A STUDY OF EARLY ELEMENTARY
SCHWL TEACHERS EVALUATIGNS 0F
SELECTED EYE-HAND COORDTNATEON
SKILLS 0F KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EMMA JANE SCANDARY
1958

[915.815

LIBRARY

TTTTWTTTTTTTW

3 8 University

INN!

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

[02—

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF EARLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS
EVALUATIONS OF SELECTED EYE-HAND COORDINATION
SKILLS OF KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN

BY

Emma Jane Scandary

Two forces have created concerns, on the part of
researchers in Child Growth and DeveIOpment, for the educa-
tional and emotional welfare of the early elementary school
child. Societal circumstances appear to be creating pres—
sures on the educational institutions of this country to
accelerate the learner and his academic achievements. Com-
mensurate with these pressures for educational acceleration
has been an impetus for the early identification of the
child who may not be able to keep up this academic pace. It
was the purpose of this study to investigate the extent to
which some of the expectations of the school compared with
similar expectations based on research findings from the
field of Child Growth and Development, and to discover the
nature of the discrepancy between these two eXpectations, if
Such existed.

The eye-hand coordination skill development of Kin-
dergarten children was selected as a focus point for this

investigation. Three school-related eye-hand coordination

Emma Jane Scandary

tasks which had been normed on large groups of Kindergarten-
age children were selected for use in this project; Gesell's
Copy Forms and the Ten-Dot Gestalt and Sentence Gestalt sub—
tests of the Anton Brenner Developmental Gestalt Test for
School Readiness. Samples of these tasks were gathered from
104 Kindergarten children within the Ingham Intermediate
School District (excluding the City of Lansing) during the
spring of 1967. These samples were evaluated by three expe-
rienced School Diagnosticians according to criteria estab-
lished by authorities in Child Growth and Development.
Fifteen samples of each of the three tasks, representing a
full range of performance ability, were randomly selected
and reproduced for presentation to teachers for their eval-
uation. One Kindergarten teacher, one First Grade teacher
and one Second Grade teacher from each of the 37 elementary
schools within the Ingham Intermediate District were randomly
selected to evaluate these samples of children's work. The
same samples were evaluated by the same teachers during
October and May of the 1967-68 school year. These evalua-
tions were analyzed for differences between the grade levels,
teaching experience at grade level and academic training
represented within the teacher group. The teacher evalua-
tions were then compared with the evaluations of the chil-
dren's work derived from Specialists in Child Growth and

Development. ‘Where discrepancies in the evaluations of

Emma Jane Scandary

these two groups existed, the nature of the discrepancies

were noted.

Significant Findings

Analysis of the data indicates that these early
elementary classroom teachers agree less than 50 per cent
with specialists on the evaluation of the eye—hand coordina-
tion skills of Kindergarten children. The data showed that,
although there was a wide discrepancy between the evalua-
tions of the teachers and the specialists, there was little
discrepancy among the evaluations of the teachers from the
three grade levels. That is, the teachers of these three
grade levels evaluated the children's work in much the same
manner, as if adhering to a uniform evaluation standard of
their own, rather than one more congruent with Child Growth
and Development research. The data further indicated that
teacher familiarity with the nature of the eye-hand coordi—
nation tasks used, proximity to the Kindergarten—age child
(grade level of the teacher), teaching eXperience at grade
level, and academic training were not significant as factors
which might make a difference in teacher evaluations of
Children's performances in these selected tasks.

Where discrepancies existed between the evaluations
of the teacher group and the specialists, the direction of

disagreement was more apt to be one of under-rating the

Emma Jane Scandary

child's performance on the part of the teacher. Kindergar—
ten teachers appeared to be more negative in their evalua-
tions of Kindergarten children's skills than did teachers of
the First and Second grade levels. Comparison of the teacher
evaluations over time revealed fewer "High" and "Unacceptable"
performance ratings in the May evaluation than in October,
indicating a tendency, on the part of this teacher group, to
respond to fewer differences in children's performance abil-

ities over time.

 

 

 

A STUDY OF EARLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS
EVALUATIONS OF SELECTED EYE-HAND COORDINATION

SKILLS OF KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN

BY

Emma Jane Scandary

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Psychology

-l968

©Copyright by
EMMA JANE SCANDARY

1969

Dedicated to:

Leonard W. Leipprandt

He believed in and
cared about people.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The cooperation of the Ingham Intermediate School
District staff and the administrators and teachers of the
school districts making up that unit were largely respon-
sible for making this project possible.

Special acknowledgment should be given to the four
peOple whose encouragement and assistance to the writer
were constant over the years of study and investigation:
Dr. Louise Sause, committee chairman and friend; Mr. Robert
Wells and Mrs. Elizabeth Hackel, co-workers on the Ingham
Intermediate Schools staff; and Dr. Howard Splete, fellow
graduate student. Appreciation is also eXpressed to Dr.
(Blessen Martin, Dr. Duane Gibson, and Dr. Charles Blackman,
committee members, for their ideas and contributions to
this study.

To my husband, Ted, and my children, John and Bob,

gt) eternal gratitude for their assistance, patience, and

faith.

*****

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Personal Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . 6
Sub-Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Possible Results of the Study . . . . . . . . 9
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
II. REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH AND RELATED
LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l4
Developmental Aspects of Eye-Hand
Coordination Skills in Children . . . . . . 15
The Effects of Teacher EXpectations and
Attitudes on Learning . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

III. DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENTATION OF DATA . . . . . 37

Selection of Eye-Hand Coordination Tasks . . 37
Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Testing Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Scoring Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Gathering the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Statistical Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Chapter Summary and Statement of

Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Results of Testing for Hypothesis One . . . . 53
Results of Testing for Hypotheses Two,

Three, and Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Results of Testing for Hypothesis Five . . . 61
Results of Testing for Hypothesis Six . . . . 62

iv

 

 

 

 

Chapter

Results of Testing for Hypothesis Seven
Results of Testing for Hypothesis Eight
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . .

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Educational Implications and Discussion
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Significant Findings . . . . . . . . .
Implications for Further Research . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX
A. Letter from A. Brenner . . . . . . . . .

B. Sample of Tasks given to Kindergarten
Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C. Scoring Rationale and Criteria for School
Diagnostician Evaluations of Children's
material 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

D. Letter to Principal and Letter and Scoring

Sheet to Teachers . . . . . . . . . . .

E. Children's Material Given to Teachers for
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page
64
66
71
74
74
77
85
87
88

91

95

97

100

107

114

 

 

 

 

5a.

5b.

5c.

10.

ll.

LIST OF TABLES

Agreed ratings of three scorers from 104
samples, Copy Forms task . . . . . . . . .

Derived ratings of Ten—Dot Gestalt task .
Derived ratings of Sentence Gestalt task .
Percentage of teacher agreement . . . . .

Distribution of teacher evaluations, Copy
Form-—TaSk I o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Distribution of teacher evaluations, Copy
DotS--TaSk II o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Distribution of teacher evaluations, Copy
Sentence--Task III . . . . . . . . . . . .

Per cent of teacher agreement per task . .
Teaching experience at grade level . . . .
Formal education . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher "U" ratings compared to specialist
"U" ratings per task . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher "H" ratings compared to specialist
"H" ratings per task . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of tested hypotheses . . . . . . .

vi

Page

43
44
45

53

55

56

57
6O
63

65

69

7O

73

 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Education has been besieged with multiple pressures
for the past twenty years. Beginning with the Veterans Read—
justment Act in October 1944 (more generally known as the GI
Bill) federal legislation and funds made higher education
and advanced training available to millions of Americans.
This act eventually inducted into the professions and soci—
ety an educated group of men and women from a broader social
and economic base than ever before. The value of education,
as a means of social and economic achievement, got its first
big national thrust!l The postAWorld War II years saw
science and technology expanding each other in the areas of
business and industry, while a new feeling of "internation—
alism" was infiltrating local governmental affairs through
the almost instant communication and transportation vehi-
<2les. The orbiting of Sputnik (1957) was fast followed by a
Epolitical need for competition with Russia and concerns
.about survival. Pressures steadily arose from political,

'technological and economic levels; from the need for more

1Frank G. Jennings, "It Didn't Start with Sputnik,"
Saturday Review, September 16, 1967, pp. 77-79, 95-97.

 

 

 

manpower, the search for talent, increasing social mobility,
industrialization, urbanization, and, more recently, an
honest concern for the education of all--especia11y children
and families in economically and culturally deprived areas.2
The target of these pressures has been the American
educational system, and, more specifically, the children
within the classrooms of that system.3 The premise upon
which a majority of the innovations and changes in the edu-
cational organization have been based during this past
decade is that the child must learn more; he must learn it
faster, and he must learn it earlier than ever before.4
Accompanying these external pressures to accelerate
the learning process has come a revival of interest in the
intellectual growth and development of the child with a com—
mensurate concern for the identification and remediation of
factors which may prohibit his effective and efficient learn-

ing in the academic setting. Indirectly, it is with these

 

2Anton Brenner, "Readiness for School and Today's
Pressures," The Inter-Institutional Seminar in Child Devel-
_meent; Collected Papers, 1966, The Edison Institute, 1967,
pp. 1-24 0

3Robert J. Fisher, "Assault Upon the Young,"
(Zhildhood Education: Crucial Years in Learning, Association
.for Childhood Education, International, Washington, D.C.,
1966, PP. 65-66.

4Caroline A. Chandler, "The Importance of the Early
Years," Childhood Education: Crucial Years in Learning,
Association for Childhood Education, International, Washing-
ton, D.C., 1966, pp. 3-5.

 

 

latter concerns and some of their broader implications, that
this study is involved.

As more and more persons and agencies are caught up
in the educational momentum to produce more and better stu—
dents at an earlier and faster rate, it becomes necessary to
focus briefly on the perceived factors which may prohibit
children from fulfilling these eXpectations. A current
diagnostic term.which is popularly used to indicate cause
for subnormal performance or potential difficulty in school
learning is "learning disorder." This term has been used to
describe any one or several of the following difficulties:
aphasia, autism, brain disturbance, educational retardation,
fine motor involvement, gross motor involvement, hyperkine-
sis, language disorders, minimal brain pathology, neurolog-
ical handicap, organic involvement, perceptual handicaps,
reading disabilities, and cultural deprivation.

Despite the fact that no literature in the field of
general or special education has, as yet, supplied a concise
or common definition of the term "learning disorder" or
"disability," its use is prevalent throughout the educational
setting. New diagnostic tools have been develOped for the

identification and classification of such disorders among

 

5Barbara Batemen, "Learning Disorders," Review of
Educational Research, American Educational Research Associa-
tion, XXXVI, No. 1 (February 1966), 93-119.

learners (i.e., Frostig, Kirk, Kephart). Materials and

methods of instruction for the prevention and remediation of

such disorders have flooded the educational publishing mar—

ket. Conferences, workshOps, seminars, and in-service edu—

cation experiences have focused heavily upon this new area

of interest. Most classroom teachers are now familiar with

the terminology of the field, if not its basic understand-

 

ings.

Personal Interest

The interest of the writer in this study stemmed
initially from her experiences as a consultant for the phys-

ically handicapped child in the regular classroom, and as a
resource person to the public school teachers of these chil-

dren. The advent of the new diagnostic tools for the iden-

tification of "learning disorders" and the subsequent popu-
lar use of terms or labels denoting possible causes for

linderachievement in the learning situation, has caused a

rnarked increase in children referred to as "disabled" with-

cnat the prerequisite medical and psychological evaluations.
ITie problem appeared even more serious when the implications

()f? erroneous labeling and the accompanying attitudes toward

the child in the classroom were considered.

6Marianne Frostig, The Marianne Frostiq Test of

__VJ:-Sual Perception; Samual Kirk, The Illinois Test of ngcho—
Llnguistics; and Newell C. Kephart, The Purdue Perceptual—
_M0_tor Survey.

 

The pressures to accelerate learning, the rising
eXpectations of school achievement, and the push for the
early identification of "learning disorders" creates ques-

tions concerning teacher evaluations of children's perfor-

mance in the early grades. This also leads to speculation

whether or not teachers might be exhibiting over—concern for,
or negatively evaluating, behaviors and performance abil—
ities which may be within the normal range of expectations
as determined by child growth and develOpment specialists.
The efforts of these concerns have culminated in the study
which is the basis of this dissertation.

Many of the diagnostic tools and remedial materials
developed relative to the area of "learning disorders" deal

‘with the eye-hand coordination skill development of the

child. The ability to copy forms, letters, pictures, and

:numbers, is one of the many activities included under the

czategory of eye—hand coordination development. Furthermore,

cnopying is considered, by kindergarten and early elementary

teeachers, as being one of the more important skills in the

exnaluation of the child's ability to progress in the regular

scfliool setting. It was for this reason that the copying

al>ijlities of kindergarten children were selected as a cri—
telria upon which the evaluations of teachers and child
9rcnnth and development specialists will be compared.

In order to carry out this study the writer col-

leCrteed samples of kindergarten children's work, in the

 

 

nature of eye-hand coordination tasks, which were evaluated
on the basis of criteria derived from child growth and devel-
opment specialists. These samples were then submitted to
kindergarten and early elementary public school teachers for
evaluation. The results of these evaluations comprise the

major portion of this study.

Statement of the Problem

 

The purpose of this study is to compare the evalua-

tions of kindergarten, first and second grade teachers and
child growth and development specialists on selected eye-

hand coordination skills of kindergarten children.

Sub-Problems

A. To determine and identify what eye—hand coordination
tasks are included as a part of the kindergarten and
early elementary learning experience within the
limitations of the area studied.

B. To determine if there are specific evaluations on
the part of kindergarten and early elementary
teachers concerning the skill of these eye-hand
coordination tasks for the kindergarten age child.

C. To analyze these evaluations of eye-hand coordina-
tion skills compared to norms derived from the
research on these skills by authorities in the

field of child growth and development.

 

 

 

 

Hypothesis

The eXpectations of the school, as reflected in the

evaluations by selected kindergarten, first and second grade

teachers, concerning the eye-hand coordination skill develop-

ment of kindergarten children are not congruent with the

evaluations of these skills derived from research by child

growth and development authorities.

Assumptions

A.

That there are expectations (as ascertained by
evaluation) of eye-hand coordination skill devel-
opment for kindergarten children as perceived by
kindergarten, first and second grade teachers.
That these expectations, referred to in A (above)

can be determined and identified.

Limitations

A.

This study will be limited to the thirty—seven
elementary schools in Ingham.County, Michigan,
excluding the City of Lansing. One kindergarten
teacher, one first grade teacher, and one second
grade teacher from each of the thirty-seven elemen-
tary school buildings will be included in the study.
This project will attempt to study the evaluations
of these kindergarten, first and second grade teach-

ers on the eye-hand coordination development of

 

 

4— a.—

 

 

children through the use of selected copy task

samples of kindergarten children's work.

Importance of the Study

The increase in pressures to accelerate learning
with the commensurate need to identify early those children
who might not be able to keep up the pace, creates the need
for some tangible evidence that might indicate that the pace
eXpected is unrealistic in terms of what is known about how
children grow and learn.

A survey of the research and literature relating to
teacher expectations and evaluations and the developmental
aspects of eye—hand coordination in the child indicated that,
individually each of these areas has much to offer on the
subject, but nothing, to the knowledge of the writer, has
been combined to challenge the issue. That is, research in
the area of teacher evaluations of children's performance
have been largely derived from questionnaire surveys or from
observations of the teacher's behavior within the classroom.
Research in the development of vision, gross and fine motor
skillse—eye-hand coordination--has been the result of longi-
tudinal studies from which norms of eXpected age—grade
behavior might be inferred. It appeared apprOpriate to this
study that these two areas be combined and realistically

compared for tangible evidence of discrepancy.

 

 

Possible Results of the Study

A.

Provision for decreasing some of the early and/or
erroneous labeling of children as "slow," "disabled,"
or "potentially disabled" in the learning situation.
Provision of a partial basis for the releasing of
undue pressures and eXpectations on kindergarten and
early elementary children.

Provision of a partial basis for the evaluation of
present kindergarten curriculums and expectations.
Provision of a partial basis for the development of
kindergarten curriculum guidelines which are more
congruent with normal child growth and development
patterns and eXpectations.

Evidence for the need of more effective study in
child growth and development in teacher education

programs.

Methodology

A.

A search was made of the research and literature of
child growth and development to find appropriate eye—
hand coordination tasks that had been developed and
normed on children of kindergarten age by author-
ities in this field. It was also considered impor-
tant that these eye-hand coordination tasks be those
that were related to the regular kindergarten and
early elementary grade level activities. The Copy

Forms, developed by Arnold Gesell and normed by Ilg

 

 

 

10

and Ames7 of the Gesell Institute of School Readi-
ness, and the Ten-Dot Gestalt and Sentence Gestalt
(sub-tests of the Anton Brenner Developmental
Gestalt Test of School Readiness) by Anton Brenner8
of the Merrill—Palmer Institute met the requirements
of the study.

B. A comprehensive sample of these tasks was collected
from kindergarten children in selected areas of
Ingham County during the last two weeks in May, 1967.
These samples were submitted to three eXperienced,
certified School Diagnosticians for rating and scor-
ing on the basis of criteria established by child
growth and development authorities. Derived ratings
of High, Average, and Low, and sub-normal perfor-
mances were arrived at through the use of the Mean
and Standard Deviation of the scores obtained on the
sample tasks. A random selection of fifteen scored
samples, representing a full range of performance on
each task, was gathered and reproduced to be pre-
sented for teacher evaluations.

C. Three booklets were prepared and submitted to each

elementary school for teacher evaluations of the

7Frances L. Ilg and Louise B Ames, School Readiness
(Iqew York: Harper & Row, Pub., 1965).

8Anton Brenner, Anton Brenner Developmental Gestalt
TEast of School Readiness (Beverly Hills, California:
Western Psychological Services, 1964) .

 

 

ll

children's work. Each booklet contained fifteen
examples of children's work on a particular task:

(1) Copy Forms, (2) Copy Dots, and (3) Copy Sentence.
Original approval for involvement in the research
project was given by all Ingham County school dis-
trict superintendents. Meetings were held with all
elementary building principals to orient them to the
project. In most cases, these principals cooperated
wholeheartedly in the random selection of one kinder-
garten, one first grade, and one second grade teacher
within that building to whom the booklets were given
for their individual evaluations. Evaluations of

the children's work were collected from the same
teachers twice during the 1967-68 school year. The
first evaluations were submitted to and returned by
the teachers during the month of October, 1967. The
second evaluation period was during the month of

May, 1968.

The results of these teacher evaluations of the
children's material were compared with each other

on the basis of grade level, professional training,
and the number of years of teaching experience.

They were also compared with the criteria derived
from child growth and development specialists. The
October and May evaluations were compared for reli-

ability purposes.

 

Plan of Study

In Chapter II the research and literature on the
developmental aspects of eye-hand coordination and copying
skills of children will be reviewed. In addition, teacher
expectations and attitudes and their influence on children's
performance and behavior in the classroom will be discussed.

Chapter III will be concerned with the specific
efforts of the writer to understand the problem more thor-
oughly by making a direct study of the situation. The
decision to use the Gesell Copy Forms and the Brenner Ten-
Dot Gestalt and Sentence Gestalt as copy tasks for teacher
evaluation will be reviewed. Sampling techniques will be
discussed. The criterion and technique for scoring these
tasks will be presented, followed by a description of the
procedures used in preparing and submitting samples of these
tasks for the kindergarten, first grade, and second grade
teacher evaluations.

In Chapter IV the hypothesis which the study was
designed to test is stated. The remainder of the chapter is
devoted to the results of the teacher evaluations of the
children's material. These results will be compared and
analyzed on the basis of grade level, professional training,
years of teaching eXperience, and time (October-May) of eval-
uation. Finally, the teacher evaluations are compared with
'the criteria derived from authorities in the field of child

growth and development.

13

General conclusions regarding the differences of
evaluation will be presented in the final chapter. The
implications of these results in terms of questions and
issues regarding realistic eXpectations and evaluations of
children's performances on eye-hand coordination tasks
raised in Chapter III will be discussed. Finally, impli—

cations for further research will be suggested.

 

 

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH AND

RELATED LITERATURE

In the preceding chapter, it has been noted that
the investigator has become aware of the many pressures for
the acceleration of learning on young children in the school
setting, and some of the criteria (copying ability) by
which the child's performance in this learning is evaluated
by the classroom teachers. In this chapter these two aspects
will be stated more eXplicitly and research results and phi—
losophies which seem to relate to these observations will be
examined. First, pertinent research and literature on the
developmental aspects of the copying, or eye-hand coordina-
tion, skills of children will be discussed. Following this,
research regarding teacher eXpectations and attitudes and
their influence on children's performance and behavior in

the classroom will be reviewed.

14

h

 

 

 

15

Developmental Aspects of Eye-Hand
Coordination Skills in Children

Maturation, as interpreted by Piaget,9 Kurt Koffka,lo

and Donald Hebb,ll is contingent on functioning, which, in
turn, is fostered by eXperience and training. Maturation
unfolds in continuous interaction with stimulation. Hurlock
has synthesized a number of longitudinal studies on motor
development in the following generalized principles:

1. Development of muscle control depends upon
the maturation of the neural structures,
bones, and muscles and upon changes in body
proportion, as well as upon an opportunity
to learn how to use the different muscle
teams in a coordinated fashion.

2. Learning cannot occur until maturation has
laid the groundwork for it. It is impossible
to teach the child skilled movements until his
nervous system and muscles are well enough
developed for him to profit from the teaching.

3. Motor development follows a predictable pattern.

4. There are predictable stages within the pattern
of motor develOpment. Numerous studies of the
sequence of stages in the motor develOpment of
different areas of the body tend to confirm the
belief that maturation rather than training is
largely reSponsible for motor development.

 

9Jean Piaget, The Origins of Intelligence in Chil-
dren (New York: International Universities Press, 1952).

10Kurt Koffka,The Growth of the Mind (London: Kegan
Paul, 1928).

11Donald 0. Hebb, Organization of Behavior (New York:
John Wiley, 1949).

 

 

"F‘

 

l6

5. There are individual differences in the rate of

motor development.12

During the first four or five years of life the
child gains control over gross movements. These movements
involve the large areas of the body used in walking, run-
ning, swimming, and bicycling. After five years of age,
major develOpment takes place in the control of finer coor-
dinations, which involve the smaller muscle groups used in
grasping, throwing, catching balls, writing, or using tools.
It is within this latter stage of motor development, the
refinement of fine muscle coordination, that c0pying as a
eye-hand coordination skill, is primarily developed.

Eye-hand coordination is the ability to coordinate
the hand movements with what is seen by the eye. This coor—
dination is important because well-directed eye movements
are a prerequisite for reading and for most other school
work; and good coordination of hand and eye is necessary for
writing.13 Kephartl4 maintains that the problem of eye—hand

coordination is often taken very much for granted. It is

 

12Elizabeth B. Hurlock, Child Development (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1956), pp. 170-71.

3Marianne Frostig and David Horne, The Frostig Pro-
gram for the Development of Visual Perception: Teacher's
Guide (Chicago: Follett Publishing Co., 1964), p. 10.

l4Newell C. Kephart, The Slow-Learner in the Class-
room (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1960),
p. 26.

 

 

17

thought of as a skill involving only accuracy and control
and remarkable only when reaching high degrees of precision.
However, many physical and psychological skills are involved
in making possible any eye-hand activity at all. In the
copying activity the child has not only the problem of
muscular coordination and the neurological innervation to
muscles, but also the problem of matching these motor skills
to a visual imput which is being generated as his pencil
moves over the paper. Copying even the simplest geometric
figures from a model is very difficult for a young child
because it requires not only control over the finer muscles
of the hand and arm, but also the ability to perceive rela—
tionships. Thus it is a skill that cannot be developed
until the muscles, nerves, and brain have reached the devel-
opmental status needed for such an intricate act. Cronbach,
in his book, Essentials of Psychological Testing,15 dis-
cusses the relationship between neuromuscular development
and intelligence, and explains why copying is used as a
measure of intelligence in some of the intelligence tests
for the early age levels (i.e., Stanford Revision of the
Binet Scale).

The study of copying as a developmental skill orig-

inated with Dr. Arnold Gesell in 1911 at Yale University.

 

15L J. Cronback, Essentials of Psychological
Testing (2nd ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1960).

 

 

18

At that time Dr. Gesell was already in the process of devel-
oping possible tools which would reveal the growth process.
The simple tools that he chose to probe the mindtsdepths
were a rattle, a ring on a string, a one-inch cube, a cup
and a spoon, a tiny sugar pellet, and pencil and paper.16

He found that the same tools used at succeeding age inter-
vals could reveal changes so specific and well-patterned
that they could be documented as closely as at four-week
intervals in the first year of life. Gesell standardized
the drawing ability of small children and found that a child
of nine months to one year can scribble imitatively; that a
child of one to one—half years can scribble spontaneously;
that a child of two years can imitate a vertical stroke;
that at three years a child can c0py a circle from a model;
that at four years a child can copy a cross; that at five
years a square and a triangle; and that at five years a
child can also draw a recognizable figure of a man. Gesell
expressed wonder at the inability of a child to produce an
oblique cross as early as it could produce a square cross,
or a diamond as early as a square. Gesell tried to explain

it on the basis of a motor difficulty.l7 In later research,

 

l6Arnold Gesell, The Mental Growth of the Pre—School

Child (New York: Macmillan, 1930).

17Arnold Gesell and Catherine S. Amatruda, Develop-
mental Diagnosis: Normal and Abnormal Child Development
(2nd ed.; New York: Hoeber, 1947).

 

l9

Gesell andAmes18 found that more complex figures are not
fully graSped until later. Thus, the figure % was
reproduced at four years with a single central vertical line
and numerous cross-lines. Between four and five years, the
tendency was to draw the inner lines as spokes radiating
from the center, but unrelated to one another. At six years,
there were a vertical, horizontal and a diagonal cross, but
their centers did not necessarily coincide. Clearly the
child analyzed the complex shape into several constituents,
without relating them to one another. Piaget and Inhelder19
found much the same. In copying figures such as a circle
within a triangle, each shape was correctly reproduced by
the five year old child, but their relationship to each
other was not accurately reproduced. It appeared that the
child's perceptions were fragmented, and that he could not
combine them into a coherent whole.

The most complete study of the ability of children

at various ages to copy moderately complex figures is that

of Lauretta Bender.20 Using geometric forms, Bender made

 

18Arnold Gesell and Louise B. Ames, "The Deve10pment
of Directionality in Drawing," Journal of Genetic Psychology,
LXVIII (1946), 45.

ng. Piaget and H. Inhelder, The Child's Conception
of Space (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1956).

20Lauretta Bender, A Visual Motor Gestalt Test and
Its Clinical Use, Research Monograph No. 3 (New York: The
American OrthOpsychiatric Association, 1938).

 

 

20

clinical interpretations of the development of copying in
children. Her interpretations are based on the assumption
that the pattern of the copying shows the ways in which the
original pattern was modified by the integrating level of
the individual who experienced it. In a sense, the whole
integrative level of the child determines the pattern of the
response. Bender has found this copying to be different at
different maturational or growth levels. She showed, as had
Piaget and Inhelder, that younger children appeared to have
some awareness of the details within a figure, but could not
produce them accurately. Thus, the direction of lines,
other than the horizontal, were not c0pied correctly; verti-
cal lines were approximately correct by five to six years,
but oblique lines not until nine to ten years. From her
study of the visual motor patterns in children from age two
and a half to eleven years of age, Bender deducted the fol-
lowing principles:

Scribbling is at first a motor activity. It
may acquire significance after production.21

aand

It would appear from our eXperiments that visual
motor patterns arise from motor behavior that is
modified by the characteristics of the visual
field.22

 

21Ibid., p. 11.

22Ibid., p. 13.

21

Bender extended Gesell's earlier explanation of the inabil-
ities of the child to reproduce certain forms at an earlier
age than others by adding:

It is quite clear from our studies, however,

that the difficulty is related tozghe problem

of Visual motor gestalt function.

In a later study, Townsend24 brought evidence to
show that the ability to copy these forms correctly improved
fairly steadily up to the mental age of seven and a half to
eight years of age. Administering individual tests to 287
New York school children, aged six years-one month to nine
years-three months, Townsend hypothesized that copying was
more closely related to mental than chronological age. The
tests used were composed of nine designs from the Bender—
Gestalt Test supplemented by simpler figures including
straight lines and combinations of three and four straight
lines. The Kuhlman-Anderson Group Test of Intelligence (5th
ed.) for grades one, two, and three was also administered.
The correlational findings of the Townsend study reflect the
growth in copying with increasing chronological and mental
age. There is a rapid improvement with chronological age to
about year seven, and thereafter the development continues

irregularly and at a slower rate. With mental age, the

 

23Ibid., p. 113.

24E. A. Townsend, "A Study of Copying Ability in
Children," Genetic Psychology Monograph, XLIII (1951), 3-51.

 

 

22

development is rapid to about year eight and thereafter con-
tinues irregularly and at a slower rate. The more obvious
improvement of c0pying with mental age than with chronolog-
ical age suggests that the measure of mental age and copying
are more homogeneous than chronological age and copying. A
study of the copying ability of pre-school children by
Graham25 supported Townsend's findings.

Fabian,26 working with New York school children on
the orientation of c0pying and its relationship to reading,
found that the whirling and circular movements, the disasso-
ciation of fragments, completion and rotational tendencies
in children's drawings were less evident with increasing age.
Fabian concluded that vertical rotation was a developmental
phenomenon found in normal children. His findings rein-
forced the clinical interpretations of Bender.

The Hildreth27 project on writing reflects the same
developmental aspects as do those concerning the copying
ability of children. Hildreth found that writing changes

with chronological age; first, scribbles, aimless and then

 

25F. K. Graham, P. W. Berman, and C. B. Ernhart,
"Development in Pre-School Children of the Ability to Copy
Forms," Child Development, XXXI (1960), 339-359.

26A. A. Fabian, "Vertical Rotation in Visual-Motor
Performances: Its Relationship to Reading Reversals,"
Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXVI (1945), 129-154.

27G. Hildreth, Learning the Three R's (Minneapolis:
Educational Publishers, 1947).

 

23

directed; followed by wavy lines; then partial letters; and
finally copies of varying quality. Bright children tended
to telesc0pe some of these stages, yet, so far, no linear
relationship has been found between handwriting quality and
mental age.

The relationship between copying skills and school
achievement was investigated by Lowder.28 Using a sample of
1510 children in grades one through three in the Winter
Haven, Florida schools, Lowder found that the relationship
between these two factors was significant. In differentiat-
ing low achievers from high achievers, he found the divided
rectangle and the horizontal diamond to be excellent items.

The most recent, comprehensive and detailed analysis
of the developmental aspects of the copying abilities of
young children is reported by Frances Ilg and Louise Bates

29

Ames in their book School Readiness. This longitudinal

 

research project was begun in 1956 as an outgrowth of the
author's consultation services for the Fund for the Advance—
ment of Education. The major objective of the study was to
gain information concerning the developmental aspects of

children as they related to school readiness and grade

 

28R G. Lowder, Perceptual Ability and School

Achievement: An Exploratory Study, Available from Winter
Haven Lions Club, Winter Haven, Florida, 1956.

 

9Frances L. Ilg and Louise Bates Ames, School
Readiness (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964).

 

 

24

placement. The Hurlbutt School in Weston, Connecticut was
selected as the site of the study. Between the fall of 1957
and the Spring of 1959 (two school years of time) 100 kinder-
garten children, plus one classroom of first grade children
and one classroom of second grade children were followed as
they progressed through these two school years. All chil-
dren were tested annually on a series of individual develop-
mental and projective tests.
The developmental examination tests included the

Gesell Copy Forms; an adaptation of Jacobson's Right and
Left Tests; Vision One and Vision Three from the Marion
Monroe Reading Readiness Test; the Lowenfield Mosaic Test;
the l—minute naming test from the Binet, plus various inter—
view activities. In selecting the Gesell C0py Forms as a
part of this study, the researchers state:

Dr. Gesell's original Copy Forms test shows how

simple a test can be and still be revealing.

He merely seriated six forms in increasing dif-

ficulty moving from circle to cross to square

to triangle to divided rectangle, and finally

to diamond. We still use this Copy Forms test

in its original form. . . . We have steadily

come to realize that the significance of such a

test is not simply in the process of copying.

It is the way the child copies, the size form he

makes, the place on the paper where he chooses

to draw his forms, all these and many more qual-

ifying categories that tell us more fully about

the child than do merely his success or failure
in copying the forms in question.30

 

30Ibid., p. 34.

 

25

Combining all of the earlier findings of Gesell
(previously cited) with the results of the longitudinal
Weston study, Ilg and Ames were able to make a finer analy—
sis of the developmental aspects regarding the copying abil-
ities of the pre-school and early elementary school age
child. As an example, the following table taken from their
book illustrates the many development facets looked at in
the making of a circle; similar tables on the developmental
aSpects of the cross, triangle, square, divided rectangle
and vertical and horizontal diamond are recorded in the book.

Ilg and Ames further analyzed the organization of
the forms upon the page by looking at specific characteris—
tics such as: the space used to copy the forms, the place-
ment of the forms on the paper, the arrangement of the forms,
the relative size of the forms, and the quality of the
strokes. In all of these factors developmental levels were
noted:

The shifts from age to age can be so significant
and revealing that it is fortunate when yearly
records for any one child can be taken so that
he can be seen in movement, revealing increment
from age to age. . . . In general, there is
fairly steady improvement in that children, with
increasing age, use less of the page in copying
forms, and improve from random order to the use

of three horizontal rows, and from large uneven
figures to medium-sized even figures.3

 

31Ibid., p. 127.

 

265

.OO .O ..OHHH

 

 

 

NO
O N N O O OH O O O OH O O O O O O mnu OOOOOO-OHOO4
O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O OH any annos
N N O O O O N O N N O O O O NH O any OcHOOOHuO>o
O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O OH O OcHoO
magmoHo um wummm ammo
O O N O O O N O OH O OH ON OH ON OO Om mHV OOOHOOoH
O N OH O OH O NH O OH OH NO OH ON OH ON ON nu .HO>O
NO OO OO OO OO NO Os OO OO Om Om NO OO OO OH OH AHV OOOoHuHoOoumuHHms
muowdmd o>HumuHHmso
O N O N N O O N O O N O O O O O soo OOO soo OOOHH N
NH O O O OH N O O O N O O O N O O soo Ocm so no
so can soo OOOHH N
OOH NO NO NO OO ON OO NO OO OO NO OO NO OO OO Om OO soo
O NH O O OH O OH O ON OH OO ON OO OO Os NO so
GOMHUOHHQ
N O O O N O O O O O O O O O N O O
OH O O O OH N O O O N N O O N N N N
OOH OO OO OOH NO OO OO OOH NO OO OO OO OO OOH OO OO OO H
mOCHH MO HOQEDZ
O O O N N O O O O O OH N OH NH O OH OOHO quH
N O N O O N N O OH O O N O O O O OOHO OOOHO
OOH OO OO OO NO OO OO OO OOH OO OO OO NO ON OO OH OO Ooe
O O O O N O O O ON O ON OH OO OH NO OO soOOOO
ucaom gswuumum
OHOOO O O O O O o O o O o O o O o O o
a .mum OH .mum m .mu% m .mu» 5 .mu> o .mH> mm .muh m .mum we

 

mm

Amocmuusuoo mo mmmucmonmmv

 

27

It would appear from the research cited on the COpy-
ing ability of children that the developmental aSpects of
this skill have been established. There appears also, ample
evidence to show that there is a significant relationship
between copying abilities, chronological age, and intellec—
tual ability in children, at least through the early elemen-
tary school years. The question then is: to what extent do
teachers understand the development of these c0py abilities
in the light of the research cited, and how might teacher
evaluations effect the child and his ability to learn?
Hurlock speaks of the psychological damage of awkwardness or
perceived awkwardness and uncoordination:

Some adults, parents and teachers, eXpect a
child's motor skills to approach the level of
perfection more characteristic of adult skills.
They push the child into a learning situation
before he is ready, and they eXpect him to learn
specific movements before the gross movements
have been perfected. Because this is too com-
plicated for him, he becomes discouraged and
rebellious. Later, when he is physically and
neurologically ready, he resists learning. As
a result, he lags behind other children of his

age and begins to think of himself as inferior
to them.33

The Effects of Teacher Expectations
and Attitudes on Learning

Ample evidence now exists, through the work of child
psychologists and researchers in the area of mental health,

that establish the importance of the adults' attitudes and

 

33Hurlock, op. cit., p. 201.

 

 

28

expectations in the formation of the child's self-concept.
The theory behind this area of research assumes that the
person begins to regard himself as manifesting the foibles
and virtues attributed to him. This image of himself
becomes his self-concept. The standards by which he judges
himself and his fellows are the standards he has unwittingly
incorporated from the significant others with whom he inter-
acts. Ausubel,34 Jourard and Remy3S are among the few
investigators who have reported results which support these
theoretical contentions.

Teachers, as one of the early and persistent "sig—
nificant others" encountered by a child, have been shown to
play a large part in the establishment of a pupil's percep-
ition of himself-~both as a person and a learner. Jensen36
criticizes the educational process for its repeated inappro-
priate and unrewarding eXperiences early in a child's school—
ing which may act as insurmountable barriers for children
whom, through a different approach and better understanding,

might be capable of achieving a rewarding education. He

 

34D. P. Ausubel et al., "Perceived Parent Attitudes
as Determinants of Children's Ego Structure," Child Develop—
ment, XXVIII (1954), 173-183.

355. M. Jourard and R. M. Remy, "Perceived Parental
Attitudes, the Self, and Security," Journal of Consulting
Psychology, XIX (1955), 364-366.

36Arthur R. Jensen, "Social Class, Race and Genetics;
Implications for Education," American Educational Research
Journal, V, No. 1 (January 1968), 42.

29

adds that insistence upon surmounting uniform requirements,
such as acquiring the "three R's" at an early state of
schooling, could screen out some children from ever entering
upon any path of educational fulfillment. Jersild, in his

study When Teachers Face Themselves,37 specifically pin-

 

points the role of the teacher as a "significant other" by
saying:

What the teacher does strongly affects the

pupil's attitudes regarding his worth as a per-

son since, as has been noted, life at school is

heavily invested with praise and blame, pride

and shame, acceptance and rejection, success and

failure. Everything in relation between a teacher

and a student has or might have a significant

affect on what a child thinks and feels about

himself.3

According to Horney's concept,39 there is a basic

anxiety linked to a child's helplessness when he has to deal
'with a world that is hostile, unjust, and unaccepting, and
‘with an environment that blocks the free use of his energies
and hinders his efforts to be himself. Horney explains that
the conditions that interfere with the child's freedom to
«grow do not arise simply because his elders are malicious or

harsh or wish to do him harm. They may occur partly because

these persons are so absorbed in their own problems or in

 

37Arthur T. Jersild, When Teachers Face Themselves
CNew York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1955).

381bid., p. 82.

39

 

K. Horney, Our Inner Conflicts (New YOrk: Norton,
1945).

 

their own anxieties that even though they love the child

they still do not have the inner freedom to notice, accept,
and encourage him.

Sullivan's theory,4O like Horney's, takes into
account the concept of the develOping self and the child's
dependence upon others. {Anxiety, according to Sullivan, has
its roots in the disapproval of people who are significant
in the child's interpersonal world. The child's earliest
appraisal of himself is in terms of what others think and
feel about him. The attitudes that prevail in the child's
interpersonal relations become a part of his concept of self.

Empirical research which tests the theory of the
pupil's self concept and it's relationship to the attitudes
and expectations of the teacher within the school setting
has been surprisingly meager until recently.

In a systematic study designed to determine the
extent of teacher's "unconscious discrimination against
lower-class children," Hoehn41 found no relationship between
the frequency of teacher contacts and social class positions

of the children. Children of low social class status were

 

40H. S. Sullivan, The Meaning of Anxiety in Psychol-
ogy and in Life (New York: William Alanson White Institute
of Psychiatry, 1948).

41A. J. Hoehn, "A Study of Social Status Differen-
tiation in the Classroom Behavior of Nineteen Third Grade
Teachers," Journal of Social Psychology, XXXIX (1954),
269-292.

 

31

just as likely to receive the teacher's attention as those
of high social class position. Some differentiations were
noted, however, with respect to the kind of contact involved.
Hoehn reported that low achievers received a greater share
of the teacher contacts but also a greater proportion of the
"less favorable" kinds of contacts (dominative and conflict-
ful) than high achievers. Hoehn was considerably impressed
by the extent of the teacher's discriminatory behavior. On
the basis of his inspection of the data, he noted that some
teachers did not discriminate consistently between either
groups of pupils, other teachers consistently favored the
high social class children, and in one classroom the teacher
consistently favored the low social class pupils.

Hoehn's study ties in with a long line of research
on the implications of teacher-pupil interaction for promot-
ing a healthy learning environment in the classroom. Fland-
ers' classroom interaction analysis,42 the responses of

43

teachers to the Minnesota Teachers Attitude Inventory,

teacher responses to the California F Scale,44 and the work

 

42N. A. Flanders, "Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes
and Achievement (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Col-
lege of Education, November 30, 1960; Final Report, Coopera-
tive Research Project No. 397, U.S. Office of Education).

43W. W. Cook, C. H. Leeds, and R. Callis, The
Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (New York: Psycholog-
ical Corporation, 1951).

44H. M. McGee, "Measurement of Authoritarianism and
Its Relationship to Teacher's Classroom Behavior," Genetic
Psychology Monograph, 1955, pp. 89-146.

 

 

 

“i W ,, 7 7

 

of Ryans who developed a Teacher Characteristic Schedule,45

have all been utilized as tools in research studies which
give evidence of a positive correlation between the atti—
tudes and eXpectations of teachers and their effect upon the
attitudes, behavior and achievement of their pupils.
Investigating the role of anxiety in elementary

school children Sarason concluded:

Whether wittingly or not, each teacher engenders

in her classroom attitudes towards learning,

tests, failure and success.

From our observations we have concluded that one

of the most important dimensions on which teach-

ers vary is the degree to which they establish

an atmosphere in which the child's sense of secu—

rity and level of self-esteem are very much deter-

mined by the adequacy of his performance.

From the standpoint of the child, what he thinks

is the teacher's attitude toward him is of great

moment to him, particularly if he likes the teacher

and wants to be liked by her.46

Davison and Lang47 found that children's perceptions

of their teacher's feelings toward them correlated posi-

tively and significantly with their self-perception. Also,

 

45D. G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers (Washing-
ton, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960).

46S. Sarason, F. Davidson, R. Lighhall, R. Waite,
and B. Ruebush, Anxiety in Elementary School Children (New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960), p. 272.

47H. Davidson and C. Lang, "Children's Perceptions
of Their Teacher's Feelings Toward Them Related to Self-
Perception, School Achievement and Behavior," Journal of
EXperimental Education, XXIX (December 1960), 107-118.

 

 

 

33

the more positive the child's perception of his teacher's
feelings, the better was his academic achievement and the
more desirable his classroom behavior as rated by the
teacher.

Gathering data from ten elementary schools in a
California suburb, involving children in fourth through
sixth grades, Spaulding48 found that his data showed a
significant positive relationship between height of self—
concept and the degree to which teachers were calm and
acceptant in an atmosphere where there was a socially inte—
grated learner-centered group.

Two recently published studies give important clues
to pupil success and failure. The first study, conducted by
the New Jersey Department of Education,49 concentrated on
ninth—grade pupils. It was found that very little was
expected of the school failures, by the parents or teachers--
or by the students themselves. The second study, completed

by Robert Rosenthal of Harvard University and Lenore Jacobson

48R. Spaulding, "Achievement, Creativity, and Self—
Concept Correlates of Teacher—Pupil Transactions in Elemen—
tary Schools," Readings in Child Behavior and Development,
ed. by C. Standler (2nd ed.; New York: Harcourt, Brace and
World, Inc., 1964), p. 313.

49Reported in Education USA (Washington, D.C.:
National School Public Relations Association, September 1967),
p. 19.

 

of the San Francisco Unified School District,50 begun by

deliberately misinforming the teachers in the school about
the abilities of their pupils. In the spring of 1964 the
researchers gave the Flanagan Test of General Abilities to
all the pupils in the Kindergarten and first five grades of
a San Francisco school of 650 students. The teachers were
told that the test was a new one called the "Harvard Test of
Inflected Acquisition" (a false title) and that it was
designed to predict academic "blooming" or intellectual
potential. Within each of the school's 18 classrooms an
average of 20 per cent of the children, selected at random,
were reported to the classroom teacher as showing "unusual”
potential for intellectual growth.

A year later, when all the children still in school
were retested, the "spurters" showed an average 1.0. gain of
12.22 points, compared with 8.42 for a control group repre—
senting the rest of the student body. The dramatic gains
came only in grades one and two; an increase of 27.4 in the
first grade and 16.5 in the second grade for the "spurters."
The control group rose only 12 points in the first grade and
7 points in the second. A surprising 79 per cent of the
"spurters" and 49 per cent of the control group showed

absolute gains of 10 1.0. points or more in the first two

50"Keeping Abreast in Research," Phi Delta Kappan,
XLIX, No. 3 (November 1967), 158.

 

35

grades. Contrary to Rosenthal's expectations, children in
the school's "slow'I track did not make the most significant
gains. After two years the children of the medium track
very clearly showed the greatest benefits from having had
favorable expectations of their intellectual performances.
It would appear that it is the "average" child who stands

to benefit the most from his teacher's improved expectations.

Chapter Summary

Two areas of research and literature have been
reviewed in this chapter. The first area dealt with the
developmental aspects of the copying skills of early elemen—
tary children; the second area illustrated the extent to
which the attitudes and expectations of classroom teachers
related to the behavior, feelings of self and achievement of
the learner.

The research indicates that the ability to copy cer-
tain specific geometric forms is developmental in nature,
and generally does not culminate in maturation until between
eight to ten years of age. The research on the effects of
classroom teacher attitudes and expectations (though some-
what limited in empirical studies) regarding children's
behavior, feelings and achievement indicates that there is
a positive correlation between these attitudes and expecta-
tions on the part of the teacher and the behavior, feelings

about self, and achievement on the part of the student.

 

 

 

36

Although the two areas of research reviewed may
appear to be unrelated, it is the purpose of this thesis to
find out what the eXpectations of classroom teachers are
relative to a specific developmental skill (copying),
through their actual evaluations of children's copy work,
and to further hypothesis about the effects of these expec-
tations of copying ability as they might relate to the child

in the learning situation.

 

CHAPTER III

DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENTATION OF DATA

As indicated in the "Statement of the Problem" in
the introductory chapter, the purpose of this study was to
compare the evaluations of kindergarten, first and second
grade teachers and child growth and development Specialists
on selected eye-hand coordination skills of kindergarten
children. Therefore, any tasks selected for teacher evalua-
tions required that they be tasks which had already been
developed and normed on large groups of children of this age

by recognized authorities in the field of child growth and

development.

Selection of Eye-Hand
Coordinat ion Ta sks

A review of the literature was made to find a selec-
'tion of eye-hand coordination tasks which best met these
requirements:
1. Tasks with school-related characteristics.
2. Tasks which had been normed on large groups of
kindergarten age children by specialists in the

field of child growth and development.

37

 

 

From the literature and research in child develop—

ment relevant to this problem, the Gesell Copy Forms met
part of these requirements (see Chapter II). These Copy
Forms are considered more representative of growth and
development (maturation) than of specific classroom skills.
The mechanics involved in evaluating them do not allow for
ease of specific scoring. Ilg and Ames,51 however, have
developed guidelines and c0pying characteristic charts rela-
tive to the specific age group of children with which this
study is concerned. These guidelines for evaluating the
Copy Forms appear in Appendix C.

Further investigation revealed that the Ten-Dot
Gestalt (Sub-test III) and the Sentence Gestalt (Sub—test IV)
of the Anton Brenner Developmental Gestalt Test of School

Readiness were also appropriate tasks for this study. This

 

test has been normed on more than 700 children in the
Detroit, Dearborn, Greenfield Village, and Albion schools,
and used on more than 5,000 children since 1954.

The Ten-Dot Gestalt and Sentence Gestalt sub-tests
are copying tasks more related to probable classroom activ—
ities of the kindergarten age child than the Gesell Copy
.Forms. An objective scoring procedure has already been
developed for these tasks by Dr. Brenner (see Appendix C).

Personal inquiry was made to Dr. Brenner regarding norms for

 

51F. Ilg and L. B. Ames, op. cit.

 

39

these sub-tests. His reply (see Appendix A) stated that no
norms had been established for these sub-tests, but with the
objective scoring procedure, and a sufficient sample of
children's work, norms could be established by the researcher
of this project.

A comprehensive sampling of kindergarten children's
production in eye-hand coordination skills was planned using
the seven geometric shapes of the Gesell Copy Forms and the
Ten—Dot Gestalt and Sentence Gestalt sub—tests of the Anton

Brenner Developmental Gestalt Test of School Readiness.

Sampling

Kindergarten children, from whom samples were to be
gathered, were selected from three representative school
areas within the Ingham Intermediate District. This study
excluded the school district of the City of Lansing. One
Kindergarten group of 25 children was selected from the
Mason School District, Mason, Michigan. This group of chil-
dren represented a cross-section of town, rural, and suburban
residential backgrounds. One group of 23 kindergarten chil-
dren was selected from the Okemos School District, Okemos,
Michigan. This group represented a totally suburban popula-
tion. Two kindergarten groups, totaling 56 children, were
selected from the Leslie School District, Leslie, Michigan.
This group of children represented a village and rural
residential population. Samples were collected from a total

of 104 kindergarten children.

-———_ wxw‘g‘

 

 

 

4O

Chronological age of the children, at the time of
testing, ranged from 65 months to 83 months, with a Mean of
72.7 months and a Standard Deviation of 3.7 months. The
total group included 50 boys and 54 girls. Testing was done
within the last two weeks of May, 1967. All children tested
had completed one full school year of kindergarten experi-
ence. No children who had been retained in kindergarten for
a second year, nor any who had known physical or mental

handicaps were included within the sample.

Testing Procedure

An initial contact, for the purpose of explaining
the testing project, was made with each building Principal
of the selected schools. Administrative approval for the
project was followed by kindergarten teacher contacts during
which the investigator and the teacher discussed the general
kinds of tasks required of the children and set up a sched-
ule of testing which would be convenient for all concerned.
The investigator was introduced to the children of each
selected classroom by the classroom teacher. The children
were told that in the near future each child would have an
opportunity to "visit" with the investigator, and to draw
some pictures for her.

Each child within the sample group was tested indi-
vidually by the investigator. In each school testing took
place in an isolated area where there were no outside dis-

tractions. The tester gave the child a sheet of 8%" x 11"

 

41

white, unlined paper and a pencil, with the general instruc—
tions:

I am going to show you some pictures, and I

would like to have you make some just like them

on your paper.
The Gesell Copy Forms were then individually presented to
the child in the following order: circle, cross, triangle,
square, divided rectangle, vertical diamond, and horizontal
diamond. Each presentation was accompanied by the direc-
tions, "Do you see this picture? Will you please make one
like it on your paper?"

A Ten-Dot Gestalt test form was then presented to

the child (Appendix B). The pencil was substituted for a
black crayon for this task. Directions which accompanied
this task were from the BGT Manual:

Here is a picture made of dots . . . and here

is an empty space. In this space I want you to

make a picture just like this one. Look at it

carefully and draw the picture here. Be sure

to draw it exactly as it looks.

The Sentence Gestalt test employing the sentence,

"FRED IS HERE," was presented in a like manner: as a pic-

ture to be copied, not as letters, words, nor a configura-

tion to be recognized or read.

 

52A. Brenner, Anton Brenner Developmental Gestalt
'Test of School Readiness Manual (Beverly Hills, California:
‘Western Psychological Services, 1964), p. 11.

 

42

Scoring Procedures

Three eXperienced, certified School Diagnosticians
from the Ingham Intermediate District staff were selected to
individually evaluate all test results. The samples of
children's work which would ultimately be presented for
evaluation to the early elementary teachers within the
Intermediate District would be selected from only those
samples upon which all three School Diagnosticians had
agreed as to performance ratings and/or scores.

The Copy Forms portion of the tests were evaluated
individually by each School Diagnostician who ascribed a
performance rating of High, Ayerage, Low, or gnacceptable
performance to each sample. Ratings were based on the guide-
lines developed from the Ilg and Ames research studies53 on
this task (see Appendix C). As experienced Diagnosticians,
long familiar with the Copy Forms in other contexts (Bender-
Gestalt Test, Stanford-Binet, and Winter Haven Tests) the
gestalt characteristics of this task were also familiar to
them and included in their total ratings.

It was anticipated that, because of the larger num-
ber of subjective evaluations necessary to the scoring of
this task, there would be fewer total agreements among the
three scorers. This proved to be true: of the 104 samples
of children's work submitted for evaluation of the Copy Form

53Ilg and Ames, School Readiness, op. cit.

43

task, the scorers agreed upon 37 samples, falling into the

following performance rating categories:

Table 1. Agreed ratings of three scorers from 104 samples,
Copy Forms task

Rating No. of Samples
High Performance . . . . . . . . . . 7
Average Performance . . . . . . . . . . 18
Low Performance . . . . . . . . . . 10
Unacceptable Performance . . . . . . . . . . 2

Total . . . . . . . . . . 37

A test-retest procedure, which would have provided a
means of testing for stability of judgment of the scorers
(School Diagnosticians) on the Copy Forms tasks submitted
for their evaluation was not administered.

Standard Scoring directions from the Anton Brenner
Developmental Gestalt Test for School Readiness Manual were
followed for evaluating the Ten-Dot Gestalt and Sentence
Gestalt tests (see Appendix C). The range of possible
scores on the Ten—Dot Gestalt is from +9 to —9. Of the 104
samples, the three scorers agreed upon the scores for 94
samples. The scores of these 94 samples ranged from +9 to
-9, with a Mean of +5.02 and a Standard Deviation of 5.13

as computed by the following formula:5

4George Ferguson, Statistical Analysis in Psychol—
9 y and Education (New Ybrk: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1959),
Formula 4.4a, p. 56.

 

SD = Juzxz - (2x2)
N
In order to convert the scores of the Ten-Dot
Gestalt into a rating compatible to the High, Ayerage, pow,
and Unacceptable Performance ratings of the Copy Form test,

the Mean and Standard Deviation of the scores were used.

Table 2. Derived ratings of Ten-Dot Gestalt task*

 

 

 

Scores Rating No. of Samples
+9 High Performance 42

+7, +5, +3 Average Performance 29

+1, 0, —1 Low Performance 11

—3, -7, -9 Unacceptable Performance 12
Total 94

 

*Based on Mean of +5.02; Standard Deviation of 5.13.

The Sentence Gestalt test was similarly handled.
Possible scores for this task ranged from a +12 to -12. Of
the 104 samples of this task scored, 94 had full agreement
by the three scorers. (The 94 agreements on this task were
not the same 94 agreements as on the Ten-Dot Gestalt Test.)
The range of scores of the samples of the Sentence Gestalt
task.was +12 to +3, with a Mean of +9.5 and a Standard Devia-
tion 2.4. These figures were computed by the same formula
previously mentioned. Using the Mean and SD of scores as a

ibase, the scores were converted into performance ratings

 

45

similar to the Ten-Dot Gestalt task and compatible to the

Copy Forms task.

Table 3. Derived ratings of Sentence Gestalt task

 

 

 

Scores Rating No. of Samples
+11, +12 High Performance 33
+9, +10 Average Performance 28
+7, +8 Low Performance 23
+3, +5, +6 Unacceptable Performance 10
Total 94

 

*Based on Mean of +9.5; Standard Deviation of 2.4.

Test-retest procedures for the purpose of testing
the scorers (School Diagnosticians) for stability of judg-
ment on the Copy Dot and Copy Sentence tasks submitted for
their evaluation were not administered.

Fifteen samples of each of the three tasks, Copy
Forms, Ten-Dot Gestalt, and Sentence Gestalt, ranging from
High through Unacceptable performance ratings were randomly
selected for reproduction and presentation to the classroom

teachers for their evaluations.

Gatheringpthe Data

Early in September, 1967, the investigator intro-
duced the research project to the superintendents of all the
school districts within the Ingham Intermediate District,

excluding the City of Lansing. The proposal was accepted

 

 

46

by this administrative group and their individual school
district cooperation was approved. The research project
then became known as the Ingham Intermediate COOperative
Research Project for the 1967-68 school year.

The investigator contacted each building principal
of the 37 elementary schools within the Ingham Intermediate
District for the purpose of reviewing the project and seek-
ing their administrative cooperation. In most cases, these
administrators assisted the investigator in the random
selection of one kindergarten teacher, one first grade
teacher, and one second grade teacher from within each
school to whom the samples of children's work would be sub—
mitted for evaluation. Three booklets, each containing 15
samples of children's work per task, (1) Copy Forms, (2)
Ten-Dot Gestalt, (3) Sentence Gestalt (see Appendix E), were
submitted to these teachers along with basic information con—
cerning the project and the children represented within the
sample. Teachers were asked to rate each sample in terms of
their own evaluation as to it being High, Hverage, Low, or
.Hhacceptable performance for a child of kindergarten age
(see Appendix D).

Teachers were also requested to give the following
information:

1. Total number of years of teaching eXperience.
2. Number of years of teaching experience at present
grade level.

3. Level of academic training.

A total of 111 teachers were involved in this study: 37 at
the kindergarten level, 37 at the first grade level, and

37 at the second grade level. Samples were submitted for
teacher evaluations in October, 1967. In order to test for
reliability a second evaluation period, utilizing the same

samples and the same teachers, was administered in May, 1968.

Statistical Procedure

As soon as the October 1967 teacher evaluation data
had been collected and recorded, an extensive search and
consultation was carried out for an appropriate statistical
analysis of the survey. The initial concern was a direct
comparison, or the extent of agreement between classroom
teacher's evaluations of the eye-hand coordination skills
of Kindergarten children with those of specialists within
the field of Child Growth and Development.

The prime problem was to obtain a measure of the
extent of association or agreement between the two groups.
Iiowever, in order to accomplish this, it was necessary to
(determine the association within the three teacher groups
E>er task, as well as between the teachers and the special-
:ists. In essence, then, two major measures became involved.
Ifiae first would note the association or agreement among the
'téaachers as a group. The second measure was concerned with

'tlleeextent of association or agreement between the teachers,

as one group, and the specialists in Child Growth and Devel-

OEDIFnent, as a second group.

 

48

After a thorough examination of the data, the Chi—
Square Test of Significance was selected as the most appro-
priate statistical means for determining the extent of
association or agreement between the three teacher groups.
An .05 Level of Significance was apprOpriate to the study.
A direct enumerative technique, specially designed for this
study was selected as a means of meeting the requirements
of the second measure. This computational technique was
designed not only to give a measure of association or agree-
ment between the two groups (teachers and specialists), but
to also indicate the direction of disagreement. Data
gathered from each of the two evaluation periods (October
1967 and May 1968) was analyzed separately, then compared
for reliability purposes prior to the final analysis of
association between the teacher and specialists groups.
Chapter Summary and Statement
of Hypothesis
The investigator worked with large numbers of kin-
<flergarten children, early elementary classroom teachers,
£3chool administrators and specialists in the areas of Child
C§rowth and Development in order to develop a means by which
tJne classroom teacher could evaluate eye-hand coordination
.Slcills of kindergarten children. Consultations with School
Diagnosticians, educational researchers and statisticians
Were held for the purpose of facilitating the project.

tPllrough the cooperative efforts of the Ingham Intermediate

 

 

49

District Special Education staff and the local school dis-
trict personnel data was collected. Finally, the Chi Square
method of statistical analysis was selected.

In order to explore similarities and differences
in the evaluations of early elementary teachers and Child
Growth and Development specialists concerning the eye-hand
coordination skills of kindergarten children, specific

hypotheses are stated to give direction to the study.

H Early elementary classroom teachers do not agree

1
with specialists from the field of Child Growth and
Deve10pment in the evaluations of the eye-hand coor-
dination skills of kindergarten children.
H2 Early elementary teachers will agree less with Child

Growth and Deve10pment Specialists on Task I (Copy

Forms) than on Task II and Task III.

H Early elementary teachers will be in more agreement
with Child Growth and Development Specialists on

Task II (Copy Dots) than on Task I°

H Early elementary teachers will be in more agreement
with Child Growth and Development Specialists on

Task III (Copy Sentence) than on Task I and Task II.

H The evaluations of kindergarten and first grade

teachers will have a higher degree of agreement with

 

50

Child Growth and Development specialists than will

those of second grade teachers.

H The number of years of teaching eXperience at grade
level per teacher will not be a significant factor
in the degree to which a teacher agrees with the

specialist on children's performances.

H The more formal education (the more academic train-
ing) of the teacher the greater the degree of agree-

ment between the teacher and the specialist.

H Where disagreement exists between the teacher and
Child Growth and Development specialists, the direc-
tion of disagreement is more apt to be one of under-
rating children's performance on the part of the

teacher.

The results of the study, through the testing of the
hypotheses, will be presented in Chapter IV. Conclusions
and observations related to the direction of disagreement,
and assumptions as to the effect of disagreement on the

.learner will be discussed in Chapter V.

. 2’5

- ‘ ..
.¢§J*.(_~:Q

 

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The purpose of the study was to compare the evalua—

tions of Kindergarten, First Grade, and Second Grade Teachers

with the evaluations of Child Growth and Development special-
ists on selected eye-hand coordination skills of Kindergarten

children. The eye-hand coordination activities selected for

these evaluations were copying tasks which had been normed on
large groups of the same aged children by researchers in the
field of Child Growth and Development. Three tasks, Copy
LForms, Copy Dots, and Copy Sentence were used for this pur-
]pose. Fifteen samples of each task, randomly selected from
'samples gathered from 104 Kindergarten children, were repro-

cfluced and presented to one Kindergarten, one First Grade, and

(one Second Grade teacher in each of the 37 elementary schools

VVithin Ingham County (excluding the City of Lansing). These

tieachers were asked to evaluate this children's material on
‘tlie basis of rating them as being of "High," "Average," "Low,"
<31? "Unacceptable" performance for children of this age. The

Same teachers were asked to evaluate the same children's

material twice during the 1967—68 school year; once in

0CItober and again in May.

51

52

The general hypothesis of the project, as presented
in Chapter I, was that the expectations of the school, as
reflected in the evaluations of early elementary teachers,
regarding the eye-hand coordination development of Kinder—
garten children, would not be congruent with the evaluations
of this skill development derived from research by Child
Growth and Development authorities. This hypothesis was
further refined for testing purposes in Chapter III, in
which the statement was made that "early elementary class-
room teachers do not agree with specialists from the field
of Child Growth and Development in the evaluation of eye-
hand coordination skills of Kindergarten children." The
meaning of the term "agreement" was interpreted as a 50 per
cent or better correlation between the teacher and special-
ist evaluations on all three eye-hand coordination tasks
selected for use in this project.

Further hypothesis concerning anticipated differ-
ences in teacher evaluations due to differing experience;
eacademic training and grade level of the teachers, as well
eas the varying degrees of anticipated teacher familiarity
vvith the eye-hand coordination tasks were tested. The
rwesults and the analysis of the data gathered in this study

“Kill be present in the order of the hypothesis as stated in

Chapter III .

 

 

 

 

53

Results of Testing for Hypothesis One

Hl Early elementary classroom teachers do not agree
with specialists from the field of Child Growth
and Development in the evaluation of the eye-hand

coordination skills of Kindergarten children.

Using the definition of the term "agreement" as pre-
viously stated (50 per cent or better coorelation between
teachers and specialists on all three tasks) the results of
the data indicate that Hypothesis One is valid. The percent-
age distribution of the teacher evaluations, based on an
average of the two evaluation periods, compared to criterion
(specialists) on all tasks indicates that composite agree-
ments are less than 50 per cent. Table 4 indicates the per-
centage of teacher agreement with criterion per task per

evaluation period.

Table 4. Percentage of teacher agreement

 

 

 

 

 

Kinder— First Second
garten Grade Grade Composite
Task Oct. May Oct. May Oct. May Mean
COpy Form 48.3 46.8 48.5 51.3 49.8 52.5
Mean 47.5 49.9 51.1 49.5
Copy Dot 40.2 41.7 41.9 44.4 39.7 39.7
Mean 40.8 43.1 39.7 41.0
Copy
SSentence 50.3 48.6 47.2 46.9 52.7 53.9
Mean 49.4 47.0 53.3 49.9

 

 

54

The composite mean per cent of agreement of the teacher
evaluations, as compared to the specialists, range from 41
per cent on the Copy Dot task to 49.9 per cent on the Copy
Sentence task. An item by item analysis of teacher agree-
ment, per task, for each evaluation period is presented in
Table 5a, 5b, and 5c.

On the basis of the evidence presented, Hypothesis
One concerning the lack of agreement between early elemen—
tary teachers and specialists regarding the eye-hand coordi-
nation development of Kindergarten children, as tested with-
in the limits of this study, is valid.

Results of Testingpfor Hypotheses
Two, Three, and Four

H Early elementary teachers will agree less with Child

2
Growth and Development specialists on Task I (Copy
Forms) than on Task II and Task III.

H Early elementary teachers will be in more agreement
with Child Growth and Development specialists on
Task II (Copy Dots) than on Task I.

H Early elementary teachers will be in more agreement

with Child Growth and Development specialists on

Task III (Copy Sentence) than on Task I and Task II.

Hypotheses Two, Three, and Four focused on the nature
(DI? the tasks presented to the teachers for evaluation. It

VVEis felt that the more "school-related" the task, the more

 

55

Table 5a. Distribution of teacher evaluations,a Copy Form—-Task I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade
Item sab + o - + o - + o -
October Evaluations:

1 H .. 27 10 .. 28 9 .. 30 6

2 A 8 22 7 9 24 4 10 21 5

3 A 5 23 9 3 23 ll 4 23 8

4 A 3 22 12 5 20 12 3 22 ll

5 L 2 7 28 1 8 28 1 14 21

6 A .. 17 20 .. 16 21 l 9 26

7 L 7 20 10 7 l4 l6 4 l9 l3

8 H .. 23 14 .. 25 12 .. 22 14

9 A .. 15 22 1 14 22 l 15 20

10 L 8 18 10 12 18 7 ll 22 3

11 U 8 29 .. 10 27 .. 9 27 ..

12 H .. 1 35 .. 5 32 .. 4 32

13 A .. 22 15 1 20 16 l 21 13

14 L l3 l7 7 16 19 2 13 19 4

15 A .. 4 33 .. 8 29 .. .. 36

Total 54 267 232 65 269 221 58 268 212
Percent 10.2 48.3 41.9 11.7 48.5 39.8 10.8 49.8 39.4

May EvaluLUons :

l H .. 22 14 .. 29 8 .. 27 8

2 A 5 24 7 2 29 6 7 21 7

3 A 1 21 13 5 21 ll 7 22 6

4 A 4 22 10 4 20 13 2 24 9

5 L .. 7 29 3 10 24 3 18 14

6 A .. 13 23 .. 15 22 1 14 20

7 L 5 19 ll 7 22 8 8 20 7

8 H .. 21 15 .. 26 ll .. 24 ll

9 A .. 12 24 l l7 19 l 19 15

10 L 6 23 7 9 25 3 l7 l6 2

11 U 9 27 .. 10 27 .. 9 26 ..

12 H .. 4 32 .. 3 34 .. 5 30

13 A l 16 19 1 21 15 3 20 12

14 L ll 19 6 19 13 5 19 15 1

15 A .. 3 33 .. 7 30 .. S 30

Total 42 253 243 61 285 209 77 276 172
Percent 7.8 46.8 45.1 10.9 51.3 37.6 14.6 52.5 32.7

 

aSR = Specialist's Rating; 0 = number of teachers agreeing with SR; + = number
(Df teachers rating above SR; - = number of teachers rating below SR.

bH = High performance; A = Average performance; L = Low performance; and
II = Unacceptable performance.

 

Table 5b. Distribution of teacher evaluations,a Copy Dots--Task II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade
Item SRb + 0 - + 0 - + 0 -
October Evaluations:

l U 9 28 .. 15 22 .. 9 27 ..

2 A 36 1 .. 37 .. .. 33 3 ..

3 H .. ll 26 .. 20 17 .. 15 21

4 A .. 11 26 .. 9 28 .. 10 26

5 L 6 22 9 6 20 ll 7 18 ll

6 A 29 7 .. 31 6 .. 31 5 ..

7 U 28 9 .. 27 10 .. 26 10 .

8 H .. 17 20 .. 17 20 .. 11 25

9 A 23 13 1 21 16 .. 20 16 ..

10 H .. 24 13 .. 22 15 .. 21 15

11 L 29 8 .. 24 13 .. 30 6 ..

12 H .. 23 14 .. 22 15 .. 22 l4

13 U .. 37 .. .. 37 .. .. 35 .

14 H .. 12 25 .. 19 18 .. 15 21

15 U 37 .. .. 37 .. .. 36 .. ..

Total 197 223 135 198 233 124 192 214 133
Percent 34.0 40.2 24.0 35.7 41.9 22.3 35.6 39.7 24.7

pr Evalqgtions:

1 U 10 26 .. 16 21 .. 15 19 ..

2 A 32 4 .. 34 3 .. 32 3 l

3 H .. 8 28 .. 21 16 .. l6 l9

4 A .. 10 26 1 ll 25 l 10 24

5 L 9 15 12 6 21 9 ll 17 6

6 A 27 8 .. 33 4 .. 28 6 l

7 U 23 13 .. 25 12 .. 25 10 ..

8 H .. 14 22 .. 23 14 .. 16 19

9 A 16 18 2 21 15 l 24 ll ..

10 H .. 22 14 .. 25 12 .. 27 8

11 L 26 9 l 32 5 .. 31 4 ..

12 H .. 22 14 .. 28 9 .. 20 15

13 U l 35 .. .. 37 .. 3 32 .

14 H .. 20 16 .. 20 17 .. 16 19

15 U 35 l .. 37 .. .. 34 1 ..

Total 179 225 135 205 246 103 204 208 112
Percent 33.2 41.7 25.0 37.0 44.4 18.5 38.9 39.7 21.3

 

a . . .
SR = SpeCialist's Rating; 0 = number of teachers agreeing with SR; + = number
of teachers rating above SR; - = number of teachers rating below SR.

bH = High performance; A = Average performance; L = Low performance; and
U = Unacceptable performance.

 

   

 

57

Table 5c. Distribution of teacher evaluations,a Copy Sentence--Task III

 

 

Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade

 

 

 

Item SR + 0 - + 0 - + 0 -

 

October Evaluations:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 A 17 18 2 15 20 2 13 23 ..

2 H .. 31 6 .. 31 5 .. 31 4

3 U 13 24 .. 20 17 .. 12 24 ..

4 A 4 31 2 13 21 3 5 26 5

5 L 28 7 .. 29 8 .. 28 7 l

6 A .. 12 25 .. 15 22 1 13 22

7 A 4 27 6 5 27 5 6 24 6

8 L 33 4 .. 36 l .. 35 1 ..

9 A l 6 30 1 8 28 .. 6 30

10 L 7 25 5 16 20 l 13 23 ..

11 H .. 21 16 .. 25 12 .. 27 9

12 H .. 10 27 .. 10 27 .. 14 22

13 L 8 17 12 15 20 2 9 24 3

14 H .. 11 26 .. 11 26 .. 12 24

15 U 3 34 .. 9 28 .. 7 29 ..

Total 118 278 157 159 262 133 129 284 126
Percent 21.3 50.3 27.3 28.7 47.2 24.0 23.9 52.7 23.4

May Evaluations:

1 A ll 25 .. 13 22 2 13 21 1

2 H .. 23 13 .. 29 8 .. 28 7

3 U 16 20 .. 11 26 .. 9 26 ..

4 A 3 26 7 8 24 5 3 28 4

5 L 22 13 1 29 7 .. 27 8 ..

6 A .. 11 25 .. 11 26 .. ll 24

7 A 2 26 8 4 24 9 5 26 4

8 L 29 7 .. 34 3 .. 33 2 ..

9 A .. 4 31 .. 6 31 1 4 30

10 L 11 20 5 10 23 4 10 24 1

11 H .. 21 15 .. 24 13 .. 26 9

12 H .. 4 32 .. 7 3O .. 11 24

13 L 8 21 7 16 16 5 6 26 3

14 H .. 9 27 .. 7 30 .. 11 24

15 U 3 32 .. 6 31 .. 4 31 ..

Total 105 262 171 131 260 163 111 283 131
Percent 19.5 48.6 31.7 23.6 46.9 29.4 21.1 53.9 24.9

 

aSR = Specialist's Rating; 0 = number of teachers agreeing with SR; + = number
of teachers rating above SR; - = number of teachers rating below SR.

bH = High performance; A = Average performance; L = Low performance; and
U = Unacceptable performance.

 

 

”ii-t" ‘—

5' no

 

58

familiar teachers would be with it and, thus, the more fre—
quently they would make judgments which would agree with
criterion. The Copy Sentence (Task III) of the eye-hand
coordination tasks was perceived as being the most "school-
related" of the three activities presented to the teachers
for evaluation. Conversely, the Copy Forms (Task I) was
perceived as being the least "school—related," hence it was
assumed that teacher familiarity with this copy task and
their experience in making critical judgments regarding it
was limited. Using the above assumptions as a rationale,
the hypotheses concerning the nature of the tasks and teacher
responses to them were developed. These hypotheses were
developed individually in order that they might be discussed
individually if the data so warranted.

The results of an analysis of the teacher evaluations
per task, per evaluation period, indicate some minor differ—
entiations in response to the individual tasks. These dif-
ferences may exist, but it appears they would be so small as
not to be considered statistically or educationally signif-
icant. A detailed analysis of the teacher evaluations, per
task, is given in Tables 5a, 5b, and 5c. The Mean percentage
Of teacher agreement with criterion (Specialist) ranges from
‘47.5 to 51.1 per cent on the Copy Form task, 39.7 to 43.1 per
Chant on the Copy Dot task, and 47.0 to 53.3 per cent on the

C Opy Sentence taSk .

59

According to H2 it was anticipated that early elemen-
tary teachers would agree less with the specialists on their
evaluations of children's work on the Copy Form task than on
any of the other tasks presented for their evaluation. The
results indicate that this hypothesis was not supported by
the data. As a group, the teachers tended to agree more
with the specialists on the Copy Form task than had been
anticipated. The degree of teacher agreement on the Copy
Form task very nearly equalled the degree of their agreement
on the Copy Sentence task.

H3 relating to the Copy Dots task, was anticipated
to produce a greater degree of agreement between the teach—
ers and the specialists than would Copy Forms. The evidence
does not support this hypothesis. The results indicate that
there was less agreement between the teachers and Specialists
on the Copy Dot task than on either of the other two tasks.

It was anticipated that the degree of agreement
between the teachers and specialists would be greatest on
the Copy Sentence task than on either of the two previous
tasks (H4). The range in the degree of teacher agreement on
the Copy Sentence task is somewhat larger than that on the
(Zopy Form task, however the difference is so small as not to
the considered significant. Hypothesis Four is valid, but
the evidence provides little statistical or educational sig-
nificance for strong support. Table 6 presents a graphic

illustration of the degree of teacher agreement per task.

 

   

60

Table 6. Per cent of teacher agreement per taska

 

 

Percentage Copy Form Copy Dot Copy Sentence

 

100*
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

0

Mean % 49.5

 

 

 

 

 

*Criterion/Specialists.

aKey: Kdgn. - ; lst Grade I: ; 2nd Grade .

The evidence indicates that there is a significant
difference between the evaluations of Child Growth and Devel-
opment specialists and early elementary classroom teachers
on the selected eye-hand coordination tasks of this study.
The data also indicate that there is little difference
between the evaluations of the teachers of the three grade
levels on each of the tasks involved in this study. In
essence, the results Show that although the teachers do not
agree with the specialists on the performance ratings of
these children's work, the teachers do agree almost com-
pletely among themselves. Where differences do exist
between the three teacher groups, the range is so small that

it would not make a difference in educational implications.

61

Results of Testing for Hypothesis Five

H5 The evaluations of Kindergarten and First Grade
teachers will have a higher degree of agreement with
Child Growth and Development specialists than will

those of Second Grade teachers.

The teacher evaluations were analyzed for significant
differences relative to the grade level groupings of the
teachers. An item by item analysis was made using the Chi
Square Test of Significance for determining the extent of
association or agreement between the three groups (K, lst,
and 2nd) of teachers. Results of this analysis indicate
that there are no differences at the .05 Level of Signif-
icance in the distribution of the ratings given by teachers
at the different grade levels. The exceptions to this state-
ment are: Item 11 in Copy Dot, and Items 4 and 13 in the
Copy Sentence tasks of the October evaluations, and Items 5
and 10 of the Copy Forms, Item 3 in the Copy Dot, and Item
14 in the Copy Sentence in the May evaluations. Further
investigation of the exceptional items listed above resulted
in no further information relative to grade level differ-
ences. There was no correlation between the exceptional
items of the October and May evaluation periods. Thus, the
evidence shows that there are no significant differences in
the teacher evaluations compared to criterion (specialists)

relative to the teacher grade level variable.

F" ““7‘f—ffl

 

62

As there is no evidence to support any significant
differences between the evaluations of teachers of the three
grade levels, thus there is no evidence to support the
hypothesis that Kindergarten and First Grade teachers had a
greater degree of agreement with the criterion (specialists)
than did Second Grade teachers. Hypothesis Five is not
valid on the basis of these results. Figures indicating the
per cent of agreement with criterion on each item within
each task, per grade level group are presented in Tables 5a,
5b, and 5c. Table 6 also illustrates the close agreement
between the teachers of the three grade levels on each of

the three tasks.

Results of Testing for Hypothesis Six

 

H The total number of years of teaching experience at
the present grade level will not be a significant
factor in the degree to which a teacher agrees with

the Specialists on children's performances.

When completing the evaluation forms for both the
October and May evaluation periods each teacher was asked to
indicate the number of years of teaching experience at their
present grade level. A tabulation of this information is

presented in Table 7.

z

ulL

 

 

 

63 g H
15.

Table 7. Teaching experience at grade level

 

 

Number of Teachers

 

 

EXperience at Grade Level Kdgn. First Second
1—2 yrs. l7 l9 14
3-5 yrs. 5 9 8
6-9 yrs. 5 4 6
HM
10+ yrs. 8 5 8 ‘
Totala 35 37 36 fi

 

aTwo Kindergarten teachers and one Second Grade
teacher did not respond to this item.

It was hypothesized that the number of years of
teaching eXperience at the present grade level would not be
a significant variable in the degree to which teachers
agreed with criterion (specialists) in their evaluations of
these eye-hand coordination skills. An item analysis was
made using the Chi Square Test of Significance for determin-
ing the extent of association or agreement between the
levels of teaching eXperience and the teacher evaluations
compared to criterion. Results of this analysis indicate
that there are no differences, at the .05 Level of Signif-
icance, in the distribution of teacher evaluations on the
basis of experience except on Item 8 and 9 in the Copy Forms,
and Item 4 and 15 in the Copy Dots for the October evalua-
tion period only. Analysis revealed no exceptional items in

this category in the May evaluations.

64

On the basis of the results obtained, Hypothesis Six
is valid. The number of years of teaching at the present
grade level is not a factor in the degree of agreement
between the evaluations of early elementary classroom teach-

ers and Child Growth and Deve10pment Specialists.

Results of Testing for Hypothesis Seven

H7 The more formal education (the more academic train—
ing) of the teacher, the greater the degree of

agreement between the teacher and the specialist.

The teachers involved in this study were asked to
indicate their level of formal education, by academic degree
obtained, at the time of evaluations. Table 8 presents the

formal education distribution of the teachers involved in

this study.

Table 8. Formal education

 

 

Number of Teachers

 

 

Academic Degree Kdgn. First Second
B.A. 28 26 28
M.A.
M.A. + 30/45 hr. 1 l 3
Other ‘__; (special) __;_(EIP) ___
Totala 37 36 37

 

aOne First Grade teacher did not respond.

65

It was hypothesized that the more formal education
on the part of the teacher, the greater would be the degree
of agreement between the evaluations of the teacher and the
specialists. An item analysis was done, using the Chi
Square Test of Significance, for the purpose of obtaining
the extent of agreement between the levels of academic train-
ing of the teachers and their evaluations as compared to the
specialists. The results of this analysis indicate that
there is no difference at the .05 Level of Significance, in
teacher evaluations based on academic training as compared
to the evaluations of the specialists. Exceptions to this
statement are Items 2, 5, 7, and 11 of the Copy Sentence
task in the October evaluations, and Item 10 in the Copy
Dots and Items 1, 8, and 13 in the Copy Sentence task in
the May evaluations. Detailed investigation into the excep-
tional items listed above did not give further clarification,
nor did it refute the general findings relative to this
hypothesis. The data support the general statement that
academic training makes no significant difference in the way
in which these teachers evaluated the eye-hand coordination
skills of Kindergarten children as compared to the evalua—
tions of Child Growth and Deve10pment specialists. Hypoth-

esis 7 is not valid on the basis of these results.

66

Results of Testing for Hypothesis Eight

H8 Where disagreement exists between the evaluations
of the teacher and Child Growth and Development
Specialists, the direction of disagreement is more

apt to be one of under-rating the children's per-

formance on the part of the teacher.

Two enumerative procedures were used to test for
this hypothesis. Tables 5a, 5b, and 5c represent the first
computational approach for the testing of Hypothesis 8. The
number of teachers agreeing with the Specialist's evalua-
tions on each sample item were tabulated and placed under
an "0" category. All teachers evaluating performance above
the Specialist's evaluations on a sample item were placed
under a "+" category. All teachers who evaluated performance
below the Specialist's evaluations were placed in a "-" cate-
gory. These tables were designed to illustrate the differ-
ences between response to items, tasks by the grade level of
the teachers, the evaluation periods, the degree of agree-
ment with criterion (specialists) and the direction of dis-
agreement. The totals of these columns, as well as the
corresponding percentage figures, give indication of the
degree of agreement between teachers and Specialists and the
direction of disagreement when such exists.

Table 5a indicates that, in evaluating the Copy

Forms task, the general tendency in all three grade level

 

67

groups was to heavily under-rate the children's performance
on this particular task. The Copy Dots evaluations, Table
5b, indicates a trend toward over-rating the children's
performances rather than under-rating them. The Copy
Sentence evaluations, Table 5c, are more evenly divided
between the over-rating and under—rating categories. It is
interesting to note that, according to the results tabulated,
the Kindergarten teachers Show a tendency to under-rate the
performance of Kindergarten children more frequently than do
teachers of the First and Second Grades. It is also, per—
haps, relevant to the issue to point out that Kindergarten
teachers showed an increase in their percentage of under-
rating on all tasks from the October to the May evaluations.
Teachers of the First and Second Grades showed a decrease

in their under-rating of children's performances on the

Copy Form and Copy Dot tasks between the October and May
evaluations. All three teaching levels scored more strictly
(negatively) on the Copy Sentence task in the May evalua-
tions.

The second analytic procedure used to test Hypoth-
esis Eight was a tabulation of each teacher's evaluations
grouped according to the number of "High," "Average," "Low,"
and "Unacceptable" performance ratings given by the teacher
in each task. This number of performance ratings was com-
pared to the number of similar performance ratings given by

the specialists in each task. The ratings of "High,"

 

 

tenden‘:

68

"Average," and "Low," as derived from the Specialist's
evaluations, were considered to be within the range of
acceptable or "normal" performance for children of this age.
The rating of "Unacceptable" implied that performance was
outside or below the range of acceptability. Therefore, it
appeared important to more clearly identify the number of
children's performances rated in this latter category by the
teachers of the three grade levels involved in this study.
The results of the analytical procedure described above made
it possible to identify the Specific number of children's
performances which were rated as "Unacceptable" by teachers
beyond the number which were found to be "Unacceptable" by
the specialists. Table 9 represents the results of this
tabulation.

Comparison of the data represented in Tables 5a, 5b,
5c, and Table 9 indicates that although there was a general
tendency which increased the percentage of under—rating of
children's performances between the October and May evalua—
tions, the actual number of children evaluated as having
"Unacceptable" performances decreased slightly between the
two evaluation periods.

The same method of analysis was used to tabulate the
number of performances per task which the teachers rated as
"High" compared to the number of such ratings given by the
specialists. Table 10 represents the results of this

tabulation.

 

69

Table 9. Teacher "U" ratings compared to Specialist "U"
ratings per task

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of Teacher "U"
Teachers Ratings Specialist "U"
Task Oct. May Oct. May Ratings
Kindergarten:
Copy Forms 28 27 96 84 1
Copy Dots 3 6 4 6 4
Copy Sentence _14 _19 _Q .21 __2_
Total 45 43 123 ll 7
First Grade:
Copy Forms 28 27 70 57 1
Copy Dots 2 2 2 2 4
Copy Sentence .__§ ,_;9 __1_ _lg _H;
Total 35 39 79 75 7
Second Grade:
Copy Forms 24 17 63 39 l
COpy Dots 2 3 2 3 4
Copy Sentence __4 .__§ .__§ .__1 _g
Total 30 25 _1;_ _42_ 7
Total 273 35

 

The results of Table 10 indicate that, generally,
there were fewer teachers who over—rated at the I'High"
performance level, and fewer children involved in this rat-
ing, than those involved in under—rating, as shown in Table
9. With the exception of the number of children receiving a
"High" performance rating at the Second Grade teacher level,
all other figures indicate a decrease in both the number of
teachers and children involved in over-rating between the

October and May evaluation periods.

 

 

Table 1<

”I"!
135

7:
f

5
(1.;
(D
r I
(J

 

O
'(3
M1

0 o 0 :4'
o o

#—3 '(J 'U
A L‘::

U “-
rt

'13

’1

O (3 O '1

O O (D U)

H90 '0 'O (f
o ~‘ ~: H;

. I'\

a

U)
(D

o
: 3

(J

GOO
GOO
H’O'UT)

O H? '(13 L<1: (h

 

 

70

Table 10. Teacher "H" ratings compared to specialist ”H"
ratings per task

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of Teacher "H"
Teachers Ratings Specialist "H"
Task Oct. May Oct. May Ratings
Kindergarten:
Copy Forms 2 2 3 5 3
Copy Dots 16 ll 47 38 5
Copy Sentence __H_ __H _11. _l; _4
Total 26 18 67 44 12
First Grade:
Copy Forms 6 3 10 6 3
Copy Dots 18 18 54 59 5
Copy Sentence ._15_ _6 _3_0 _15 .4
Total 39 27 94 80 12
Second Grade:
Copy Forms 5 6 8 13 3
Copy Dots l4 16 32 41 5
Copy Sentence __H __43 _33_ _g; _g_
Total 37 31 _pg_ _li 12
Total 225 199

 

The results of these two investigations concerned
with teacher evaluations at either end of the performance
scale, as illustrated in Table 9 and Table 10, give some
indication of a certain degree of consistency of evaluations
within a portion of the teachers involved in this study.
Individual teacher stability in evaluations over time
(October—May) was checked for reliability purposes by a
Correlation Matrix Scale. The result of this test-retest
correlation method was low, indicating that the correlation

between teacher responses at the two evaluation periods was

 

_ - M. Ml,

 

 

71

at about the same level as could be eXpected between two
individual test items.

The results of the study, as given in Tables 5a, 5b,
5c, and Tables 9 and 10, support the hypothesis that where
disagreement exists between the way in which teachers and
specialists evaluate the eye-hand coordination Skills of
Kindergarten children, the direction of disagreement is more
apt to be one of under—rating these skills on the part of

the teacher.

Summary

The general hypothesis that the evaluations of early
elementary teachers on the eye-hand coordination skill devel-
opment of Kindergarten children would not agree with the
evaluations of specialists in the field of Child Growth and
Development was supported by the data. The highest Mean
percentage of agreement of these teachers, as a group, with
the specialists was 49.9 per cent on the Copy Sentence task.
Agreement, as defined, was a minimum of 50 per cent or
better on all tasks.

Of the three hypotheses which focused on teacher
familiarity with the copy tasks (H2, H3, and H4) only H4
concerning a higher degree of agreement between the evalua-
tions of the teachers and the specialists on the Copy Sen-
tence task was valid.

The hypotheses dealing with the teacher variables of

grade level (H5), years of teaching eXperience at grade

 

72

level (H6), and academic training (H7), and the degree of
agreement between these variables and the evaluations of
teachers as compared to those of specialists did not differ-
entiate at the .05 Level of Significance when tested by the
Chi Square Test of Significance. That is, the results of
analysis of the data relative to these three variables indi-
cated that, for the purpose of this study, all the teachers
involved in the project could be considered collectively as

one group. The grade level at which the teacher taught, the

 

number of years of teaching experience at grade level, and
academic training made no significant difference in the way
in which teachers evaluated the eye-hand coordination skills
of Kindergarten children.

The last hypothesis relating to the nature of teacher
disagreement from criterion (specialists' evaluations) was
accepted on the basis of the data presented. Where disagree-
ment existed between teachers and specialists, the nature of
disagreement was more apt to be negative, or one of under-
rating the child's performance, on the part of the teacher.

The following table presents a brief summary of the
status of the tested hypotheses as a result of the accumu—

lated and analyzed data.

 

 

73

Table 11. Summary of tested hypotheses

 

 

 

Hypothesis Focus Status
One Teachers do not agree with specialists Accepted
Two Teachers agree less on Copy Form task Rejected
Three Teachers agree more on COpy Dots task Rejected
Four Teachers agree most on Copy Sentence

task Accepted
Five Kindergarten and First Grade teachers

agree most with specialists Rejected
Six Experience at grade level will not be

significant Accepted
Seven Academic training will be significant Rejected
Eight In disagreement, teachers will be

more negative Accepted

 

Conclusions, implications of the research findings

and further discussion concerning the results and assump—

tions relating to the results, with suggestions for future

investigations within this area of study will be presented

in Chapter V.

 

O .f‘ln I n
C3316 uSlCi‘.:
x

H
b]
n)
H

5:
f‘”
(f

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Conclusions

Within the limitations imposed on this investigation

and defined in Chapter I, the following conclusions appear

to be justified:

1.

Early elementary classroom teachers do not ggggg
with Child Growth and Development specialists in
their evaluations of the eye—hand coordination skill
development of Kindergarten children. Agreement on
the evaluation of these skills between the teachers
and specialists was less than 50 per cent. The
composite Mean percentage of agreement, over the two
evaluation periods, ranged from 41 per cent on the
Copy Dots task to 49.9 per cent on the Copy Sentence
task.

Kindergarten, First and Second Gradg teachers are
consistent within themselves in their evaluations of

eye—hand coordination skills, inferring a uniform

standard of evaluation within themselves and/or the

 

educational establishment. The factor of grade

 

level differences was tested by the Chi—Square Test

74

 

75 ll: ‘V

of Significance and found not significant at the .05
level. Less than a 4 per cent difference existed
between the evaluations of the three grade level
groups. This small degree of difference between
grade level evaluations was consistent on all three
tasks.

The extent of formal education and teaching experi-
ence appear to have no relationship to the degree in
which early elementary teacher evaluations agree
with specialists on the eye-hand coordination skills
of Kindergarten children. The variables of years of
teaching experience at grade level and academic
training were tested by the Chi Square Test of Sig—
nificance and found not significant at the .05 level.

Early elementary teachers have a tendency to evalu-
ate negatively the performance abilities of Kinder-
garten children on eye-hand coordination tasks.
Where disagreement existed between the teacher
evaluations and those of the specialists, the per—
centage of teacher responses which under—rated chil—
dren's performances ranged from 18.5 per cent on the
Copy Dot task to 45.1 per cent on the Copy Form task
with a composite Mean (over all tasks on both evalu—
ation periods) of 29.6 per cent. The percentage of
teacher responses which rated performance above the

specialists' ratings ranged from 7.8 per cent on the

Copy Form task to 38.9 on the Copy Dot task, with a

composite Mean of 23.2 per cent.

Kindergarten teachers Show a tendency to evaluate
negatively thepperformance abilities of Kindergarten
children on eye-hand coordination tasks more fre-
quently than do First and Second Grade teachers.
Kindergarten teachers showed a higher percentage of
under-rating of children's performances on all tasks
during both evaluation periods, with the exception
of the Copy Dot task in the October evaluation
period, than did teachers of the first and second
grades. Kindergarten teachers showed an increase in
the number of under—ratings (negative evaluations)
over time. First and Second grade teachers showed a
decrease in the number of under-rated performances
over time.

Over time the teacher evaluations on these eye—hand
coordination skills showed a decrease in the number
of ratings at either end of the performance scale
("High" and "Unacceptable"), inferring a greater
clustering around some expected or uniform standard
of their own devising. The number of "Unacceptable"
performance ratings dropped from 273 in the October
evaluation period to 235 in the May evaluation. The

number of "High" performance ratings dropped from

 

 

 

 

 

"my r —

thEs

 

77

225 in the October evaluation period to 199 in the
May evaluation.

Educational Implications and

Discussion

The data gathered from this investigation comparing
the evaluations of early elementary teachers and Child
Growth and Development specialists on the eye—hand coordi—
nation skill development of Kindergarten children appears to
have possible implications for several facets of the educa-
tional process.

Research has established, fairly conclusively, that
the ability to coordinate a visual stimuli with a motor
response is a developmental Skill, culminating generally at
eight to ten years of age. This particular aspect of child
development is not a new nor recent finding as indicated by
Gesell's early work and publications in this area. The
results of this investigation indicate that the expectations
of the teacher and the school concerning the eye-hand coordi—
nation ability of these Kindergarten children appear higher
than might be eXpected if the research on this skill develop—
ment from Child Growth and Development specialists were used
as a criteria. It is difficult to ascertain whether the
wide discrepancy between the way in which teachers evaluate
these skills, as compared to the specialists' evaluations,
is due to lack of information concerning the developmental

aspects of this ability, or due to their succumbance to the

 

 

 

various so

Th
years of f.
ing experie

tors in the

f

abilities

 
  
 
   

that educa:
automatica:
areas of 5:
If it can i
the way in
tal Skills,
and/or bet:
Development

 

essential

edUCation -

As
has to do v

 

the eva lua t
least in

de

a.
discusSion

1n Our sOCi-

 

 

78 .4

various societal influences which are pressuring for
academic acceleration.

This study indicated that neither the number of
years of formal education nor the number of years of teach—
ing experience at present grade level were significant fac-
tors in the way in which teachers evaluated the performance
abilities of these children. Thus, it cannot be assumed

that education courses, per se, nor teaching experience will

 

automatically produce educators knowledgeable in the various
areas of study concerned with how children grow and learn.
If it can be assumed that lack of information is a factor in
the way in which these teachers evaluated these developmen-
tal skills, then it would appear that there is need for more
and/or better experiences in the study of Child Growth and
Development at the teacher education level. Deliberate
focus on and application of these knowledges appear to be
essential in both the pre-teaching and in-service teacher
education programs.

A second implication, as the result of this study,
has to do with the role of the educator in our society. If
the assumption can be made that the wide discrepancy between
the evaluations of the teachers and specialists is due, at
least in part, to a surrendering to the pressures of aca-
demic acceleration on the part of the teachers, then some
discussion concerning the role and influence of the teacher

in our society appears relevant. Hilda Taba, in her 1964

 

79 ~.i 1,

ASCD Convention address,55 pointed out three broad areas of
educational commitment; to perpetuate the culture, to
advance the culture, and to serve as a "countervailing force"
against those pressures which would be harmful to human
development within the culture. She states that the edu-
cator has been primarily concerned with his role in the
first commitment, is becoming more concerned with his role

in the second commitment, and generally, has not seen him-

 

self as having a role in the third commitment. The swift
technological advancements of our current society have
created this new role function for educators. To stand firm
in the face of national and community pressures, to serve as
a protectorate of the welfare of children as well as an
advocate of appropriate progress requires the use of the
best available knowledges concerning all facets of education,
and particularly that which relates to the child himself—-
how he grows and learns. Furthermore, these knowledges and
their relationship to the school curriculum must be extended
into the home and community by the educator. Archibald
MacLeish, in his article "The Great American Frustration,"56

appears to substantiate Taba's argument by saying that the

55Hilda Taba, “The Child in a Technological Society,“
tape recording (Denver, Colorado: 20th Annual Conference of
the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
.March 1964).

56Archibald MacLeish, “The Great American Frustra-
tion,“ Saturday Review, July 13, l968,pp.13-l6.

 

educator

(I?

of a human
and f‘JUCti
0f kaOW‘iec'
study has
I
although
the Speci
nation 8)
almost c
imply 91
has deVe
tional ‘
WEIUEI’
the 10M
dram f]
the SC

He str

C

T":
81

 

 

80

educator today is behaving as a "consumer" of a technological
society, responding mechanically to established educational
functions and standards with a fatalistic attitude concerning
man's future ability to exert any influence or control over
his own destiny. MacLeish further states that it is the
educator, above all others, who has the knowledges (or should
have) and the opportunity to become the "pioneer" or "shaper"
of a humanitarian culture. These new demands upon the role
and function of educators require competencies in the area

of knowledges (Child Growth and Development) with which this
study has been concerned.

The results of this investigation indicated that
although these early elementary teachers did not agree with
the specialists on their evaluations of the eye-hand coordi-
nation skills of Kindergarten children, they did agree
almost completely among themselves. This finding appears to
imply either a mutually—perceived performance standard that
has developed within themselves as a group, or an institu—
tional expectation to which they are mutually adhering.
Warner, in his studies concerning the disadvantages faced by
the lower-class child when competing academically with chil-
dren from the middle class, feels that both the teacher and
the school are significant factors in evaluative judgments.
He states:

The teacher's judgements of children and of
standards of performance are inevitably based

”m

 

upon
by t!

)-

Inghan
95 thes

 

 

81

upon their own personal standards, buttressed
by those set by the school as an institution.57

The teachers involved within this study represented
three different grade levels, in 37 different elementary
school settings within 11 different school districts of the
Ingham Intermediate District, yet the evaluation standards
of these teachers were surprisingly uniform. What, then,
might be the possible sources or basis for this uniformity
of evaluation?

Hurlock mentions, as quoted in Chapter II, that
children's performance skills are too frequently evaluated
on the basis of perfected performance abilities as perceived
and accomplished by adults. It might also be assumed that
another possible source of these uniform performance stan-
dards lies in the generally accepted published materials and
teaching methods utilized within the schools of this area.
Textbooks, workbooks, and teaching activities requiring the
use of specific skills might imply to the classroom teacher
that such skill development is normal and to be expected for
a particular age/grade child. Whether this implication is
valid or not, the teacher or school may incorporate this
performance eXpectation within their own performance stan-
dards and, thus, develop or strengthen both uniform personal

and institutional evaluation standards. As the materials

 

57W. L. Warner, American Life: Dream and Reality
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 177.

r—"——*11

 

 

and methO-
this stud:
throughou.’
evaluatio:
the el’e’hr

children 7

tes:ed hel‘
limitation
ability) t

eye-hand c

 

if these a
ment which
lation, wha
early schol

T‘m
that where
Of teacher
tended to
the child'

garten tea

 

82 xif

and methods used within the school districts involved in
this study are little different from those accepted for use
throughout the state and nation, it is conceivable that the
evaluations of these early elementary teachers concerning
the eye—hand coordination skill development of Kindergarten
children might reflect similar evaluations or performance
expectations of a broader teacher population than the one
tested here. If the data collected and analyzed within the
limitations of this study reflect, (with a degree of reli-
ability) the way in which teachers generally evaluate the
eye—hand coordination skills of Kindergarten children, and
if these evaluations represent a level or standard of judg-
ment which may be similar to those of a larger teacher popu-
lation, what implications does this have for a multitude of
early school learners?

The results of the present investigation indicated
that where there was a discrepancy between the evaluations
of teachers and specialists, the direction of disagreement
tended to be one of under—rating or negatively evaluating
the child's performance on the part of the teacher. Kinder-
garten teachers showed the highest percentage of negative
evaluations among the three teacher groups. It is under-
stood that eye-hand coordination tasks at this age/grade
level account for only a portion of the activities upon
which a Kindergarten child is evaluated, however, the fact

that these activities are considered important enough to be

 

 

included, in one form or another, in most reliable school

readiness and mental maturity tests indicates their relation—
ship to learning ability and academic success. Although the
selected tasks used for comparative purposes within this
study are limited in number, these kinds of activities are
considered to be highly significant in a teacher's total
evaluation of a child's abilities within the school setting.
Thus, if the teacher or school performance standards for
these tasks are higher than standards based on research find—
ings from Child Growth and Development specialists, then the
cut-off point between what is perceived as being "Acceptable"
and "Unacceptable" performance in these skills will unjustly
affect a large group of children.

Reviewing the findings of the present research
investigation from the vieWpoint of its relationship to the
above information, it is very possible that a large number
of children who might otherwise be perceived as performing
within the normal or acceptable range of ability on these
eye-hand coordination tasks are being under—rated and, con—
sequently, found (consciously or unconsciously) less accept—
able by the teacher. Research studies, previously reported,
indicate that the attitudes of the teacher toward the child
and his performance ability can make significant differences
in the way in which the child comes to perceive himself as a
person and a learner. These studies also show a positive

correlation between an accepting attitude on the part of the

H... . .
c-o _‘J‘n '-

 

teacher a:

Several 5i
not “up tr
child by
learning
in their

Mehtal i 1

Stamdards

rthired.

 

84

teacher and a positive self-concept on the part of the child.
Several studies further indicate that where performance is
not "up to eXpectation" the kind of attention given the
child by the teacher can have derogatory effects upon future
learning experiences of the child. Allinsmith and Goethals,
in their report of the findings of the Joint Commission on
Mental Illness and Health, found that when a student pre-
sented problems to the school or challenged its preconceived
standards or functions some kind of action seemed to be
required. They add:

Action is most usually desired from pressures

on the child to change his behavior rather than

on teachers to change their behavior. . . . The

first step is often to segregate the pupil

through separate classes, separate S?h°°%§ or

separate periods of speCial instruction.
With the current impetus on the early identification of the
child with "learning disabilities" or "potential disabil-
ities" it is conceivable that a portion of the children rep-
resented in the present study, may be erroneously labeled
and referred for special attention by these classroom teach-
ers. This can be a humiliating and dehabilitating experience
for the beginning school child. Dinkmeyer reinforces this
point by saying:

Because of the potency of the desire to be

accepted as a participating member of the group,
it is a painful experience for any child to feel

 

58W. Allinsmith and G. W. Geothals, The Role of

Sarnools in Mental Health, Joint Commission on Mental Illness
aria Health (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1962), p. 39.

 

mam, m."

.1 t F. C - . f C E . q i
S T. m m n a C. H s O ....1 r c n. S I S l E f
. . ,. . ., . .1 e .l .H. u C e a . . l
I O . a C H v... . .h. a .D. l
O C m c. C R e S I e... C S d N 7? C W Lu S E N
S

 

 

 

 

 

85 ~.i

inferior or unacceptable. Such feelings restrict
the development of social interest and have a
negative effect on the formation of the self—
concept.

It may be speculated that either because of a lack
of specific knowledge on the part of classroom teachers,
concerning how children grow and learn, or a turning of the
mind away from the utilization of these knowledges in the
face of societal pressures, many children are possibly being
confronted with unnecessary feelings of academic failure and

unaccepting attitudes within their first year of educational

experience.

Summary

Two forces have created concerns, on the part of
researchers in Child Growth and Development, for the educa—
tional and emotional welfare of the early elementary school
child. Societal circumstances appear to be creating pres—
sures on the educational institutions of this country to
accelerate the learner and his academic achievements. Com—
mensurate with these pressures for educational acceleration
has been an impetus for the early identification of the
child who may not be able to keep up this academic pace. It
was the purpose of this study to investigate the extent to
which some of the expectations of the school compared with

similar expectations based on research findings from the

59Don C. Dinkmeyer, Child Development: The prrging
Self (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1965), p. 208.

 

86 xi;

field of Child Growth and Development, and to discover the
nature of the discrepancy between these two expectations, if
such existed.

The eye-hand coordination skill development of
Kindergarten children was selected as a focus point for this
investigation. Three school—related eye—hand coordination
tasks which had been normed on large groups of Kindergarten-
age children were selected for use in this project; Gesell's
Copy Forms and the Ten—Dot Gestalt and Sentence Gestalt sub—
tests of the Anton Brenner Developmental Gestalt Test for
School Readiness. Samples of these tasks were gathered from
104 Kindergarten children within the Ingham Intermediate
School District (excluding the City of Lansing) during the
spring of 1967. These samples were evaluated by three
experienced School Diagnosticians according to criteria
established by authorities in Child Growth and Development.
Fifteen samples of each of the three tasks, representing a
full range of performance ability, were randomly selected
and reproduced for presentation to teachers for ther evalua-
tion. One Kindergarten teacher, one First Grade teacher,
and one Second Grade teacher from each of the 37 elementary
schools within the Ingham Intermediate District were randomly
selected to evaluate these samples of children's work. The
same samples were evaluated by the same teachers during
October and May of the 1967—68 school year. These evalua—

tions were analyzed for differences between the grade levels,

 

87 1:“

teaching experience at grade level and academic training
represented within the teacher group. The teacher evalua—
tions were then compared with the evaluations of the chil-
dren's work derived from specialists in Child Growth and
Development. Where discrepancies in the evaluations of
these two groups existed, the nature of the discrepancies

were noted.

Significant Findings

 

Analysis of the data indicates that these early
elementary classroom teachers agree less than 50 per cent
with specialists on the evaluation of the eye—hand coordina-
tion skills of Kindergarten children. The data showed that,
although there was a wide discrepancy between the evalua-
tions of the teachers and the specialists, there was little
discrepancy among the evaluations of the teachers from the
three grade levels. That is, the teachers of these three
grade levels evaluated the children's work in much the same
manner, as if adhering to a uniform evaluation standard of
their OWn, rather than one more congruent with Child Growth
and Development research. The data further indicated that
teacher familiarity with the nature of the eye—hand coordina—
tion tasks used, proximity to the Kindergarten—age child
(grade level of the teacher), teaching experience at grade
level, and academic training were not significant as factors
which might make a difference in teacher evaluations of chil-

dren's performances in these selected tasks.

 

 

 

 

 

88

Where discrepancies existed between the evaluations
of the teacher group and the specialists, the direction of
disagreement was more apt to be one of under-rating the
child's performance on the part of the teacher. Kindergar-
ten teachers appeared to be more negative in their evalua-
tions of Kindergarten children's skills than did teachers of
the First and Second grade levels. Comparison of the teacher
evaluations over time revealed fewer "High" and "Unacceptable"
performance ratings in the May evaluation than in OctOber,
indicating a tendency, on the part of this teacher group, to

respond to fewer differences in children's performance abil-

ities over time.

Implications for Further Research

This study has shown how early elementary teachers
evaluate selected eye-hand coordination abilities of Kinder-
garten children, and compared these evaluations to those of
specialists in the field of Child Growth and Development.
JDuplication of this study and similar kinds of research are
needed before more conclusive statements can be made concern—
ing the consistency of evaluation standards within classroom
teachers as a group, and between various grade level groups
of teachers. Comprehensive research of this nature‘would
:first.require further investigation on the part of Child
erxvth and Development authorities into school-related devel-
opnmnital tasks to which teacher evaluations might later be

compared. At present, the number of tested and "normed"

 

school—related developmental activities, similar to the eye—
hand coordination tasks used in this study, are limited.
Previous investigations have compared teacher expectations
(Scholten)6O and evaluations (Stern, Stern and Bloom)61 with
those of child psychologists, but these investigations have
been limited to paper and pencil responses on what teachers
would eXpect, and how they would evaluate children's behav—

ior and abilities. It would appear that further research

 

based on actual teacher behavior towards children's perfor—
mance abilities, rather than what they say they would do,
could be extremely meaningful.

Several studies (Brandt and Perkins; and Haring)62
report modifications of teacher judgments about pupils
toward greater accord with those of child specialists
through study and discussion. A replication of this inves—
tigation, with the inclusion of teacher study in the areas

of Child Growth and Development between the two evaluation

6OEugene Alvin Scholten, "School Readiness, A Study
Comparing the Attitudes of School Psychologists and Kinder—
garten Teachers" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1965).
61G. G. Stern, M. I. Stern, and B. Bloom, Methods of
Personality Assessment (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1956).

62R. M. Brandt and H. V. Perkins, "Research Evaluat—
ing a Child Study Program," Monograph of the Study for
Research in Child Development, 1956; and N. G. Haring, G. G.
Stern, and W. M. Cruickshank, Attitudes of Educators toward
Exceptional Children (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse Univer-
sity Press, 1958).

 

 

oeriods,

rev iniory

would he 1

tal tasks

 

lgigfiificc

the PBIEn‘

evBluat;
98neral
SEVelOp
some of

Child

 

 

90

periods, would produce an opportunity to ascertain whether
new information would result in teacher evaluations which
would be more congruent with specialists.

The present study dealt solely with the results of
early elementary teacher evaluations on selected developmen—
tal tasks performed by Kindergarten age children. A highly
"Significant other" in the child's learning environment is
the parent. A study investigating parental evaluations of
these skills, particularly evaluations from the mothers of
Kindergarten, First and Second grade children, might give
pertinent information relative to community expectations
regarding this skill development. Most certainly, the
results of a similar study designed to elicit parental
evaluations of children's abilities, would indicate some
general parental understandings concerning the growth and
development of their own children, and possibly indicate
some of the parental pressures which might be imposed on the

child and sequentially upon the teacher and school.

 

b

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

OOH-mm ’. ‘ '

 

 

Allensmitt;

Mental
Health

 

 

 

Bender, La
m
The Ame

BfEnnerg A
Wester

COO‘K, W . w
T H
w
corpor

Cronback”
Ed. R

DinkmeYEr’
En9leu
1965,

FerguSOn’

Frostig, It

Gul "
\\\g§.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Allensmith, W., and Goethals, G. W. The Role of Schools in
Mental Health. Joint Commission on Mental Illness and
Health. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1962.

 

Bender, Lauretta. A Visual Motor Gestalt Test and Its ,
Clinical Use. Research Monograph No. 3. New York: -
The American Orthopsychiatric Association, 1938. ‘

 

Brenner, A. Anton Brenner Deve10pmental Gestalt Test of
School Readiness Manual. Beverly Hills, California:
Western Psychological Services, 1964.

Cook, W. W., Leeds, C. H., and Callis, R. The Minnesota
Teacher Attitude Inventory. New York: Psychological
Corporation, 1951.

Cronback, L. J. Essentials of Psychological Testing. 2nd
ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.

Dinkmeyer, Don C. Child Development: The Emerging Self.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

1965.

Ferguson, George. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and
Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959.

 

Frostig, Marianne, and Horne, David. The Frostig Program
for the Development of Visual Perception: Teacher's
Guide. Chicago: Follett Publishing Co., 1964.

Gesell, Arnold. The Mental Growth of the Pre—School Child.
New YOrk: Macmillan, 1930.

Gesell" Arnold, and Amatruda, Catherine S. Developmental
Diagnosis: Normal and Abnormal Child Deve10pment.
2nd ed. New Ybrk: Hoeber, 1947.

Haring, N. G., Stern, G. G., and Cruickshank,‘W. M. Atti-

tudes of Educators toward Exceptional Children.
Syracuse, New Ybrk: Syracuse University Press, 1958.

91

 

 

 

 

92

Hebb, Donald 0. Organization of Behavior. New York: John
Wiley, 1949.

Hildreth, G. Learning the Three R's. Minneapolis:
Educational Publishers, 1947.

Horney, K. Our Inner Conflicts. New York: Norton, 1945.

Hurlock, Elizabeth B. Child Development. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1956.

Ilg, Frances L., and Ames, Louise Bates. School Readiness.
New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1964.

Jersild, Arthur T. When Teachers Face Themselves. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1955.

Kephart, Newell C. The Slow-Learner in the Classroom.
Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1960.

Koffka,Kurt. The Growth of the Mind. London: Kegan Paul,
1928.

Lowder, R. G. Perceptual Abilipy and School Achievement:
An Exploratory Study. Available from Winter Haven Lions
Club, Winter Haven, Florida, 1956.

Piaget, Jean. The Origins of Intelligence in Children.
New York: International Universities Press, 1952.

Piaget, J., and Inhelder, H. The Child's Conception of
Space. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1956.

Ryans, D. G. Characteristics of Teachers. Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1960.

Sarason, 8., Davidson, F., Lighall, R., Waite, R., and
Ruebush, B. Anxietypin Elementary School Children.
New YOrk: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960.

Stern, G. G., Stern, M. I., and Bloom, B. Methods of
Personality Assessment. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press,

1956.

Sullivan, H. S. The Meaning of Anxiety_in Psychology angpin
Life. New YOrk: William Alanson White Institute of
Psychiatry, 1948.

'Warner, W. L. American Life: Dream and Reality. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1953.

 

 

 

Anabel, I
09:91?
Bevel:

Batenan, :
tiona-

ation,
Brandt, R.

Child

11". C E1]

rn iiflv

Fleamt

(f)

 

93

Articles and Periodicals

Ausubel, D. P., et a1. "Perceived Parent Attitudes as
Determinants of Children's Ego Structure," Child
Development, XXVIII (1954), 173-183.

Bateman, Barbara. "Learning Disorders," Review of Educa-
tional Research, American Educational Research Associ-
ation, XXXVI, No. 1 (February 1966), 93-119.

Brandt, R. M., and Perkins, H. V. "Research Evaluating a
Child Study Program," Monograph of the Study for Research
in Child Development, 1956.

Brenner, Anton. "Readiness for School and Today's Pressures,"
The Inter—Institutional Seminar in Child Development:
Collected Papers, 1966. Dearborn: The Edison Institute,

1967. pp. 1-24.

I“?

Chandler, Caroline A. "The Importance of the Early Years,"
Childhood Education: Crucial Years in Learning.
Washington, D.C.: Association for Childhood Education

International, pp. 3-5.

Davidson, H., and Lang, C. "Children's Perceptions of Their
Teacher's Feelings Toward Them Related to Self-Perception,
School Achievement and Behavior," Journal of Experimental
Education, XXIX (December 1960), 107—118.

 

Education USA. Washington, D.C.: National School Public
Relations Association, September 1967, p. 19.

Fabian, A. A. "Vertical Rotation in Visual-Motor Perfor-
mances: Its Relationship to Reading Reversals," Journal
of Educational Psychology, XXXVI (1945), 129-154.

Fisher, Robert J. "Assault Upon the YOung," Childhood
Education: Crucial Years in Learning. Washington, D.C.:
Association for Childhood Education International, 1966,

pp. 65-66.

Flanders, N. A. "Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes and
Achievement," Final Report, C00perative Research Project
INC. 397, U.S. Office of Education. Minneapolis: Univer-
sity of Minnesota, College of Education, November 30,

1960.

GesellH Arnold, and Ames, Louise B. "The Development of
Directionality in Drawing," Journal of Genetic Psychology,

LXVIII (1946), 45-61.

 

 

~—- “HM’IM'W‘: 5.

~W
___-f—

I...“

 

 

Graham, E
ment

F‘Ormf

 

 

 

   

 

94

Graham, F. K., Berman, P. W., and Brahart, C. B. "Develop—
ment in Pre-School Children of the Ability to Copy
Forms," Child Development, XXXI (1960), 339-359.

Hoehn, A. J. "A Study of Social Status Differentiation in
the Classroom Behavior of Nineteen Third Grade Teachers,"
Journal of Social Psychology, XXXIX (1954), 269-292.

Jennings, Frank G. "It Didn't Start with Sputnik," Saturday
Review, September 16, 1967, pp. 77-79, 95-97.

‘

Jensen, Arthur R. "Social Class, Race and Genetics;
Implications for Education," American Educational
Research Journal, V, No. 1 (January 1968), 42-58.

Jourard, S. M., and Remy, R. M. "Perceived Parental Atti-
tudes, the Self and Security," Journal of Consulting
Psychology, XIX (1955), 364-366.

"Keeping Abreast in Research," Phi Delta Kappan, XLIX, No. 3
(November 1967), 158.

MacLeish, Archibald, "The Great American Frustration,"
Saturday Review, July 13, 1968, pp. 13-16.

.McGee, H. M. "Measurement of Authoritarianism and Its
Relationship to Teacher's Classroom Behavior," Genetic
Psychology Monograpp, 1955, pp. 89-146.

Spaulding, R. "Achievement, Creativity, and Self-Concept
Correlates of Teacher-Pupil Transactions in Elementary
Schools," Readings in Child Behavior and Development.
2nd ed. Edited by C. Stendler. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World, Inc., 1964, pp. 313-318.

Townsend, E. A. "A Study of COpying Ability in Children,"
Genetic Psychology Monograph, XLIII (1951), 3-51.

Unpublished Materials

Schtflten, Eugene Alvin. "School Readiness, A Study Comparing
the Attitudes of School Psychologists and Kindergarten
Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1965.

'Taba, Hilda. "The Child in a Technological Society," Tape
Recording, 20th Annual Conference of the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, Denver, March

1964.

 

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

LETTER FROM A. BRENNER

' “KG“ fi'

 

 

 

 

 

 

hiss Jan
Ingham I:
DW‘iSion
147 Wes:
Mason, 3»:

Dear Mis
I apolo<
May 31.

Here is

l.

APPENDIX A

THE MERRILL-PALMER INSTITUTE OF
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY LIFE
71 East Ferry Avenue )
Detroit, Michigan 48202 '
June 14, 1967

Miss Jane Scandary, Board of Education
Ingham Intermediate School District
Division of Special Education

147 West Maple Street

Mason, Michigan 48854

 

Dear Miss Scandary:

I apologize for the delay of my reply to your letter of
May 31. We had the end of the semester, faculty meetings
and new students coming in.

Here is what I think:

1. I agree with you that the current pressures for
acceleration, etc., may lead to unrealistic eXpecta-
tions. Read some of my concerns in the forthcoming
1966 Collected Papers of the Inter-Institutional
Seminar in Child Deve10pment which probably also
will have an article by Dr. Sause.

2. There are not only two sub—tests of my Gestalt Test
which assess perceptual development - 10 Dot and
Sentence - and later on have an extremely strong
perceptual component, especially also the number
reproducing activity. Read and study the manual
carefully and you will agree with me.

3. If you want to study age in relation to each sub-test
performance, you can (a) do this for yourself by
studying large pOpulations which you can test in a
short time because the performance on the Gestalt
Test requires only five minutes per child as an aver—
age. For a doctoral dissertation you can manage a
sizeable number of children in a relatively short
time. (b) I have away over 1,000 case informations

95

 

 

 

 

If 1 car.

my best 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

96

about children from various school systems which
would allow you to develop age norms empirically.
If you are interested I think I can make the data
available to you.

4. In case you don't have a manual or the Test and would
like to place an order, the enclosed sheet gives you
the necessary information.

If I can be of further help please let me know. Also, give
my best regards to Dr. Sause.

Sincerely yours,

Anton Brenner

It‘d!- '

his“

 

APPENDIX B

SAMPLE TASKS GIVEN TO KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN

 

 

 

 

   

98

   

Qanfinn “ - gag!

 

 

Fred is here

Section m.‘ (fiance A-

   

 

 

Q Er

 

APPENDIX C

SCORING RATIONALE AND CRITERIA FOR SCHOOL

DIAGNOSTICIAN EVALUATIONS OF CHILDREN'S MATERIAL

 

   

 

APPENDIX C

RATIONALE AND SCORING CRITERIA

GESELL COPY FORMS

The Gesell Copy Forms are considered to be more rep- ’

resentative of growth and development (maturation) than of F

 

specific classroom training. Furthermore, the mechanics
involved do not allow for ease of specific scoring. The E~
Gesell Copy Forms, therefore, will be judged on an gestalt
impression and interpretation of growth level within the

following guidelines.

Circle
1. Most girls by age 5% and boys by age 7 should begin
their circle at the top.
2. Most girls and boys by age 5% should use only one
continuous line.
3. Most girls by age 6 and boys by age 7 should perform
in a counter clockwise direction.

4. Gross distortions of shape are unacceptable.

Cross
1. Most boys and girls should make their vertical line
from top to bottom by age 5%.
2. Most boys and girls should make their horizontal

line from left to right by age 5%.

100

 

2.

Triangle

l.

Divided

1.

Diamond

1.

 

 

 

101

Most boys and girls should use only two lines by

age 5%.

Gross distortions are unacceptable.

The approach incorporated by most children is so
varied that specific procedural guidelines cannot be
established.

Gross distortions are unacceptable.

The approach incorporated by most children is so
varied that specific procedural guidelines cannot be
established.

Most 5% year olds experience some, even though it

may be limited, success.

Rectangle

The approach incorporated by most children is so
varied that specific procedural guidelines cannot
be established.

Only two out of three 5% year olds use one kind or

another of internal crossover pattern.

The reproductions of most children are exceedingly

varied both in procedure and in quality. For a 5%

 

   

102

or 6 year old child almost any production is

acceptable (F. Ilg and L. Ames, School Readiness).

 

Scoring criteria for Brenner material is listed on

a separate sheet.

 

103

ANTON BRENNER DEVELOPMENTAL GESTALT TEST

FOR SCHOOL READINESS, TEST MANUAL

Sub-Test II

 

+ Response: correct identification of all dot groups
with same number of dots: all 1's, all 2's, all 3's, all
4's, all 5's, all 6's.

 

— Response: if one or more groups with same number of h,
dots are wrong or not answered. Range of Scores is +6 to -6. ‘

Sub—Test III

 

 

Suggestion: Open BGT Protocol Booklet so Ten Dot
Gestalt and sentence “FRED IS HERE" is on left, and page
with scoring system is on right.

Scoring must be done with care and accuracy.
There are nine scorable parts:

l-2-3. The three horizontal groups of three dots each
are scored separately. A + is given if there are three dots
§gg_the three dots satisfy the condition of linearity: no
dot is so out of line that a portion of that dot does not
touch a line connecting the surfaces of the other two dots.
(See example.) A minus (-) score results if the three dots
are not present or linearity is not met.

Horizontal

Solid dots represent group evaluated.

 

 

 
    

 

OOO
' i GO
000 OO

O 0

OOO

 

 

 

 

 

 

104

4-5-6. Each of the three vertical groups of dots is
scored separately. A + score is given if there are three
dots in an external row and linearity is met; a + score is
given if there are four dots in the center row and linearity
is met. A - score is given if three dots are not in the
external rows 9;, linearity is not met; a — score is given
if four dots are not in the center row 2; linearity is not
met. (See examples.)

 

Vertical
Solid dots represent group evaluated.

Plus Minus

 

0..
OO
O

 

O C 000.0

C
O 0000' .0 o
O " 000. 00

O

O
O
000

Ooo

 

 

 

 

 

7-8. The two diagonal groups of three dots are scored
separately. One group contains the lower—left dot, the center
dot, and the upper right dot; the other group contains the
lower right dot, the center dot, and the upper left dot. A +
score is given if there are three dots and linearity; a -
score is given if there are not three dots 9; no linearity.
(See examples.)

 

Diagonal
Solid dots represent group evaluated.

Plu Minus

U)

 

 

o
0000

o‘OOOO. 0
Coco0
000..

o o

- O
O CO.

 

 

 

 

 

105

2, A + score is given for form or outline of the total
dot figure. Configurations formed should approximate a
large square with small square attached to the center of the
lower boundary. If these conditions are not met, score is a
- one. If the four corners roughly form a square, one dot or
more inside can be missing--but bottom dot of middle vertical
row must be present--a + score is given. (See examples.)

Form

Plus Minus

 

 

 

 

GOO GOO
GOO GOO
GOO

 

 

 

0|

O
0%
O ’00 0000

Coo w o

00
OO
00
a

 

OOOO

 

 

 

 

 

 

0000
00000

 

 

 

 

 

o %;9

 

 

 

 

 

If there is doubt about scoring, balancing will help.
For instance, if one is overly-precise in scoring one item,
he can be lenient regarding a doubtful item. Criteria, in
general, must be strictly applied.

Range of scores is +9 to -9.

Sub-Test IV

 

1. Each recognizable letter is a + score.

2. A space between "Fred" and "is" is a + score; if
space is omitted, it is a - score.

3. A space between "is" and "here" is a + score; if
space is omitted, it is a - score.

4. Each omitted letter is a - score.

5. Inverted, rotated, or reversed letters are scored
zero (0).

6. Unrecognizable letters are scored zero (0).

7. Two consecutive letters inverted, rotated or
reversed are a - score.

 

 

 

   

106

8. Three or more consecutive letters inverted, rotated
or reversed are a 2 - score (=).

Zero scores are not counted in totaling + or - scores.
Zero scores of reversed or unrecognizable letters suggest a
higher development than do omissions, no perceptions, or
inability to produce. They are better than minus scores, but
not yet at a plus score level.

Range of scores is +12 to -12.

 

APPENDIX D

LETTER TO PRINCIPAL AND

LETTER AND SCORING SHEET TO TEACHERS

 

APPENDIX D

INGHAM INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Division of Special Education
147 W. Maple Street
Mason, Michigan 48854

Dear Principal:

The material enclosed in this manila envelope has been
prepared as a part of an Ingham Intermediate School District
Research Project for the 1967-68 school year.

This research project has been presented to your school
superintendent and he has given approval for his school dis-
trict to be included and c00perative in this study.

It is the intent of this project to see how kindergarten,
first grade, and second grade teachers evaluate the copying
skills of kindergarten children.

This envelope contains three booklets of children's work,
project information and evaluation sheets which are to be
presented to 9Q; kindergarten teacher, gn§_first grade
teacher, and gag second grade teacher in your school build-
ing.

All elementary schools in Ingham County, excluding the
City of Lansing, will be involved in this project. There
will be 111 teacher participants. Neither the name of the
teacher nor the school district is important to the study.

We would be most grateful for your help and cooperation
in gathering the necessary data for this project.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Jane Scandary
Director, Research Project
Ingham Intermediate School District

107

108

Building Principal Instructions:

1. Randomly select pg; kindergarten teacher, gag first
grade teacher, and gng second grade teacher as partic-
ipants for this study. Drawing names out of a hat is an
apprOpriate means of random selection. Where only one
teacher per grade exists, there is no question as to
selection.

2. Approach the selected teachers and request their c00pera-
tion with the study. Give the large manila envelope to
one teacher at a time. Information and directions for
their use are enclosed for each grade level.

3. Request that each teacher evaluate the samples individ-
ually, and return her evaluations in a sealed envelope
along with the sample booklets to you as soon as possible--
in order that you may present this material to the next
teacher selected.

 

4. The manila envelopes will be picked up two weeks from the
time of distribution by a staff member of the Ingham
Intermediate School Office.

5. When ready for return, the large manila envelope should
contain:

a. the three sample booklets
Section I Copy Forms
Section II Copy Dots
Section III Copy Sentence
b. three white sealed envelopes containing the evalua-
tions of
9g§_kindergarten teacher
2n§_first grade teacher
pg; second grade teacher
from your building.

For further information or questions concerning this project,
please feel free to call the project director:

.Mrs. Jane Scandary

Ingham Intermediate School Office
.Mason,.Michigan

Phone: 677-3481

Home:

3606 Macon Avenue
Lansing, Michigan
Phone: 372-1563

 

109

INGHAM INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Division of Special Education

April 1, 1968

TO THE PRINCIPAL:

 

Last fall you helped us immensely in selecting teachers
from within your building to take part in this research *”.
project. As you will recall, at that time we mentioned that
we would be back again for a second evaluation in the spring
of this school year (May 1968).

Your help and the cooperation of your teachers has been
most encouraging--and we are most grateful for it.

Please follow the same procedures--with the same teachers
as you selected for the project last fall.

Results of the project will be made available to you and
your teachers by the middle of next fall.

Thank you for your help.

Jane Scandary

JS:bva

 

 

 

110

INGHAM INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Division of Special Education
147 W. Maple Street
Mason, Michigan 48854

Dear Teacher:

The material presented here for your evaluation is part
of an Ingham Intermediate School District Research Project.
It is the intent of this project to see how teachers of kin-
dergarten, first grade, and second grade evaluate the copying
skills (eye-hand coordination) of kindergarten children. We
would be most grateful for your help and cooperation in
gathering the necessary data for this project.

This material is being presented to one kindergarten
teacher, one first grade teacher, and one second grade
teacher in each elementary school in Ingham County, excluding
the City of Lansing. There will be 111 participants in this
study. Neither the name of the teacher nor the school dis-
trict is important to the study.

Thank you so much for your cooperation, time, and effort
in this project.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Jane Scandary
Director, Research Project
Ingham Intermediate Schools

GENERAL INFORMATION:

The material enclosed is presented in three sections,
according to the three copy tasks selected for evaluation
and study.

Section I Copy Forms
Section II Copy Dots
Section III Copy Sentence

Each section contains 15 samples of children's work on
these tasks, representing a full range of skill ability from
High through Unacceptable performance skills.

These samples were randomly selected from samples of
work done on all three tasks by 104 kindergarten children
from various school districts in Ingham County (excluding
the City of Lansing). Work samples were collected during
the last two weeks of May, 1967.

 

'1"
5;

 

 

111

All 104 kindergarten children had completedcnmafull year
of kindergarten eXperience and were scheduled to enter first
grade in the fall of 1967.

The mean age of the children at the time of testing was
6 years—3/4 month, with an age range of 65 months to 83
months.

All sample work was gathered individually. Instructions
to the children required that they "Look at the picture"
presented before them (whether the Copy Forms, Copy Dots, or
Copy Sentence) and "Make one like it." Reading, counting, or
other responses were not required.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

1. It is important that each teacher to whom this material
is presented DO HER EVALUATIONS INDIVIDUALLY--and in
accord with HER OWN CRITERIA FOR JUDGMENT.

2. Please be sure to complete the questions at the tOp of
the evaluation sheet concerning your teaching assignment
and past experience.

3. When the evaluation sheet is completed, please fold and
seal it in the envelOpe provided for you. Return both
the sealed envelope and all sample books to your building
principal as soon as possible.

4. The booklets of samples may be taken apart for evaluation
purposes. When finished, please reassemble the sample
material in the correct order before rebinding. Return
all sample material in the kit as it was originally
presented to you.

SCORING INSTRUCTIONS:

1. There are three sections of c0py tasks presented for
your evaluation:

Section I Copy Forms
Section II Copy Dots
Section III Copy Sentence

2. Each section contains 15 examples of work done by chil-
dren who have completed one year of kindergarten eXpe—
rience.

‘ "Ir

 

 

 

 

 

 

112

Evaluate each sample on the basis of the rating symbols
below:

H = High performance

A = Average performancg:::>> Acceptable performance
L = Low performance

U = Unacceptable performance

For example:

Copy Forms, Dots, or Sentence
Section I, II, or III
Sample No. I H I A I L I U I
11 IV] II
I I l l l

Please complete all questions and scoring on Evaluation
Sheet. Fold the Evaluation Sheet and seal it in the
envelope provided (marked with your teaching level on
the outside). Place it, along with all sample material,
in the large manila envelope and return to your building
principal.

 

 

 

113

INGHAM INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Division of Special Education
Research Project

EVALUATION SHEET:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please complete the following information: Date
Present teaching assignment: Indicate the number of years you
have taught at this level:
Kdng.
lst 1-2 years
2nd 3-5 years
6-9 years
10+ years
Other grade levels you have taught: , , .
Total number of years of teaching eXperience: .
Academic training: Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree
Master's Degree + (30 semester/45 term hrs.)
Other
Scoring for Children's Work Samples:
Copy Forms Copy Dots Copy Sentence
Section I Section II Section III
Sample Sample Sample

 

Comments:

Check to see that information has been completed on this sheet, then fold
and put in white envelope provided for you. Seal envelope. Return sealed
envelope along with all sample materials in manila envelope to your build-
ing principal.

Thank you.

 

114

INGHAM INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Division of Special Education

April 1, 1968

TO THE TEACHER:

Last fall (October 1967) you were asked to evaluate the
enclosed samples of copy skills of Kindergarten children.
Your response and interest in this project has been most
gratifying and encouraging. The second half of the project
calls for a repeat evaluation in May 1968 of the same sam-
ples by the same teachers.

We know that participation in this project has taken
time on your part and we are truly appreciative of your
effort. Results of this project will be printed and avail—
able to all participating teachers by the middle of next
fall.

Thank you for your help.

Jane Scandary

 

“5?; .
l

     

APPENDIX E

CHILDREN'S MATERIAL GIVEN TO TEACHERS

FOR EVALUATION

 

 

~%"d 4‘?an 43""

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

126

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vll'l‘fi-MJ ‘ -"" u" -'

 

 

___._-%¢¥;u;-‘_m®‘h Lh‘“ ‘ ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPP‘hnn H” Exes-I

m :3. ..a w I - fiéfilvfl 1:111 1'

 

 

 

 

 

 

132

 

 

135

 

_ ::-;i‘:i‘m3%‘" 3. fl " "" 2‘."

 

 

 

 

 

139

 

 

 

 

 

Fred is here

Section 1“." ‘éfi-‘i‘ém

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fred is here
Fred (B berg

 

r
.3
r
i
1:

Fred is here
Fred” 'hefe,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- _. .. mm. w r ‘
2-M.-J‘“.~!‘! .1 - a '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fred is fierce

igéi erQi

 

 

 

, g g . W |

 

 

Fred ' is i1 2 re

”(NEW/”e

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frzclis here
’ -Fréd r6 heme

 

 

 

Fred is here,

 

 

 

‘ Fred is here,

 

Fred is here

Hg 3% 7ir/ \Ki

"rrrrrrrrrrrrrr