IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

WW“\llH‘thlHMlH‘lWNWWNW

3 1293 10546 4501

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled
EFFECTS OF PRIOR AURAL EXPOSURE ON THE
ORAL READING PERFORMANCE AND COMPREHENSION

OF MEXICAN AMERICAN MIGRANT CHILDREN
presented by

Barbara VanDyke Kirk

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

Ph.D. degree in the Department of
Teacher Education

./ 41/ It {44451

/ M . jor professor

Date /&/%/
// /

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

"ww—ss-_.m , W..____.. _
- . .

 

MSU

LIBRARIES

 

”-

 

 

.... -‘_

RETURNING MATERIALS:

PIace in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wiII
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

I Q \ . _
L‘V‘V' {" 1““

OX 11,007 ,

4‘ LL.
my?! .

‘-

 

 

EFFECTS OF PRIOR AURAL EXPOSURE ON THE
ORAL READING PERFORMANCE AND COMPREHENSION
OF MEXICAN AMERICAN MIGRANT CHILDREN

By
Barbara VanDyke Kirk

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1984

Copyright by
BARBARA VANDYKE KIRK
1984

ABSTRACT

EFFECTS OF PRIOR AURAL EXPOSURE ON THE ORAL READING
PERFORMANCE AND COMPREHENSION OF MEXICAN AMERICAN CHILDREN

By
Barbara VanDyke Kirk

The purpose of this study was to investigate the facilitative
effects of prior aural exposure and ethnically related content on the
English oral reading performance and comprehension of bilingual
Mexican American migrant children. Fifteen bilingual Spanish-speaking
subjects, nine or ten years of age reading at fourth-fifth grade
level, were selected from the Title I Migrant Education Program.

Procedure. Subjects read four expository social studies

 

passages, two related to Mexican American culture and two related gto
other cultures. For one ethnically related passage, subjects first
listened to a recording of half the passage, retelling it afterwards.
The same procedure was followed for ethnically unrelated passages.
Oral reading performance was analyzed according to the Goodman and

Burke Reading Miscue Inventory. The first 25 non-repeated miscues

 

of the portion of the passage to which the subject did not receive
aural exposure were analyzed. Comprehension was assessed by the
quality of miscues and recall. These data were subjected to
multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures.

Findings. Prior aural exposure resulted in significantly fewer
miscues and higher comprehension, as measured by retelling, than the

spontaneous reading of passages. Oral reading performance did not

Barbara VanDyke Kirk

differ significantly on the types of miscues generated, graphic and
phonemic proximity, syntactic and semantic acceptability, or
correction of miscues. With respect to the effects of ethnically
related content, miscues generated while reading ethnically related
passages more often preserved the intended meaning of the text.
mwmver, attempts to correct miscues were more successful for
ethnically unrelated content. For comprehension, recall was
signfificantly higher for the portion of the ethnically related
passages to which the subject did not receive aural expoane.
Conversely, for the entire passage, recall was significantly greater
for ethnically unrelated passages. An interaction effect indicated
that prior aural exposure resulted in significanitly irigher

comprehension for ethnically unrelated passages.

ACKNONLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my advisor,
Professor George Sherman, for his encouragement and guidance
throughout the doctoral program. Gratitude is also extended to the
other members of my guidance committee: Professors Joseph Spielberg,
James Snoddy, and Keith Anderson.

For their cooperation in the collection of the data for this
study, I am deeply indebted to the administrators and teachers of the
Michigan Migrant Education Program and, especially, to the migrant
children.

A special thanks is extended to my colleague and friend,
Professor Charles Eiszler, for his valuable suggestions during the
progress of this study.

For his understanding, encouragement and assistance, I extend my

warmest gratitude and appreciation to my husband, Rod.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................ viii
Chapter Page
I INTRODUCTION ....................... 1
Statement of the Problem ............... 4
Significance of the Problem ............. 6
Definition of Terms ................. 7
Procedures ...................... 8
II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................ 12
Introduction ..................... 12
Listening ...................... 12
Prior Knowledge ................... 26
Summary ....................... 38
III METHOD .......................... 40
Introduction ..................... 40
Subjects ....................... 4O
Variables ...................... 52
Data Collection Procedures .............. 65
Analysis of Data ................... 70
IV ANALYSIS OF DATA ..................... 73
Introduction ..................... 73
Oral Reading Performance ............... 75
Comprehension .................... 90
Summary ....................... 101
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................. 105
Introduction . . ................... 105
Summary ....................... 105
Limitations .................... . 109
Conclusions ..................... 111
Recommendations for Future Research ......... 114
Concluding Statement ................. 115

iv

REFERENCES .
APPENDIX A:

APPENDIX 8:
APPENDIX C:

APPENDIX D:

Migrant Students Screened and Identified as Subjects
from the Participating Summer Migrant Programs . . . 126

Language Usage Questionnaire . ........... 127

Migrant Status, Sex, Age, Grade, and Slosson Oral
Reading Test Scores for Subjects .......... 128

Reading Passages and Comprehension Outlines . . . . 129

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
2-1 Texas Spanish Score Means for Standard and Culturally

Relevant Stories . . . . . ........... . . . 36
3-1 Proportion of English/Spanish Language Use in Five

Social Settings ................... 51
3-2 Readability ..................... 54
3-3 Main Ideas and Details ................ 55
3-4 Reliability ..................... 55
3-5 Treatment Schedule .................. 68
4-1 Types of Miscues: Substitutions, Omissions, Insertions 76
4-2 Miscues Per Hundred Words (MPHW) ........... 78
4-3 Omission of Inflectional Endings ........... 80
4-4 Spanish Language Interference/Dialect ........ 80
4-5 Graphic Proximity .................. 82
4-6 Phonemic Proximity .................. 82
4~7 Intonation ...................... 84
4-8 Grammatical Function ................. 85
4-9 Grammatical Acceptability Within Text ........ 86
4-10 Semantic Acceptability Within Text .......... 87
4-11 Semantic Proximity .................. 88

vi

Table
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-18

Page
Correction ...................... 89
Comprehending ..................... 91

Means for Retelling: Main Ideas, Details, Totals . . . 92

Main Ideas ...................... 93
Details ....................... 96
Retelling Total ................... 98
Summary of Analysis ................. 102

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
4-1 Interaction of Prior Aural Exposure with Ethnic

Relatedness for Main Ideas, Complete Passage ..... 95
4-2 Interaction of Prior Aural Exposure with Ethnic

Relatedness for the Retelling Total of the Complete

Passage ....................... 100

viii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The nature of the reading process continues to be controversial

as evidenced by a recent Phi Delta Kappan review of books on the

 

teaching of reading (Smith 1983). There are those who view reading as
essentially word recognition while others, considering word
recognition an important part of reading, emphasize meaning. Those
who define reading in terms of obtaining meaning from printed language
further argue that word recognition skills can be effectively
developed only as the student actively attempts to reconstruct the
"whole meaning of the text" (Smith, 1983: 743).

Although there is a considerable range of perspectives on the
teaching and learning of reading, all would agree that oral language
development is a major factor for success in beginning reading. In
their study of children's language development, linguists have
generally sought commonalities of language acquisition. Brown (1973) ,
for example, found consistent, systematic patterns of early word
combinations of children of twelve different language communities.
Slobin (1973) compared child language studies related to thirty
languages from which to postulate a universal developmental sequence

of language acquisition. Such studies gave little consideration to

tme variation among individuals, cultures, and languages. In
contrast, Nelson (1982) focused on individual differencesamd
cmnfludmithat there appear to be different styles of language
learning which may be influenced by cognitive maturation, cognitive
style, environmental context, and the interaction of the child and
environment in different functional contexts.

Children who grow up in a bilingual environment in the United
States may be expected to communicate in two languages, the choice of
language determined by the functional context. At home they may use
the first or native language with family members while English is
required in the classroom and in other interactions witrl the «iomi11ant
culture. Among such children there is a wide range of variation in
proficiency levels of both languages. They may, for example, be
fluent in both languages, limited in one language and fluent in the
other, or have only partial control of each language. Many bilingual
chilciren, liowever, enter school with limited or no English
proficiency.

Most commonly, reading instruction is begun in English if the
child is dominant in English, that is, if he has greater proficiency
in English than the other language even though that proficiency may be
considered very limited. The bilingual child, along with the rest of
his rnonolingual English-speaking classmates, begins reading
instruction in the school adopted basal reading program, the most
widely-used source for teaching reading to elementary children. Basal

reading programs, however, are designed and sequenced on the

assumption that the child has had five years of experience in
listening and speaking standard English. In addition, although
publishers have attempted to produce materials that reflect the ethnic
diversity of American society, McCutcheon, Kyle and Skovira (1979)
conclude that the content is still very much oriented to the middle
class experience and may bear little resemblance to a given child's
cultural experiences. The bilingual child may therefore lack not only
the requisite English language proficiency but also the experiential
background necessary for the demands of the reading task.

Recognizing the importance of oral language skills for success in
reading, the literature (Ching 1976; King-Stoops 1980; Kaminsky 1976;
Perez 1981; Thonis 1976, 1983) is replete with recommendations that
educational programs provide ample instructional opportunities for the
bilingual student of limited English proficiency to develop English
oral language skills. The priority given to the development of
English oral language skills by the National Migrant Education Program
(Title I, ESEA), for instance, which serves largely a Hispanic
population (Cameron 1981), is exemplified by the title of their

instructional materials, Oral Language All Day: A Resource Guide for

 

Effective Communication (1980).

 

Listening and reading are receptive language acts. Both involve
active processing of language in order to comprehend the meaning. To
bridge the limited English proficient student into reading materials,
it is recommended (Thonis 1976; Gonzalez 1983; O'Brien 1973) that a

language arts approach be utilized. Content is first presented for

oral language skills of listening and speaking before the child
attempts to read the material. This is to provide an opportunity for
the child to develop the necessary language proficiency and
familiarity with the content in order to read with understanding.

Reasoning that the comprehension skills of listening are
analogous to those of reading (Greene and Petty 1975), it is suggested
(Anastasiow, Hanes and Hanes 1982; Petty, Petty and Becking 1981;
Moffett and Wagner 1983) that listening to a reading of a text while
following that text with the eyes will result in improved reading
skill. It is believed that this will encourage the student to apply
oral language skills to the reading process.

Anastasiow, Hanes and Hanes (1982) further suggest that aural
exposure to the text, while the student follows along visually, prior to
oral reading of the text, is especially beneficial for students of
limited English proficiency. In addition to becoming familiar with the
content through the prior aural exposure, the student also hears the
natural flow of language thereby encouraging him to apply this oral
language model to his own reading for improved comprehension.

The intent of this study was to observe the effects of listening and
ethnically related content on the reading behavior of bilingual students,

specifically Spanish-speaking migrant students.

Statement of the Problem
The major purpose of this study is to investigate the facilitative

effects of prior aural exposure on the English oral reading performance

and comprehension of bilingual Mexican American migrant children. A
further purpose of this investigation was to determine the relative
effects of ethnically related content on oral reading performance and

comprehension.

The two independent variables for this study were:
1) aural exposure to the passage prior to oral reading of that
passage

2) ethnically related content

The dependent variables were:
1) oral reading performance as defined by the types of miscues
a) the occurrence of each type of miscue -substitution,
ommission, insertion, reversal
b) Spanish language interference/dialect
c) graphic and phonemic proximity to the text word
d) syntactic acceptability within the text
e) semantic acceptability within the text
f) correction of miscue
2) comprehension
a. comprehending while reading

b. retelling of information presented in the passage

Hypotheses
In this study, the following null hypotheses were tested:

H1: There is no significant difference between the oral reading
performance, as measured by word miscues, of expository
passages read spontaneously and those which include prior
aural exposure.

H2: There is no significant difference between the compre-
hensicui, as measured by retelling and the interrelationship
of miscues, of expository passages read spontaneously and
those which include prior aural exposure.

H3: There is no significant difference between the oral reading
performance, as measured by word miscues, of expository
passages which are ethnically related and those which are
ethnically unrelated.

H4: There is no significant difference between the compre-
hensicni, as measured by retelling and the interrelationship
of miscues, of expository passages which are ethnically
related and those which are ethnically unrelated.

'Significance of the Problem

The continuing debate on the nature of reading comprehension
centers on whether the process is bottom-up or top-down (Strange
1980). Those who adhere to the bottom-up or text-driven position
argue that “the page brings more information to the reader than the
reader brings to the page" (392). Proponents of the top-down or
concept-driven model take the opposite point of view. They believe
that the reader uses his prior knowledge to make predictions about,
for example, the relationships and episodes of the text confirming or
modifying these hypotheses as he reads the text. The proposed study
will contribute further insight into this issue by exploring the
effects of two types of prior knowledge — language and cultural

patterns - on the reading process.

It is a well-known fact that linguistically and culturally
different students consistently score below the norms on reading
achievement (Knight 1983). The observation of the effects of prior
aural exposure and ethnic relatedness of content on the reading
comprehension of such a population can prove useful in the development
of appropriate instructional materials and teaching strategies.

More specifically, the empirical investigation of the effect on
comprehension of listening to text before reading it has a very
practical classroom application. If found to improve comprehension,
both basal reading materials and content area materials easily could
be recorded on audio tape to be used by students who would benefit

from this technique.

Definition of Terms

 

The following terms are defined as they are used in this study.
Listening - "the process by which spoken language is converted
to meaning in the mind." (Lundsteen 1971: 9)

Mexican American - an American citizen of Mexican ancestry.

 

Migrant Child - a child who has moved within the past year with

 

his family from one school district to another in order that
a member of his immediate family or guardian might work in
seasonal agricultural activities.

Miscue - a deviation between the oral response of the reader
and the printed text (Goodman and Burke 1972).

Dialect - a variety of a language spoken by a particular group

of people.

Interference - the inappropriate usage of phonological,

 

syntactic or semantic features of one language within the

context of another.

Procedures

 

Population and Sample

Subjects for this study were drawn from the interstate and
intrastate Mexican American student population attending the ESEA
Title I, Michigan Summer Migrant Program. Teachers were asked to
identify those students of nine or ten years of age who spoke Spanish
and <:oul<i be expected to read at approximately the fourth grade level.

To further define the sample, a Language Usage Questionnaire and
the Slosson Oral Reading Test (Slosson 1963) were administered to each
student. The Language Usage Questionnaire, designed try the
investigator to ascertain that the student used Spanish, consisted of
questions focusing on choice of language in specific situations such
as playing with friends, visiting relatives, and helping parents with
household chores. The Slosson Oral Reading Test (SORT) was utilized
to determine the approximate reading level of the student. Those
bilingual students who scored within the mid fourth grade to low fifth
grade range (4.4-5.2) on the SORT were included in the sample of

fifteen.

Treatment

For the treatment, four expository passages of approximately 630
words each were adapted from fifth grade social studies instructional
materials. Two passages were chosen describing aspects of Mexican
American culture including the extended family, the barrio, border
culture and Las Posadas, a Christmas tradition. Two other expository
passages were selected describing cultural patterns or customs of
other cultures. The four passages each consisted of approximately the
same number of main ideas and details.

For each passage, an audio recording was produced of a standard
English speaker reading, from the beginning, approximately halii of “the
passage.

In the design of this experiment, each subject read all four
passages. The subject was instructed to orally read without
assistance and afterwards retell one ethnically related passage. On
the second ethnically related passage, the subject first listened to
the audio recording of half of the passage, following along on the
printed copy. Then the subject was given the printed copy of the
complete passage and orally read the entire passage retelling it
afterwards. This same procedure was followed for the ethnically
unrelated passages.

For both the ethnically related and unrelated passages, the
mflflectlistened to just half of the passage in order to avoid
confounding the hypothesized effect of prior aural exposure with

listening comprehension.

10

The retelling task was both unaided and aided. The subject was
informed before reading that she would be asked to retell the
information in the passage as soon as the reading was completed.
First, the subject reviewed, unaided, in her own words what she had
read. Following this initial response, the investigator asked
questions to encourage the subject to expand the retelling. Questions
made use of no specific information not already introduced by the
subject in her retelling and were general in order not to lead the
subject to insights that did not develop from her own reading.

The order of whether the subject first read a passage or listened
to the audio tape and read a passage was randomly alternated between
subjects. The oral reading and retelling sessions were recorded on

audio tape for analysis.

Analysis of Data

Oral reading performance and comprehension were analyzed from
both a quantitative and qualitative perspective relative to the
treatment conditions of prior aural exposure and ethnic relatedness of
content. I

Oral reading miscues were catalogued into four categories:
substitutions, omissions, insertions, and reversals. Each type of
miscue was a dependent variable in a separate multivariate analysis of

variance for repeated measures (Winer 1971).

11

PRIOR EXPOSURE

 

 

Aural No Aural

ETHNIC RELATEDNESS Exposure Exposure
Related
Unrelated

 

 

 

MISCUE TYPE

For the qualitative analysis of oral reading miscues, the

guidelines of the Reading Miscue Inventory (Goodman and Burke 1972)

 

were utilized to describe the miscues with respect to graphic and
phonenfic: similarity to the text and syntactic and semantic
acceptability. Those miscues reflecting the influence of the Spanish
language were identified and analyzed for their relationship to
comprehension. As for the types of miscues, these dependent variables
were each analyzed relative to the treatment conditionstnrthe
statistical procedure of multivariate analysis of variance for
repeated measures.

On the recall measure, unaided and aided recall of the mair1 ideas.
and details were tallied. Recall was analyzed both for the entire
passage and for the second half of the passage to which the subject
did not receive aural exposure. These data were also subjected to

multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures.

CHAPTER II
REVIEH OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

 

The literature reflecting the theoretical orientations and
empirical research which has influenced the formulation of the present
study is reviewed in this chapter. The two major areas considered as
they relate to reading comprehension are: 1) listening and 2) prior
knowledge. For listening, the review of the literature focuses on
comprehension by ear and its relationship to reading comprehension.
Prior knowledge is examined with an emphasis on cultural background

and its role in reading comprehension.

Listening

Listening is a receptive language act. As such, listening goes
beyond the reception of sounds. Lundsteen (l971: 9) defines listening
as “the process by which spoken language is converted to meaning in
the mind." According to her model, listening then is an active
process which involves "hearing, getting meaning, and making use of
that meaning" (1971: 43). To underscore the level of mental activity
involved, Brown (1954: 86) advocates the term auding be employed to

describe comprehension of spoken language. Taylor (1973) defines

12

13

listening as having three hierarchical stages: hearing, listening, and
auding. Hearing is the physical process of receiving auditory
input. Listening refers to the process of recognizing the sound
components in meaningful units and auding is the process of
transfering the flow of words into meaning utilizing critical thinking
skills. From an information processing perspective, Goss (1982)
describes listening as a problem—solving task involving three phases:
1) signal processing - auditory perception; 2) literal processing -
simple meaning and implication; and 3) reflective processing -
critical analysis and appreciation.

As receptive language acts, listening and reading are analogous
in many respects. The interrelationship between oral and written
language is emphasized by Carroll's (1964: 340) definition of reading
as “perception and comprehension of written messages in a manner
paralleling that of the corresponding spoken message. Smith, Goodman
and Meredith (1976) describe listening and reading as active processes
of constructing meaning from language, reading from graphic symbols
and listening from sound symbols. Both are therefore considered
meaning-getting processes in which the listener/reader must respond to
language in order to construe its meaning.

Listening and reading have been operationally defined as
processes of sampling and hypothesis testing in seeking meaning. From
a psycholinguistic perspective, Goodman (1973) stresses the language
ability of the reader in his top-down model of the reading process.

According to Goodman, the reader constructs meaning by simultaneously

14

using the graphophonic, syntactic and semantic language systems. The
reader anticipates and predicts meaning based on sampling cues from
each of the three systems and seeks to confirm or disconfirm the
prediction by relating it to prior experiences and language knowledge.
Similarly, Lundsteen (1971) suggests that the listener samples from
the verbal symbols to arrive at meaning. The listener compares his
selection of verbal cues with his store of language knowledge and
conceptual background to predict, test and confirm meaning. Listening
and reading thus involve an interaction between the bakgrmum
experiences and language of the speaker/writer and listener/reader to
construct the message.

Skills involved in listening and reading also seem to reflect
common comprehension processes. Mangieri, Staley and Wilhide (1984)
note that dimensions of comprehension for both listening and reading
include identifying details and main ideas, making inferences, and
higher level skills as separating fact from opinion. In his skill
analysis of listening comprehension, Buttery (1980) emphasizes this
relationship by formulating a modification of Barrett's (Smith and
Barrett 1972) taxonomy of reading skills to classifylishyfing
comprehension skills. Buttery delineates four levels of listening
comprehension skills:

1) literal recognition or recall
2) inferential or interpretive
3) critical or evaluative

4) appreciation or aesthetic (1980: 186)

15

Lundsteen (1971) lists twenty-seven listening comprehension skills
compiled from numerous authorities on listening. Adhering closely to
Bloom's (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives for the cognitive
domain, the skills are classified into two levels labeled general
listening and critical listening. General listening skills
include the knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis and
synthesis levels of the Bloom taxonomy. Critical listening
represents evaluation, the highest level of the taxonomy. Most
taxonomies of reading comprehension such as those presented by Stoodt
(1981), Lapp and Flood (1978) and Miller (1984) are also based on
Bloom's taxonomy. These parallel classifications of listening and
reading comprehension skills suggest that educators believe similar
mental processes underlie both receptive language acts.

The relationship between listening and reading has been the
subject of investigation for more than fifty years. Numerous studies,
including those by Bonner (1960), Duker (1964), Brown (1965), and
Markert (1974), have shown moderately high positive correlations
between listening and reading comprehension suggesting similar mental
processes. Duker (1964: 322), for example, reports twenty-three
studies conducted between 1926 and 1961 found correlations ranging
from .45 to .70 with a mean of .57. Brown (1965: 135) reported even
higher correlations of .82, .76 and .77 at the fourth, fifth and sixth
grade levels, respectively.

Further evidence that basically the same cognitive processes are

required for either receptive language mode has been provided by

16

Mosenthal (1976). Syllogisms in aural and written form were used with
second and sixth graders to test differences in comprehension.
Mosenthal concluded that a common language competence underlies both
silent reading and oral language processing but, interestingly, not
reading aloud. Kintsch and Kozminsky (1977) compared mature readers‘,
college students, sumaries written after reading and listening to
stories. Finding the summaries remarkably similar led these
researchers to conclude that reading and listening involve identical
comprehension skills. Devine (1978: 302) argues that listening and
reading beyond decoding are reflections of a "common thinking base."
He describes listening and reading as the applied level of the
thinking processes. Al-Dahiry and Heerman (1981) compared third
graders' comprehension at the literal and interpretive levels after
listening, silent and oral reading. They concluded that the mode of
reception did not affect the children's comprehension at either level
suggesting that corrmon comprehension processes undergird the receptive
language modes.

If listening and reading comprehension reflect similar skills and
cognitive processes, it would seem that principles of transfer of
learning would operate with improvement in listening resulting in
improvement in reading or vice versa. On this premise, educators
(Petty, Petty and Becking 1981; Rubin 1982; Cunningham 1983; Lemons
and Moore 1982) commonly recommend listening comprehension instruction
as a means for improving reading comprehension. Research generally

supports this view. Sticht, Beck, Hauke, Kleiman and James (1974)

17

evaluated twelve "auding"-reading comprehension transfer studies
finding support for their hypothesis that training in auding will
transfer to reading comprehension when reading is developed beyond the
learning to decode stage. In addition, they noted that transfer was
skill-specific, that is, the more similar the skill in auding training
to that in reading, the more likely it would transfer. Sticht, g;
g, conclude that the same cognitive processes operate in both
listening and reading. Testing the Cunningham (1975) parallel lesson
strategy emphasizing specific skill transfer from listening to reading
comprehension, Seaton and Wielan (1980) compared parallel lessons in
listening and silent reading comprehension to a traditional basal
approach. They found that comprehension was greater using parallel
lessons when reading for relationships, interpretation and
appreciation but not significantly different from the basal approach
when reading for information, a literal level skill. Further, they
suggest that elementary school children would benefit from the
combined employment of auditory and visual modalities since, at that
level, comprehension by listening is generally greater than by
reading.

Although there are many commonalities between listening and
reading, there are some important differences. Devine (1978) observes
that listening and reading differ with respect to situational and time
contexts. The listener can interrupt, ask for clarification, and pick
up clues to meaning from intonation. In addition, the listener has

the benefit of nonverbal cues as facial expressions, gestures and

18

general situational factors. Related to time context, the reader has
greater versatility. Except by interrupting the speaker, the listener
cannot regress to check interpretation but must rely instead on
memory. Unlike reading, the listener cannot preview the message or
control the speaker's rate of delivery to perhaps pause for reflecting
on what has just been heard. Another difference noted by Olejnik
(1978) is that a listener may have to adjust to a speaker's dialect in
order to understand the verbal code. Olejnik states that this is not
a problem for a reader but, while not a problem at a phonological
level, a reader too may have to make a corresponding adjustment at the
semantic and syntactic levels.

Still other characteristics of spoken and written language may
place different cognitive demands on the listener/reader for
comprehension. Durkin (1978, 1983) points out that while written
material usually consists of better constructed sentences than spoken
language, these sentences are longer and more complex. In contrast to
spoken language, the content of written material is likely to be
"dense, unfamiliar, detailed, technical (and) nonrepetitive" (1983:
274). Much of the content of listening is likely to be more personal
dealing with the immediate environment and shared experiences.
Recognizing the different demands placed on the listener, Durkin
(1978: 426) differentiates between "everyday talk" and the more formal
"oral presentation of written material." Characteristics of spoken
language with which the listener must contend include an abundance of

poorly constructed sentences, false starts and corrections. Durkin

19

therefore concludes that written material is not "talk written down."

One difference between listening and reading which bears further
examination relative to the present study is that of promxfic
information provided the listener and reader. Prosodic features,
suprasegmentals, consist of pitch, stress and juncture whflju
combined, produce intonation in speech. Pitch refers to the level of
the voice indicating at the end of a sentence, for example, whether
the speaker is making a statement or asking a question. Stress refers
to the amount of emphasis or loudness given to a word or syllable.
Stress on particular words can indicate what is important in a
sentence changing the meaning. For example,

John caught three fish. (not someone else)
John caught three fish. (not four), etc.

On a particular syllable in a word, stress can signal a semantic or
syntactic difference as Evalid - inmid and Mtent -
mum. Juncture, or pause, signals the difference between words
as ice cream and I scream, phrase or clause divisions and
sentences. Based on an extensive review of the research, Kleiman
(1982) summarizes the types of information that prosodic cues may
provide the listener. These are:

a) changes in the tapic of discourse

b) the ends of sentences, and whether they are statements,

questions or commands

c) whether sentences convey direct or indirect speech acts

20

d) the ends of clauses within sentences, and, in many cases,

phrases within clauses

e) the words a speaker wants to make prominent because they

convey new or contrastive information

f) the referents of some pronouns (1982:11)

In contrast to listening, only some prosodic cues are graphically
represented in written language. This is noted by Bolinger who
states:

The convergence of writing and speech virtually stops at

the level of morphemes (Writing) has virtually

disregarded rhythm and intonation. Punctuation and

capitalization serve as a rough guide to some of the
rhythmic and intonation contrasts in speech, but too much

is left out ... (1975: 471-472)

Prosodic cues in written language are therefore available to signal
the boundaries of a sentence but generally lacking within the
sentence.

Language comprehension, according to Clark and Clark (1977)
requires that the constituents (phrases and clauses) of surface
structure be identified in order to construct meaning. They describe
the syntactic and semantic strategies that might be employed to parse
sentences into constituents. Syntactic strategies employ function
words, suffixes, prefixes, and grammatical categories (nouns, verbs)
of content words to infer constituents. Semantic strategies rely on
prior knowledge beginning with propositions that would make sense in a

particular context and then checking for surface constituents that

reflect those propositions. A combination of strategies is probably

21

used, all with the purpose of reducing ambiguities in constructing
meaning. As indicated above by Kleiman's list of functions, prosody
also provides information for parsing sentences although it is usually
redundant with the syntactic and semantic cues.

The importance of prosody in the acquisition of reading skills is
stressed by Fries (1963) who views learning to read essentially as
breaking the code, recognizing in printed form the words the reader
knows in spoken form. With an emphasis then on decoding, Fries (1963:
130) maintains that, in order to read with comprehension, the reader
must "rapidly and automatically" supply the oral signals of stress,
pause, and intonation that are not represented in the graphic signals.

Prosody also plays a significant role in the model of reading
proposed by Goodman (1973) which is based on the premise that, once
the child has developed the necessary oral language facility, reading
should be merely an extension of his natural language learning.
During the early stages of reading, a child may recode graphic symbols
into aural input from which to derive meaning. Assuming the child is
reading in his native language, his unconscious awareness of the
intonation patterns as language flows in actual speech aid him in
decoding meaning. As the child gains experience with written
language, Goodman hypothesizes that the reader collapses the process
so that recoding into aural input and decoding occur together. With
the compression of these processes, the reader decodes meaning
directly from graphic input and no longer needs aural input as a

mediator. Fluency in reading is dependent on the reader's general

22

cognitive and linguistic competence with respect to the demands of the
reading task. The more the reader is able to make use of syntactic
and semantic cues, the less graphic cues are needed to predict the
meaning. This model suggests that, when confronted with text
demanding a somewhat higher level of linguistic competence than
possessed by the reader or content not within his experiential
background, the reader may need to return to the level of recoding to
aural input before decoding in order to "hear" the text. Hearing or
aural input of the flow of language may provide prosodic cues to
meaning.

Because prosody is not well represented in written language, it
is argued (Kleiman, Winograd and Humphrey 1979; Kleiman 1982; Read and
Schreiber 1982; Schreiber 1980) that a reader's failure to use
compensating strategies for the lack of prosodic cues may contribute
to reading difficulties. This may be the case for those readers
characterized as "word by word" readers or "word callers,“ orally
reading without "expression" - not chunking words into meaningful
structural units. Orally reading without the implied prosodic
patterns of the text while able to decode individual words is
suggestive that the reader may not be comprehending the text.

To determine whether parsing of sentences might be a factor
contributing to reading difficulties, Kleiman, et__al (1979),
compared fourth grade above and below average readers. Sentences were
presented with and without prosody, in written and spoken form versus

written form only. Below average readers were significantly less able

23

than above average readers to parse sentences when prosodic
information was not available. However, when prosody was available,
below average readers were able to parse sentences as well as the
above average readers. Above average readers parsed sentences about
as well with or without prosody. These researchers conclude that the
lack of prosodic information in written language may contribute to the
difficulty some children have in parsing sentences and, thereby,
impair comprehension. Although not discussed in this report, the
results of this study also suggest that above average readers have
developed other parsing strategies for written material commensurate
with their listening comprehension.

Further evidence that children might experience difficulty
compensating for the lack of prosody in written language is provided
by Read and Schreiber (1982) who compared children and adults on the
use of prosody and syntax in parsing sentences. Seven year-olds and
adults were given the task of parsing spoken sentences in which there
was misleading prosody, a mismatch between prosodic and syntactic
cues. Results indicated that the children relied more heavily than
adults on prosodic features to identify syntactic structures. Since
prosody appears to be crucial in children's analysis of constituent
structure at a time when learning to read, the authors reason that
comprehension difficulties may be expected as the beginning reader
learns to rely on other semantic and syntactic parsing strategies.

Oral reading techniques are frequently employed to increase

reading fluency of the "word caller" who, accurately but haltingly

24

calling the words, demonstrates poor comprehension although he would
understand if it were read to him. These techniques include
neurological impress (Heckelman 1969; Hollingsworth 1978), assisted
reading (Hoskisson 1975a, 1975b), imitative reading (Chomsky 1978),
and repeated readings (Samuels 1979). Through listening and oral
reading at the student's instructional reading level, the goal of each
of these techniques is to improve word recognition fluency which
includes phrasing or expression, accuracy, and rate to thereby result
in improved comprehension. The neurological impress method
(Heckelman 1969) involves unison oral reading by the student and the
teacher. Sitting slightly behind the student to the right, the
teacher's hand slides under the words as they are read with his voice
directed into the student's ear. The teacher may be a fraction of a
word ahead of the student. This may be repeated on a particular
passage until fluency is achieved. Since class size may limit the
feasibility of this technique, Hollingsworth (1978) recommends that a
listening center be used. Each student can hear the text through
earphones and orally read along with the tape. In assisted reading
(Hoskisson 1975a, 1975b), a phrase or sentence in a story is read
aloud one at a time and the student repeats each one after the reader
who directs attention to print by moving his finger under the words.
Hoskisson (1975a) also suggests using taped stories and a listening
post, a variation similar to Hollingsworth's impress method with the
exception that the student may read along silently or in unison with

the tape. For the imitative method (Chomsky 1978), the student

25

listens to a taped story following along in the text. The procedure
is repeated until the student can orally read the story fluently and,
importantly, with expression. The repeated readings method (Samuels
1979) involves giving the student a short selection of 50-200 words,
instructing the student to practice the selection, and then timing the
oral reading of the selection noting the rate and number of errors.
The student silently rereads the selection while listening to a tape
of that text until a satisfactory level of oral reading fluency is
reached.

The aforementioned proponents of each of these methods report
favorable results in improving reading fluency. These methods are
quite similar in that each provides a model to emulate and
opportunities for the student to practice acting like a fluent reader.
Samuels' (1979) rationale for the repeated readings method is based on
an automatic information processing model of reading (LaBerge and
Samuels 1974). According to this model, the word identification
skills of the fluent reader are automatic, that is, accomplished with
little attention. The reader is then able to devote most of his
attention to processing the message. The slow and halting reader is
believed to have poor comprehension because his efforts are expended
on decoding rather than comprehension. Samuels (1979) reports that as
students continued the repeated readings method they needed fewer
rereadings on each new passage to attain satisfactory fluency. In his
examination of the repeated readings method, Schreiber (1980) points

out that LaBerge and Samuels' model of reading does not explain why

26

the repetition of one passage would lead to improved fluency on a new
passage. Schreiber contends that

the acquisition of fluent reading competence crucially

involves the beginning reader's tacit recognition that

s/he must learn to compensate for the absence of prosodic

cues in the written signal by making use (or better use)

of the cues that are preserved. (1980: 178)

He concludes that success of the oral reading method as repeated
readings and those described above comes from the opportunities,
through listening and emulating the reader, to discover the
syntactic and semantic cues to syntactic phrasing in written form that
he already knows how to use in aural processing.

It is evident from the literature that, as receptive modes of
language, listening and reading parallel one another in many respects.
Both are active processes of constructing meaning from language and
appear to rely on similar skill components and cognitive processes.
However, comprehension of written in comparison to spoken language may
require some adjustments due to the more decontextualized nature of
reading. A listener has the benefit of the immediate situation with
significant cues to meaning through gestures and prosody while a
reader must rely instead on graphic signals for this information.

Prior Knowledgg

What a reader knows about a topic will affect his or her ability

to understand text related to that topic. This prior knowledge is

also referred to as background information or world knowledge (Durkin

i_n_ Harris and Sipay 1984). Whether the reader contributes more

27

information to the page or vice versa is a source of continuing
debate.

A reader's prior knowledge is considered of key importance in
Goodman (1967, 1973) and Smith's (1978, 1979) psycholinguistic models
of reading. Both portray reading as a top-down, concept-driven
process in that the reader formulates hypotheses about the author's
meaning based on his knowledge of language and his total experiential
background. The proficient reader samples just enough graphic,
syntactic and semantic cues to predict meaning which is tested and
confirmed, revised or rejected. The more a reader knows about a
topic, the less visual cues will be required to make accurate
predictions of meaning. The emphasis on what the reader brings to the
page is evidenced by Goodman's (1967) characterization of reading as a
“psycholinguistic guessing game" involving interactions between
thought and language and Smith's (1978, 1979) central tenet that
reading is essentially prediction and, thus, the reduction of
uncertainty.

In contrast to this position, the bottom-up, text-driven view of
reading holds that the page contributes more information to the reader
than the reader to the page. The reader's prior knowledge is still
considered necessary for comprehension but secondary in importance to
text. Bottom-up models of reading involve serial, level by level
analyses generally described as subskills which are integrated into
high level skills or as a series of stages from visual input leading

to a semantic interpretation. Laberge and Samuel's (1974) automatic

28

information processing model of reading, for example, emphasizes rapid
word identification skill in the sequential processing of the words
from which the reader extracts meaning. When word identification
becomes "automatic," comprehension is given greater attention.

Another explanation of the role of prior knowledge in reading
comprehension is offered by schema theory (Runmelhart and Ortony 1977,
Anderson 1977, Bartlett 1932). According to this theory, the reader's
prior knowledge is organized into data structures called schemata
(plural for schema). Schemata are mental frameworks arranged
hierarchically for representing in memory generic concepts underlying
objects, events, situations, and their relationships. As structures
of knowledge, schemata are embedded within schemata representing
knowledge at all levels of abstraction. Schemata are believed to be
active processes and, therefore, open to change. A schema consists of
slots (Minsky 1975) which can be filled with new information resulting
in more complete schema and/or modification of schema through
accomodation and assimilation (Anderson 1977).

The term schema and the concept, much as it is used in schema
theory, dates back to the formulations of the philosopher Kant
(1963/1781). However, Bartlett (1932) is generally credited with
introducing the term into modern psychology to describe the way in
which knowledge is structured in the mind and how it influences
comprehension and recall. Similar concepts in the current literature
are "frames" (Charniak 1975, Minsky 1975, Fillmore 1975) and “scripts"
(Lehnert 1977, Schank and Abelson 1977).

29

The schema-theoretic view of reading (Adams and Collins 1979,
Rumnelhart 1980) is based on the interaction between the reader and
the text. Central to this theory is the assumption that text itself
does not carry meaning but only provides clues to the reader to access
associated schemata and construct the intended meaning from his or her
prior knowledge. The reader uses top-down, concept-driven and
bottom-up, data-driven processing, both occuring simultaneously at all
levels of analysis. Comprehension requires the convergence of input
information available through bottom-up processing with the reader's
conceptual expectations through top-down processing. Input
information is monitored by bottom-up processing as the reader
attempts to "instantiate," or fit, perceived data into existing
schemata. When the information does not fit, top-down processes are
activated to resolve the ambiguities. Summarizing the schema-
theoretic position on the role of prior knowledge, reading
comprehension is

the use of prior knowledge to create new knowledge.

Without prior knowledge, a text is not just difficult

to interpret, strictly speaking, it is meaningless. (Adams

and Bruce 1982: 23)

Employing the perspective of schema theory is a growing body of
research on the effects of culture specific prior knowledge on reading
comprehension and recall. Such research can be traced to the work of
Bartlett (1932) who, in his study of memory, analyzed educated
Englishmen's recall of the North American folktale, "The War of

Ghosts." He observed that the distortions, elaborations and omissions

30

in Englishmen's recall resulted in stories which more conformed to the
values and beliefs of their own culture. These transformations were
explained not as random forgetting but as a process of
"rationalisation" operating

to render material acceptable, understandable,

comfortable, straight-forward; to rob it of all puzzling

elements. (Bartlett 1932: 89)

While recognizing individual variability in attitudes and affective
states, Bartlett believed that general schemas were shared by members
of a social group accounting for the similarities observed, even over
time, in the transformations of the folktale. Although there have
been some methodological concerns (Zangwill 1972), this pioneering
research on the constructivist nature of memory stands as a major
influence on the development of a schema-theoretic model of reading
while the cross-cultural aspects of this research for many years have
largely been ignored.

Just recently, researchers have shown renewed interest in the
work of Bartlett and have now begun to conduct cross-cultural research
to determine the effects of culture specific schemata on reading
comprehension and recall. These studies have involved foreign
students learning English, American college students reading foreign
texts and children of various religious, ethnic and language minority
subcultures within the United States. Each of these studies, reviewed

below, provides further support for the important role of prior

knowledge in reading comprehension.

31

In their research on the effects of cultural schemata on reading
comprehension, Steffensen, Joag-Dev and Anderson (1979) asked college
students from India and the United States to read letters about a
typical American wedding and a typical Indian wedding. The text based
on their own culture was read more rapidly and with greater
comprehension. Subjects not only recalled more information from the
text related to their culture but, also, produced more culturally
relevant elaborations of that text and more distortions of the foreign
text.

For students learning English as a second language (ESL), Johnson
(1981) found that cultural content of a text was a more important
factor in comprehension than the simplification of vocabulary and
syntax. Forty-six Iranian intermediate to advanced level ESL college
students read a story from Iranian folklore and one from American
folklore. Half of the subjects read an unadapted English text of the
two stories while the other half read the stories in adapted,
simplified English. Subjects demonstrated greater comprehension of
the American story using the adapted text. No difference in
comprehension was found between the two versions of the Iranian story.
Although lacking knowledge of the text language, subjects seemed to
rely on their cultural background knowledge, utilizing top-down
strategies in comprehension.

Since comprehension of the foreign text (the American story) was
better when it was simplified, Johnson (1982) then questioned whether

difficulty in understanding the unadapted version was due to the lack

32

of necessary vocabulary meaning and/or to the lack of cultural
background knowledge. Seventy-two advanced ESL college students
representing 23 nationalities read a text on Halloween consisting of
familiar and unfamiliar information based on the students' recent
experience in activities associated with this custom. Three of the
four equal groups of students were exposed to the meaningscfi
unfamiliar key vocabulary words before reading and/or found them
glossed in the text. Johnson concludes that the realtufltural
experiences with Halloween rather than exposure to vocabulary resulted
in significantly higher comprehension for just familiar information
about Halloween. None of the vocabulary treatments were fourui to liave
a significant effect on reading comprehension. For<uflturaHy
unfamiliar tepics, these results suggest that vocabulary knowledge is
insufficient for comprehension but prior knowledge essential.

In a study of American college students' comprehension and recall
of Eskimo stories, Rice (1980) found that systematic distortions in
recall related to both form and content of the stories so as to
conform with their own cultural expectations. Eskimo stories were
uflected for this experiment because the content was not only
unfamiliar but the structure was also distinct from the American story
schema, a model similar to that proposed by Rumelhart (1975). Rice
notes that subjects had the greatest difficulty recalling material
which was most foreign to them suggesting that such material <:oulci not

be assimilated to available schemata.

33

The foregoing studies have all utilized textual matmfials
representing a nationality or culture very different from that of the
subjects in order to determine the effects of cultunespmfific
schemata on comprehension. Studies have also been conducted to
ascertain whether the cultural schemata of subcultural groups within
the United States are sufficiently distinct to be manifested in
reading comprehension. Reynolds, Taylor, Steffensen, Shirey and
Anderson (1982) reason that while subcultures do differ in their
values and beliefs, there is considerable cultural overlap of concepts
and ideas particularly due to the popular mass media. Essentially
replicating the Steffensen fl (1979) study described above,
Reynolds M compared Black and White eighth grade students'
recall of a letter dealing with "sounding," a form of ritual insult
found in the Black community. Black subjects interpreted the letter
as verbal play while the White students interpreted it as physical
aggression. Like Steffensen gt_gl (1979), these researchers
conclude that culture specific schemata can act to distort text
dealing with culturally unfamiliar topics.

F1n~ther' support for this conclusion is provided by Schreck (1981)
who examined the effects of content schema on the reading
comprehension of fifth and sixth grade Hispanic, Black and White
students. The students read three passages, each reflecting content
peculiar to one of the three cultural groups. Schreck found that
cultural familiarity significantly facilitated comprehension and

memory.

34

Lipson (1983, 1984) compared the comprehension and recall of
fourth, fifth and sixth graders of two subcultural groups, Jews and
Catholics, both within the mainstream of American society. The
students were enrolled in private Hebrew and Catholic schools and were
of average or above-average reading ability. Each student read an
expository passage, typical of that found in a social studies
textbook, on the Bar Mitzvah and the First Communion. In addition,
they read a culturally "neutral" expository passage concerning
Japanese divers. Each group read more rapidly and recalled more
explicit and implicit information for the culturally familiar text.
As Bartlett (1932) and Rice (1980), Lipson found that readers produced
constructivist errors of omission, elaboration and distortion in
recall which reflected attempts to assimilate the culturally
unfamiliar information according to their own cultural schemata.
Since there are strong parallels between the two religious rites,
Lipson suggests that generalized schemata for such events might be
activated during the reading of the texts. The less accurate recall
of the culturally unfamiliar text, Lipson (1984: 763) reasons, is less
likely to result from the "lack of prior knowledge that the failure to
resolve conflicts between existing knowledge and new information."
She finds support for this conclusion in the subjects' performance on
the culturally neutral passage. Although seemingly lacking relevant
background knowledge, both groups demonstrated high levels of
inferential recall and little error on this text. Recognizing that

the lower level of comprehension on the culturally unfamiliar text

35

might also be the result of the strength of one's religious beliefs
effecting a resistance to learn about another religion, Lipson also
cites evidence dealing with more secular texts in science (Venus
Flytrap) and social studies (New Guinea). In an earlier study of the
role of prior knowledge in learning from text, Lipson (1982) found
that third graders classified as "good" readers rejected text
information when the content was partially familiar to them. Subjects
were more likely to learn new information from text if they had no
prior knowledge than they were to correct inaccurate prior knowledge.
Additional support for the importance of prior cultural knowledge
in comprehension is provided by Goodman and Goodman's (1978) study of
reading involving four groups of American children speaking a language
other than English before entering school and four groups speaking a
low status dialect of English. The second language groups included
Texas Spanish, Navajo, Arab and Hawaiian Samoan. Dialect groups
included Downeast Maine, Appalachian White, Rural Black and Hawaiian
Pidgin. Using the Goodman and Burke (1973) miscue analysis
procedures, the intent of this research was to describe and compare
the reading process of second, fourth and sixth graders for each
language and dialect group on "standard" and "culturally relevant"
stories written in English. Thirty students of average reading
ability, ten per grade level, read orally and retold both stories.
Comprehension, based on retelling score means, was higher for all four
dialect groups than the second language groups at each grade level and

for both types of stories. For second language groups, retelling

36

means were higher for culturally relevant stories than standard
stories for fourth and sixth graders but lower for second graders.
For the Texas Spanish group, of particular interest to the present
study, the score means for standard and culturally relevant stories

for each grade level are presented below (Goodman and Goodman 1978:

7-17).
TABLE 2-1
Texas Spanish Score Means
for Standard and Culturally Relevant Stories
Second Fourth Sixth
Standard 48 49 52
Culturally Relevant 45 59 61

Although encountering great variability between and within second
language groups, these researchers note that the retellings of Texas
Spanish subjects were more similar to the dialect groups than the
second language groups. Except for the Hawaiian Pidgin group, the
dialect groups had total retelling score means of over 50 while the
Navajo, Arab and Hawaiian-Samoan second language groups all had
retelling score means of under 50 (1978: 7-24). Due to the lack of
appropriate culturally related stories for some of the groups which
was noted by the researchers, the small number of subjects per grade
level and subsequent lack of tests of significance, the results of
this study can only be considered suggestive of the possible effects

of prior cultural knowledge on comprehension.

37

In another study of English oral reading miscues and recall,
Jurenka (1978) compared the comprehension of bilingual Mexican
American students on "ethnically related" and "ethnically neutral"
stories. Nine average readers, three each in grades three, four and
five read in English an ethnically related and neutral story
appropriate to their grade level. Subjects retold the stories in both
English and Spanish with similar ratings. The third and fifth graders
demonstrated greater comprehension, as measured by retelling, of the
ethnic stories than neutral stories while fourth graders scored higher
on the neutral story. Attributing the lower scores of the fourth
graders to the lack of story comparability at that level, Jurenka
nontheless concludes that the nine students, as a group, better
understood materials that dealt with their culture. As for the
Goodman's (1978) study, the lack of comparable materials and the
extremely small number of subjects at each grade level precludes
generalization of this tenuous conclusion to other similar
populations.

In summary, research evidence suggests that prior cultural
knowledge can profoundly affect reading comprehension. Whether
reading text associated with a culture of another country, text
dealing with another ethnic subculture within the same country having
considerable cultural overlap among its subcultures, or even text
related to another religion but within the same socioeconomic status,
readers' prior cultural knowledge was found to significantly influence

their understanding. Readers demonstrated greater comprehension and

38

recall of text which more closely matched their cultural schemata as
evidenced by their omissions, elaborations and distortions in recall.
For students learning English as a second language who are relatively
proficient in reading English, cultural content may be more important

in comprehension than simplified language.

Sumary

The literature reviewed in this chapter focused on the
relationship of listening and prior knowledge, particularly cultural
knowledge, to reading comprehension.

Literature related to listening revealed several important
similarities to reading. Both are receptive forms of language and
active processes of constructing meaning from language. Similar
comprehension skills and cognitive processes seem to be required for
listening and reading. Differences were also noted with respect to
situational and time factors between spoken and written language.

One difference between listening and reading of particular
relevance to the present study deals with prosody. Few prosodic cues
are graphically represented in written language and must be inferred
by the reader. While prosody is generally redundant with syntactic
and semantic cues, this redundancy in spoken language may be
especially useful to the listener who has limited proficiency in
English, still gaining control of the language structures. Thus,
listening to a reading of a text, hearing the natural flow of

language, while following along with the eyes may encourage the

39

application of aural language skills to the reading task and result in
improved reading skill. Listening to text while following along
visually has been recommended by several reading experts (Petty, Petty
and Becking 1981, Moffett and Wagner 1983). Anastasiow, Hanes and
Hanes (1982) have recommended this technique particularly for students
of limited English proficiency. However, research evidence is lacking
on the efficacy of this technique.

The review of literature related to prior cultural knowledge
suggests that a reader's cultural background may significantly affect
comprehension. Prior knowledge that is commonly expected for Anglo,
English-speaking students may not be within the experience of the
ethnic or language minority student. Since comprehension appears to
be dependent on a reader possessing appropriate schemata, the lack of
such may result in failure to comprehend the intended message of a
text. Although investigations have been conducted on the effects of
culturally related content on the comprehension of various United
States subcultural groups, the migrant student population has not been
considered.

It is the intent of this study to investigate the effects of
listening and ethnically related content on the reading behavior of

bilingual, Spanish-speaking migrant students.

CHAPTER I I I
METHOD

Introduction

The design of this study was formulated to investigate the
effects of prior aural exposure and ethnically related content on the
reading behavior of bilingual Mexican American children. Oral reading
performance and comprehension were analyzed to determine whether prior
aural exposure and ethnically related content facilitate the reading
of expository materials.

In this chapter, the population and procedures for selecting the
subjects are described, the independent and dependent variables are
operationally defined, and the procedures for data collection and

analysis are discussed.

Subjects

Fifteen subjects, nine girls and six boys, were selected from the
Mexican American migrant student population participating in the
Summer, 1983, ESEA Title I Migrant Education Program in Michigan.
Characteristics of the migrant student population will first be
described followed by the procedure for the selection of subjects for

this study.

40

41

The Migrant Student Population
Michigan annually employs a large number of seasonal migrant farm
workers. 'The racial and ethnic makeup of the migrant labor force
includes Hispanics, Blacks, Whites, Native Americans and Indo-Chinese.
By far the majority of migrant farm workers are Hispanics, largely

Mexican Americans (Current Population Reports 1979: Table 10).

 

Reflecting this, a five-year national study of the Title I Migrant
Program conducted by the Research Triangle Institute (1981: 32)
reported 69% of the migrant student population was Hispanic, 65%
Mexican American. In Michigan, the proportion of Hispanic students
enrolled in the Migrant Program during the 1980-81 school year was
even higher at 86% (Michigan Department of Education 1982: 18).

Life on the move in the migrant stream is hard. Typically the
migrant family is poor with an income below the poverty level
(Ockerman-Garza, Garza and Snow 1982). In addition to low paying,
unstable employment, most migrant families live and work under
extremely adverse conditions. Although there have been some
improvements, housing is still generally substandard, crowded and
unsanitary (King-Stoops 1980). Migrant workers are exposed to
dangerous pesticides in the fields. In a study of work-related health
problems of migrant farm workers, spielberg (1979), discovered
significant amounts of P88 and other chemicals used in pesticides in
blood samples of Mexican Americans in Texas who had been migrant farm

workers in Michigan. In general, migrants experience poor health and,

due to their mobility and the social prejudice of the community,

42

lack access to most essential community services (Ockerman-Garza, e_t_
_a_l_ 1982).

Mobility, the family's economic need which may require the child
to work in the fields, and possibly speaking a language other than
standard English all contribute to the problems the migrant child
experiences in school. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) study
(Cameron 1981: 27) referred to above, found that 14% of migrant
students 8-13 years old were two years or more overage for the grade
level in which they were enrolled. This is considerably higher than
the national proportions for either White or Hispanic students which
is 5% for Whites and 9% for Hispanics (National Center for Education
Statistics 1980,-_i_g Cameron 1981: 31).

The dropout rate among migrant students is particularly acute.
Due to the mobility of the population it is difficult to estimate the
dropout rate. However, Ockerman-Garza e_t__a_l_ (1982: 2) offer a
conservative estimate that 50% of the migrant students drop out by
ninth or tenth grade. King-Stoops (1980: 41) states that only one out
of ten migrant students graduates from high school. The RTI study
(Cameron 1981: 26) found a sharp decrease in the migrant student
population above seventh grade suggesting a rapid dropout of students
beginning at eighth grade.

Migrant students' scores in reading and mathematics are
consistently below grade level. To assess the impact of the Title I
Migrant Program on achievement in reading and mathematics, the RTI

study pretested students in grades two, four and six and found them to

43

be "nearly 2.5 years behind the general population in reading, and
slightly more than one year behind in mathematics" (Cameron 1981: 99).
Although these students showed significant gains in reading and
mathematics on the posttest, the researchers nevertheless conclude
that, in absolute achievement, migrant students fall farther behind
the general population as they grow older.

Many migrant children enter school not yet speaking English or
with only limited oral English proficiency. Paralleling the
racial/ethnic distribution of the migrant p0pulation, the RTI study
(Cameron 1981: Table K.15) found 68% of the migrant students come from
homes where Spanish is spoken. Only 2% come from homes where a Native
American or other language than English is spoken. To assess the
English language competence of the migrant student population, the RTI
study (Cameron 1981: 37) used teacher ratings of migrant students'
oral English language competence validated by the MAT-SEA-CAL Oral
Proficiency Tests (Center for Applied Linguistics 1974) administered
to a subsample. These ratings appear to indicate that most (75%)
migrant students have adequate oral English competence for classroom
work. The number of students judged by teachers to be sufficiently
limited in English to interfere with classroom work represents 36% of
the Hispanic population. Since there is such a small number of
students from homes where a Native American or other language than
English is spoken, it is concluded that most of those with language

difficulties are Spanish-speaking.

44

The conclusion, however, that the majority of migrant students
possess adequate oral English language facility for this not to be an
impediment to academic achievement should be interpreted cautiously.
Such judgments of a student's ability to communicate in English are
too often based on communication at one end of a continuum described
by Cummins (1982) as "context-embedded." The situational cues,
paralinguistic cues as the teacher's gestures and intonation, and the
reactions of other students all contribute to reducing the need for
explicit linguistic elaboration of the message. On the other end of
this continuum is "context-reduced" communication which relies on
linguistic cues to meaning. Much of classroom work requires language
use that is closer to the context-reduced end of the continuum such as
a discussion of a historical period, mathematical principles, or other
abstract concepts.

While the results of the MAT-SEA-CAL Oral Proficiency Tests were
consistent with the teacher ratings of the students' language
competence, these tests may in fact be confirming teacher perceptions
of oral language competence in informal, context-embedded situations.
This test utilizes audio taped and picture stimuli. It involves
listening comprehension, repetition and structured response, yielding
scores for phonology and structure. In a typical item the examiner
shows the child a picture and asks, "What are the little boys doing?"
Basic syntactical features will probably vary little between
context-embedded and context-reduced situations. Still, the ability

to manipulate a language structure in a familiar, context-embedded

45

situation does not necessarily indicate that the student has adequate
language competence to understand a new concept in a context-reduced
situation typical of much classwork.

In 1966, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) was ammended establishing the Migrant Education Program to
provide compensatory education and supportive services to the children
of migratory workers. According to the definitions of the Code of
Federal Regulations as applied to Public Law 95-561, the Migrant
Education Program serves children who are “currently" and "formerly
migratory." Currently migratory refers to a child

Who has moved within the past 12 months from one school

district to another -or, in a state that is comprised of a

single school district, has moved from one school

administrative area to another- to enable the child, the
child's guardian, or a member of the child's immediate
family to obtain temporary or seasonal employment in an

agricultural or fishing activity. (34 CFR Part 204.3)

Within this classification, the Code (34 Part 204.12) requires State
programs to distinguish between interstate and intrastate students for
the purpose of program monitoring and inter- and intrastate
coordination. The designation "formerly migratory" applies to a child

who

was eligible to be counted and served as a currently
migratory child within the past five years, but is not now
a currently migratory child and has the concurrence of
his or her parent or guardian to continue to be considered
a migratory child. There is a total of six years of
program eligibility - a one year status as a "currently
migratory child" and up to five additional years as a
"formerly migratory child." (34 CFR Part 204.3)

46

These children are more commonly termed "settled-out" with reference
to their family settling out of the migrant stream.

In Michigan, the Migrant Education Program consists of sunmer and
school-year projects. The summer projects are intended primarily for
the interstate and intrastate migratory children and operate from five
to ten weeks in coordination with the harvest of local agricultural
crops. Summer projects involve a comprehensive full day educational
program for the children. School-year projects, in contrast, are
generally pull-out tutoring programs to provide additional support for
the migrant child in the regular classroom.

In 1983, the Michigan Migrant Education Program operated 33
sumner projects. A total of 6,735 migratory children participated in
the summer program. Of those, 4,543 were interstate migrants, 792

intrastate, and 1,400 settled-out migrant children (Rio 1984).

Selection of Subjects

The fifteen subjects for this study were drawn from the migrant
student population participating in six sunmer migrant education
projects in Michigan. Seven projects located in the northwestern
Lower Peninsula, mid-state, western and the southwestern regions were
chosen for this study because of their relative accessibility to the
investigator. There is, however, no reason to expect that the migrant
student population would differ significantly from those projects in
other areas of Michigan. Applying the selection procedures, the

fifteen subjects were obtained from seven schools in six of the seven

47

migrant projects. The projects, schools, number of students screened
and identified as subjects can be found in Appendix A.

Only interstate and intrastate migrant students were included in
this study. Settled-out migrant students were not included since
their educational experiences and economic circumstances are likely to
differ substantially from those who are actively mobile. Subjects were
to be randomly selected from just the interstate migrant student
population. However, due to the small number of interstate students
identified as displaying the characteristics of the specific
p0pulation to be studied, it was necessary to include all those
interstate students. To obtain the desired number of fifteen
subjects, the remainder was identified from the intrastate migrant
student population according to the same criteria applied to the
interstate population. Of the fifteen subjects, twelve were children
of interstate migrant families and three of intrastate migrant
families.

At each school, a specific procedure was followed in the
selection of subjects. First, teachers were asked to identify all
migrant students meeting the following criteria:

1) Interstate migrant
2) Nine or ten years of age
3) Spanish-speaking
4) Reads at approximately the fourth grade level
To validate each student's migrant status and age, the school

records from the Migrant Student Record Transfer System (MSRTS) were

48

consulted. The MSRTS is a nationwide network of terminals connected
to a central computer in Little Rock, Arkansas, which maintains
records on the health and educational status of migrant children.

After confirming that the student met the criteria for migrant
status and age, the Language Usage Questionnaire designed by the
investigator was administered. The intent of this questionnaire was
to determine that the student did speak Spanish. For this study a
student is considered bilingual if she uses Spanish in any familiar
social setting. The level of Spanish proficiency is not directly
considered. The Language Usage Questionnaire consists of five
questions which ask the student what language she uses with her
parents, siblings, extended kin, friends at the camp, and school
friends. This questionnaire is located in Appendix B. The
questionnaire was administered by the investigator after a period of
small talk to place the student at ease.

If the student indicated that Spanish was used in one of the
social settings, the Slosson Oral Reading Test (Slosson 1963) was next
administered by the investigator to quickly determine the student's
approximate reading level. The Slosson is an individually
administered word recognition test made up of graded word lists. A
correlation of .96 with the Standardized Oral Reading Paragraphs of
the Gray Oral Reading Tests (Gray 1955) is reported in the Slosson
manual. Each word list was typed on a separate 5" by 7" card for the

student to read so the grade level designation would not be apparent.

49

For the purposes of this study, it was necessary that the reading
material be sufficiently difficult to elicit reader miscues, but not
so difficult that the reader would be unable to continue
independently. Consequently, to further define the potential pool of
subjects, those students who scored at the fourth and fifth grade
levels were then asked to orally read a brief passage titled The
Navaho. (See Appendix D.) This 138 word passage with a Dale-Chall
readability of fifth-sixth grade was taken from the same social
studies textbook from which the subjects would be expected to read
selections in the experiment. The readability level, writing style
and type of content were similar to those selections. The final
criterion, then, for inclusion in the study was the ability to
recount, unaided by questioning, a minimum of:

1) three details or

2) a main idea and two details, or

3) two main ideas.
If a student was able to orally read the passage almost flawlessly and
recount unaided the three main ideas of the passage, she was not
included in the pool of potential subjects. Related to the students'
scores on the Slosson Oral Reading Test, only those students scoring
fourth grade, fourth month (4.4) through fifth grade, second month
(5.2) were able to comprehend the passage at the required level. All
of these students were subsequently included as subjects in the study.

Of the 82 interstate migrant students identified by teachers, 12

met the screening criteria outlined above. All twelve were thus

50

included in the study. Following the same procedures, teachers
identified 11 intrastate students of which 3 displayed the requisite
characteristics for inclusion in the study. In this manner, the
fifteen subjects were selected.

The fifteen subjects, nine girls and six boys, were all Mexican
American. Although efforts were made to secure a more equal balance
of subjects by sex, there were only six boys in the interstate or
intrastate student population attending the nine schools who met the
criteria for inclusion in the study. Nine of the interstate students
were from the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas and one from Florida,
although she was born in Texas. The three intrastate students were
from the Saginaw area, but originally came from Texas.

The subjects ranged in age from nine years (9,0) to ten years,
eleven months (10,11). The average age was nine years, ten months
(9,10) with a median of nine years, nine months (9,9). Eleven
subjects would enter the fourth grade in the fall and 4 the fifth
grade. Scores on the Slosson Oral Reading Test ranged from fourth
grade, fourth month (4.4) to fifth grade, second month (5.2). The
average was fourth grade, ninth month (4.9) and median fifth grade
(5.0). Migrant status, sex, age, grade, and Slosson scores for each
subject can be found in Appendix C.

A surrmary of the subjects' Spanish and English language use as
reported on the Language Usage Questionnaire is presented in Table
3-1. All of the subjects stated that they spoke Spanish with their

parents, 46% either most of the time or exclusively. An even greater

51

proportion, 60%, reported using only Spanish with grandparents, aunts
and uncles. Although all spoke Spanish with their parents, 27% said
they spoke only English with their brothers and sisters. The use of
mostly or exclusively Spanish with parents and extended kin compared
with that of siblings and friends seems to reflect a trend of greater
English language use by the younger generation. Even informally with
friends at school, English is the primary language and, for half of

the subjects, the only language.

Table 3-1

Proportion of English/Spanish Language Use in
Five Social Settings

 

Only Mostly Mostly Only
Social Setting Spanish Spanish Both English English

 

With parents 33 13 27 27 0

With grandparents,
aunts and uncles 60 27 13 O 0

With brothers and
sisters 27 O 33 13 27

With friends at
the camp 7 13 4O 27 13

With friends at
school 0 O 20 27 53

 

52

Variables
Independent Variables
The two independent variables in this study were 1) prior aural
exposure to a reading selection and 2) ethnic relatedness of content.

Prior aural exposure to a selection consisted of listening to

 

an audio tape of approximately half of a selection, from the
beginning, while following along on the printed copy. The subject
listened to just half of the passage in order to avoid confounding the
hypothesized effect of prior aural exposure on reading comprehension
with listening comprehension.

Ethnic relatedness refers to the relevance of the content to

 

Mexican American cultural heritage. For this study, four expository
passages were adapted from fifth grade social studies textbooks, three

from Understanding the United States (Cherryholmes and Manson 1979)

 

and one from Lands of the Middle East (Educational Research Council

 

of America 1976). The social studies concepts presented in the four
passages are similar, each principally describing cultural patterns
associated with a particular ethnic group. Two of the passages are
related to Hispanic culture and are titled "Barrio" and "Hispanic
American." These are referred to as Ethnically Related to indicate
that they are relevant to the cultural heritage of the population
under study. The term, Ethnically Unrelated, is used to refer to the
other two passages titled "Bedouin" and "Amish," describing aspects
aspects of those cultures, respectively. The four passages are

presented in Appendix D.

53

In order to reflect the social studies materials to which the
student would be exposed in a classroom, Very minimal changes were
made in adapting the passages for use in this study. In general,
passages were excerpted from the textbooks with minor alterations to
maintain contextual unity.

The passages, ranging from 632-635 words, are divided into two
parts, A and 8. Though complimentary, each part is a complete unit
both conceptually and semantically. Parts A and B of the four
passages range from 285-347 words each. The passages were divided as
equally as possible without interrupting the development of a main
idea. They were typed on 8%" x 11" paper with pages 1 and 2 of each
passage constituting Part A and pages 3 and 4 Part B. In addition, an
audio recording was produced of Part A of each passage being read by
the investigator.

The Dale-Chall Readability Formula was applied utilizing the

School Utilities Volume 2 (Minnesota Educational Computing

 

Consortium 1982) program for the microcomputer. The number of
unfamiliar words (not found on the Dale Word List) and average
sentence length are the predictors used to estimate readability.
According to this formula, all of the passages have a readability
level of fifth-sixth grade with the exception of Hispanic American,
Part B which is seventh-eighth grade. Part B, however, is composed of
a relatively small number of unfamiliar words as compared to the other
passages. Because of this and the objective to preserve the writing

style of the textbook, selected passages were not altered. The number

54

of words, Dale-Chall readability levels and number of unfamiliar words

are presented in Table 3-2.

 

 

Table 3-2
Readability
Number Dale Dale-Chall
Passage of Words Unfamiliar Readability
Words
Barrio 635
Part A 328 37 5-6th
Part B 307 31 5-6th
Hispanic American 632
Part A 285 32 5-6th
Part B 347 28 7-8th
Amish 632
Part A 314 26 5-6th
Part B 318 29 5-6th
Bedouin 632
Part A 295 25 5-6th
Part B 337 36 5-6th

 

The passages are relatively similar in the number of main ideas and
supporting information presented in each. Ten main ideas are developed
in all but Amish which has eight. The number of supporting details
ranges from 38 - 43. Table 3-3 presents the number of main ideas and

details for each passage.

55

 

 

Table 3-3
Main Ideas and Details
Passage Main Ideas Details
Barrio 10 40
Hispanic American 10 38
Amish 8 43
Bedouin 10 42

 

Reliability for the four passages was calculated by Cronbach's
Alpha, a measure of internal consistency, utilizing an SPSS computer
subprogram (Hull and Nie 1981:256). Comprehension scores for the
entire passage and the number of miscues per hundred words (MPHW) for
Part B of each passage were used to determine reliability. Only! Part
B is included for the MPHW since it is the basis for the analysis of
the miscues in this study. Table 3-4 presents the reliability ft”: the
main idea, detail and total scores for comprehension and for the

number of miscues per hundred words.

 

 

Table 3-4
Reliability
Variable Alpha
Comprehension
Main Ideas .62
Details .87
Total .84

Miscues Per Hundred Words .87

 

56
Dependent Variables

The dependent variables for this study were 1) oral reading
performance and 2) comprehension. Oral reading performance was
described by the types of miscues generated during the oral reading,
their similarity to the expected response and acceptability with the
text. Commehension was demonstrated by retelling the content of the
selection and by the interrelationships of the types of miscues.

Oral reading performance was operationally defined according to

 

the guidelines of the Reading Miscue Inventory (Goodman and Burke

 

1972). The types of miscues, deviations between the oral response of
the reader and the printed text, considered for this study were:
1) substitutions - a word in the text is substituted for another

was
The Bedouin way of life is hard ...

2) ommissions - a word is omitted from the text
Mexican Americans have relatives in Mexico
3) insertions - a word is added to the text

the
A group of families related to one another ...

4) reversals - word order is changed
W have a light dinner
The patterns of these miscues generated during the oral reading
constituted the dependent variables related to oral reading

performance.

57

Based on an analysis of each miscue, the dependent variables for
oral reading performance were:

1) the occurrence of each type of miscue

2) Spanish language interference/Dialect

3) graphic and phonemic proximity

4) syntactic acceptability

5) semantic acceptability

6) correction
Variables 2-6 have unique analysis features for this study which are

further discussed below.

Spanish language interference/Dialect

The English spoken by Hispanics may exhibit the influence of
the Spanish language. Such divergencies from standard English
may be transitory as the individual is acquiring English as a
second language (Dulay, Hernandez-Chavez and Burt 1978) or they
may be relatively stable reflecting a dialect of English commonly
referred to as Chicano English which is directly passed on to
succeeding generations (Hernandez-Chavez, Cohen and Beltramo
1975). ThiS'hfiIuence or interference may be phonological,
syntactical or lexical.

For Ufis study, only Spanish language interference or
dialect variation affecting English syntax and lexicon were
considered. Because the Reading Miscue Inventory very generally

defines dialect variation, the Spanish language interference or

58

dialect variations observed in this study are described in
detail.
1) omission of inflectional endings
Inflectional endings change the forms of a word to
indicate different grammatical relationships (Robinett
1978). The omission of inflectional endings have been
noted in the speech of Spanish speakers (Cohen 1975;
Garcia 1973; Labov, Cohen, Robins and Lewis 1968) and in
their English oral reading behavior (Jurenka 1978;
Fiege-Kollman 1975, Goodman 1978). The types of
inflections investigated were:
Past tense or past participle of verbs: callfl,
surroundfl
Present participle of verbs: crossin , actigg
Third-person singular (present tense of verbs:
changes, helps, means
Plural oTnounsz—ways, parts, houses
Comparative of adjectives: Towg, EToser;
2) addition of inflectional ending to agree with plural of
noun
In Spanish, an adjective must agree in number with
the noun it modifies (Stockwell, Bowen and Martin 1965).
This is accomplished by the inflectional
ending of the adjective as in this example:
Casa grande (big house) casag grande; (big houses)
For the Spanish speaker learning English, this could

therefore be a source of interference and result in the

production of such forms as "bigs houses."

3)

4)

5)

59

inverted order of nouns and adjectives

In Spanish, descriptive adjectives generally follow
the noun (Stockwell, Bowen and Martin 1965) whereas in
English the adjective precedes the noun it modifies.
Thus, it might be expected that Spanish speakers would
invert the word order of nouns and modifying adjectives.
For example, "basic unit" would be read "unit basic" to
conform to the word order of Spanish.
lexical

Lexical variations are affected by such factors as
geographic area, ethnicity, and socioeconomic
circumstances. Common lexical dialect variants include
pop/soda, bag/sack, and family/kin. If the dialect of
the reader does not match that of the author, the reader
may substitute words from his own lexical system for
those of the author. Goodman and Burke (Burke 1973), for
example, found that most American children read
"headlights" for "headlamps" in a story written by a
British author. Such substitutions do not alter the
basic meaning of the text.
secondary involvement

Miscues which demonstrated another miscue analysis
category and also any of the above types of Spanish
language interference/dialect were considered secondary

involvement with respect to Spanish language

60

interference/dialect. Miscues in this category include the

following:
Reader Text
supround surrounded
relave relatives

Speech variations at the phonological level were not
considered unless they resulted in a syntactic or semantic (fliange
in the text. For instance, some phonological variations common
to Spanish speakers learning English or to speakers of Chicano
English are "wan" for "one", "tin" for "thin", "fitching" for
"fishing". Variations such as these are often called "accent."
Just as there is little reason to believe that the Bostonian
"pahk" for "park" would interfere with a reader's comprehension,
these phonological variations were not treated as miscues.

Variables related to the syntactic and semantic accep-
tability of these miscues were then examined with respect to
their acceptability within the reader's dialect.

Graphic and phonemic proximity

Graphophonemic information for reading consists of cues
within words such as letter-sound relationships, word parts or
phonograms, and word configurations (Smith, Goodman and Meredith
1976).. Although interrelated, the graphic and phonemic
similarity of a miscue to the text item were evaluated separately
in order to determine the degree of the reader's reliance on each

system. For example, your/our is rated as high graphic

61

similarity and low sound similarity while the/a shows no graphic
similarity but high sound similarity.
Syntactic acceptability
Syntactic cues in reading include inflectional endings,
grammatical relationships, word order, and punctuation. To
provide an indication of the reader's ability to handle the
grammatical structure of the text, the miscues were examined with
respect to intonation, grammatical function and grammatical
acceptability within the text.
1) intonation
Intonation is the system of pitch, stress and
juncture which plays an important role in signalling
grammatical structure and meaning (Smith, Goodman and
Mereditfl1 1976). Oral reading miscues involving
intonation different from that intended by the author may
occur' at the word, phrase or sentence levels. This study
was limited to deviations from the intended intonation
changing the grammatical function of a word orime
sentence structure. Not only is grammatical function
altered in re'cord/record' and in pro'gress/progress',
but the meaning is also changed. Intonation indicating
the substitutions, omission or shifting of punctuation

affecting sentence structure is evident in the following:

2)

3)

62

Reader Text
They don't want too They don't want too
many ideas from the many ideas to change
outside to change. their way of life.
their way of life.
The prices of things The prices of things
also change in Mexico. change. In Mexico, many
Many things cost ... things cost ...

grammatical function

Substitution miscues were compared to the text item
to determine if the grammatical function was retained.
Even a non-word producing nonsense could retah1the
grmwmnical function. For example, the grammatical
function remained the same in the following:

Changed
Shared beliefs and a common history ...

untent

In Mexico, the basic unit of money ...
grammatical acceptability within the text

Misanes rnay or may not render the text ungrammatical.
Each miscue was examined in the context of the sentence
as read with all other uncorrected miscues to determine
whether the miscue was grammatically acceptable in that
sentence and within the whole text. As for grammatical
function, syntactically correct nonsense is indicative
that the reader is coping with the grammatical structures
of the text. The following examples illustrate miscues

that maintain the syntactical acceptability oftme

63

sentence although perhaps quite different from that of the

text.

Reader Text
Other parents of the Other parts of the
circle, ... culture ...
Yet most Bedouins like Yet most Bedouins like
it better than selled it better than settled
life in a village or life in villages or
town and the desert. towns. On the desert
They are free. they are free.

Semantic acceptability

Semantic cues in reading involve lexical meaning and
contextual meaning. Lexical meaning focuses on the individual
word whereas "contextual meaning is a function (If both
grammatical and semantic interrelationships in language" (Page
1976: 39). The manner in which the reader processed information
in relation to meaning was observed by analyzing miscues with
respect to:

1) semantic acceptability within the text.

To determine the degree of semantic acceptability
within the text, the miscue was examined in the text
sentence with all uncorrected miscues. A reader could
produce a semantically acceptable sentence but one that

is incongrous with the entire text as, for example,

They-want too many ideas from the outside
to change their way of life.

64

2) semantic proximity
Semantic proximity dealt with the extent to which the
message of the text was changed by the miscue. In the
following sentence, for instance, the miscue did not
interfere with the meaning of the entire text:
Then
When crossing the national boundary or the
border into Mexico, they find that many things
change.
Correction
Discovering that he has made a miscue, the reader may
proceed to correct the miscue orally or silently or he may simply
read on without attempting to correct. When the reader orally
attempts to correct a miscue, not only does this provide an
indication of the reader's awareness of a deviation from the text
but, also, his control over the language systems. This study

focuses on the successful corrections made as compared to the

number of corrections attempted.

Comprehension in this study was operationally defined along two

 

dimensions:
1) comprehending
Comprehending (Goodman and Burke 1972) focused on the
reader's concern for meaning we reading. This measure of
comprehension assessed the quality of the miscues by the
extent to which they retained or disrupted the meaning of the

passage. Comprehending was measured by interrelating the oral

65

reading performance variables of semantic acceptability,
semantic proximity and correction. The comprehending score
was comprised of the percentage of miscues semantically
acceptable added to the percentage of semantically
unacceptable miscues that were corrected.
2) retelling

Comprehension also concerned the reader's understanding
of the information _a_ffl reading had taken place. This was
measured by the subject's retelling of the main ideas, details
and other inferential information presented by the passage.
The retelling was first unaided and, when the subject could no
longer continue, aided by questions based on information
provided by the subject during the retelling. While the
present study was primarily concerned with the reader's
comprehension of main ideas and details of expository
material, inferential level comprehension other than main
ideas and details was also included. Ninety percent of the
total possible points was assigned to main ideas (40%) and
details (50%) with the remaining ten percent of the points

allotted to extra inferential information.

Data Collection Procedures

 

In the design of this experiment, each subject orally read all
four expository passages. An aural exposure was provided prior to

orally reading one ethnically related and one ethnically unrelated

66

passage. The remaining two passages, one ethnically related and one
unrelated, were read orally without the aural exposure. The data
collected for the experiment were the miscues generated by the
subjects' oral reading and the retellings of the information presented
in the passages. The oral reading and retelling sessions were
recorded on audio tape.

The preliminary interviews of the selection process and the
taping of the sessions of the students' reading were conducted in
unoccupied rooms of the schools. While not completely free from the
noise of school activities, these minimal distractions did not seem to
affect the subjects' concentration on their reading. During the first
session, the subject was allowed to experiment with the tape recorder
and listen to her voice in order to feel more comfortable with the
machine.

At the time of the preliminary interview, it was explained to the
potential subjects that the investigator was a teacher who was
interested in how students learn to read and would like their
assistance. This explanation seemed to satisfy the students'
curiosity and all quite readily agreed to "help" the investigator.

In pretesting the reading passages with three students (not
included in the study), it was clear that their retelling of the
second passage was more complete regardless of the passage read. The
first passage appeared to provide a warm-up resulting in a better
understanding of the nature of the task. In order not to bias the

study results by the unfamiliarity of the task, the passage titled

67

The Navaho which was employed as a screening device in the selection

 

of subjects also provided an opportunity to become familiar with the
reading task. This passage can be found in Appendix D.
On two successive days the investigator met with each subject.

Two passages were read by the subject per day, one ethnically related
and one ethnically unrelated. For one of the ethnically related
passages and one of the unrelated, the subject listened to the audio
tape of Part A of the particular passage and was instructed to follow
along on the typescript copy. Immediately following this aural
exposure, the subject was given the typescript copy of the entire
passage to orally read and afterwards retell. The order of whether
the subject would first spontaneously read and retell a passage or
listen to the audio tape, read and retell a passage was randomly
assigned. A treatment schedule was devised for the four passages with
each day including:

1) one ethnically related passage,

2) one ethnically unrelated passage, and

3) one aural exposure.
Table 3-5 shows the eight possible treatment schedules with the
asterisk indicating prior aural exposure. This schedule was repeated
to accomodate fifteen subjects who were randomly assigned to a

treatment schedule.

68

Table 3-5
Treatment Schedule

 

Subject Day 1 Day 2

lst Passage 2nd Passage lst Passage 2nd Passage

 

1 Hispanic* Bedouin Barrio Amish*

2 Barrio* Amish Hispanic Bedouin*
3 Bedouin Hispanic* Amish* Barrio

4 Amish Barrio* Bedouin* Hispanic
5 Hispanic Amish* Barrio* Bedouin

6 Barrio* Bedouin Hispanic Amish*

7 Amish Hispanic* Bedouin* Barrio

8 Bedouin* Barrio Amish Hispanic*

 

Each taping session began with casual conversation to place the
subject at ease. The subject was given the following instructions:

Please read this selection aloud. Afterwards I will ask; you

to tell me what you just read. If you come to a word you

don't know, do your best to figure it out. It's okay to

guess if you aren't sure. I won't be able to help you.
If a subject asked for help or stopped during the reading, she was
encouraged to "do the best you can." If the reader still did not go
on, the investigator suggested guessing or, finally, skipping the
worwi. As. the subject read the four pages of the text, the
investigator followed the reading on a separate worksheet copy'rnarkirig
the miscues produced by the reader.

The retelling task was both unaided and aided. For each passage
an outline of the information presented was developed delineating the
main ideas and details. These outlines can be found in Appendix D.

Upon (nnnpletion of the oral reading of the passage and without the aid

of the passage typescript, the subject was instructed: "Tell me

69

everything you remember about what you just read." As the subject
recounted what she had read, the investigator marked the information
on the outline. The subject was encouraged to continue unaided as
long as possible by such comments as "can you tell me anything else?"
When the student could no longer continue, questions were then asked
formulated on the information provided in the unaided portion of the
retelling. The questions asked during this directed retelling were
intended to encourage the subject to eXpand or clarify statements made
during the unaided retelling. Any mispronunciations by the reader
were used by the investigator during the questioning. After
exhausting this line of questioning, general questions were then asked
related to the main ideas that had not been mentioned by the subject
intnderim facilitate further retelling. These questions are
included on the passage outlines found in Appendix D.

After completing the first passage each day, there was a ten
minute break before beginning the second passage. Tormfintahi
interest and motivation, the subject was informed that she would
receive a surprise after completing the activities on the second day
of the experiment. Each subject was told this at the end of the Day 1
treatment. All subjects at a particular school participating in the
study received the treatment on the same two days and received their
"surprises" when all had completed the reading tasks. The subjects
had their choice of a Central Michigan University Tee-shirt, a purse

or a book bag.

70

Analysis of Data

After completing the audio taping of the subjects' oral reading
and retelling, a transcript of each subject's oral reading performance
was prepared. Using the worksheet typescript made during the taping
of the subject's oral reading, the audio tapes were replayed until all
miscues were marked on the typescript. From this transcript, the
miscues were selected for analysis and coded according to the Reading

Miscue Inventory (Goodman and Burke 1972).

 

For each subject, the first 25, non-repeated miscues of Part B
for each passage were recorded and coded on the Reading Miscue
Inventory Coding Sheet (Goodman and Burke 1972). Two subjects,
however, made only 22 and 24 miscues on a passage so the total number
of miscues analyzed was 1496.

The retellings were scored for the comprehension of main ideas,
details and other inferential information. The points allotted for

comprehension were:

Main ideas 50
Details 40
Other inferential information l_10

Total 100

The passage outlines found in Appendix 0 served not only as
questioning guides during the retelling but, also, as scoring sheets.
Scores were calculated for Part B of each passage as well as the
complete passage. As for the transcripts of oral reading, the audio

tapes were replayed for scoring the retellings.

71

The transcriptions of oral reading performance, codhuyof
miscues, and scoring of the retellings were performed without an
awareness by the investigator of the experimental treatment for each
subject. It was not evident on the audio tapes or worksheets whether
the subject had been given prior aural exposure before the reading of
the passage. These analyses were conducted "blindly" to avoid
experimenter bias. To ensure accuracy, the transcriptions and scoring
of the retelling were again blindly compared against the audio tapes
three months later. The coding of the miscues was also rechecked at
that time.

The major question posed by this study was: Will prior aural
exposure to expository reading materials facilitate the English oral
reading performance and comprehension of bilingual Mexican American
migrant students? Secondarily, what are the effects of ethnically
related content on oral reading performance and comprehension? To
answer these questions, the data were analyzed using multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) with repeated measures. Since the
design called for an analysis of two independent variables with
repeated measures on both factors, the models described by Winer
(1971: 539ff) were adapted to this requirement. Each dependent
variable was evaluated separately as depicted by this analysis

paradigm.

72

PRIOR EXPOSURE

 

 

Aural No Aural
ETHNIC RELATEDNESS Exposure Exposure
Related
Unrelated

 

 

 

DEPENDENT VARIABLE

The MANOVA for repeated measures was calculated utilizing the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Hull and Nie 1981:
47ff). Cell means were calculated using the SPSS program BREAKDOWN
(Nie, Hull, gt_gl 1975: 249ff).

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction

 

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of prior
aural exposure and ethnically related content on the oral reading
performance and comprehension of bilingual Mexican American migrant
children.

In this chapter, an analysis of the data is presented. The
general form of the null hypotheses which governed the analysis of the
data were:

H1: There is no significant difference between the oral reading
performance, as measured by word miscues, of expository
passages read spontaneously and those which include prior

aural exposure.

H2: There is no significant difference between the compre-
hension, as measured by retelling and the interrelationship
of miscues, of expository passages read spontaneously and
those which include prior aural exposure.

H3: There is no significant difference between the oral reading
performance, as measured by word miscues, of expository
passages which are ethnically related and those which are
ethnically unrelated.

H4: There is no significant difference between the compre-
hension, as measured by retelling and the interrelationship
of miscues, of expository passages which are ethnically
related and those which are ethnically unrelated.

The analysis thus examined the differences between exposure groups and

content categories on two general classes of variables--oral reading

73

74

performance and comprehension. Although there was no hypothesis for
thetmssfifle interaction of the two independent variables, the
analysis allowed for the identification of interactimivmenit
existed.

The statistical procedure, multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) for repeated measures (Winer 1971), permitted the
simultaneous study of the effects of the two treatment conditions on
each of the dependent variables. For this reason, this chapter will
present, by dependent variable, an analysis of the effects of both
independent variables on the dependent variable. The effect of prior
aural exposure and ethnic relatedness of content on each dependent
variable will be tested in the null form. The .05 leveJ of
significance was required for the rejection of the null hypothesis.

The'HMependent and dependent variables for this study as
described in Chapter III are restated below:

Independent Variables

1) prior aural exposure
2) ethnic relatedness of content

Dependent Variables
1) oral reading performance

a) miscues --substitutions, omissions, insertions,
reversals

b) Spanish language interference/dialect

c) graphic and phonemic proximity

d) syntactic acceptability

e) semantic acceptability

f) correction

75

2) comprehension

a) comprehending
b) retelling

The analysis of the effects of the independent variables on each
dependent variable is presented in the same order as they are above

listed.

Oral ReadingPerformance

 

A total of 1496 miscues were analyzed to describe the subjects'
oral reading performance under the experimental conditions of prior
aural exposure and ethnic relatedness of content. The first 25, non-
repeated miscues of Part B for each selection were examined.

Types of miscues

The types of miscues considered by this study were substitutions,
omissions, insertions, and reversals. Eighty-five percent of the
miscues analyzed involved substitutions, 10% omissions ww15%
insertions. None of the miscues involved a word level reversal.

The results of the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) did
not warrant the rejection of the null hypothesis for the effects of
either prior aural exposure or ethnic relatedness of content on oral
reading performance as defined by the occurrence of each type of
miscue. The results of the MANOVA for substitutions, omissions and

insertions are presented in Table 4-1.

76

Table 4-1

Types of Miscues: Substitutions, Omissions, Insertions

 

 

Significance
Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
SUBSTITUTIONS

Prior Exposure 1 2.400 .569 .463
Error 1 14 4.221
Ethnic Relatedness 1 5.400 2.690 .123
Error 2 14 2.007
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 .067 .024 .880
Error 3 14 2.817
Constant 1 28864.267
Residual 14 11.088

OMISSIONS

Prior Exposure 1 1.350 .526 .480
Error 1 14 2.564
Ethnic Relatedness 1 7.350 3.128 .099
Error 2 14 2.350
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 2.817 1.550 .234
Error 3 14 1.817
Constant 1 380.017

Residual 14 6.374

77

Table 4-1 (Cont'd.)

 

 

Significance
Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
Insertions

Prior Exposure 1 .150 .119 .735
Error 1 14 1.257
Ethnic Relatedness 1 .417 .380 .547
Error 2 14 1.095
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 1.350 .622 .444
Error 3 14 2.171
Constant 1 88.817
Residual 14 2.352

 

At the confidence of .05, the F-values were not large enough to
be considered significant. It can be concluded that the oral reading
performance of the group under the two treatment conditions did not
differ significantly with respect to the four types of miscues -
substitutions, omissions, insertions, and reversals.

For all passages, subjects made from 15 to 25 substitutions per
selection with a mean of 21.93 and standard deviation of 2.22. The
number of omissions ranged from none to seven with a mean of 2.52 and
standard deviation of 1.82. Insertions ranged from 0-5, having a mean
of 1.22 and a standard deviation of 1.29.

'The rnunber' of rniscues occurring per hundred words (MPHW) for all
passages ranged from 7.49 to 29.64 with a mean of 16.92 and standard
deviation of 4.88. Table 4-2 reports the MANOVA for miscues per

hundred words.

78

Table 4-2
Miscues Per Hundred Words (MPHW)

 

 

Significance
Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
Prior Exposure 1 39.201 4.829 .045

Error 1 14 8.118

Ethnic Relatedness 1 11.015 1.732 .209
Error 2 14 6.360

Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 5.741 .352 .562
Error 3 14 16.290
Constant 1 17180.487
Residual 14 65.777

 

The MANOVA indicated that, at the .05 confidence level, therwe was
a significant difference in the group's scores only for prior aural
exposure. The MPHW for no aural exposure ranged from 7.49 to 29.64
with a mean of 17.73 and standard deviation of 5.37. For prior aural
exposure, MPHW ranged from 9.44 to 26.41 having a mean of 16.11 and
standard deviation of 4.28. Therefore, the oral reading performance
of passages with prior aural exposure resulted in significantly fewer
miscues than for those passages which were read spontaneously. For the
treatment of ethnic relatedness of content, the MPHW did not differ

significantly.

Spanish Language Interference/Dialect
The types of Spanish language interference or dialect variations

investigated in this study were:

79

1) the omission of inflectional endings,

2) the addition of inflectional endings to agree with the

plural of a noun,

3) the inverted order of nouns and adjectives,

4) lexical variations, and

5) secondary involvement.

Of the 1496 miscues analyzed, 191 or 13% exhibited Spanish
language interference or dialect involvement. The omission of
inflectional endings comprised 75% of these interference/dialect
related miscues. There were seven instances of adding an inflectional
ending to agree with the plural of a noun. None of the miscues
involved inverting the order of nouns and adjectives or lexical
variations. Twenty-one percent of the interference/dialect related
miscues were of secondary involvement, all related to the omission of
inflectional endings. For all passages, the number of
interference/dialect related miscues ranged from O to 9 with a mean of
3.18 and standard deviation of 2.22.

The results of the MANOVA indicated that the null hypotheses for
oral reading performance as defined by Spanish interference/dialect
related miscues could not be rejected for either prior aural exposure
or ethnic relatedness of content. Table 4-3 presents the results of
the MANOVA for the omission of inflectional endings. In Table 4-4,
the results of the MANOVA are reported for all Spanish inter-
ference/dialect related miscues which includes the omission of

inflectional endings, the addition of inflections to agree with the

plural of a noun, and secondary involvement.

80

Table 4-3
Omission of Inflectional Endings

 

 

 

 

 

Significance

Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
Prior Exposure 1 1.067 .312 .586
Error 1 14 3.424
Ethnic Relatedness 1 3.267 1.649 .220
Error 2 14 1.981
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 3.267 .741 .404
Error 3 14 4.410
Constant 1 345.600
Residual 14 6.814

Table 4-4
Spanish Language Interference/Dialect
Significance

Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
Prior Exposure 1 .017 .004 .948
Error 1 14 3.802
Ethnic Relatedness 1 12.150 4.350 .056
Error 2 14 2.793
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 .417 .089 .770
Error 3 14 4.702
Constant 1 608.017

Residual 14 8.588

 

81

The F-values, as shown in Tables 4-3 and 4-4, were not large
enough to be significant at the .05 confidence level. Only the
significance level for ethnic relatedness of content in Table 4-4
approximates the confidence level for rejection of the null
hypothesis. In comparing the results for ethnic relatedness in the
two tables, it appears that the interference/dialect categories of the
addition of inflectional endings to agree with the plural of a noun
(N=7) and secondary involvement (N=40) may have affected the level of
significance. However, because the frequency for both categories is
small, this can only be attributed to chance. It can be concluded
that the oral reading performance of the group under the two treatment
conditions did not differ significantly with respect to Spanish

language interference or dialect variations.

Graphic and Phonemic Proximity

Although interrelated, the graphic and phonemic similarity of a
miscue to the text item were analyzed separately to determine the
reader's reliance on each type of information.

The results of the MANOVA did not warrant the rejection of the
null hypothesis for the effects of either prior aural exposure or
ethnic relatedness of content on oral reading performance as defined
by graphic and phonemic proximity. The results of the MANOVA for
graphic proximity are reported in Table 4-5 and for phonemic proximity

in Table 4-6.

82

Table 4-5
Graphic Proximity

 

 

 

 

 

Significance

Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
Prior Exposure 1 549.098 1.161 .299
Error 1 14 472.790
Ethnic Relatedness 1 28.469 .036 .853
Error 2 14 800.735
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 11.926 .021 .887
Error 3 14 573.092
Constant 1 80576.492
Residual 14 748.541

Table 4-6
Phonemic Proximity
Significance

Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
Prior Exposure 1 168.673 1.429 .252
Error 1 14 118.021
Ethnic Relatedness 1 131.306 .848 .373
Error 2 14 154.893
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 42.135 .358 .559
Error 3 14 117.565
Constant 1 284694.817

Residual 14 416.756

 

83

The F-values, presented in Tables 4-5 and 4-6, were all below the
necessary values to be significant at the .05 confidence level. Oral
reading performance as measured by graphic and phonemic proximity did
not differ significantly under the treatment conditions of prior aural
exposure or ethnic relatedness of content.

For all passages, the range was 38.1% to 95.65% of the miscues
demonstrating high graphic similarity to the text. The mean was
68.88% with a standard deviation of 14.05%. The range for high
phonemic proximity was 17.65% to 85% of the miscues with a mean of

50.73% and standard deviation of 14.45%.

Syntactic Acceptability

To evaluate syntactic acceptability of the miscues under the two
treatment conditions, the miscues were examined with respect to
intonation, grammatical function and grammatical acceptability within
the text.

Of the 1496 miscues analyzed, 2.74% involved intonation. Six
miscues involved a shift in intonation changing the grammatical
function of a word. Thirty-five changed the intended sentence
structure by the substitution, omission or shifting of punctuation.
Due to the small number, both types of intonation involvement were
combined for the MANOVA. Table 4-7 reports the MANOVA results for

intonation.

84

 

 

Table 4-7
Intonation
Significance
Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
Prior Exposure 1 .267 .882 .364
Error 1 14 .302
Ethnic Relatedness 1 .067 .111 .744
Error 2 14 .602
Ethnic Relatedness by
Prior Exposure 1 .067 .172 .685

Error 3 14 .388
Constant 1 26.667
Residual 14 .917

 

The results of the MANOVA indicated that intonation involvement
of 1niscn1es did not differ significantly for the group for either prior
aural exposure or ethnic relatedness of content.

Substitution miscues were compared to the text to determine if
the grammatical function of the text item was retained. For all
passages, the number of miscues that retained the grammatical function
of text item ranged from 41.18% to 94.12%. The mean was 71.52% with a
standard deviation of 10.68%. The MANOVA results for grammatical

function is presented in Table 4-8.

85

Table 4—8

Grammatical Function

 

 

Significance

Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
Prior Exposure 1 296.415 1.630 .223
Error 1 14 181.892
Ethnic Relatedness 1 203.283 2.590 .130
Error 2 14 78.496
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 .193 .007 .936
Error 3 14 29.068
Constant 1 306923.789
Residual 14 155.130

 

The significance of the F-values did not reach the .05 confidence
level indicating that retaining the grammatical function of a text
word did not differ significantly under the two treatment conditions.
Miscues were examined within the context of the passage to
determine if the grammatical structure remained acceptable. In all
passages, the range of miscues maintaining grammatical acceptability
was 32% to 90.91% with a mean of 63.96% and standard deviation of
12.56%. Table 4-9 presents the MANOVA results for grammnical

acceptability within the text.

86

Table 4-9
Grammatical Acceptability Within Text

 

 

Significance
Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
Prior Exposure 1 469.046 2.103 .169
Error 1 14 223.086
Ethnic Relatedness 1 34.620 .301 .592
Error 2 14 114.931

Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 52.719 .498 .492
Error 3 14 105.811
Constant 1 245449.826
Residual 14 181.223

 

The F-values, as shown in Table 4-9, were not large enough to be
significant. Therefore, grammatical acceptability of the miscues
within the text did not significantly differ for the group under the
two treatment conditions.

It can be concluded from those results that the null hypothesis
for the effects of either prior aural exposure or ethnic relatedness
of content on oral reading performance as defined by syntactic

acceptability cannot be rejected.

Semantic Acceptability
Semantic acceptability of the miscues was evaluated by the degree
to which meaning was preserved within the text although possibly
different than that intended by the author and by the extent of

meaning change from the author's intended message.

87

The results of the MANOVA did not warrant the rejection of the
null hypothesis for the effects of either prior oral exposure or
ethnic relatedness of content on oral reading performance as measured
by semantic acceptability of miscues within the text. The MANOVA

results are reported in Table 4-10.

Table 4-10
Semantic Acceptability Within Text

 

 

Significance

Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
Prior Exposure 1 68.365 .480 .500
Error 1 14 142.506
Ethnic Relatedness 1 30.751 .565 .465
Error 2 14 54.388
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 239.816 3.268 .092
Error 3 14 73.389
Constant 1 25418.523
Residual 14 135.636

 

As 'indiczated in Table 4-10, the F-values were not large enough to
be considered significant. Semantic acceptability of the miscues
within the text did not significantly differ for the group under the
two treatment conditions. For all passages, the Inange ffiar
semantically acceptable miscues within the text was 0 to 45.45% with a
mean of 20.58% and standard deviation of 10.1%.

For semantic proximity, the extent of meaning change from the

intended meaning, the range for all passages preserving the intended

88

meaning was 4% to 56% with a mean of 31.34% and standard deviation of

12.43%. Table 4-11 presents the results of the MANOVA for semantic

 

 

proximity.
Table 4-11
Semantic Proximity
Significance

Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
Prior Exposure 1 226.852 1.461 .247
Error 1 14 155.313
Ethnic Relatedness 1 417.824 4.758 .047
Error 2 14 87.815
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 80.891 .373 .551
Error 3 14 216.691
Constant 1 58948.452
Residual 14 139.818

 

The results of the MANOVA indicated that there was a significant
difference in the scores only for ethnic relatedness of (whitent. For
ethnically unrelated content, the range for preserving meaning was 4%
to 56% with a mean of 28.7% and standard deviation of 14.14%. The
range for ethnically related content was 16% to 52% with a mean of
33.98% and standard deviation of 10.01%. Therefore, the oral reading
performance of ethnically related passages remnted'H1a humer
percentage of miscues which preserved the intended meaning than for

ethnically unrelated passages.

89

In summary, the null hypothesis for oral reading performance as
defined by semantic acceptability of miscues can be rejected only for

ethnic relatedness of content with respect to semantic proximity.

Correction
The successful correction of miscues was analyzed in relation to

the attempts made to correct the miscues.
For all passages, the range for successful correction was 12.5%
to 100% of the attempts to correct the miscues. The mean was 69.19%
with a standard deviation of 23.61%. The results of the MANOVA for

the correction of miscues are presented in Table 4-12.

 

 

Table 4-12
Correction
Significance
Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
Prior Exposure 1 212.400 .468 .505
Error 1 14 454.138
Ethnic Relatedness 1 1274.042 5.164 .039
Error 2 14 246.732
Ethnic Relatedness by
Prior Exposure 1 .789 .001 .972

Error 3 14 639.468
Constant 1 287245.848

Residual 14 902.486

 

90

As shown in Table 4-12, only the F-value for treatment of ethnic
relatedness of content was large enough to be significant. For
ethnically related content, the range for successful correction was
12.5% to 100% of the attempts made to correct with a mean of 64.58%
and standard deviation of 25.2%. The range of successful corrections
for ethnically unrelated content was 27.27% to 100% with a mean of
73.8% and standard deviation of 21.33%. The group was therefore more
successful in their attempts to correct ethnically unrelated content
than that which was ethnically related.

The null hypothesis for oral reading performance as measured by
the successful correction of miscues in relation to attempts made to

correct can be rejected only for ethnic relatedness of content.

Comprehension

 

In this study comprehension was observed in two ways.
Comprehending focused on the subjects' concern for meaning while
reading. Retelling concerned the subjects' understanding of the

content after having read the passage orally.

Comprehendi ng
This measure of comprehension evaluated the quality of the
miscues by the degree to which they preserved or disrupted the meaning
of the passage. Comprehending, the percentage of miscues semantically
acceptable or corrected, was calculated by interrelating the oral
reading performance variable of semantic acceptability within the

text, semantic proximity, and correction. Table 4-13 presents the

91

MANOVA for comprehending with no loss of meaning.

 

 

Table 4-13
Comprehending
Significance
Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
Prior Exposure 1 173.502 1.070 .319
Error 1 14 162.211
Ethnic Relatedness 1 47.366 .558 .467
Error 2 14 84.860
Ethnic Relatedness by
Prior Exposure 1 187.161 .444 .516

Error 3 14 421.878
Constant 1 100312.166
Residual 14 123.783

 

The MANOVA indicated that the F-values were not large enough to
be significant for either prior aural exposure or ethnic relatedness
of content. It can be concluded that comprehension, as measured by
comprehending with no loss while reading, did not differ significantly
for the group under the two treatment conditions. For all passages,
the range for comprehending was 16% to 76% with a mean of 40.89% and a
standard deviation of 13.97%.

Retelling
Comprehension was also measured by the subjects' retelling (Hi the

main ideas, details and other inferential information presented by the

92

passage. The retellings were analyzed for Part B of each passage and
for the complete passage, Parts A and B totalled. The point

distribution for each of the passages was as follows:

Main ideas 40
Details 50
Extra inferential information _19_

Total 100

The mean scores for main ideas, details and totals for the treatment
conditions of prior aural exposure and ethnic relatedness of content

are presented in Table 4-14.

Table 4-14
Means for Retelling: Main Ideas, Details, Totals

 

Ethnic Relatedness

 

Retelling Prior Aural Exposure of Content
No Yes Unrelated Related
x Sd x Sd x Sd x Sd

Main Ideas

Part B 1.09 2.22 2.05 2.11 1.07 1.49 2.06 2.67

Parts A and B 3.58 4.31 6.24 4.41 5.67 5.14 4.15 3.75
Details

Part B 3.93 2.83 4.33 3.30 3.27 3.07 4.99 2.84

Parts A and B 8.07 4.62 11.43 5.11 11.00 5.23 8.51 4.77

Totals

Part B 5.17 4.28 6.85 4.55 4.65 3.66 7.37 4.82
Parts A and B 11.99 8.13 18.58 7.98 17.29 9.32 13.28 7.

 

93

The MANOVA for main ideas of Part B and the complete passage is

reported in Table 4-15.

 

 

Table 4-15
Main Ideas
Significance
Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
PART B

Prior Exposure 1 13.805 3.081 .101
Error 1 14 4.481
Ethnic Relatedness 1 14.583 5.120 .040
Error 2 14 2.848
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 .530 .158 .697
Error 3 14 3.350
Constant 1 147.267
Residual 14 7.675

PARTS A AND B

Prior Exposure 1 105.868 6.435 .024
Error 1 14 16.453
Ethnic Relatedness 1 34.717 2.605 .129
Error 2 14 13.325
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 47.419 5.045 .041
Error 3 14 9.399
Constant 1 1444.915

Residual 14 33.720

 

94

The F-values for Part B, as shown in Table 4-15, were large
enough to reject the null hypothesis for comprehension, measured by
the retelling of main ideas, only for ethnic relatedness of content.
For ethnically unrelated passages, the mean was 1.07 with a standard
deviation of 1.49 while for ethnically related passages the mean was
2.06 with a standard deviation of 2.67. Ethnically related passages
therefore resulted in significantly higher scores for the
comprehension of main ideas than ethnically unrelated passages.

For the complete passage, the results of the MANOVA indicated
that the null hypothesis could be rejected for both prior aural
exposure and the interaction of prior aural exposure with ethnic
relatedness of content. For no prior aural exposure, the mean was
3.58 with a standard deviation of 4.31. The mean for prior aural
exposure was 6.24 with a standard deviation of 4.41. Prior aural
exposure thus resulted in higher scores for the comprehension of main
ideas than the spontaneous reading of the passages.

The interaction of prior aural exposure with ethnic relatedness
for the comprehension of main ideas involving the complete passage is

depicted below in Figure 4-1.

95

Figure 4-1

Interaction of Prior Aural Exposure With Ethnic
Relatedness for Main Ideas, Complete Passage

8
Ethnically
7 Unrelated
MAIN 6
IDEA 5
Ethnically
MEANS 4 Related
3
2
1
O

 

None Yes
PRIOR AURAL EXPOSURE

The mean for ethnically related passages without prior aural exposure
was 3.71 and 4.59 with prior exposure. For ethnically unrelated
passages, the mean for no prior exposure was 3.45 while the mean for
prior aural exposure was 7.89. As can be seen in Figure 4-1, the
comprehension score for main ideas was higher for ethnically unrwalated
passages than related passages under the treatment of prior aural
exposure. For ethnically related passages, the mean score increased
by only .88 with prior aural exposure. In contrast, the mean score

increased by 4.44 for ethnically unrelated passages.

96

For the retelling of details of Part B and the entire passage,

the MANOVA is presented in Table 4-16.

 

 

Table 4-16
Details
Significance
Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
PART 8

Prior Exposure 1 2.460 .517 .484
Error 1 14 4.756
Ethnic Relatedness 1 44.324 10.657 .006
Error 2 14 4.159
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 .009 .001 .977
Error 3 14 10.973
Constant 1 1024.158
Residual 14 16.105

PARTS A AND B

Prior Exposure 1 168.773 29.129 .000
Error 1 14 5.794
Ethnic Relatedness 1 93.725 20.130 .001
Error 2 14 4.656
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 12.159 2.336 .149
Error 3 14 5.204
Constant 1 5705.505

Residual 14 75.075

97

For Part B, the F-values were significant only for ethnic
relatedness of content. The mean for ethnically unrelated passages
was 3.27 with a standard deviation of 3.07. For ethnically related
passages, the mean was 4.99 with a standard deviation of 2.84.
Therefore, ethnically related passages resulted in higher
comprehension scores for details than ethnically unrelated content.

The F-values for details of the complete passage were significant
for both prior aural exposure and ethnic relatedness of content. The
mean for no aural exposure was 8.07 with a standard deviation of 4.62
while the mean for prior aural exposure was 11.32 with a standard
deviation of 5.11. It can be concluded that prior aural exposure
resulted in higher scores for the comprehension of details than for
the spontaneous reading of the passages.

Contrary to the treatment effects of ethnic relatedness of
content for Part B, ethnically unrelated passages resulted in higher
scores for the comprehension of details than those which were
ethnically related. The mean for ethnically unrelated passages was
11.00 with a standard deviation of 5.23. For ethnically related
passages, the mean was 8.51 with a standard deviation of 4.77.

Scores for extra inferential information were not subjected to
the MANOVA due to the small number of points attained by subjects.
For all passages, the range for extra inferential information was 0 to
5.5 with a mean of .62 and standard deviation of 1.06.

The MANOVA for the retelling total of main ideas, details and

extra inferential level information for Part B and the complete

passage, Parts A and B, is presented in Table 4-17.

98

 

 

Table 4-17
Retelling Total
Significance
Source of Variation DF Mean Square F of F
PART B

Prior Exposure 1 45.484 8.605 .011
Error 1 14 5.285
Ethnic Relatedness 1 105.232 12.411 .003
Error 2 14 8.479
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 1.088 .068 .798
Error 3 14 16.006
Constant 1 2191.071
Residual 14 41.752

PARTS A AND 8

Prior Exposure 1 652.213 39.061 .000
Error 1 14 16.697
Ethnic Relatedness 1 240.480 13.115 .003
Error 2 14 18.337
Ethnic Relatedness by

Prior Exposure 1 90.872 5.765 .031
Error 3 14 15.763
Constant 1 14015.428
Residual 14 194.330

 

99

TheIMNOVA results indicated that the null hypotheses for
comprehension as measured by retelling of Part B and the complete
passage could be rejected for both prior aural exposure and ethnic
relatedness of content. For Part B, the mean for no prior exposure
was 5.17 with a standard deviation of 4.28 whereas the mean for prior
exposure was 6.85 with a standard deviation of 4.55. For the total
retelling score of the entire passage with no prior exposure, the mean
was 11.99 with a standard deviation of 8.13. The mean for prior aural
exposure was 18.58 with a standard deviation of 7.98. Therefore, the
treatment of prior aural exposure resulted in higher comprehension
scores as measured by retelling for both Part B and the complete
passage.

anPart B and the complete passage, the MANOVA indicated
significant but opposing results for the treatment of ethnic
relatedness of content. Retelling total scores were significantly
higher for ethnically related passages for Part B. The mean for Part
B ethnically unrelated passages was 4.65 with a standard deviation of
.3.66. For l3art B ethnically related passages, the mean was 7.37 with
a standard deviation of 4.82. In contrast, the retelling total scores
for the complete passage were significantly higher for ethnically
unrelated passages. The mean for the complete passage for ethnically
unrelated passages was 17.29 with a standard deviation of 9.32 while
the mean for ethnically related passages was 13.28 with a standard

deviation of 7.56.

100

Interaction of prior aural exposure and ethnic relatedness of
content was indicated by the MANOVA for the complete passage. Figure

4-2 illustrates that relationship.

Figure 4-2

Interaction of Prior Aural Exposure With Ethnic Relatedness
for the Retelling Total of the Complete Passage

 

24
Ethnically
21 Unrelated
TOTAL 18
RETELLING 15 Ethnically
Related
MEANS 12
9
6
3
0

None Yes
PRIOR AURAL EXPOSURE

The mean for ethnically related passages without prior aural
exposure was 11.22 while, with prior exposure, the mean was 15.35.
For ethnically unrelated passages, the mean without prior exposure was
12.76 and, with prior exposure, the mean was 21.81. As shown in
Figure 4-2, the total retelling means were higher for ethnically

unrelated passages than related passages. Under the treatment of

prior aural exposure, the mean score increased by 4.13 for ethnically

101

related passages while the mean increased by 9.05 for ethnically
unrelated passages. The increase in total retelling scores was
therefore greater for ethnically unrelated passages under the

treatment condition of prior aural exposure.

Sumar

The data were subjected to multivariate analysis of variance for
repeated measures in order to determine the relative effects of prior
aural exposure and ethnic relatedness of content on oral reading
performance and comprehension. Table 4-18 presents a summary of the
results.

For prior aural exposure, the analysis revealed that with

 

respect to oral reading performance, there was a significant
difference solely for the number of miscues occurring per hundred
words. Prior aural exposure resulted in significantly fewer miscues
than the spontaneous reading of passages. The oral reading
performance of the group did not differ significantly on the types of
miscues generated, Spanish language interference/dialect, graphic and
phonemic proximity, syntactic and semantic acceptability, or the
correction of miscues.

On the measures of comprehension, comprehending and retelling,
significant differences for the variable of prior aural exposure were
discovered only for retelling. Prior aural exposure resulted in
higher scores than the spontaneous reading of passages for the
retelling total score of Part B and for the main ideas, details and

retelling total of the complete passage.

102

Table 4-18
Summary of Analysis
DEPENDENT VARIABLES INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Prior Aural Ethnic Interaction

Exposure Relatedness
Oral Reading Performance

Types of Miscues

1) substitutions O O O
2) omissions 0 O O
3) insertions O O O
Miscues Per Hundred Words + O 0
Spanish language
interference/dialect O O 0
Graphic Proximity 0 O O
Phonemic Proximity 0 O O
Syntactic Acceptability
1) intonation O O O
2) grammatical function 0 O O
3) grammatical acceptability
within text 0 O 0
Semantic Acceptability
1) within text 0 O 0
2) semantic proximity O + 0
Correction 0 - O
Comprehension
Comprehending O O O
Retelling
1) main ideas
Part B O + 0
Complete Passage + O x
2) Details
Part B O + 0

Complete Passage + - O

103

Table 4-18 Cont'd.
Summary of Analysis

DEPENDENT VARIABLES INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Prior Aural Ethnic Interaction
Exposure Relatedness
Retelling
3) Totals
Part B + + 0
Complete Passage + - x
0 = not statistically significant at the .05 confidence level
+ = statistically significant.
Direction - prior exposure / ethnically related.
- = statistically significant.
Direction - no prior exposure / ethnically unrelated.
x = significant interaction

 

For ethnic relatedness of content, the analysis indicated that

 

there was a significant difference in oral reading performance for
semmnfic1Nbximity and the correction of miscues. The miscues
generated while reading ethnically related as compared to unrelated
passages more often preserved the intended meaning of the text word.
Attempts made to correct miscues were more successful for ethnically
unrelated passages than for those which were ethnically related. Oral
reading performance did not differ significantly for the types of
miscues generated, the number of miscues per hundred words, Spanish
language interference/dialect, graphic and phonemic proximity, or
syntactic acceptability.

As for prior aural exposure on measures of comprehension,

significant differences were found for ethnic relatedness of content

104

only for retelling. The retelling of ethnically related passages as
compared to unrelated passages resulted in higher scores for main
ideas, details and retelling total for Part B. However, scores for
details and retelling total of the complete passage were significantly
higher for ethnically unrelated passages than related passages.
Interaction of prior aural exposure and ethnic relatedness of
content was found to be present in the retelling of main ideas and
retelling total for the complete passage. For both, prior aural

exposure resulted in higher scores for ethnically unrelated passages.

CHAPTER V
SUIHARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

 

In this concluding chapter, a summary of the investigation is
presented, limitations of the applicability of the findings are noted,
and the conclusions based on the resulting data are discussed.

Lastly, recommendations are made for future study.

Sumar

Listening to text while following along visually has been
recommended by several reading experts (Petty, Petty and Becking 1981,
Moffett and Wagner 1983) as a technique to improve reading skill.
Furthermore, this is believed (Anastasiow, Hanes and Hanes 1982) to be
especially beneficial to students of limited English proficiency. A
review of the literature, however, revealed a lack of empirical
research related to the use of this technique. The present study was
therefore undertaken to investigate the effects of this procedure,
prior aural exposure, on the oral reading performance and
comprehension of bilingual, Spanish-speaking students. Additionally,

because research has demonstrated that prior cultural knowledge may

105

106

significantly affect comprehension, a secondary purpose of this study
was to observe the relative effects of ethnically related content on
oral reading performance and comprehension.

For this study, fifteen bilingual Spanish-speaking students of
nine and ten years of age were selected from the Mexican American
migrant student population participating in the ESEA Title 1, Michigan
Sumner Migrant Education Program. The reading level of the nine girls
and six boys, according to the Slosson Oral Reading Test (Slosson
1963), was mid fourth grade to low fifth grade (4.4-5.2).

In the design of this experiment, each subject orally read four
expository passages adapted from social studies textbooks. Two of the
passages described aspects of Mexican American culture and two
described cultural patterns of other cultures - the Bedouin and Amish.
For one ethnically related passage, the subject orally read and
afterwards retold the passage. On the second ethnically related
passage, the subject first listened to an audio recording of half of
the passage, following along on the printed copy. The subject next
orally read the entire passage, retelling it afterwards. This same
procedure was followed for the ethnically unrelated passages. For
both the ethnically related and unrelated passages, the subject
listened to just half of the passage in order to avoid confounding the
hypothesized effect of prior aural exposure with listening
comprehension. The order of whether the subject first read a passage
or listened to the audio tape and read a passage was randomly

alternated between subjects. The retelling task was both unaided and

107

aided. Inmediately following unaided retelling, questions based on
the retelling were used to encourage the subject to expand the
retelling. The oral reading and retelling were recorded on audit) tape
for analysis.

Oral reading performance was analyzed quantitatively and
qualitatively according to the procedures of the Reading Miscue
Inventory (Goodman and Burke 1972). Oral reading miscues were
catalogued into categories of substitutions, omissions, insertions and
reversals. For the quantitative analysis, each type of miscue was a
dependent variable analyzed relative to the treatment conditions,
prior aural exposure and ethnic relatedness of content. For the
qualitative analysis, the miscues were examined with respect to
graphic and phonemic similarity to the text, syntactic and semantic
acceptability within the text, correction, and the influence of the
Spmfish language. The data were subjected to the statistical
procedure of multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures
(Winer 1971).

Comprehension was assessed by the quality of the miscues and
by recall. Comprehending, the quality of the miscues while reading,
focused on the extent to which the miscues retained or disrupted
meaning. Recall, involving unaided and aided retelling of main ideas
and details, was analyzed for the entire passage and for the second
half of the passage, Part B, to which subjects did not receive aural
exposure. These data were also subjected to multivariate analysis of

variance for repeated measures.

108

Findings

The findings of this study indicate that the differences in oral
reading performance under the treatment conditions of either prior
oral exposure or ethnic relatedness of content were overwhelmingly
small. Significant findings occurred in comprehension for both
independent variables along with a significant interaction of the two
variables. The findings of this study are summarized below:

Prior Aural Exposure

For oral reading performance, the analysis revealed that
prior aural exposure resulted in significantly fewer miscues than
the spontaneous reading of passages. However, oral reading
performance did not differ significantly on the types of miscues
generated, Spanish language interference/dialect, graphic and
phonemic proximity, syntactic and semantic acceptability, or the
correction of miscues.

On measures of comprehension, significant differences were
found for retelling but not comprehending. Prior aural exposure
resulted in higher scores than spontaneous reading for the
retelling total score for Part B of the passage and for the main
ideas, details and retelling total of the complete passage.

Ethnic Relatedness of Content.

For oral reading performance, the analysis indicated that
there was a significant difference only for semantic proximity
and the correction of miscues. The intended meaning of the text

word, semantic proximity, was more often preserved while reading

109

ethnically related passages than unrelated passages. Attempts
made to correct miscues were more successful for ethnically
unrelated passages than for those which were ethnically related.
Oral reading performance did not differ significantly for the
types<fiInnscues generated, the number of miscues, Spanish
language interference/dialect, graphic and phonemic proximity, or
syntactic acceptability.

As for prior aural exposure on measures of comprehension,
significant differences were found only for retelling. The
retelling of ethnically related passages remfhed hiifigher
scores for main ideas, details and retelling total for Part B of
the passage. However, scores for details and retelling total of
the complete passage were significantly higher for ethnically
unrelated passages than related passages.

Interaction of Prior Aural Exposure and Ethnic Relatedness of
Content.

Interaction was found to be present in the retelling of
main ideas and retelling total for the complete passage. For
both, prior aural exposure resulted in significantly higher

scores for ethnically unrelated passages.

Limitations

 

The findings of this study should be considered within the

following limitations:

Sample

The fifteen subjects for this study did not comprise a

110

random sample. Due to the small number of migrant students

displaying the characteristics of the specific population to be

studied, it became necessary to include all such students to

obtain the desired fifteen subjects. The subjects were

subsequently drawn from seven schools in six summer migrant

education projects in Michigan.

Instrumentation

1)

2)

Those passages identified as ethnically related, in
general, reflect Mexican American cultural heritage.
However, this may not be representative of the individual
student's experiences. This study did not attempt to
determine the degree of match between cultural heritage
exemplified by the passage and the subjects' experiences.

The aural exposure provided in this study as a controlled
experiment is more restrictive than the employment of
such a technique in a classroom setting. In this
experiment, the subject was provided aural exposure to
just half of the passage in order to avoid confounding
the effects of this treatment with listening
comprehension. A classroom teacher, however, might feel
that a particular student would most benefit by exposure

to more of the passage. Also, the subjects in this

111

experiment received no introduction to the material to be
read. Use of this technique in a classroom is likely to
be more flexible involving, for example, teacher
interaction with the student relative to the content
before and/or after the aural exposure, reading guides,

or purpose setting questions.

Conclusions

 

Within the cited limitations, the findings of this study support
the conclusion that listening to text while following along visually
facilitates comprehension. While demonstrating by recall
significantly higher comprehension for just the total retelling score
for Part B of the passage to which they were not exposed, subjects
showed even greater comprehension for the entire passage. Their
scores were significantly higher for all three recall measures - main
ideas, details and total retelling. This may be indicative of the
effects of prior aural exposure being confounded with listening
comprehension. DeSpite this possibility, an implication for the
classroom is that, even in the absence of teacher/student interaction
or supplementary instructional materials, providing opportunities to
listen to text while following along visually may significantly
enhance comprehension.

A corollary of this conclusion is that such aural exposure to
text may be particularly effective for a topic with which the student

does not have a great deal of experience. In this study, it was

112

assumed that the subjects would possess more knowledge of Mexican
American culture than of the Bedouin or Amish cultures. Interaction
was found for prior aural exposure and ethnic relatedness of content
for the retelling of main ideas and retelling total for the complete
passage. Prior aural exposure resulted in significantly higher scores
for the ethnically unrelated passages. Again, there is the
possibility of the confounding effects of listening comprehension.
Prosody, as suggested by Kleiman, e_t_gl (1979) and Schrieber (1980),
may provide cues for identifying syntactic structures so that
attention may instead be focused on comprehending a message on a
somewhat unfamiliar topic.

Other findings for the effects of ethnically related content on
comprehension appear to be conflicting. Subjects demonstrated higher
comprehension as measured by recall for Part B of ethnically related
passages. Scores were significantly higher for all measures - main
ideas, details and retelling total. Compatible with this finding, the
miscues generated while reading ethnically related passages as
compared to unrelated passages more often preserved the intended
meaning of the text. This suggests that the reader is able to use her
prior knowledge in processing information by predicting semantically
acceptable miscues. Based on these findings, it would seem that the
assumed prior cultural knowledge contributed to higher comprehension.
However, conflicting evidence for the effects of ethnic relatedness of
content is presented by the finding that, when considering the

complete passage, comprehension was significantly greater for the

113

ethnically unrelated passages. Supportive of this finding is that, in
attempts to correct their miscues, subjects were also more successful
for the unrelated passages. While it seems evident that ethnic
relatedness of content and, thus, prior cultural knowledge is involved
in comprehension, the process appears to be more complex than can be
understood by the present model of analysis.

Another conclusion which can be drawn for the findings of this
study is that oral reading fluency isnot a reliable indicator of
comprehension. For prior aural exposure which resulted in
significantly higher comprehension, the only significant measure of
observable reading behavior was that of fewer miscues. No significant
differences were found on all other measures of oral reading
performance including the types of miscues, Spanish language
interference/dialect, graphic and phonemic proximity, syntactic and
semantic acceptability, and corrections. For ethnic relatedness, only
semantic proximity and corrections were found to be significant.
Comprehending, which is intended to be a measure of comprehension
while reading, essentially paralleled oral reading performance and was
not significant for either aural exposure or ethnic relatedness. It
appears that comprehension cannot be analyzed on the basis of oral
reading behavior. Some subjects who orally read quite fluently had
very poor recall as compared to other subjects who produced many

miscues yet demonstrated surprisingly higher levels of recall.

114

Reconmendations for Future Research

 

Further research should be conducted on the effects of prior
cultural knowledge on reading comprehension. It will be necessary to
identify effective means of verifying whether subjects possess schema
which relates to the content of the reading materials. In this study,
for example, it appeared that some students were much more familiar
than others with the various aspects of Mexican American culture
described by the passages.

In the present study, the relationship between the reader's prior
knowledge and comprehension was not evident by the observable oral
reading behavior. Research on the effects of prior knowledge, or
schema, on reading comprehension commonly employs the methodology of
requiring the subject to orally or silently read a text and then
assessing comprehension by a recall measure. Other methodologies need
to be explored and compared in order to identify more sensitive
instruments of analysis to better understand the ways in which a
reader's schema affects comprehension. One method which may prove
useful is that of stimulated recall. A reader might be asked, for
example, what she was thinking as she read a particular passage.

It is further recommended that this study be replicated with a
larger population. The lack of a random sample and the small number
of subjects severely limits generalizing the results of this study to
similar populations.

Also, the present study investigated the effects of prior aural

exposure and ethnic relatedness of content for just one reading level

115

and one population that might be expected to experience difficulties
in reading. It is suggested that this study be replicated with other
reading levels and with different language minority populations as

well as monolingual English-speaking students.

ConcludingStatement

 

This research was conducted to determine the effectiveness of a
listening technique for improving comprehension, particularly for a
population of language minority students at a fourth-fifth grade
reading level who would be considered to have mastered the beginning
reading skills. Listening to text while following along visually was
found to improve comprehension further demonstrating the close
relationship of the receptive language acts. The practical classroom
application resulting from this research is that basal reading
materials and content area materials could easily be audio recorded

and utilized by students who would benefit from this technique.

116

REFERENCES

Adams, Marilyn J. and Bertram Bruce. Background knowledge and reading
comprehension. I_nLanger, Judith A. and M. Trika Smith-Burke
(eds.), Reader Meets Author/Bridging the Gap. Newark, Del:
International Reading Association, 1982.

 

Adams, Marilyn J. and Allan Collins. A schema-theoretic view of
reading. flFreedle, Roy 0. (ed.), New Directions in

 

Discourse Processing. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing
Corporation, 1979.

 

Al-Dahiry, Saleem A. and Charles E. Heerman. Literal-inferential
comprehension achievement in the modes of listening, oral reading
and silent reading. Reading Improvement, 18: 110-114, 1981.

 

Anastasiow, Nicholas J., Madlyn Levine Hanes, and Michael L.Hanes.
Language and Reading Strategies for Poverty Children.
BETtimore: Uhiversity Park Press, 1982.

 

Anderson, Richard C. The notion of schemata and the educational
enterprise: general discussion of the conference. _I_n Anderson,
Richard C., Rand J. Spiro and William E. Montague (eds.),
Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977.

 

Bartlett, Frederic C. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and
Social Psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press, 1932.

 

 

Bloom, Benjamin S. (ed.). Taxonomy of Educational Ofiectives,
Handbook 1: Cagnitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co., 1956.

 

 

Bolinger, Dwight L. Aspects of Language. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Inc., 1975.

 

Bonner, Myrtle C. A critical analysis of the relationship of reading
ability to listening ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Auburn University, 1960. Dissertation Abstracts International,
21: 2167-68.

 

Brown, Charles T. Three studies on the listening of children.
_Speech Monographs, 32: 129-38, 1965.

 

Brown, Donald P. Auding as the primary language ability. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Stanford University, 1954. Dissertation

 

Abstracts International, 14: 2281-2.

 

117

Brown, Roger. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1973.

 

Burke, Carolyn. Dialect and the reading process. In Laffey, James L.
and Roger Shuy (eds.) Language Differences: Do They Interfere?
Newark: International Reading Association, 1973: 91-100.

 

Buttery, Thomas J. Listening: a skill analysis. Education, 101:
181-187, 1980.

 

Cameron, Ben. Comprehensive Summary: Study of the ESEA Title I
Migrant Education Program. Research Triangle Park, N.C.:
Research Triang1é11nstitute, March 1981.

 

 

Carroll, John B. The analysis of reading instruction: perspectives
from psychology and linguistics. _I_n_ E. R. Hilgard (ed.),
Theories of Learning Instruction. 63rd Yearbook, Part I:
336-353, National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1964.

 

Charniak, Eugene. Organization and inference in a frame-like system
of common knowledge. In Schank, Roger and Barbara L.
Nash-Webber (eds.), Theoreti—é'al Issues in Natural Language
Processing: An Interdisciplinary Workshop. Cambridge, MA: Bolt
Bernanek and Newman Publishing Co., 1975

 

 

Cherryholmes, Cleo and Gary Manson. Understanding the United
States. McGraw-Hill Social Studies. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Compan , 1979.

Ching, Doris C. Reading and the Bilingual Child. Newark, Del:
International Reading Association, 1976.

 

 

Chomsky, Carol. When you still can't read in third grade: after
decoding, what? In Samuels, S. Jay (ed.), What Research Has
to Say about Readingfistruction. Newark, DE: InternationaT
Reading Association, 1978.

 

 

Clark, Herbert H. and Eve V. Clark. Psychology and Language. New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1977.

 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Grants to State Educational
Agencies to Meet the Special Educational Needs of Migratory
Children, 34 Part 204. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Federal
Register, 1983.

 

Cohen, Andrew D. A Sociolinguistic Approach to Bilingual Education.
Rowley,MA: Newbury Home Publishers, Inc., 1975.

118

Cummins, Jim. A theoretical rationale for bilingual education. In
Communicative Competence in Bilingual Education - Theory and
Research. Packet 1, Series B: Language Proficiency,
Acquisition, Assessment and Communicative Behavior. Dallas TX:
Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center - Dallas, 1982.

 

 

Cunningham, Patricia M. Transferring comprehension from listening to
reading. Reading Teacher, 29: 169-172, 1975.

 

Cunningham, Patricia M., Sharon A. Moore, James W. Cunningham, and
David W. Moore. Reading in Elementary Classrooms. New York:
Longman, Inc., 1983.

 

Current Population Reports Series P-20, #339, Persons of
Spanish-speaking origin in the U.S. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1979: Table 10.

Devine, Thomas G. Listening: what do we know after fifty years of
research and theorizing? Journal of Reading, 21: 296-304,
1978.

 

Duker, Sam. Listening and reading. Elementary School Journal, 65:
321-329, 1964.

 

Dulay, Heidi C., Eduardo Hernandez-Chavez, and Marina Burt. The
process of becoming bilingual. I_n_ Singh, Sadanand and Joan
Lynch (eds.). Diagnostic Procedures in Hearing, Laryguage and
Speech. Baltimore,MD: University Park Press, 1978.

 

Durkin, Dolores. What is the value of the new interest in reading
comprehension? E Harris, Albert J. and Edward R. Sipay
(eds.), Readings on Reading Instruction. New York: Longman,
Inc., 1984.

 

Durkin, Dolores. Teaching Them to Read. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,
Inc., 1978 (third edition), 1983 (fourth edition).

 

Educational Research Council of America. Lands of the Middle East.
Concepts and Inquiry: The Educational Research Council Social
Science Program. Rockleigh, NJ: Allyn and Bacon, 1976.

 

Fiege-Kollman, Laila M. Reading and Recall AmonLBilingual and
Dialect Speaking Children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of California, Irvine, 1975.

 

Fillmore, Charles J. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning.
In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Tinguistics Society. Insfitute of Human Learning, University of
California, Berkeley, 1975.

 

 

119

Fries, Charles C. Linguistics and Reading. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

 

Garcia, Rodolfo. Language Interference and Socioeconomic Status as
Factors in the Standard Oral English of Mexican-American and
Agglo Migrant Chderen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio
State University, 1973.

 

 

 

Gonzalez, George A. English as a second language program: a support
system for the basal reading series. Paper presented at the
Michigan Association of Bilingual Education Conference.
Lansifig, Michigan, Aprii 29,11983.

 

Goodman, Kenneth S. The psycholinguistic nature of the reading
process. I_n_ Kenneth Goodman (ed.), The Psycholinguistic Nature
of the Reading Process. Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1973.

 

 

Goodman, Kenneth S. Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game.
Journal of the Reading Specialist, 4: 123-135, 1967.

 

Goodman, Kenneth S. and Yetta M. Reading of American Children Whose
Language is a Stable Rural Dialect of Enfish or a Lamuage other
than figiiEh. Final Report, Project No. NIE-C-OO-3-0878. United
States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National
Institute of Education, August 1978.

 

 

 

Goodman, Kenneth S. and Carolyn L. Burke. Theoretically Based
Studies of Patterns of Miscues in Oral Readin Performance.
Final Project Report, Project No. 91) 75, Grant No.
OEG-O-9-320375-4269. United States Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, March, 1973.

 

Goodman, Yetta M. and Carolyn L. Burke. Reading Miscue Inventory.
New York: Macmillan, 1972.

Goss, Blaine. Listening as information processing. Communication
Quarterly, 30: 304-307, 1982.

 

Gray, William S. and Helen M. Robinson (eds.). Gray Oral Reading
Test. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967.

 

Greene, Harry A. and Walter T. Petty. Developing Language Skills in
the Elementary Schools. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1975

 

Heckelman, Robert G. A neurological impress method of remedial
reading instruction. Academic Therapy, 5: 277-282, 1969.

 

120

Hernandez-Chavez, Eduardo, Andrew 0. Cohen and Anthony F. Beltramo
(eds.). El Lenguaje de los Chicanos: Regional and Social
Characteristics Used by Mexican Americans. Arlington, VA:
Center for Applied Linguistics, 1975.

 

 

Hollingsworth, Paul M. An experimental approach to the impress method
of teaching reading. The Reading Teacher, 31: 624-626, 1978.

 

Hoskisson, Kenneth. The many facets of assisted reading. Elementary
English, 52: 312-315, 1975a.

 

Hoskisson, Kenneth. Successive approximation and beginning reading.
Elementary School Journal, 75: 442-451, 1975b.

 

Hull, C. Hadlai and Norman H. Nie. SPSS Update 7-9: New Procedures
and Facilities for Releases 7-9. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1981.

 

 

Johnson, Patricia. Effects on reading comprehension of building
background knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 16: 503-576, 1982.

 

Johnson, Patricia. Effects on reading comprehension of language
complexity and cultural background of a text. TESOL Quarterly,
15: 169-181, 1981.

 

Jurenka, Nancy E. A Psycholinguistic Description of the Oral Reading

 

Miscues Generated by Nine Selected Mexican-American Students in
Grades Three, Four, and Five. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Indiana University, 1978.

 

 

Kaminsky, Sally. Bilingualism and learning to read. I_nSimoes,
Antonio, Jr. (Ed.), The Bilingual Child: Research and Analysis
of ExistipgyEducational Themes. New York: Academic Press, 1976.

 

 

Kant, Inmanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. (lst edition 1781, 2nd
edition 1787, Kemp Smith, translator). London: Macmillan
Publishing Co., 1963.

 

King-Stoops, Joyce. Migrant Education: Teaching the Wandering Ones.
Phi Delta Kappa Fastback #145. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappan
Educational Foundation, 1980.

 

Kintsch, Walter and Ely Kozminsky. Summarizing stories after reading
and listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69: 491-499,
1977.

 

Kleiman, Glenn M. Comparing good and poor readers: a critique of the
research. Technical Report No. 246. Center for the Study of
Reading, Urbana-Champaign, IL, 1982.

121

Kleiman, Glenn M., Peter N. Winograd and Mary M. Humphrey. Prosody
and children's parsing of sentences. Technical Report No. 123.
Center for the Study of Reading, Urbana-Champaign, IL, 1979.

Knight, Lester N. Reading for the linguistically and culturally
different. I_n_ J. Estill Alexander (Ed.), Teaching Readiyg.
Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1983.

 

LaBerge, David and S. Jay Samuels. Toward a theory of automatic
information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology,
6: 293-323, 1974.

 

Labov, William, Paul Cohen, Clarence Robins and John Lewis. A Study
of the Non-Standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in
New York City. Co-operative Research Project No. 3288. New
York: Columbia University, 1968.

 

 

Lapp, Diane and James Flood. Teaching Reading to Every Child. New
York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1978.

 

Lehnert, Wendy. Human and computational question answering.
Cognitive Science, 1: 47-73, 1977.

 

Lemons, Robert L. and Samuel C. Moore. The effects of training in
listening on the devel0pment of reading skills. Reading
Improvement, 19: 212-216, 1982.

 

Lipson, Margaret Youmans. Some unexpected issues in prior knowledge
and comprehension. The Readipg Teacher, 37: 760-764, 1984.

 

Lipson, Margaret Youmans. The influence of religious affiliation on
children's memory of text information. Reading Research
Quarterly, 18: 448-457, 1983.

 

Lipson, Margaret Youmans. Learning new information from text: the
role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 14: 243-261, 1982.

 

Lundsteen, Sara W. Listening: Its Impact on Reading and the Other
Language Arts. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English, Educational Resources Information Center, 1971.

 

 

Mangieri, John N., Nancy K. Staley and James A. Wilhide. Teaching
Language Arts. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984.

 

Markert, Sandra. Relationships between listening comprehension and
reading comprehension among second-graders. Masters Thesis,
Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey, 1974.

122

Matluck, Joseph and Betty Mace-Matluck. MAT-SEA-CAL Oral Proficiency
Tests. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1974.

 

McCutcheon, Gail, Diane Kyle and Robert Skovira. Characters in basal
readers: does "equal" now mean "same"? The Reading Teacher,
32: 438-441, January, 1979.

 

Michigan Department of Education. A description and evaluation of
Michigan's 1980-1981 school year ESEA, Title I Migrant Education
Program. Lansing, Michigan, January 1982.

Miller, Wilma A. Teaching Elementary Reading Today. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984.

 

Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium. School Utilities Volume
g. Disk No. 49. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Educational Computing
Consortium, 1982.

 

Minsky, Marvin. A framework for representing knowledge. I_n
Winston, Patrick H. (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision.
New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., 1975.

 

Moffett, James and Betty Jane Wagner. Student-Centered Language Arts
and Reading, K-13: A Handbook for Teachers. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Co., 1983.

 

 

Mosenthal, Peter. Psycholinguistic properties of aural and visual
comprehension as determined by children's abilities to comprehend
syllogisms. Reading Research Quarterly, 12: 55-92, 1976.

 

National Migrant Education Program. Oral Language All Day: A
Resource Guide for Effective Communication. Washington, D.C.:
National Migrant Education Program, U. S. Office of Education,
1980.

 

 

Nelson, Katherine. Individual differences in language development:
implications for development and language. In Gardner, Judith
Krieger (ed.), Readings in Developmental PsychF'logy. Boston:
Little, Brown and Co., 1982.

 

Nie, Norman H., C. Hadlai Hull, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner,
and Dale H. Bent. SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975.

 

O'Brien, Carmen. Teaching the Language-Different Child to Read.
Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1973.

 

123

Ockerman-Garza, Janet, Eugenio D. Garza and Robert E. Snow. Migratory
status and school achievement: analysis of critical mediating
variables. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, March 1982, New York.

Olejnik, Shirley. Factors affecting the relationship between
listening and reading. Reading Horizons, 18: 277-281, 1978.

 

Page, William D. Semantic acceptability and semantic change. I

Allen, P. David and Dorothy Watson (eds.), Findings of Researfi
in Miscue Analysis: Classroom Implications. Urbana, IL:
NationaTSCouncil of Teachers of English, 1976: 38-43.

 

Perez, Eustolia. Oral language competence improves reading skills of
Mexican American third graders. The Reading Teacher, 35:
24-27, October, 1981.

 

Petty, Walter T., Dorothy C. Petty and Marjorie Becking. Experiences
in Language: Tools and Techniques for Language Arts Methods.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1981.

 

 

Read, Charles and Peter Schreiber. Why short subjects are harder to
find than long ones. In Wanner, Eric and Lila R. Gleitman
(eds.). Language Acquisiti—oh: The State of the Art. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1982.

 

Reynolds, Ralph E., Marsha A. Taylor, Margaret S. Steffensen, Larry L.
Shirey, and Richard C. Anderson. Cultural schemata and reading
comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17: 353-366, 1982.

 

Rice, G. Elizabeth. On cultural schemata. American Ethnologist,
7: 152-171, 1980.

 

Rio, Raul. Personal communication. Research, Evaluation and Assess-
ment Services, Michigan Department of Education, March 13, 1984.

Robinett, Betty Wallace. Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1978.

 

Rubin, Dorothy. A Practical Approach to Teaching Reading. New
York: CBS College Publishing, 1982.

 

Rummelhart, David E. Schemata: the building blocks of cognition.
In Spiro, Rand J., Bertram C. Bruce and William E. Brewer
i_eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,’1980.

 

124

Rumnelhart, David E. Notes on a schema for stories. _I_p_ Bobrow,
Daniel G. and Allan Collins (eds.), Representation and
Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. New York: Academic
Press, 1975.

 

 

Runmelhart, David E. and Andrew Ortony. The representation of
knowledge in memory. In Anderson, Richard C., Rand J. Spiro,
and William E. Montague (eds—J, Schooling and the Acquisition of
Knowledge. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977.

 

Samuels, S. Jay. The method of repeated readings. The Reading
Teacher, 32: 403-408, 1979.

 

Schank, Roger C. and Robert P. Abelson. Scripts, PlansLGoals and
Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
1977.

 

 

Schreiber, Peter A. On the acquisition of reading fluency. Journal
of Reading Behavior, 12: 177-186, 1980.

 

Schreck, Janice Vanderploeg. The effects of content schema on reading
comprehension for HiSpanic, Black and White cultural groups.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, 1981. Dissertation Abstracts International,
42: 2594A.

 

Seaton, Hal W. and Paul O. Wielan. The effects of listening/reading
transfer on four measures of reading comprehension. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Reading Council
(1 st, Sarasota, Florida) December 4-6, 1980.

Slobin, D. I. Cognitive prerequisites for development of grammar.
I_n C. A. Ferguson and D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of Child
Language Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.

 

 

Slosson, Richard L. Slosson Oral Reading Test (SORT). East Aurora,
N.Y.: Slosson Educational Publications, Inc., 1963.

 

Smith, E. Brooks, Kenneth S. Goodman and Robert Meredith. Language
and Thinking in School. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1976.

 

Smith, Frank. Understanding ReadingA Psycholinguistic Analysis of
Reading and Learning to Read. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston,’1979.

 

 

Smith, Frank. Reading Without Nonsense. New York: Teachers College
Press, 1978.

 

125

Smith, Richard J. and Thomas C. Barrett. Teaching Reading in the
Middle Grades. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979.

 

 

Smith, Vernon H. A range of views and some concrete proposals
regarding the teaching and learning of reading. Phi Delta
Kappan, 64: 742-744, June, 1983.

Spielberg, Joseph. Preliminary assessment of PBB serum levels in a
selected sample of Mexican American agricultural migrant workers.
Michigan State University (mimeograph) August, 1979.

Steffensen, Margaret S., Chitra Joag-Dev, and Richard C. Anderson. A

cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading
Research Quarterly, 15: 10-29, 1979.

 

Sticht, Thomas 6., Lawrence J. Beck, Robert N. Hauke, Glenn M.
Kleiman, and James H. James. Auding and Reading: A
Developmental Model. Lowry AFB, CO: Air Force Human Resources
Laboratory, Technicalilraining Division, 1974.

 

 

Stockwell, Robert P., J. Donald Bowen and John W. Mmfifin. ng
Grammatical Structures of English and Spanish. Chicago:
university ofPChicago Press, 1965.

Stoodt, Barbara D. Reading Instruction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Co., 1981.

 

Strange, Michael. Instructional implications of a conceptual theory
of reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 33: 391-397,
January, 1980.

 

Taylor, Stanford. Listening: What Research Says to the Teacher.
Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1973.

 

Thomas, Eleanor. The English-Spanish Connection. Northvale, NJ:
Santillana Publishing Co., 1983

 

Thonis, Eleanor Wall. Teaching Reading to Non-English Speakers.
New York: Collier Macmillan International, Inc., 1976.

 

Vuicich, George V. and George P. Stollman. Understanding the United
States. McGraw-Hill Social Studies. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1979.

 

Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971.

 

Zangwill, Oliver L. Remembering revisited. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 24: 123-138, 1972.

 

 

Appendix A
Migrant Students Screened and Identified as Subjects

from the Participating Summer Migrant Projects

126

Migrant Students Screened and Identified as Subjects
from the Participating Summer Migrant Education Projects

No. of Migrant Students

 

Migrant Education Project School Screened Selected
Bay City Public Schools Western High 20 3
Bay City Auburn
Fennville Public Schools Anna Micher 8 3
Fennville Elementary

Fennville
Hart Public Schools Elkbridge School 8 1
Hart Hart
Montcalm Area 130 North Elementary 7 2
Stanton Ithaca

West Elementary 9 2

Odessa

Moncalm Area 10 0

Career Center

Sidney
St. Charles Community Mary Patterson 4 2
St. Charles Elementary

St. Charles
Saginaw City School Jessie Rouse 14 2
Saginaw Elementary

Saginaw
Traverse Bay Area 150 Kaleva 13 O
Traverse City Elementary

Kaleva

Total 93 15

Appendix 8

Language Usage Questionnaire

127

Name

 

Language Usage Questionnaire

What language do you use:

1.

with your parents
when you help
around the house?

Spanish

when you visit your

granparents or Spanish
aunts and uncles?
with your brothers
and sisters? Spanish
with your friends
at the camp? Spanish
with your friends
at school? Spanish

Mostly
Spanish

Mostly
Spanish

Mostly
Spanish

Mostly
Spanish

Mostly
Spanish

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Mostly
English

Mostly
English

Mostly
English

Mostly
English

Mostly
English

English

English

English

English

English

Appendix C
Migrant Status, Sex, Age, Grade, and
Slosson Oral Reading Test Scores for

Subjects

128

Migrant Status, Sex, Age, Grade, and

Slosson Oral Reading Scores (SORT) for Subjects

Subject

Migrant1
Status

Sex

Age2

Grade

3

Sort

 

1 Migrant Status:

HHHr—IHNHNHNHHHHH

333333-117171'1171'7111'71'“

1 - Interstate,

2 Age is given in years and months.

r—a t—Ii—I
ODDOOQOOOQOOCOED
U UU U U U U U U U U U U U

C H O

O‘HNNU'TO‘l-‘O‘OTMOO—‘OLONSO

H

##bwmhmbmhkb-bhb

2 - Intrastate

3 Grade level the student will enter in the fall.

mmmhmmbbmammbmh
e e m m e o e
NHNU‘IOHC’TWONHoom-fi

Appendix D
Reading Passages
And

Comprehension Outlines

129

THE NAVAHO*

The Navaho are the largest single group of Native Americans.
There are about 100,000 Navaho people in the United States today.
Most live on a reservation which covers parts of Arizona, New

Mexico and Utah.

Many Navaho beliefs and values are different from those
shared by most people of the United States. For example, Navahos
believe that it is dangerous to do anything too much. Most
activities are "wrong" only if they are done too much. An
ordinary activity like weaving becomes bad if you weave for more

than a few hours at a time.

Navahos believe that it is dangerous to finish some things.
They must leave some little part out of a design or a sand
painting. If you look quite closely at a Navaho rug, you will see

that the pattern is not quite finished.

* Adapted from Cherryholmes, Cleo and Gary Manson. Understanding
the United States. McGraw-Hill Social Studies. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1979: 318-320. Used with the permission
of the McGraw-Hill Book Company.

 

 

130

THE BARRIO*

Barrio is the Spanish word for "neighborhood." This word,
like many other Spanish words, has also become part of English.
In English, barrio means a neighborhood of Spanish-speaking

people. There are barrios in cities throughout the United States.

Barrios are important in preserving Mexican American culture.
Mexican families just arriving in the United States find
Spanish-speaking people in the barrios. Shapkeepers Speak
Spanish. Supermarkets carry Mexican foods and spices. Old people
and young children can talk to each other in the language they

know best and love.

People in the barrio also help one another a great deal.
Neighbors or relatives take care of the children when a parent has

to go to work, go shopping, or go to the doctor.

In the barrios, the family is very important. Many Mexican
Americans came from small farming communities. In small farming

communities, parents, children, grandparents, uncles, aunts, and

* Cherryholmes and Manson, 1979: 221-223, 240, 242-243. Used by
permission of the McGraw-Hill Book Company.

131

cousins are very close. They see each other often. They depend
on each other in good times and bad. Older members of the family
are greatly respected. Relatives usually live near one another.
This kind of large family with many relatives is called an
extended family. One hundred years ago most families were

extended families.

Many American families are nuclear families. This means
that family life centers mainly on parents and children.
Grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins usually don't live near

one another. They don't see one another very often.

Extended families remain important to Mexican Americans.
Most Mexican Americans write, telephone, and visit relatives when
they can. They keep up with family news. They usually help one

another in many ways.

Sometimes, it is hard to keep up these family relationships.
A young couple may move to another neighborhood or city. This
separates them from other relatives. But others, especially
Mexican Americans living close to the Mexican border, are able to
keep in touch with members of their extended families. Family

relationships are an important part of Hispanic American culture.

132

Many Mexican Americans have relatives in Mexico and sometimes
they go there to visit. When crossing the national boundary or

the border into Mexico, they find that many things change.

The money changes. In Mexico, the basic unit of money is the
peso. The prices of things also change. In Mexico many things
cost less than in the United States. Foods such as onions,
tomatoes, and meat cost less. The prices at movies and
restaurants are usually lower. But some things, such as cars,

cameras, and other machines are more eXpensive.

Ways of living also change. In parts of Mexico, people have
their big meal in the early afternoon. This is usually between
1:30 and 3:30 P.M. Then they have a light dinner at about 8:00 or
9:00 P.M.

133

Some changes take place as soon as the border is crossed.
But changes in ways of living and language happen more slowly.
The area for many miles on each side of the border contains parts
of the culture of both countries. Such an area can be called a
bicultural zone. In a bicultural zone, two different cultures
are mixed together. For example, Laredo and Nuevo Laredo are
border towns. Laredo is on the United States' side and Nuevo
Laredo is on the Mexican side. Although there are differences
between the two towns, there is little difference in the use of
language. One can get along very easily in Spanish in Laredo and

in English in Nuevo Laredo.

Other parts of a culture, such as building styles and foods,
also don't change quickly across the border. In San Antonio,
Texas, parts of the city look like any Mexican city. Los Angeles,
California, has many Mexican restaurants. And Monterrey, Mexico,
has Kentucky Fried Chicken and Coca-Cola stands. All these places
lie in a bicultural zone. Bicultural zones are usually exciting,

complicated places.

134

HISPANIC AMERICAN*

Today, there are about 11 million Spanish-speaking people in
the United States. That is five out of every hundred people here.

Another word for Spanish-speaking is Hispanic.

Hispanic Americans share the Spanish language. They also
share other parts of Spanish culture. But they are not all the
same, just as other United States citizens are not all the same.

Hispanic Americans have different backgrounds and ways of living.

Most Hispanic people in the United States have come from

countries settled by Spain 400 years ago.

As you know, Mexican American families have been living in
California and the Southwest for hundreds of years. These
Spanish-speaking people were the pioneers of what had been the
frontier lands of northern Mexico. They founded and settled many
of the cities that have Spanish names today. Most of these people
were "mestizo." Mestizos have mixed background. They had Indian,

Spanish, and sometimes black ancestors.

* Cherryholmes and Manson, 1979: 318-320. Used with the
permission of the McGraw-Hill Book Company.

135

Many more Mexicans have arrived since the early days.
Mexican Americans today are the largest Hispanic group in the
United States. Mexican Americans live in every state. Those
states with the largest population of Mexican Americans are

California and Texas.

Puerto Rican Americans are the second largest Spanish
speaking group. Puerto Rico is an island southwest of Florida.
All Puerto Ricans are United States citizens. Americans can
travel between the mainland United States and Puerto Rico as

easily as they can go from New York to California.

The third largest group of Spanish-speaking pe0ple in the
United States are Cubans. Cubans came to the United States in
large numbers in the 1960's. They left Cuba after the Cuban
government became Communist in 1959. Many Cubans settled in

Florida. Most of them have become United States citizens.

136

Most Hispanic Americans are members of the Roman Catholic
church. The Catholic church played an important role in the
history of all Hispanic countries, including Mexico. Many of the
cities in the American Southwest are named after Catholic saints.

San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and San Antonio are examples.

Today, going to church and to religious festivals helps
create a feeling of cultural identity among many Mexican
Americans. Cultural identity is a feeling of belonging, or
togetherness, among members of a cultural group. Shared beliefs
and a common history help create this feeling of togetherness.
Traditions, things that people do year after year, are also

important to cultural identity.

Among Mexican Americans, Christmas or La Navidad, is one of
the happiest religious holidays. From December 6 to December 24,
one may see people singing Christmas carols and asking for
shelter. They are acting out the story of Mary and Joseph. They
search for a place to stay overnight as Mary and Joseph did in
Bethlehem. This tradition among Mexican Americans is called Las

Posadas. Posada means "inn" or "shelter."

137

Las Posadas is like a traveling play. The whole neighborhood
is the stage. At the first two stops, "Mary" and "Joseph" are
turned away. At the third house, they receive posada, or shelter.
They usually come into the house and are served cake or cookies.
Each night, the procession gets closer and closer to the church.
Finally, on Christmas Eve, the actors arrive at the neighborhood
church. There they receive the last posada. Then, at midnight,

Christmas Mass is held at the church.

In Mexico and some areas of Southwestern United States, part
of the Christmas celebration is held on the night of January 5.
In the Christmas story, this is the date when the three wise men
bring gifts to the infant Jesus. In towns close to the Mexican
border, Mexican American children leave their shoes on the
doorstep overnight. On the following morning, January 6, they
find their Christmas presents near their shoes. This day is

called El Dia de los Reyes, or day of the kings.

138

THE AMISH

One of the many groups that came to the New World as
colonists were a people called the Amish. The Amish were a small
religious group in Europe. Most were German-speaking farmers.
The Amish had strong religious beliefs. These beliefs were often
different from the teachings of the main churches in Europe.
Thus, the Amish were forced to move many times. There were few
places in Europe where they were safe. Some of them were drowned,

burned, or tortured.

So the Amish came to the New World for the freedom to
practice their religious beliefs. They wanted to lead a
hardworking farming life. They would not dress in fancy clothes
or live in fancy homes. They felt they were different from other

groups.

Most Amish came to William Penn's colony. The first Amish
arrived in Philadelphia in 1727. In Pennsylvania, Amish families
started farms in an area called Lancaster County. Other Amish

people settled farther west.

* Cherryholmes and Manson, 1979: 113-114, 116, 118, 119, 127-128,
138. Used by permission of the McGraw—Hill Book Company.

139

Today the largest number of Amish people live in
Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana. Most Amish still speak
Pennsylvania Dutch at home. It is similar to German. Over the
years, Amish culture has changed very, very slowly. Today, many
things the Amish do and believe have not changed since these

people first came to North America.

Amish people lead a simple farming life. They are
self-sufficient. They grow much of the food they eat. They
build their own buildings. They sew their own clothes. For
transportation, they use mostly horses. They could keep going
even if somehow all the machines stopped. Their way of life
depends on skills many people in the United States have now lost.
Few Americans, for example, can make their own clothes or grow

their own food.

The Amish even have their own one-room schools. They do not
believe that their children need a lot of schooling. Amish

schools only go to the eighth grade.

140

The Amish are friendly people. But unless you are Amish, you
probably won't get to see the inside of their houses. The Amish
keep pretty much to themselves. They don't want too many ideas

from the outside to change their way of life.

In Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and in other places, the
Amish stand out in many ways. There are no electrical wires going
into the large, neat Amish farms. The Amish don't believe in
using electricity or machines that run by electric power. They
know what television is. But they don't want such things for

themselves.

Amish people can be seen driving buggies, which are usually
painted black. The buggies are pulled by horses. The Amish are
surrounded by cars, trucks, buses, and tractors of modern America.
They know all about them. Most Amish take rides in cars and
trucks when it is necessary. But it is not proper for an Amish

person to own a car, truck, or tractor.

141

The Amish men, women and children wear dark clothes. Women
and girls do not wear any makeup or jewelry. Instead of belts,
the boys and men wear suspenders to hold up their pants. Their
jackets have no collars or pockets. The Amish call such things

"modern."

In an Amish community, pe0ple often do things together. They
feel responsible for one another. For weddings, worship services,
and other large get-togethers, relatives and neighbors help the
host family prepare the food. When a family member has an

accident or is sick, neighbors come to help at the farm.

Barn raisings are an Amish custom. Many other people in the
United States once had this custom, too. At a barn raising,
friends and neighbors get together and help someone put up -or

raise- a barn or other building.

Working together and helping others to achieve a goal is
called cooperation. The Amish cooperate to get what they want

or need.

142

THE BEDOUIN*

The Bedouin people live on the deserts of the Middle East and
northern Africa. The word Bedouin comes from the Arabic
language. It means desert dwellers. The Bedouin are nomads,
people who do not settle in one place for long. They wander from
place to place, hunting food and water for themselves and their

animals.

The Bedouin people keep flocks of sheep and goats and herds
of camels. The camel is their most important source of food,
clothing, and transportation. In addition to meat, the camel
provides milk. This milk is both food and water for survival in
the desert. A Bedouin's wealth is judged by the number of camels

he owns.

* Adapted from Educational Research Council of America. Lands of
the Middle East. Concept and Inquiry: The Educational Research
Council Social Science Program. Rockleigh, NJ: Allyn and Bacon,
1976: 83-86, 89-91, 93. Used by permission of Allyn and Bacon,
Inc.

 

143

The house of the Bedouin nomad is a tent. It is made of
cloth woven from sheep wool and camel hair. Desert nomads need a

shelter that can be put up and taken down fast and easily.

The Bedouin, like many of the world's peoples, think of a few
jobs as "men's work." They think women should do the other
tasks. Men raise the tent poles. Women put up the heavy cloth of
the tent itself. Women do all the work of taking the tent down.
The men load the tent and other goods onto the camels. Women do
the cooking, but they and the children may not eat until the men
are finished. Women take care of the children. They do all the
household jobs in the tent. They spin yarn and make cloth for the

family's clothing and tents.

The men's jobs are taking care of the camels and protecting
the family. The men also must find grass for the herds. The
survival of the Bedouin depends on the men's decisions. Children

help to tend the flocks of goats and sheep.

144

A person alone in the desert could not survive very long. As
a result, each Bedouin knows how important the group is. The
basic unit of Bedouin society is the family. A group of families
related to one another make up a clan. A clan is led by a
chief. Several clans form a tribe. A tribe is led by a
sheik, who rules with a council of clan chiefs. The sheik
inherits his position from his father. When people quarrel, the
sheik acts as a judge. Thus Bedouin society is made up of clans
and tribes related by blood. A Bedouin is first loyal to his

family, then to his clan, then to his tribe.

Most tribes are made up of hundreds of families. The tribe
is too large to form a nomad community. So the clan is the unit
that wanders with the herds. Decisions about routes to follow on

the desert are made by the clan chief.

145

The Bedouin way of life is thousands of years old. It is a
way of life that may soon disappear. Bedouin have always been
nomadic herders. There was not any other way to live on the
desert. Farming was impossible without water. Towns or cities
where they could find other jobs did not exist in most desert

areas.

The Bedouin way of life is hard and often dangerous. Yet
most Bedouin like it better than settled life in villages or
towns. On the desert they are free. This is more important to

them than comfort.

Civilization, with its machines and buildings and roads, is
slowly changing the desert. Some of the Bedouin themselves are
being changed by civilization. They see the things other Arabs
get by working for the oil companies. They, too, would like to
buy cars and houses. On the desert, there is no way to make
enough money to buy these things. More and more Bedouin are
leaving the desert way of life and taking jobs. The nomadic way

of life is slowly dying.

1116

mm___5ee

cmwcmuxm e_mgu Lo mcmnsos gu_z cone“ :_ new; on e_no wee
.cmucca :~u_xwz mg“ cu ewe—u a:_>_— me<uxmz »__e_omamm .mcmcuo-

mm>,ue_wc cacao Soc» Ems“ mc_uocoamm

xu_0\uoozcoazm_m: Loguoco cu msoe xme e_aaoo acne»
- ma_;m=o_uc_oc x__sme mmmzu a: new; ea new; m_ u_ mme_um5om-
mxm: x__5~e sum: as amwxu

emu
awn“ :mz: mm>_uu_wc e_mw> use m:o:am.wu .mu_c3 ms<uxwz umoe-
memo_eme< coo_xmz cu accucoas_ e_msmc mm___see cmecmuxm-

cameo aces cmzuoca mco mom u.:ou-

coguocu use com:
m>__ a.=ou »_—m:m: m=_m=oo ecu macaw .mo_o== .mucocoaueacm-
cote—med use mucmcoa :o >_=_ee mamacwo mew. »__5oe-

mo___soe concouxo «to: mo___Eue umoe .ome meme» cog-
Logaoca wee Loo: m>__ »__o=m= mw>_um_mc-
cmuumammc xpumocm wee »__sou be meonEme con—o-
mxez xcce :_
cmzuoca mco e_mg\umn can mme_u uooo c_ coguo some co acumen-
combo segue some mom-
ewe—o xcm> ope
m:_m:oo use .mucae .mm_u:: .mucocmaccacm .cmcu__go .mucmcea-
econ: mm_u_=:ssoo m:_5cme __usm soc; osoo me<uxwz meme-

Louuov on .u:_aao:m .xcoz ca om ou we; “emcee a :w::.
coccpmzo no menu oxen mw>_ue_mc co mcoazm_m:-

gm_:oam - m>o_ new “man soc; xmza moanacm.
:_ cacao gone cu x_oa emu coca—.3o mcaox can e_aooa e_o-
mmo_am ecu coon :oo_xmz xccao mumxc~5cwq:m-
:mveeam xemam mcmammxuozm-
mo_ccoa use :_
e_aoma oc_xewam-am u:_c .m.= cw m:_>.ccc aman mom—_Eae :oo_xmz-

.m.= one uaogozocgu mm_u_o c_ mo_ccep-
;m__mcm no “can wsouwn we; .mucoz am Cosmo xcee mx__-
uoozcongo_m: cob ego; am-

m—.ouwo

 

< ace; 1 c_¢¢<m

menu—ad E<-am_z
co been aemucoas_ ca mac ma_;m:o_um_oc >p_sem

a~mwm__5oe we mec_x ucmcwee_c meme» wc<v
mm___5oe cavemaxm we ewe—o we go: new
cm—PmEm 1 mm___sme cum—oz: mew mm___5oe E< xccz

Aaa¥__ »__sac =a6_cae< cau_xmz web a_ amaze
»__Eoe coucmuxm cu m_ cmzao zoom
:0 ecoawu “use mm>_ua_mc meme 3“,: >__sue page;

—mmc acmcm a Legaocc mco e_w; e_ccon :_ m—aomq

A~o.ccaa ecu e. me__ usage «5 __mu so» :ouv
menu—:0 E<uxoz m:_>cmmmca :_ acmucoge_ mo_ccam

A~o_ccen a we geese
e_aoma mcwxmmam
-;m_:cam no voogconzm_o: o m_ owccon <

mo~u~ e_ez

l47

Ce 1 m—_uumo

mccmum e_o91moou new coxu_;u some; axoaacox we; xoz .xmccmucoz1
mucocaeumoc =~o_xmz mass was .e_.uu .mm_moc< mod-
ca__e_m m_ coow1

»u_u
coumxmz Ace mx__ Joe. xu_o mgu no magma maxm» .o_:ou:< com-
Lennon use mmocoo x—xopaa manage u.:ou mo_xum o:_u__:a1

ovate; o>m=z :_ gm.—m:m c_ new ovate;

=_ ;m_:eam cw »__mom Acm> ace—o boa coo oco .mocamco. co

om: :_ ooemcoee_c e_uu__ .mezoa or“ use :mwzaoa mooemcmeewu
goaoga_< .mc_m xmz co ocean; e>o=z new «e_m .m.: web so oowcm41
moon—a noueo._ano .a:_u_oxo x__o=m=1

.z.a scum Lo cone usage La==_c aga__-
cmum1omnfi cooccmuca >_Leo =_ Poms m_a1

mm:_zocs cacao .mocosou .mceo-

m>_mcwaxm egos men mm:_:u meow-

mucocaeumoc .mm_>oe "meme .moouaeou .mco_co 1 wees»-
.m.= ogu :_ coca mmp. “moo mmcmgu xcee .xw: :_1

omen mg“ m_ xmcoe no “me: e_mcn .oo_xm: cw-

»_3o_m mace mcwaaog mmuamcap use m:_>__ Lo mxm: :_ mwa:G:U1
uwmmocu m_ cotton we coom we woe—q oxen mmmcego esom1

.u_m_> on «case
om xmnu mme_uoeom new oo_xwz :_ mm>_uw_wc m>cz me<1xmz acme1

m—_aumo

 

a use; 1 o_¢¢<m

on - mama. e_az

a~cmccoa use ago—e a... “soon we __ma no» cmuv
mm_cu::oo guon mo muewsm_m _mcau—zu

ogu mo mess mewoueoo coucoo may no ocmm

some so mm_we aces com coco “Loguoaoa emx_e
ecu «mesa—so acmLm»e_u oz“ 1 wco~ _ocau_:o_m

.mmcozu a:_>__ do mxm:

manage mmo_ca new awcoz

a~wumpa exam mmmccsu aegzv A~o0_xmz

ou=_ canton we“ mmocu so» cos: mcmaqo; uezzv
.mmzaso mo:_;u acme .oo_xwz om:_
cmucoa\»ceu:=on _a=c_umc on» a:_mmogo cog:

womu_ e_mz

l48

mee~_e_e .m.= maeeee e>eg emez1
ee_ce_u e_ ee_eeem xeez1

emofi e_ em_e=eeeu esmeee eeeEeee>ee Lemme maze wee—1
m.oeo~ e_ mceee:e emeep cw .m.: ea eEee1

.e__eu ea gee» 3oz seem on cue xeza me »__mee
we .m.e ecu .m.: eeo_e_ee use eeezuee _e>ece cue meeewcee<1
mee~_e.o .m.= ecu meee_a emcee; __<1
ee_ce_n ee emergeeem ecu—me co m. .¢.e1

.mexe» ..e__eu 1 ee_ea_:eee umemcm— ge.: meeeum1
macaw Acese e? e>__1
mxee >_Lee eee_m ee>vcce e>ez meee.xez wees aeee1
.mceumeeee weeps mee_ee5em .zmweeem
cowee_ 1ee=ecuxeee eex_e1 e~_emes wee: e.eeee omega we umee1
xeeeu mesa: em e>ee “we“ me_e_e egg be xeee ee_ueem\eeeeeee1
ee_xez
ecegucee be ween. ce_eeeee egg eeee ea: Hog; be meeeee_e1
mceex Le m.oo~ Lee “mezzeeem eee .e__eu e_ ae_>__1

e=_>__ co
mxo; ecu meceeeoxeee eeeceee_e 1 page ecu __e be: use-
eee meow» coo e_eem an empeeem me_cee=ee Eece mace ese; ewes-
maze—3e em ee magma ecegm1
emceeee_ em egg eceem1

ee_xeeem1;m_eeem Lee use: Leaeeee 1 e_eeem_:1
wee; e_eeee ooH xce>e be uee m1

m—peaeo

.m.= e_ e_eeee
me_xeeem1gm_eeem we eeecm ememce_ ec_ge 1 meeeeu

eeece mepxeeem1:m_eeem
umemce— eeeeem 1 meeemcme< enema euceee

.m.= cw
ezecm eweeem_: umemcep ecu meeewcee< eee_xez

A... wee geese we __eh ~.m.: ecu e.

meme_cee< e_eeem_: be meeecm ememce_ ecu ecu eezzv
meeeeu ecu meeemz euceee .meee_cee< eeewxez ecu
.m.: e, meee_cee< e_eeem_: ee meeecm emeece_ eeesp

a~exm_e meeemcme< emceem_: ecu sex.
:eEEee e_ mme_ze eEem e>ec meee_cee< e_eeem_:

A~eoee =e_eeem_zs ecez one meee geese
.m.= =_ m=_¥aaam-am =o____s as cacao .saeoe

meee_ e_ez

 

< ace; 1 z<u_¢uz< u_z<em~:

1119

mm 1 m__eueo

.m.= eceumezzaeem Le meece esem eee ee_xez e_ eeeecee_ee1
meezm e_esu Lee: meeemece
meEem_cgu e_egu ee_e Aece .e eee .me_ecee me_ze__ee co
.u;m_=ce>e eeemeeee wee ee meegm e_eze e>ee_ cage—_ge E<1xez1
memee eeeee_ ee mue_a
me_ee ewe em_3 m wee ewe: meee use m_ e_ge .Aeeem meeem_czu e_1
m .cee co e;e_=-

seceee ue e_e: mmez meeem_csu .e:m_ee_s ue-

eeemee ewe. m>weeec Aeze ecezu

.secege eeegceegmwee ecu ee e>_cce meeeee .e>w meeem_cgu ee
A__ee_e eee eecage one ea come—e meme ee_mmeeeee u;e_e seee1
me_xeee ee exee ee>cem one eee emee; wee eue_ eEee A_—e=m=1

gee—egmxeeemee e>.eeee Aece .emee;
ec_;u be "Aeze eeeceu :eemee eee Ace: .meeem eze ewe.» ue-
eeeem e m_ eeezceesm_ee e_eez 1 Ae_e me._e>eee1

seem—seem e_ e:o_ece>e Aeem
ee wee—e e co» soceem m.;eemee eee Ace: be Aceem use ee_aoe1
eeepeem ce ee_ meeee1

meeemee wee 1 gee—eem
gee xme eee e_ecee meeum_cgu me_m e_eeee om1e .eeo eeee1
mAee__e; m:e_m_—ec ume_eee; use me eee .eee_>ez e4 .meEum_er1

ceeA ceeee ceeA ee e_eeee mme_;e 1 mee_e_eeee1
Aceem_e ceasee eee mee__ee emcegm1
mpe>_emee meewe__ec
eee geeeze eu ae_em Ae eeeeece mew—ewe wee me<1xex meeEe1

e_eeue< eem .eeeeeem eeeem .eem_eeecm eem
1 mee_em e__ezueu ceuee eeEee emergence E< e_ me_u_e Aeee1
geeese empeeueu eeeez wee be meeesee ece .me< e_eeem_: umes1

m_weumo

 

m use; 1 z<u~mwt< u_z<mm_:

ca 1 meme_ e_ez

A~e5_e1me5em_c;u me

eoeeaeaPae canto m_ Aeee_oe Lasso seeze
.eepeecee_ee mesem_ceu ecu ee “Lee

me mme_x wee we Ae: \meAea me. we ewe _m
e>eemee eeeeee use ace—e meee_cee< eee_xez

.emeEem_c:u

eeecee_ee meeewcee< e.eeem,: Aces ee xezv
meee_cee< eee_xez

eeese ee_u_eece meeem_ezu e m_ meeemee wee

A~epeeee ee eeeeo e

meeEe eeeeeee mmeeeeeeemee be me__eee e m_ zexv
eeeca _eceepee e be meeeEee meese mmeeeeeeemee

Le ee_oee_ee we oe__eee e m_ Ae_ueee_ pee=e_=u

a~meee_cee< eweeem_: Aces wee eewm__ec geese
we.cue:ee e_eeempz __e ee Aceemwg
e_ e_ec ueeuceee_ ee eeAe—e geceeu e_pezeeu

 

meee_ ewe:

'l50

eeecm :u;e_e one ee e51

e_eegem eeee1eee eze e_eze e>eg1

me__eezem ee me. e ewe: eeLe__ge e_ege mega e>e__ee uee ee1
eeee eze zeta Le mezee_e exe exee eee see we ume_ so: use:

.m.= egg e_ e_eeee Aeee m___xm ee meeeeee ee_— ee Ae: e_eeu1

eeeeeem mee_;ees egg __e e_ ee>e ae_em eeex e—aee1

.memcec A_emee em: Ame» .ee_eeeceemeecu cee1

meeee_e exe :em1

me=_e__=e ego e_aee epeae-

nee Aege eeee egg Le gees seee1

ee__ a:_Eeee e—ee_m nee—1

A_:e_m Aces eemeege we; mesa—2e ;m_e< .mceeA wee ce>e1
eeEeeo ea Le__s¢m1
eEe; ee seeeo e_ee>_Ameeee xeeem .__em umes1

a=e_e=_ .oeee
.e_ee>_Ameeee e_ e>__ e_eeee :m_e< be geese: umemce_ .Aeeeu1
ewe; cegucee eepueem e_eeee ;m_e< Legee1

Aueeeu ceemeeeee ee__ee
eece ee :_ macee eeuceum me___5ee gm_e< .e_ee>_Ameeee e_1
NNAA em1
e_;a_eee__ga =_ ea>_aae emc_e-

meeece emcee seem “emceee_e ecez Aeeu e_ee1
meEe; Aeeee e_ e>__ ce meeee_e Aeeee e_ mmeee gee epee31
ee_— memeLee aemxeezece; e eeep eu eeu=e31

emceeeeu Le eeecze .eeezece wee: see“ we esem1
meem wee: Aegu
mews: eeeceu e_ meee_e see .mee_e Aces e>ee ea eeeeee meez1
eeecem e. megeeeee e_es use ee
mmeegeeee we» seem eeeceee_e eeuee mee_—ee m=e_o__ec meecum1
mceecee me_xeeem1eesceu emee1

m__esae

 

< use; 1 2m~z<

A~e>pp Aeee 3e: eeALemee eeA eeuv
uee_e_ee:m1e_em wee ;m_e< esp

eepeee< gucez e» eEee umc_e e—eeee ewes“ eeewm
eeeceee uee e>es esep_ee eee ee ;m_e< egg mee.:u Aeez

ANIee eswp Awe“ ee eceezv

A~e_coz 3a: age =_ m>e_ emc_e Amen ewe aceeze
Ace—ee m.=eee Se.__wz ea maee ewe:

A~e_co: zmz age ob mace Aeeu e_e Aexe
meme—we meepa__ec e_ezu ee_eeece ee eeeeeee
gee mem_ee_ee we e_ce: zez egg eu eEee em_e< esp

Anzac. mead ;m_s< age e_e acagze

Aeemws< ecu ece ezzv
eeeceu e, eeeem

m=e_m__ec eeeeeemcee _—eEm e wee: gmwe< on»

meme. ewe:

lSl

me 1 m__eeeo

Seemee e_ge ee: eeee .m.: ege e_ e_eeee eeeee Aees1
ee_e__=e Legee ce ecee e e: use eeeeEem e_e; eee emceeoee
eem mceezo_ee eee meee_ce 1 seemee zm_e< ee me_m_ec :eee1
seem eee ee e_e; ee esee
meeezm_ee .xe_m we go eeee_eee ee we; geese: A__Eee e :eez1
eeee
one eeeeeee A__Eee ewe; use e_e; meeegmeee eee me>_ee_ec
.meezeemee1eee mace. emcee eee .mee_>cem e_emcex .mm:_eeez eee1
cezeeee eee gee e_e_meeemec _eee1
_eem e e>e_eee
ee cezee :eee meme—e; eee eeeeeeee me_xeez 1 ee_eeceeeee1

eeeeee ee__ee mme.=e
seem 1 meexeee ce wee—_ee ee e>ee meexeen ”meeee e_ege
e: e_e; ee meeeeeemem Lee: eee eee mAee .me_ee ee eeeemep1
Ae_e3en Le eeexee Aee Lee: eee ee e_t_e eee eeEez1
emcee—e xcee gee: cage—_ge eee ease: .eee1
ceeeeee Le xeeee .Lee e eze ee eemeee :m_e< ee Lee ceeece eee1
Aeemmeeee m_ e_ ems; exeece eee mcee e_ mee_e exee emee1
sege eeeee __e reex .ee_ees<
eceeee ee mceeeece eee .memee .mxeeee .mcee Ae eeeeeeccem1
memce; An ee_p:e .xee_e eeeemee .me_me:e e>_ce1
me>_em5ege Lee mme_ge seem eee: e.eee use me >~ eezz see; Aeeu1
mee_z _ee_Eeee_e e: .eezee _eewceee_e
Ae eec eeee mee_eeee ce Ae_e_Eeee_e ee_m: e_ e>e__ee e.eee1

me>_emseze ee gees Aeeeee eeex1

memee; e_eee ee
ee_me_ wee eem ee eee e.eez A_eeeece eeA .;m_e< eee eeA wee—e21
e_eeee A_eee_ee1

m_eeeae

 

a use; 1 :m_z<

e - meaee e_ez

A~Ae_eeesee zm_e< ege eeeee we __ee :eA eeue
eeee Le eeez Aeee eezz eem ee
Ae.eeesee ege ee memesee ge_z eeeeeeeee zm_e<

Aemeee_eee< ewes ee eese eeee eeeceee_e
Seem mew. be Ae: e_ese meee mAez eezz e_e
meeewcee< ewes ee eeee eece

mAe: Aeee e, meeee_e ee__ ee Ae: gmAE< we»

AAeeeeee eeeee _eee Aeze ee xeze
.ee__ ee Ae: e_eee emeeze ee ee_me=e
wee Eeee meeew Aces eee eee: e.eee =m_e< esp

meeee ewe:

'l52

eeezm eee meeem ee exee_e eeee e_ez emce__;e1
meeee eee me_gee_e Lee see—e exee eee eeeA e_em1
meeee e_ ween e_ezemeez __e1

cage—_ze ee ecee exee1

ems eeeee eee eece__:e eee Aese1

xeee1

ezee eeee exee eee e: eeee ee gee—e eee1

come:

mee_m_eee m.=ee ee meeeeee _e>_>cem1

A__Eee eeeeega1

mete: gee mmeem ee_e eee e_eEee ee eeee exee1
e_eEee eeee meeem cezee eee eeee eeep eee me_ee eeee em_ee1
ea:

A__mee\emee exee eexee\e: eee ee eee eege Lee—ecm eeee meesee1
e_e: _esee eee _ee: eeegm Sece eesez gee—e ee wees-

eeeze e_eEee be geese: Ae eeeeen =e_eez1
ecemee e_ _e>_>c=m Lee ceee: eee eeee eeee m_ x__s1
x__s eee eem= mee_>ece1

e_eEee ee mete; eee meeee eee eeeem ee meee_e eeex1

e_ee_ee eee me>_em
Lee twee: eee eeee gee me_ee:; .eee_e ee wee—e EeEe eeeee31
nee. gee wee—e eee c_ e_eeem eee ee egz e_eeee ece meeeee1
eeeemeep e_eec< seem .mce__e3e eeemee meees e_eeeem egos-
ee_ce< ecezeeez eee emew e_ee_z ege ee mecemee ee e>m_1

m__eeee

 

< ace; 1 z-aocum

A~Aeee eee eeez eme_e___e_meeemec ee
meow e_e.eeem ese; meeeEee A__Eee one
A_.Eee me» e_ mewe.__e.meeemee
e_e_eeem e>eg seee eeEe: eee eez

eeee e m_ Lee—ecm e_eeeem

eepeeeceemeece eee .ee_=ee_e .eeee ee
eeceem eeeecees_ ewes geese m_ _eEeu

A~e>__ e_eeeem ese ee zezv
A~a>__ e_acea e_zoeae age oe acagze
meeeee ece e_eeee e_eeeem we»

meee_ e_ez

153

me 1 m__eemo

meow ee_xee eee ee_. ee Ae: eeemee ae_>ee_ ece e_seeem
em mme_;e emeze Ase ee Aeeee zeseee exee ee Ae: e: ecemee ee1
memse; eee meee Ase ee ex__ e_sez1
me_eee5ee __e Lee me_xcez Ae eee meec< geese emcee» eem1
eeeeeze me_ee me>_em5e:e me_seeem1

ecemee wee me_oeeee
A_;e_m m_ .meeec .mme_e__se .meewzeee me_ ee_; .ee_ee~__w>_e1

eeeesee eeee Sega ee eeeeceee_ meg: Eeeeeee1
mseeeosee eeeee eee eceg ee_— ee Aez ewseeem1

meeee eeemee

c_ empxe eee e_e meow Leeee ee_e Aeee wees: me_e_e\mezee1
twee: usezepz e_e_mmees_ ae_seee1

e_e meeeA ee m.ooo~ m, ee_— ee Aez e_seeem1

ee_;e ee_e Ae eeee eeemee ee :e__ee ee meesec eseee mee_m_eee1
AfiesEEee eeEee e 5.8.. 8 e32 eee e531
me___5ee ee m.oo~ ee es eees mee_ce emee1

eewee ewes .ee_e ease .A__Eee ee _eAe_ emc_e e_seeem1
_eecese e_eeee

see: emesn we meee eee Lessee Eeee ee_e_mee me_cee=p xwezm1

mee_ge ee __eesee ee_z me_sc e_egm1

e_eem Ae ee~ eee wee—e _eeesem Ae eeEcee ee_cu1

ee_;e Ae ee. me___5ee eeee_ee ee eseee e m. ee_e1

A__Eee m_ e_es e.mee1

m_ eseem eze eeeeeeee_ 3e; mzeex e_seeem geee1
oee_ Aces e>_>csm eee epsee wee—e eemeee e1

m__eeae

 

m use; 1 z—aoomm

es 1 meme_ e_ez

A~e==_e=oe as A_es._ ee__ co Aw; e_soeae age wee
.ceeeeem_e seem ee eevp
be Aez eeseeem one emsee Aee ee_ee~___>mu

seee__ co Ae; e_aee esose _eee sage oe 2oz.
.eece ece Aege ecumee

ee emseeee mezee\meee___> e, ee__ eepeeem
ee ee__ ee Aez e_eee eeeece e_seeem ewe:

afiee Aeee we e>__ e_eeee e_seeem use ee Ag3v
eeemee so use. ee Aex emcee e: we: ecese emseeee
mceeceg emeesee eeee mAezpe e>es eeseeem

ecemee ege gmsecge ceceeaee mceecez
eeze Ae_esEEee eeEee mg» m_ ee_u

AAAee_eem e_seeem eseee es __ee seA eeue
eeepe As eeee_ee mee_ce
eee wee—e we as eeee Aeeweem e_seeem

.ecemee use e, _e>_>csm see
_e_eeemme m_ esecm e we ceases e ee_em

meee_ ewe: