‘F \l n 156 W E D N E S D A Y Directions for Page 13. Give the child page 11 and tell him to look at each picture and say the name of the picture. If the picture begins with the letter f he is to write an F in the corner box and color the picture. If the picture does not begin with f he is not to color it. Directions for Page 14. This sheet is for following directions. Give the sheet and read the instructions in each box. Let the child following the directions as you read. Directions for Page 15. Give the child the picture of the little boy fishing. Tell the child to cut out the puzzle pieces on Wednesday's direction page. He should match and paste them to the shapes at the bottom of page 14. Sound out the word and point to letters as you hear them. Directions for Page 16. Read the story "Fred's Fishing Trip” and ask the questions at the end of the story. Directions for Page 17. Have the child follow the dots to make a capital F and then make three more capital F's. Do the same with the small f. Explain that the next word is £25 and that it begins with F. Have them put an F at the beginning of the word to complete the word. Show him the picture of the fish and tell him the word next to the fish says fish. Have him trace around the words fish. Directions for Page 18. Give page 18 to the child and read the instructions for the first row, which is the example. ' . Mark the girl with a lollipop in her left hand. . Mark the girl with the glass in her right hand . Mark the boy with the bone in his left hand. . Mark the boy with the bat in his right hand. bump- Teach "The Little Fish" finger play. Show the child how it goes, then do it together. Go over it until child knows motions and verse. Have fun. (Place left hand on top of right, both palms down to make a fish. Move thumbs to wiggle fins. Bob both hands up and down for swimming motion. Raise fingers of right hand, lower fingers of left hand to Open and close the fish mouth.) "The Little Fish" Little fish (Place hands in above position) Goes out to play. He wiggles his fine, (Wiggle thumbs) Then swims away. (Move fingers up and down together) 157 Wednesday He swims and swims (Move fingers up and down together in the water bright. and wiggle thumbs) He opens his mouth (Keep hands together, lower fingers of left hand, raise fingers of right hand) And takes a bite. (Close to starting position) rhmmmmmmmmn! Tastes good! Directions for Page 19. Give the child page 19. Have him draw a line from a bubble to one of the words beginning with f. Print that word inside the bubble. Put the f words into the bubbles around the fish. Here is another finger play for your child to enjoy: "Firemen” Ten brave firemen (10 fingers held up) Sleeping in a row (fold hands, lay head against them) "Dang" goes the bell (clap for bell) Down the pole they go. (hold hands as if around pole) Off to the engine (push hand away in large gesture, move down) Oh! Oh! Oh! (steer for oh) Singothc big hose (hands together around hose to guide hose) So - so - so - When all the fire is out (pretend to climb back on truck) Home so slow Then back to bed again, (fold hands, lay head against them) all in a row. ’ L“ \ , ( SP? \‘a Tl Tl "n "n \ This is a ring. 159 Draw a ring. 114 This is a ring around a boy. Draw a ring around the boy. This is a ring around a bed. Draw a ring around a bed. Draw a ring around the pig. €74 y Draw a ring around the doll. it Draw a ring around the train. ~ a Draw a ring around the sled. Draw a ringr around the kitten. Draw a ring around the tree. Draw a ring around the wagon. @ Draw a ring around the door. 0 65 Draw a ring around the barn. $7.0 3\ 6.. Draw a ring around the book. T60 15 “ / \ “35%, 0 .. . “0 O . . 9 o . o . . 0 0.0.0. 30...... . 4 16 161 FISHEM FREM Freddy was a fantastic fisherman that means that Fred m a real good fisherman and, he not only caugit lots of fish, but he caught big fish too! Fisherman from miles away would come to see that fantastic fish Freddy caught. Some fisher-an thought it was the kind of fishin bait Fredd used. (bait is what you put on our hook o catch fish rike worms) Some fishermen thou t it was the kind of fishing pole Freddy used. Some fisherman thought it was the places where Freddy went fishing. Some even thouyit' Freddy has magic. thy do you think Freddy was such a fantastic fishermen? Question; I. “\y did people come from miles away? 2, How could you catch big fish With magic? 3. if you were trying to catch a frog what would you use for bait. 4. If you were trying to catch a dog \dlat: kind of bait would you use? 5. that kind of fish, do you think Freddy caught? 17 62 1 18 163 “3‘ Q Q” Q — O .9 Q/ \@ Q . Q X \‘5 Q 166 THURSDAY Directions for Page 20. Cross out the one picture in each row that does not begin with F (ff) sound. Directions for Page 21. Give sheet 21 to the child and tell them to find row 1 with the sail boats and put an X on the third boat. Next find the row with the ducks and put an X on the second duck. In the next row with the letters, put an X on the first letter. In the row with the balloons, put an X on the fourth balloon. In the last row put an X on the fifth nut. Directions for Page 22. Give the child the picture of the farmer. After the child has cut out the puzzle pieces and pasted them on their matching shapes at the bottom of page 22, helphmn sound out the word - farmer. Directions for Page 23. Read the story "Fritz the Farmer" and ask the ques- tions at the end of the story. Your child may enjoy the following finger play: "The Farmer And The Gray Mare" (Cross your knees. Hold child on your lap, clasping one of his hands in each of yours.) A farmer went trotting (Bounce child up and down on knee Upon his gray mare; with heavy bump) Bumpety, bumpety, bump! With his daughter behind him, (Rock child back and forth on knee) 80 healthy and fair; Lumpety. lumpety, lump! An owl cried "Whooo!” (Stop) They all tumbled down, (Lower knees, Still holding child's Bumpety, bumpety, bump! hands, let him slide to floor. Rock The mare broke her knees, legs back and forth) The farmer his crown: Lumpety, lumpety, lump! Directions for Page 24. Give the child page 24 and show him the four letters in each box. The child is to say the name of the object in the box and he should put a circle around the letter that the picture begins with. Directions for Page 25. Give page 25 to the children. Explain that these are some of the things that might be found on a farm. Read each direction under the picture. This might be a good time to talk about farms and discuss other things that might be found on a farm. r e * r 167 1’0 aaaaaa 170 23 FRITZ THE. FDRGETFUL FARMER Fritz was a good farmer except that he was forgetful that means that he would forget the things he was supposed to do or if he did the things he was supposed to do - he forgot he had done them. Sometimes he would milk the cows and forget where he put the milk. Or he would plant his crops and forget where he planted the seeds. His friends had fun finding his craps as the little plants found their way through the dirt. As a field filled with corn began to Appear everyone flocked around to celebrate. One Special day when friends were gathered to admire a new field of alfalfa (to be used as food for Fritz's cows) that had appeared over night Friend Floyd found a pail full of fermented milk. He tasted it and it was so good he called Francisco to tr some. Everyone gathered around and began .eating and eating the pieces of solid milk. We know that what they found was cheese. They liked it so much that they ate it all up. Even though Fritz is so forgethJ, everyone will remember Farmer Fritz and his cheese forever. Questions 1. 'Vhat did Fritz do that made people say he is forgetful? 2. Why did Farmer Fritz's friends gather around he field? 3. What did Farmer Fritz and his friends find that waS' good to eat. 4. What do other farmers do"! V g 5. If you were a fanmer what would you like to do best? U: 24 T72 I am a cow. I eat grass. I give milk for the children. Color me red. I am a horse. I like hay. I pull the wagon. Color me brown. I. am a farmer. I live on the farm. Color me. I am a sheep. Ieat grass. ' Color me black. I lay eggs. Color me black. ‘Iamapig. I like corn. . I like milk. Color me. 174 FRIDAY Directions for Page 26. Discuss what a flag is and what it means. Let the child make the puzzle at the bottom of page 26. Match the word with the word flag. Let the child paste the puzzle pieces in place. Directions for Page 27. Read the story about the flag and ask the child to answer the questions about the story. Directions for Pages 28-33. Help the child mark the test. Do not answer questions for him, but encourage him to try to work the problem out for himself and to use whatever information or clues he has. Review the child's favorite finger plays as found on direction pages of the booklet for this week. f 27 175 THE FLAG The flag for the United States of America - Our country is red, white and blue. The flag has 13 red and white stripes and 50 white stars on blue. There are 50 states in our country. We live in the State of Michigan. When we fly a flag we are telling peeple we like our country and that is called being patriotic. Flags are flown in the day! time and are taken down before night. American flags should not be left out in the rain or dropped on the ground. Questions What does patriotic mean? When should you fly an American flag? What colors are on the American flag. In what state do we live? Why shouldn't flags be left out in the rain. P‘OONs—v T77 28 TEST A. Parents read. Child names the word which does not begin like the other words. I. ‘Foofba/I Fig}. monkey (1) .2. 1w»): ball Hue/c m ______.- 3. ‘Fl're mfibcr’ fa-f-her— <1) __ ll: baf 60” $13]; (1>__.____ 5 mouse Farm er mi [K m B. Child looks at both pictures in the row and tells whether they begin with the same sound. k1) (l) T78 (1) \I/ l ( T79 30 Time Concepts -- Look at the row of pictures at the top of Page 30. Pie, whole piece. first picture; second picture, bite taken off: which should be the third piece? Pick the picture on the right in each of the following rows that correctly completes the sequence of each row. (2 points each) TIM E CONCEPTS 0'0 '- a,” O . \n o. .O 4h» ° ‘N' o. 180 0. Ask the child to look at the first box in the top row. Tell him to draw a line from the word in the m ddle of the box to any of the words in the rrrrrrrr hich begin with the same letter as the middle word. (2 points each) Froa firmer M0 “k9 Fas‘l’ Feather Mother Foth e r Monkey Mills | , ‘ Mane (8) 31 181 32 . Read words (2 points each) 1) fish 2) frog 3) fire 4) farmer 5) flag 6) football (12) . Comprehension. Read the facts to the child and have him give the answer. l. It lives near water. It lays eggs that become tadpoles. It catches food with its tongue. (frog) (2)_____. 2. It is used to play a game. It is shaped like an egg with points on each end. It has lacanTOh it like.a shoe. It can be kicked or thrown. Usually boys like to play with it. (football) ‘2’ —-- ‘3. It is red, white and blue. It likes sunshine and daytime. It flies. It is striped and starred (flag) (2) _____ 4. It feeds animals. It grows crops. It milks cows. (farmer) <2>_____. Total Points (44) SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Alford, Roy N. "Home-Oriented Preschool Education Institute." Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Charleston, West Virginia. Artley, Sterl A. “What Do Parents Questions Mean?" The Reading Teacher, October l956. Borg, Walter, and Meredith Gall. Educational Research. An introduction. 2nd ed. New YorE: DavidEMcKay Company, nc., 974. Buros, Oscar Krisen, ed. The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook. Vol. 2. New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, i972. Campbell, Donald, and Julian C. Stanley. Experimental gnd Quasi- Experimental Dggjgn's for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Cattell, Raymond B. Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966. Conant, Margaret. "Teachers and Parents: Changing Roles and Goals." Childhood Education, December 1972. Cooperative Primarylgsts Handbogk, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey,l967. Douglas, J. W. The Home and the School: A Study of Ability and Attainment in the Primary School. London: McGibbon and Kee, l964. Elliott, David L. "Project 88: Parent Participation in the Elementary School," ERIC, Ed 071751, 1971. Ellson, D. 6., L. Barner, T. Engle, and D. Kampwerth. "Programmed Tutoring: A Teaching Aid and a Research Tool." Reading Research Quarterly, Fall 1965. Ellson, D. G., P. Harris, and L. Baker. "A Field Test of Programmed and Directed Tutoring." Reading Research Quarterly, Spring l968. Gordon, Ira J. "Florida Parent Education Program." A paper presented August 27, l970, from the Florida Follow-Through Program. 182 183 Parent Involvement in Compensatory Education. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1970. "What Do We Know About Parents as Teachers?" A paper presented at the American Educational Research Association in Chicago, Illinois, April 3-7, l972. ERIC, Ed 065788, 10 pages. Gray, Susan H. "The Child's First Teacher." Childhood Education 48, No. l (December l97l). Gray, Susan N., and R. A. Klaus. The Early Training Project--A Seventh Year Report. John F. Kennedy Center for Research on Education and Human Development, George Peabody College for Teachers, l969. Gray, William. The Teaching of Regdingyand Writing. An international survey for United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, 19 Avenue, Kleber, Paris, 16; Imprimerie Atar, Switzerland, l956. Grisson, Catherine. "Parents in Conferences." Childhood Education, December l97l. Hartlage, Lawrence C. "Does It Matter Nhich Initial Reading Approach Is Used?" A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Education and Research Association, Chicago, April 1972. ERIC, Ed O6l277. Hess, R. E., et al. "Community Involvement in Day Care." In Day Care: Resources of Decisions, U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, June 1971. Keele, Reba L. "The Effect of Parent's Using Structured Tutoring Techniques in Teaching Their Children to Read." A paper presented AERA Annual Meeting, New York, 1971. Keely, J. “My Mom Can Teach Reading, Too." Elementary School Journal 6, No. l (March 1970). Keeves, J. P. “The Home Environment and Educational Achievement." Australian National University Research School of Social Sciences, Department of Sociology. October 1970. Larrich, Nancy. "Let's Enlist the Parents." Education 76 (May l956). Levenstein, Phyllis. "Cognitive Growth in Preschoolers Through Stimu- lation of Verbal Interaction with Mother.“ A paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of American Orthopsychiatric Association, New York, April 1969. 184 Liddle, Gordon P., and Robert Roehwell. Educational Improvement for the Disadvantaged in an ElementaryTSchool Setting. Springfield, Ill.: Charles Thomas Publisher. Moore, T. "Language and Intelligence: A Longitudinal Study of the First Eight Years." Human Development, October 1968. Niedermeyer, Fred C. "Parents Teach Kindergarten Reading at Home." ' The ElementaryASchool Journal, May 1970. O'Keefe, Ruth Ann. "How About Home as a Place to Start." The Urban Review 6, Nos. 5-6 (l973). Packer, Athol B., and Bob N. Cage. "Changing Attitudes of Mothers Toward Themselves and Education." Theory Into Practice ll, No. 3 (June l972). 7* Pickarts, Evelyn M. "Learning to Read with Parental Assist." Todays Education 62, No. 2 (February 1973). Putnam, Lillian R. "A Comparison of Analytic and Synthetic Methodology in Beginning Reading for Disadvantaged Children." A speech given at the Annual Convention of International Reading Association, Detroit, May lO-l3, l972. ERIC, Ed. 064675. Radin, Norma. "Three Degrees of Maternal Involvement in a Preschool Program, Impact on Mothers and Children." Child Development 43, No. 4 (December 1972). Rupp. J. C. C. Opvoeding Tot School Weerbaarherd [Helping the Child to Cope with School]. GroningerNetherlands: Walters- Noordhoff, l969. Schaefer, Earl S. "Learning from Each Other." Childhood Education 48, No. 1 (October l97l). Scott, Ralph, and Helen Thompson. "Home Start I and II." Child Today l0, No. 6 (January l973). Sheldon, William D., and others. Teacher's Manual_at Homeg;Here and Near, Here and Away. Boston: Allyn and'Bacon, 1957. Strang, Ruth, Constance McCullough and Arthur Truxler. The Improvement of Reading. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill BOOK—Company, ‘ Sullivan, Howard J., and Carol LeBeaune. "Parent's Summer Reading Teachers." The Elementary_School Journal, February l97l. .—_J 185 Tewksbury, Robert. "An Innovative Program for Prevention of Reading Failure in Disadvantaged Preschool Children.“ Home Interventor, November 1971. ERIC, Ed 068l75. Tuinman, Jaap J. Approaches to the Teaching_of Readigg: Why Do Teachers Have Different Ways of TeachingAReading? National Reading Center Foundation, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20035. ERIC, Ed 059011. Ware, William, and Malcolm Garber. "The Home Environment as a Predictor of School Achievement." Theory Into Practice ll, No. 3 (June l972). Warsh, Herman E., and Jan Prins. Sketch 'N' Tell Creative Experiences in Language Development. Electronics FUtures, Inc., 57 Dodge Avenue,*North Haven, Connecticut 06473, l97l. Weikart, David P., et al. "Perry Pre-School Progress.“ A monograph from Ypsilanti Public Schools, Ypsilanti, Michigan, 1965. Whitla, Dean K., ed. Handbook of Measurement and Assessment in Behavioral Science. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1968. Wolf, R. M. "Identification and Measurement of the Environmental Process Variables Related to Intelligence." UniVersity of Chicago, June 1964.