.53 i 1 . “5mm 5. M“... . .. . E 918?»? Elwyn... A‘a ll. . K . J a 1. :5»! ‘ n. . Q... a E ;. .. WC SR; , ‘66 r} «In. ‘lrftlll I... .u p . ‘ . x . . .,. ‘ , . . . . . . «. .1H..+I....§».| -3. . . ‘ . . fl ‘1 . . ,. . ‘ .u 1 w 1 . .. .. . . . . . I . ‘ . . A .. I . ‘ in.” .,....c., . - . . ‘ .. .. , , o ‘ , ‘. on , o . 1| ‘1. : I . .\ . . flk Nathan. 5.1».ntxwf 5.. t 3. 3.. ; 3:? «a ‘ n Rh .2: 5 -.$ . . A EM. . f , , . ...,.>-..l..! .. .purx.m._}$ in... 5.3 gravy-art §.r..\ll3.¢4‘v.\ 1.3.331 ...:ri.l|2. 4.. . ”Sinus.2.22:3..- . (an. 2.1%.»? .. i ll . l ¢ < ,4 L I B R A R Y Michigan 5. rte University This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECT OF SELECTED SCIENCE ACTIVITIES ON THE ATTAINMENT 0F READING READINESS SKILLS WITH KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN presented by Donald Edward Maxwell has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph-D. degree in Secondary Education 8 Curriculum t jfla. M @1244, Major professor Date 7-29-7“ 0-7639 ' JV ‘ ‘_ HDAG' SDIIS' BOOK BINDERY 1‘ LIBRARY emoens II gnmcpnn meme“ 1*: ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF SELECTED SCIENCE ACTIVITIES ON THE ATTAINMENT 0F READING READINESS SKILLS WITH KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN By Donald Edward Maxwell The Problem The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of science activities, which use concrete objects to develop science concepts and process skills, on the attainment of reading readiness in kindergarten children. The factors of visual perception, language facility, and experience were examined to determine the effect of the science activ- ities upon the attainment of these specific factors. The Method Selected activities from the Science Curriculum Improvement Study's (SCIS) physical science unit Material Objects was used as the treatment. The population of interest in the study was the kindergarten chil- dren in the Waterford School District located near Detroit, Michigan. Waterford Township, a predominately white suburban community, has little industry or agriculture with most of the adult working population being employed in industry outside the community proper. The social economic status of its inhabitants ranges from lower class to lower upper class. 01 Lo (6 Donald Edward Maxwell (AI‘ 60 \x All kindergarten children (132) in two suburban schools were given the Metropolitan Readiness Test Form A in January, 1971. Based on the scores from this test, the 102 students who fell in the C, D, and E categories were considered to be the population of interest. These students were then randomly assigned to one of three groups. The groups were treatment, placebo control, and control. The treatment group received science activities from Material Objects. The placebo control group received fine and gross motor activities instead of science activities, and the control group received the normal kinder- garten program. After eight weeks of instruction consisting of twenty to twenty- five minutes each day for five days each week, the three groups were again observed. The effects were assessed by four measures: the Metro- politan Readiness Test Form B, The Marianne Frostig_Deve10pmental Test of Visual Perception, the Verbal Expression subjest of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, and the Material Objects Test. Each test was used in determining the overall effect on reading readiness while certain subtests scores were examined to determine the treatment effect upon the individual readiness factors. The Results The data were evaluated using multivariate analyses of variance. Analysis of the data indicated that science activities from the Science Curriculum Improvement Study's (SCIS) physical science unit Material Objects did Significantly effect kindergarten children's reading read- iness P°IS 0.0001 as measured by the instruments. Specific factors of readiness effected in this study were language facility p. 3:0.0001 and Donald Edward Maxwell experience P-LS 0.0001. While the factor of visual perception was not statistically significant in this study, there were indications in the data that warrant further study of this factor. Conclusions Analysis of the findings indicate that: l) The treatment group, those kindergarten children who were actively engaged in a sequenced series of science activities with concrete objects, made greater gains in the attainment of reading readiness than placebo control or the control group. 2) The treatment group made significant gains in the development of language facility over those kindergarten children who had a traditional kindergarten program. Concrete science exper- iences in kindergarten provided children with a broader vocab- ulary and skill in expressing themselves. 3) The treatment group made significant gains in the experience factor over those kindergarten children who received the tra- ditional kindergarten program. Educational Implications The significant growth in reading readiness observed in the treat- ment children in this study indicate that there should be greater emphasis placed upon kindergarten programs which encourage the child's interaction with concrete objects prior to his receiving instruction in reading which is primarily representative and symbolic. Treatment children showed significant gains in both language facility and exper- ience which have been identified as important readiness factors by reading experts. Donald Edward Maxwell Learning activities for kindergarten children should be developed logically and sequenced so that the child may proceed from Simple to. more complex concepts with meaning. The children who were in the placebo group were engaged in activities which utilized concrete objects, but unlike the treatment children they were not sequenced to insure logical deve10pment of concepts or skills. In planning for kindergarten instruction, science activities which stress concrete experiences such as those in the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (8018) Material Objects unit should be included. The child in such a program will not only benefit from the science instruction, but will also deve10p certain reading readiness factors. THE EFFECT OF SELECTED SCIENCE ACTIVITIES ON THE ATTAINMENT OF READING READINESS SKILLS WITH KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN By Donald Edward Maxwell A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements ' for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1974 Copyright by DONALD EDWARD MAXWELL 1974 Dedicated to my parents Edward S. and Glenda E. Maxwell for their love, encouragement and faith. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Glenn Berkheimer, my committee chairman, and Dr. Eileen Earhart, my director of research, for their guidance, encouragement, time, and most of all, their friend- ship which was so freely given during the course of this study. I am also indebted to Dr. Brandou and Dr. Enochs, members of my doctoral committee, for their contributions and support. A special note of appreciation must go to Dr. Jo Lynn Cunningham for her assistance in designing the study and interpretation of the data. Without the assistance and support of Dr. Maurice Pelton, Director of Elementary Education; Roy Alexander, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction; Robert Grimes, Outdoor Education Director; and the Water- ford School District, this study would not have been possible. I am also grateful to Oakland Schools and the fine staff there for the support in completing this study. A special thanks must go to Mrs. Karen Parkhurst for her contributions which were above the call of duty in making the final product a quality one. Finally, I am grateful to my wife Georgia for her love and support and to my children Mark, Bryon, Martin, and Cynthia who lived for two years in a small apartment while helping their dad get through school. iii CHAPTER II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE PROBLEM . Statement of the Problem The Need for the Study . Hypotheses, Questions, and Definitions The Hypotheses to be Tested in This Study . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions and Limitations . . Summary of Procedures Used in Study . Overview of Chapters II through V REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . Theoretical Basis for Readiness . . . Reading Readiness Visual Perception . Developing Visual Perception . . . The Experience Factor and Reading Readiness The Experience Factor - Its Function in Concept Development . . . . . . . Experience and Developing Reading Readiness Language Facility and Reading Readiness Summary . METHODS AND PROCEDURES Design . Description of Population . Special Considerations . . . . . . . . Description of Placebo and Treatment Procedures Treatment Group Activities Instruments Selected . . . Visual Perception . Language Development Metropolitan Readiness Test Materials Objects Test Tester Training . . . . . . Post-Testing Program . . . . . . Selection of the Statistical Analysis Procedure iv PAGE H NomtnI-‘ri—I r—‘H 13 13 16 17 20 21 23 24 27 29 31 31 32 37 38 38 42 42 43 44 45 47 47 48 CHAPTER PAGE IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Hypothesis I: Sex XZTreatment Interaction . . . . . . . 50 Hypothesis II: Sex Main Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Hypothesis III: Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Hypothesis IV: Visual Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Hypothesis V: Language Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Hypothesis VI: Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Additional Questions InSpected . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Summary of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Summary of Rejected Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Educational Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Implications for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Material Objects Test APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Placebo Activities APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Simple Correlations Dependent Variables APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Combined Means APPENDIX E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Cell Means and Standard Deviations APPENDIX E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Key for Data Card Program and Raw Data TABLE 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-9 LIST OF TABLES SCHOOL A: STANDARD SCORES FOR MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (MEAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCHOOL B: STANDARD SCORES FOR MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (MEAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . SCHOOL DISTRICT FOURTH GRADE STANDARD SCORES FOR MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (MEAP) . . GROUP ASSIGNMENT . . . ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE FOR TREATMENT X SEX INTERACTION: MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE FOR TREATMENTIX SEX INTERACTION: UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE FOR SEX MAIN EFFECT: MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE FOR SEX MAIN EFFECT: UNIVARIANT ANALYSIS . . . . . ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE TREATMENT MAIN EFFECT: MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSES 0F COVARIANCE TREATMENT MAIN EFFECT: UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE FOR VISUAL PERCEPTION: MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE FOR VISUAL PERCEPTION: UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE EXPERIENCE FACTOR: MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES . . . . . . . . vi PAGE 34 34 35 36 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 LIST OF TABLES (continued) TABLE PAGE 4-10 ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE EXPERIENCE FACTOR: UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 4-11 SIMPLE CORRELATIONS-DEPENDENT VARIABLES . . . . . . . . 61 vii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The development of elementary science programs which stress the learner's use of concrete objects in carrying on investigations has created a problem for many early elementary teachers. The implemen- tation of these programs requires more instructional time be spent in the area of science education than is normally available at this level. The problem that faces the early elementary teacher therefore, is one of providing the additional instructional time for science and still having sufficient time for develOping the reading readiness skills the children need to begin reading. This study was undertaken to determine whether both purposes might be served through the science instruction. Statement of the Problem In this study the Science Curriculum Improvement Study's (SCIS) physical science unit Material Objects was taught to selected kinder- garten children to determine its effect upon attainment of reading readiness skills. In addition to determining the effect of this instruction upon overall reading readiness, certain specific factors were examined, namely those of visual perception, language facility, and experience. It should be noted that the authors of the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) program make no claim that their program develops reading readiness. They, however, have evidence that students do attain certain process skills and concepts in science (Renner, Stafford, Weber, Coffia, and Kellogg, 1971). The Need for the Study, Few educators would deny the importance of reading in the education of the child. Without basic reading skills the child in our educational system is usually destined for failure. Reading may be considered the cornerstone of our educatiOnal enterprise and much of the young child's early schooling evolves around preparation for the reading task. While reading authorities are in agreement with the importance of reading to the young learner, there is however, less agreement as to how to prepare the child for reading or which method of instruction should be utilized. The majority of reading authorities have iden- tified and agreed on certain factors which are important in attaining reading readiness. Most agree on these factors: maturity, intelli- gence, language facility, visual and auditory perceptual development, and experience. With the advent of science programs such as Science--A Process Approach (SAPA), Elementary Science Study (E88), and Science Curric- ulum Improvement Study (SCIS), there has been a greater emphasis placed upon science and working with objects to teach science in the elemen- tary school. Prior to these developments, science was, in many instances, limited to nature study activities, specific content units; i.e., magnets, simple machines, or impromptu discussions about events which occurred on the Spur of the moment. With the development of modern science programs and the subsequent implementation in many schools in the nation, there developed a demand for a greater portion of the instructional time for science. In early elementary this demand created problems for many teachers because they feel that there is not sufficient time to prOperly develop basic skills required for arith- metic and reading and also teach science. Realizing the difficult position with which educators were faced, it became imperative that to be truly functional, the science program, in addition to developing process Skills and science concepts, should also contribute to the child's basic skills. Through examination of the SCience Curriculum Improvement Study's (SCIS) unit Material Objects and after discussions with teachers using it, it appears that some of the readiness skills may be developed through the use of this program. Many of the activities appear to involve Skill development in areas such as language facility, visual per- ception, recognizing relationships, and concept and process experiences. Hypotheses, Questions,iand Definitions Of interest in this study are the following questions:, Will activities from the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) Material Objects unit taught to kindergarten children affect their attainment of reading readiness skills? Will the activities from Material Objects enable students to make significant gains in visual perception over those students who have had the regular kindergarten program? 4 Will the Material Objects activities provide readiness experiences which would not normally occur in a regular kindergarten program? Will the activities from Material Objects enable students to make significant gains in language facility attainment over those students who have had a regular kindergarten program? Which science experiences, as measured by the Material Objects Test have significant correlations with readiness subtests? The Hypotheses to be Tested in This Study Reading Readiness - Null hypothesis tested: The treatment will have no effect on the attainment of readiness skills in kindergarten children as measured by the Metropolitan Readiness Test Form B, The Marianne Frostig Develppmental Test of Visual Perception, the Verbal Expression subtest of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, and the Material Objects Test. Visual Perception - Null hypothesis tested: The treatment will have no effect on the development of visual perceptual skills in kinder- garten children as measured by the individual subtest scores of the Frostig test and Metropolitan Form B's subtests; subtest 3 Matching, and subtest 6 Copying. Experience - Null hypothesis tested: The treatment will have no effect on the acquisition of experience for kindergarten children as measured by the Material Objects Test. Language Facility - Null hypothesis tested: The treatment will have no effect on the development of language facility in kindergarten 5 children as measured by the Verbal Expression subtest of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Definitions In this study the following definitions are being used: Readiness - Reading Readiness: In this study reading readiness refers to the child's attainment of sufficient experiences and skills to enable him to begin a reading program with a high probability of achieving success in learning to read. Visual Perception: The child's interpretation of stimuli which he receives from his environment. It involves not only his ability to "see" differences and likenesses, but also to recognize and remember them. Langpage Faciligy: For the purposes of this study, language facility refers to the child's vocabulary of descriptive words and his ability to use them correctly in communicating with others as he describes familiar objects. Experience: In this study experience is defined as the child's conceptual background which is acquired as the child interacts with objects and other children in his environment. It may be measured by the child's ability to successfully apply these concepts when presented with new objects or situations. Material Objects Test: For the purposes of this study the Material Objects Test refers to the instrument initially develOped by the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) staff in Berkeley, 6 California and modified by the investigator for use in this study. See Appendix A. Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) Material Objects Activities: Those Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) activ- ities which the treatment children were engaged in during the daily training sessions. The activities and materials with which the chil- dren worked come from the Science Curriculum Improvement Study's (SCIS) unit Material Objects. The activities require the child to manipulate various concrete objects, examining them and identifying prOperties of those objects. The children are encouraged to interact with one another while working with the objects. Properties: The attributes or characteristics of an object. Concrete Experience: In this study a concrete experience is one in which the child manipulates and examines objects. Treatment: Those activities selected from the Science Curriculum Improvement Study's (SCIS) unit Material Objects which were used with kindergarten children who were placed in the treatment group. Treat- ment group children spent between twenty to twenty-five minutes each school day involved in science activities. Control: The normal kindergarten program which kindergarten chil- dren were engaged in. The control children were post-tested with the placebo and treatment Children. Placebo: Gross and fine motor activities which were used with the children who worked with the investigators in small groups away from the kindergarten classroom. Each placebo session involved between twenty to twenty-five minutes. 7 Readiness Factor: Readiness factors are those skills or attrib- utes which one Should have before a formal reading program is begun. If a child lacks sufficient readiness factors his chances for success in reading are limited. Gross and Fine Motor Activities: In this study children were engaged in games, relays, and special projects which involved the coordinated use of their large and small muscles. Such activities were not sequenced or presented in any particular order for the purpose of developing a particular Skill. Comparison: The child while manipulating concrete objects is required to use the greater than (>) or less than (<) Sign to compare a set of objects which have a particular property. An example might be to use comparison signs to describe the size relationship between a baseball, softball, and volleyball. Material: Material refers to the substance that an object is com- posed of. Examples of materials would include such things as wood, metal, and plastic. Object: A piece of matter, solid, liquid, or gas, is referred to as an object. Such things as love, hate, and democracy are non-objects. ‘Sgggz In examining collections of objects, the children were asked to separate these objects into groups using one or more prOp- erties. Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) Learning Cycle: The learning cycle in Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) is the process by which concepts and process skills are introduced to chil- dren. The learning cycle involves three stages which are called exploration, invention, and discovery. 8 Exploration: This is the first Stage in the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) learning cycle. In exploration the children handle and manipulate concrete objects with a minimum of instructions and specific directions. The children, during the exploration stage, are provided with experiences in working with concepts or processes on a non-verbal level. The children carry on certain kinds of predictable activities, due to the nature of the objects, and later the instructor uses these activities as a basis for concept identification. Invention: Invention lessons (second stage in Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) learning cycle) occur after exploration when the children are ready for a definition and label for a particular con- cept with which they have worked. Such definitions and labels are presented through the use of examples called "operational definitions." The children look for examples of the "invented" concept from their past work and identify additional examples which fit their definition. Discovery: Discovery is the third stage of the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) learning cycle and it involves the children in several activities in which they apply the concept or process skills that were develOped through the exploration and invention lessons. Assumptions and Limitations In this study the following assumptions have been made: a. All the instruction for each subgroup of the treatment, placebo, and control groups was the same. b. The regular kindergarten teacher could teach the Material Objects unit as well as the special male instructors used in this study. The 9 The individuals who post-tested the children were the same in their interactions with all children during the testing pro- gram. Children in other elementary schools in Waterford are similar to those children in the two study schools. The children in the placebo and treatment groups did not sys- tematically miss a particular segment of their regular kinder- garten program while taking part in the study activities. following limitations have been recognized in this study: The size of the subgroups for the placebo and treatment groups ranged from nine to twelve children which is considerably less than a typical kindergarten class. The length of time for treatment was limited to eight weeks of instruction with treatment Children having a daily session each school day during the eight week period. (Five sessions twenty to twenty-five minutes each, per week.) The time limitation, number of subgroups, and other factors did not allow for coordination of the science instruction within the framework of the children's regular kindergarten instruction. The post-treatment observations were made by examiners who had not previously worked with the children. This may have created some reluctance on the part of many of the children at this age level. The gross and fine motor activities in which the placebo chil- dren were engaged would have an effect upon these children's attainment of visual perceptual Skills. 10 Summary of Procedures Used in Study One hundred and thirty-two kindergarten Children, the total kin- dergarten population of the two study schools, were given the Metro- politan Readiness Test Form A from January 11 through 15, 1971. Based upon the scores from this test, those children who placed in the C, D, and E categories were considered to be the population of interest (a total of 102 subjects). The thirty children who placed in categories A and B were not included in the study as their readiness status is considered "Superior" and "High Normal" by the Metpppolitan Readiness IEEE authors, (Hildreth, Griffiths, and McGauvran, 1969). They define these five categories as: A. Superior - Apparently very well prepared for first-grade work. Should be given Opportunity for enriched work in line with abilities indicated. B. High Normal - Good prospects for success in first-grade work provided other indications, such as health, emotional factors, etc., are consistent. C. Average - Likely to succeed in first-grade work. Careful study should be made of Specific strengths and weaknesses of pupils in this group and their instruction planned accordingly. D. Low Normal - Likely to have difficulty in first-grade work. Should be assigned to slow section and given more individ- ualized help. E. Low - Chances of difficulty high under ordinary instructional conditions. Further readiness work, assignment to slow sections, or individualized work is essential (p. 11). 11 Students were selected from this population to form three groups. Each student was placed in a group through the use of a table of random numbers. The groups differed in the following manner: Control: Students who would receive the regular kindergarten pro- gram but would be post-tested with placebo and treatment groups (twenty- eight subjects). Placebo: Students who were to be taken from class to work with the experimenters. They spent the same amount of time out of their classroom as the treatment group, but did not work with activities from the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) program. The students were involved in gross and fine motor activities (thirty-two subjects). Treatment: Students who spent twenty to twenty-five minutes each school day with experimenters involved in activities from the Science Curriculum Improvement Study's (SCIS) Material Objects (forty-two subjects). Upon completion of eight weeks of treatment, all three groups were again tested using: 1) Form B of the MetrOpplitan Readiness Test, 2) The Marianne Frostig Develqpmental Test of Visual Perception, 3) The Verbal Expression subtest of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, and 4) Material Objects Test. The data were evaluated using a program of multivariate analysis of variance programmed by Jeremy Finn, State University of New York at Buffalo. 12 Overview of Chapters II through V In Chapter II the literature is reviewed to provide the theoret- ical basis for reading readiness. Background on reading readiness based upon reading experts descrip- tions is presented, including the identification of many of the read- iness factors which are said to contribute to the child's attainment of reading readiness skills. The Specific factors which were utilized in this study are then examined in greater detail and their potential relationship to a child- centered object-oriented science program is developed. In examining the experience factor and its attainment, the related research in science education is reviewed. In Chapter III the procedures used in the study are described. Also included in Chapter III are the descriptions of the various instru- ments used in post-testing. Chapter IV consists of the presentation and analysis of data. Each hypothesis is examined and its significance is determined. In Chapter V the data related to each of the hypotheses are exam- ined and conclusions drawn. The educational implications and impli- cations for future research are presented. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE A theoretical basis for using elementary school science activities to develop reading readiness is examined in this Chapter. Background on reading readiness based upon reading experts' descriptions is pre- sented, including the identification of many of the readiness factors which are said to contribute to the Child's attainment of reading readiness. The specific factors which were utilized in this study are then examined in greater detail; their potential relationship to a child- centered, object-oriented science program is develOped. In examining the literature regarding the experience factor and its attainment, the related research in science education is also reviewed. Theoretical Basis for Readiness Almy (1964) in studying beginning reading programs found that there were two conceptions of preparing children for formal reading instruction. One view identifies a series of stages or levels. The other view consists of a continuous process of reorganization, in which each new experience is, at least in part, dependent on what has happened before. She further stated that the work of Piaget lends con- siderable support to the latter view. 13 l4 Almy in examining some of the implications for beginning reading instruction that may be drawn from Piaget's theories and research related to them, stated: Piaget was concerned primarily with various aspects of Children's thought in relation to the evolution of mental operations involved in the adult's abstract logical thought. He traced this evolution from the earliest reflex behavior of the infant, describing how he thought such initially diverse functions as looking, grasping, and sucking gradually become organized into increasingly complex patterns, or 'schemata.' These schemata, originally occurring as actions, were eventually internalized and became mental pictures or ideas, to which words were attached, according to Piaget (p. 98). She felt that once the ability to comprehend and use words is developed, these schemata are organized into increasingly complex pat- terns and associations. As these patterns and associations increase in number we say that the child is develOping additional concepts. Almy further indicates that the implications for beginning reading instruction (Readiness) seem to imply that to neglect providing many and varied concrete experiences may hinder the develOpment of abstract thinking and may interfere with the development of reading compre- hension. Piaget's theory further implies the need for the child to discover his own errors in thinking so that he can attempt to correct them. Anderson (1956) in discussing implications of Piaget's work in pre- paring young children for reading suggested that teachers should know how to use concrete, Specific, and tangible materials rather than verbal, symbolic, and abstract materials in instruction. The young child thinks in concrete rather than abstract terms and his thought is closely connected with the object or situations in which the thought 15 arises. Anderson (1956) and Almy (1964) both have stressed the impor- tance of the child having experiences with concrete materials for con- cept development which is important in the preparation fOr reading in young children. In examining the learning cycle which is an integral part of the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) program one can see the importance of the exploration lessons in which the child is provided with materials and allowed to manipulate and explore them. This pro- vides him with the opportunity to develop or focus in on a concept at a preverbal level. Later during invention lessons the child is intro- duced to the concept name or the label used to represent the concept. Then he is provided numerous Opportunities to apply the concept in working with other concrete objects in discovery lessons. Further support for Almy's (1964) position regarding concrete experiences and beginning reading can be seen in comments of other reading experts. Reading itself is a complex process which is not a general ability but a composite of many specific abilities. (DeBoer, 1960). If you consider this and Betts' (1938) statement that educators may help the child develop basic skills, abilities, and attitudes which will serve him as he begins reading then you can infer that readiness training is important to the child. Smith (1961) in describing the nature of reading stated: Reading is a perceptual rather than merely a sensory process and, as such, it includes more than mere recognition of words. Neither printed pages nor orally spoken words transmit meaning. The essence of meaning comes from the reader's fund of experiences (p. 12). 16 Reading Readiness Success with the reading process is dependent upon the child's attainment of a number of inextricably interrelated factors. DeChant (1970) indicated that there are both biological and environmental factors which determine readiness for and achievement in reading. The develOpment of many of these factors form the basis of reading read- iness. Kawin (1956) defined readiness as the ability to learn. It has been further defined as that stage where the child is able to COpe with the diverse aspects of the reading process. Mbrphy (1962) pointed out that readiness is not something we wait for, but it is something that is brought about through careful instruction. Henderson (1969) in discussing the importance of reading readiness, indicated that many parents judge their child's progress by his growth in reading. Many administrators use standardized reading test results to gauge the standing of their schools. With the needs of the child and the demands of parents and educators to produce better readers, the importance of developing readiness skills is undeniable. Reading experts have identified numerous factors which have an effect upon the child's ability to attain reading readiness. Some of these factors are dependent upon the individual genetic background or his physiological develOpment. Others may be affected by his inter- actions with his environment. The following list of factors have been identified by reading experts as being important: Visual Perception (Harris 1970) (Frostig 1963) (Strang 1965) Auditory Perception (Harris 1970) (Barrett 1965) (Huus 1967) (Murphy 1962) 17 Language Facility (Huus 1967) (Fadtor 1940) (Kephart 1965) (Alsham 1965) Experience (Barrett 1962) (Huus 1967) (Harris 1970) (Evans 1945) Age (Harris 1970) (Gray 1963) (Barrett 1962) Sex (Harris 1970) General Intelligence (Harris 1970) Physical Health (Harris 1970) In this study the specific factors of visual perception, language facility, and experience are examined, they appear to be the factors that may be influenced most by the child's interactions with his envi- ronment . Visual Perception Visual perception involves the transmission and interpretation of stimuli that have been received by the eyes. Goins (1958) described visual perception as the process by which phenomena are apprehended by the mind through the medium of the eye. Visual perception is the ability to differentiate between two or more forms, such as objects, written words, or letters, according to DeBoer (1960). It starts as a crudely differentiated and grossly selective process, and as the learner acquires additional skill he is able to identify distinguishing features by making finer and finer discriminations. In describing the importance of visual perception in learning to read, Hildreth (1950) indicated that the child must attach meanings to a series of abstract symbols which in themselves are made up from com- binations of the twenty-six symbols we call letters. In doing so the learner has to be able to distinguish between such Similar forms as l8 "bell," "ball," and "bill." Heilman (1961) stated that visual per- ception is one of the major objectives of beginning instruction for reading. The child must make fine visual discriminations in reading. If the child has not had sufficient experience in making visual discrim- inations prior to attending school, he should be provided such oppor- tunities as are needed. Heilman stated "Maturation cannot be hastened, but visual discrimination can be sharpened through practice (p. 53).” In a study with kindergarten children, Earhart (1969) found that certain factors which act as indicators of potential reading problems could be identified. These factors were sex, social position, percep- tual quotient, and teacher's expectations. The perceptual quotient (from the Frostig test) is a measure of the child's visual perceptual abilities. An individual with a perceptual quotient (PQ) of 90 or below is considered to require specific training. Goins (1958) in an investigation of first grade children found a multiple correlation of +0.827 with visual perception tests used and reading success at the end of first grade. Frostig (1964) in working with children at the Marianne Frostig School of Educational Therapy found that most of the children with learning difficulties also had visual or auditory perceptual distur- bances. She indicated that visual perception disturbances were the most frequent and identified five areas of visual perception problems which were: 1) Eye-hand coordination-~telated to writing. 2) Figure ground perception-~related to word recognition. 3) Form constancy--related to recognition of letters or words when they are written in different cases, color, or sizes. l9 4) Position in space--related to difficulties with reversals or rotations. 5) Spatial relationships associated with interchanging the order of letters in a word. She develOped an instrument, The Marianne Frostig DeveIOpmental Test of Visual Percpption, to measure these five areas. Frostig (1964) reported that in studies with beginning reading situations a corre- lation coefficient of between 0.4 and 0.5 was found between the visual perception test and reading. In another study 36 percent of the sub- jects had perceptual quotients of 90 or less and of these 70 percent fell below the mid-point on the Reading Achievement Test. Spache (1964) examined many studies on form perception and reading readiness. He pointed out that there is no clear indication of what type of perceptual training is needed, but his tentative conclusions were: 1) Children vary a great deal in the amount of form perception training needed. 2) Training Should proceed from gross to fine discrimination. 3) The more closely the final perceptual tasks resemble word forms the more effective the training will be. 4) Emphasis upon speed discrimination should probably occur late in the training process, after a high degree of accuracy has been develOped. Goins (1961) in a study with first grade children to determine if there was a relationship between visual perception and reading ability and whether training in rapid recognition of digits, geometric and abstract figures would aid in reading, found a correlation of 0.47 20 between visual discrimination and reading. She found rapid recognition training of value to good readers, but of little value to those chil- dren with visual perception problems. DeHirsch (1966) reported that there was research in Russia that showed that small children are better able to understand the relation- ship between parts of objects when they manipulate these objects (Figure Ground). DevelOping Visual Perception Betts (1957) suggested a number of ways the child may be aided in development of visual perception through activities. Class discussions of how objects and pictures of objects are alike and how they are dif- ferent is helpful for visual perception develOpment. Betts also pointed out that to be effective the activities should be of interest to the children and have some purpose and meaning for the Child. Gray (1963) in discussing the role of visual skills required for reading suggested that the learner be given an opportunity to: recog- nize likenesses and differences, classify objects that look alike, observe internal details, see part-to-whole relationships, and asso- ciate ideas in a sequence. Durbin (1967) basically supported these ideas and further suggested that use of objects, pictures, and Shapes would prove helpful in develOping visual discrimination. Spache (1964) in dealing with the importance and development of visual perception skills relates that the child tends to explore objects in space by learning Shapes and spatial relationships first with his hands (and mouth) and later with his eyes. 21 While most of the studies have found a positive relationship between visual perception and working with objects, Brzeinski (1967) chose to use an alternative approach in a study with 122 kindergarten classes in Denver. The treatment individuals in Brzeinski's study were engaged in activities which provided practice in using beginning conso- nant sounds with contextual or meaning clues to identify a printed word. He found that they could overcome children's difficulties in visual perception through specific training which apparently did not involve using concrete materials. In the materials selected in this study the children repeatedly worked with concrete objects identifying properties and making com- parisons of Specific properties between similar objects. After reviewing the literature on visual perception and studying this unit, it would seem reasonable to predict that the child in the program would be able to make significant gains in the attainment of visual perceptual skills. The Experience Factor and Reading Readiness The role of experience in develOping reading readiness in the young child has been elaborated upon by many reading experts. Hildreth (1950) indicated that the child with broader experiences will have more words in his vocabulary and a better understanding of conversation about common objects than will the Child who has had limited experiences. Along the same line Henderson (1969) stated: "We must take meanings to print in order to secure meanings from it (p. 18)." Martin (1958) felt that the child should have experiences necessary to understand the con- cepts being presented. DeChant (1968) felt that experience is one 22 factor that accounts for differences among children and a lack of experiences may be a cause of reading disability. DeChant stated: Differences in learning ability of children are related to their biological potentials, but also to the environmental Opportunities. Some children become reading disability cases because the envi- ronment does not call forth their potential (p. 59). DeChant also indicated that poor reading or reading failure may be caused by the child's lack of interest, which is a result of little motivational readiness. Motivation for reading can be developed by direct contact with objects, peOple, and events. Hildreth (1963) in discussing the relationship of experience and reading readiness stated that the experiences should be rich and relevant. Kawin (1956) says if the child lacks the environmental and experiential background essential for readiness, the home and the school are obligated to pro- vide these experiences. Smith (1961) reported that studies have Shown that the greater the child's experiences, the greater are his possibilities for success in reading. In discussing direct and vicarious experiences and their relation- ship to reading readiness with young learners, Betts (1957) related that direct, or first-hand experiences are of prime importance and that they may be extended through vicarious or second-hand experiences. Appro- priate experiences are essential if the learner is to gain perceptual readiness commensurate with his overall capabilities, reported Smith (1961). 23 The Experience Factor - Its Function in Concept Development One of the major contributions that experiences provide for the young learner is in the area of concept formation. This idea was sup- ported by Hildreth (1963); she related that a word is easier to recall when some meaningful association can be established between the word, its form or sound, and the ideas it represents. DeBoer (1960) suggests that by means of objects displayed in the classroom the child's fund of information or concept base can be extended. Harrison (1939) stated that meaningful concepts aid in the interpretation of symbols; objects also aid in fixing the memory of printed symbols or words. Russell (1961) stated: Since, at best, words represent a second-hand, or vicarious, experience, the teacher will provide many opportunities for children, especially young children, to touch, taste, hear, see, or manipulate the thing for which the word stands. Additional background for understanding will be built through dramatic play, dramatization, games, excursions, construction, and science experiences. By such activities the teacher avoids mere verbalizations in favor of true learning (p. 283). Yoakam (1955) indicated that children who lack sufficient experi- ences to build a good concept background should be identified early so that experiences can be provided to enrich the child's conceptual knowl- edge. Anderson (1956) pointed out that learning experiences and opportun- ities Should be arranged in some order or pattern to be meaningful. Henderson (1969) referred to Thorndike's work in 1917 when he found in a study with sixth graders that unless they had some conceptual under- standing of the written word it had no meaning even though they could read the words. Henderson developed a model to explain how the child 24 proceeds in stages from experiences in the development of concepts to the use of signs which represent concepts or symbols such as those we see in books. The Simplified model follows: Experience eabUses 4%>Meanings (child's interaction (the action (concept formation) with concrete objects) becomes part of the child's background of useful infor- mation schemata) Sign %Experience 9Meanings (word or name (related to past (conceptual used for concept) experiences) understanding) Sign £> Meanings (word or name (conceptual used for concept) understanding) Hildreth (1963) suggested that we start reading with the things the child knows about, talks, and asks about, with materials that are related to things he can actually pick up, touch, and examine. Experience and Developing Reading Readiness Crews (1972) in describing some of the myths of reading made the following statement: A curriculum that includes activities in science, math, and social studies provides the background of experiences and thinking that is of prime importance when trying to read material (p. 412). Hillerich (1965) in his review of current research on reading readiness, found that an experience approach appeared to be better than use of workbooks when the latter involved interpreting pictures and gross kinds of discriminations. He concluded that the traditional experience approach and the general kind of readiness workbooks were 25 teaching the same thing. He felt that neither approach develOped specific Skills, but that the experience approach had the advantage of spontaneity and enthusiasm. Ayers (1969) conducted a study in which he measured gains in read- iness scores on the MetrOpolitan Readiness Test with two groups; one, a readiness program, lasted three hours per day, five days per week for the school year and the other used Part A of Science--A Process Approach (SAPA) for one hour per week for twenty-two weeks. He used a pre- and post- measure for each group and a t-test was used to determine if there were significant differences between the pre- and post-test means of subtest scores and mean gain scores. His results showed that the experimental group made significant gains in five of the Six subtest scores and in mean gain. Word Meaning subtest was not Significant. The control group showed significant gains in four of the Six subtests and in mean gain. Listening and Numbers subtests were not significant. Ayers concludes that Science--A Process Approach could contribute to reading readiness with five year old children. However, teachers using the program might use other programs to develop vocab- ulary. Ritz (1969) in a study which involved twenty-four kindergarten classes in ten different school systems looked at the effect of Part A of Science--A Process Approach (SAPA) and the Frostig Program for the Development of Visual Perception upon the attainment of reading readi- ness, visual perception, and science process skills. He used three groups--one used SAPA Part A alone, the second SAPA Part A and the Frostig Perceptual Constancy unit, while the third used only the Frostig Perceptual Constancy unit. He measured their gains through 26 MetrOpolitan Readiness Test, Form B (Readiness), Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception (Visual Perception), and SAPA's Competency Measures for Groups. Ritz concluded that science and visual perception instruction can be included in kindergarten programs without impairing the reading readiness attainment of children. Kellogg (1971) conducted a study with first grade children using the Science Curriculum Improvement Study_(SCIS) Material Objects unit and its effect on reading readiness attainment. He used the Metropol- itan Readiness Test as a measure of the reading readiness gains with two roups; one receiving the science program alone and the other using their regular commercial reading readiness program. He reports that the experimental group out-gained the control in total score and all subtest areas except COpying. The levels of significance of the dif- ferences in gains between experimental and control groups as reported by Kellogg were: t value Level of Significance Word Meaning 1.9041 0.1 Listening 0.1377 Not significant Matching 1.5426 0.2 Alphabet 0.5010 Not significant Numbers 1.4599 0.2 Copying 0.2202 Not significant Total 1.4511 0.2 He concluded that the greater gains made by the experimental group were due to two factors. 1) The nature of the Materials Objects unit which allows the child to develop through concrete experiences. 2) The program makes a contribution to the development of the child's reasoning ability which is a major purpose of education. 27 Stafford (1971) in an evaluation of the Science Curriculum Improve- ment Study (SCIS) Material Objects unit at the kindergarten level, attempted to measure, among other things, the effect of Material Objects upon the attainment of reading readiness. The Metrppolitan Readiness Test was used to assess readiness gains and Stafford reported the experimental group out-scored the control on all bases of com- parison on the Metropolitan Readiness Test, but none were significant at the 0.05 level of confidence. Language Facility and Reading Readiness The young Child's facility with language or his ability to commu- nicate with others is a measure of his conceptual knowledge. Many reading authorities have stated that the young child's skill in language usage is a prime indicator of the child's readiness for reading. Hildreth (1950) stated that unless children can speak well, listen attentively, and comprehend what they hear they are not ready for reading. She further stated: The connecting link between concrete experiences and abstract word symbols is to be found in oral language, which is actually symbolic but has become meaningful to the child through use in daily experiences (p. 251-252). Anderson (1956), Spache (1964), Huus (1967), and DeChant (1968) have identified the child's facility with language as one of the major factors in determining a child's readiness for reading. Betts (1957) stated that in determining a child's readiness for reading one should appraise the child's ability to put words together in a form suitable for communication. He also stated that girls tend to have a larger vocabulary than do boys. This may be a possible explanation for the trend in beginning reading where girls out-perform boys. 28 Spache (1964) found that auditory vocabulary, or the breadth of words that a child recognizes when he hears them, is significantly related to readiness. Earhart (1969) in her study with kindergarten children had done some initial work in the area of language facility as a predictor of reading difficulties. She found that there was a definite positive relationship between language facility and reading, but that the lan- guage factor was not retained in the prediction formula as a predictor of achievement in reading. In relating the experience and language facility factors DeBoer (1960) stated: If direct experience is to be of substantial aid in reading, it must be accompanied by an adequate fund of experience with language (p. 33). Additionally, Gray (1963) reported that when a child has new experiences they usually add new words to the child's vocabulary which contribute to his readiness for reading. Martin's (1958) contention that the core of reading is language develOpment and that this is a key to readiness would also be in basic agreement with DeBoer and Gray. Loban (1963) in a study of relationship between the size of chil- dren's vocabulary, the use and control of sentence patterns, and the inter-relations of oral language and competence in writing, reading, and listening found that children who were high in general language ability were also high in reading ability. He also found that there was a positive relationship between speaking, reading, writing, and listening. Loban's study involved 338 subjects beginning in the kinder- garten and the first six years of elementary school. It is of interest to note the similarity between Loban's method of evaluating the child's 29 language facility and those that are used in the Verbal Expression sub- test of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities which was used in this study. As a result of reviewing Earhart's (1969) work and through personal communications with her, a decision to use the Verbal Expres- sion subtest of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities and tape record the children's responses was made. Recording each session would allow the examiner the Opportunity to make a detailed study of each individual's responses and insure accuracy in scoring. In the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) program the children are encouraged to interact with each other as they work with concrete objects. Discussions between children regarding the prop- erties of the objects being investigated occur often. A number of simple games are played where the children use properties of objects as clues to identify a single object from a collection. In total group discussions each child is given an Opportunity to contribute and later through use of objects they are given additional Opportunities to apply the concepts discussed. It seems logical that such an approach should lead to better conceptual understanding and an increase in the child's language ability. Summary In this chapter a theoretical basis for reading readiness has been examined. What reading readiness means to reading experts and some of the factors which they feel are important in the child's attainment of reading readiness have been identified. The background for each of the 30 factors used in this study was reviewed, including how each of these factors may be develOped through the use of concrete experiences such as those advocated in the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) program. Related research dealing with these factors was identified and reviewed, including research that dealt with science education and reading readiness. Reviewing the literature and related research clearly indicates that there is a need to determine the effect of science programs which stress the child's involvement with concrete objects upon their attain- ment of reading readiness and to identify which factors such training enhances. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES Design The population for this study was those children who were iden- tified as having an average or below average chance of success in an initial reading program by the use of a recognized readiness test. The instrument selected was the Metrppolitan Readinesppgest Form A. Children who placed in the categories C, D, and E of that test were, therefore, considered the population. The kindergarten children within this population were randomly assigned to three groups for the purposes of this study. They were: a treatment group, a control, and a placebo control. The treatment group received selected activities from the Science Curriculum Improve- ment Study's (SCIS) unit Material Objects in addition to the regular kindergarten program. The placebo control group received placebo activities in addition to the normal kindergarten program. The placebo group worked with the experimenters under similar time and location conditions as did the treatment group. However, they were primarily engaged in gross and fine motor activities. The design consisted of the initial observation to select the population of interest. Once the population was identified and groups assignments were made the treatment group had eight weeks of science 31 32 activities while the placebo group engaged in placebo activities and the control group continued with the regular kindergarten program. At the end of the eight weeks a second observation was made of all three groups. T 01 Tr 02 P.C. 01 P.T. 02 C 01 02 T = treatment group Tr = treatment P.C. = placebo control P.T. 3 placebo treatment C = control 02 = second observation 01 = first observation Description of POpulation The treatment, placebo control and control groups were selected from two suburban elementary schools in Waterford Township, Michigan. Waterford Township is a predominately white suburban community which is located close to the large industrial City of Detroit, Michigan. The community has little industry or agriculture with most of the adult working population being employed in industry outside the community proper. The socio-economic status of its inhabitants ranges from lower class to lower upper class. The average annual income, according to the 1970 census was $13,583.00. The two schools were selected because the number of kindergarten Children in attendance was large and the chil- dren in both schools come from a broad social and economic background. The number of children was a limiting factor in the selection of schools, because the use of small treatment and placebo groups (9-12 per group) would create time problems for the trainers if they had to 33 travel between more than two schools. It was felt that a broad socio- economic background, ranging from lower middle to upper middle class, would provide a substantial number of children lacking readiness. The kindergarten children in the two selected schools are repre- sentative of the kindergarten children in the district. This may be substantiated through the examination of the Michigan Department of Education's Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) scores for the schools for the 1970-1971 and 1971-1972 school years. Note should be made that while the scores given are not for kindergarten children but fourth graders they do reflect how fourth graders in the two schools compared with others throughout the state. One could infer that kinder- garten children from these same schools would bear a Similar relation- ship to other kindergarten children in the district and in the state. In one of the schools the fourth graders in 1970-1971 scored 48.2 in Reading, 46.4 in Mechanics of Written English, 48.5 in Mathematics and 49.5 in Word Relationship. (All scores are standard scores.) In the 1971-1972 school year its standard scores were: Reading 52.8, Mechanics of Written English 50.1, Mathematics 50.3, and Relationships 49.8 (see Table 3-1). The second school had MEAP Standard Scores of: Reading 50.7, Mechanics of Written English 51.1, Mathematics 51.1, and Word Relationships 51.8, in the 1970-1971 school year. During the 1971- 1972 school year its standard scores were: Reading 52.6, Mechanics of Written English 50.9, Mathematics 54.9, and WOrd Relationships 50.7 (see Table 3-2). 34 TABLE 3-1 STANDARD SCORES FOR.MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (MEAP) School A 1970-1971 1971-1972 Reading 48.2 52.8 Mechanics of Written English 46.4 50.1 Mathematics 48.5 50.3 WOrd Relationships 49.5 . 49.8 (Standard Scores for the MEAP are defined using a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10) TABLE 3-2 STANDARD SCORES FOR MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (MEAP) School B 1970-1971 1971-1972 Reading 50.7 52.6 Mechanics of Written English 51.1 50.9 Mathematics 51.1 54.9 Word Relationships 51.8 50.7 (Standard Scores for the MEAP are defined using a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10) 35 Table 3-3 represents the district's standard scores for the 1970- 1971 and 1971-1972 school year. These scores support the assertion that the children in the two study schools represent all of the chil- dren in Waterford's School District reasonably well. Because the district's MEAP scores are reasonably similar to those of the state, it can be further asserted that the study children are representative of kindergarten Children in the state of Michigan. TABLE 3-3 STANDARD SCORES FOR MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (MEAP) School District Fourth Grade 1970-1971 1971-1972 Reading 50.0 51.3 Mechanics of Written English 49.3 49.3 Mathematics 51.1 51.5 WOrd Relationships 50.9 49.0 (Standard Scores for the MEAP are defined using a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10) Another important consideration was the cooperation of teachers and building administrators as the study would require removing chil- dren from their classroom and using a special teaching station for the training sessions. With these considerations and through discussions with Dr. Maurice Pelton, Director of Elementary Education, the two building principals and Dr. Eileen Earhart, who had prior knowledge of 36 the social and economic structure of the neighborhoods of both schools, the two schools were selected. All 132 kindergarten children in the two schools were given the MetrOpolitan Readiness Test Form A in January of 1971. Of these, 107 scored in the lower three categories C, D, and E of that test. These children then were the pOpulation for this study. Each child in the population was assigned to one of three groups using a table of random numbers. The number of students assigned to each group is presented in Table 3-4. TABLE 3-4 GROUP ASSIGNMENT Group Assignment - January, 1971 Males Females Total Treatment 24 20 44 Placebo Control l9 13 32 Control l7 14 31 107 =— Group Assignment as of April, 1971 Lost From Sample Treatment 23 19 42 2 Placebo Control 19 13 32 0 Control 16 12 28 3 102 5 Lost from sample = Children who moved out of attendance area. 37 Special Considerations The children participating in the study came from five different kindergarten classrooms and were taught by three different teachers. One teacher taught only a morning session. The use of special instructors would, therefore, remove teacher differences as a variable in the study as each child in the placebo and treatment groups had the same instructor. The placebo groups were used for two basic reasons: one to control for any Hawthorne effect which might occur as a result of the children leaving the regular kindergarten classroom for a "special" Class and second, to control for the possible effect of male instructors, which are not normally found at the kindergarten level. All children in the study, however, were already exposed to a male instructor. A male physical education instructor worked with the chil- dren once each week. To control for the possibility of the children in the treatment and placebo groups from systematically missing a portion of the regular kindergarten instructional program, the classroom teachers were asked to vary their instruction during the time groups were out of the class- room and asked not to teach a particular subject area or portion of their program to those children who remained. Each child in the placebo and treatment group did not receive his instruction independently from the others in his group. In the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) program a critical part of the instructional program is based upon child-child interactions. It was therefore imperative that the individuals be allowed to work in small groups to insure that this interaction took place. 38 Description of Placebo and Treatment Procedures The children who were involved in the treatment and the placebo groups in the study were taken to a special room each day to receive twenty to twenty-five minutes of activities. The instructors of these sessions were not the classroom teachers, but special instructors who worked both with placebo and treatment children. The children in the pLacebo group were engaged in gross and fine motor activities in which they played games, ran relays, constructed pre-cut wooden airplanes and cars. While these activities might be expected to have some effect on the experience factor in reading read- iness, there was no attempt made during the study to develop skills or concepts in a sequential manner such as Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) has in the Material Objects unit. A total of eight weeks or forty sessions with an average of twenty- three minutes per session with each group was conducted throughout the study. A total of approximately 930 minutes of treatment was involved. Both the treatment and placebo groups were further broken down into smaller groups for instructional purposes. The individual groups ranged in size from nine to twelve children in both treatment and pla- cebo groups. Treatment Group Activities The following is a brief description of activities, concepts and mode of operation which are stressed in the Science Curriculum Improve- ment Study (SCIS) program and were used as the treatment in this study. 39 Material Objects - Part I: Introducing Objects and Their PrOp- erties The children observe, describe, and sort collections of objects according to their common properties. They do this first through the use of objects found in and around their classroom. Later they work with objects and object collections provided by the teacher. As the children sort objects they focus initially on single properties but later begin to examine objects based upon more than one property. Material Objects - Part II: Introducing the Concept of Material The children continue to work with objects, examining them for their properties. In Part II, however, the children also work with objects that are the same size and Shape but made of different materials. They are encouraged to sort by material once they have had sufficient experience with the concept. They investigate small pieces of wood and find that they can change the size and shape and it can Still remain the same material. They also work with objects made of more than one material and sort objects based upon the property of one or more than one material. In Part I the children work with solid objects and in Part II they eventually investigate the properties of liquid and gaseous objects. Later they compare two or more objects on the basis of the quantity of a particular prOperty they possess (greenness, roughness, etc.). This leads to serial ordering of object collections. Material Objects - Part III: Experimenting with Material Objects The child continues to investigate various objects and to observe changes in them. In one investigation they work with sugar cubes and rock candy, noting their properties. Then they grind them into a powder 40 and find that the objects are the same material. They discover that different forms of the same material may have some properties which are different. In the treatment program the following Science Curriculum Improve- ment Study (SCIS) objectives were used. Material Objects' Chapters which Objective focused on the stated objective "To understand that the word object refers to a piece of matter." Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 "To describe objects by their prop- erties." Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12 "To identify objects present in the kit and the environment from given properties." Chapters 1, 2, 3 "To sort objects into groups according to properties." Chapters 3, 4, 5 "To identify examples of solids, liquids and gases as objects." Chapters 7, 8, 10, 15 "To identify some of the materials of which objects are made.” Chapters 7, 14, 15, 17 "To realize that an object's form can change while its material remains the same." Chapter 13 "To distinguish between objects composed of one material and objects made of several materials.” Chapters 10, 14 "To arrange collections of similar objects in serial order according to prOperty." Chapters ll, 17 "To experiment with various objects in order to observe changes in them." Chapters l8, 19, 21 "To interpret differences in a set of pictures as changes occurring in a given object or objects over a period of time." Chapters l8, 19, 21 41 In addition to the activities described in the teacher's guide for Material Objects for those chapters listed, the children in the treat- ment group were also engaged in two Special activities which were designed during the study to reinforce certain goals and objectives of the program. They were: Special Activity A In this activity with snails the children examined and described properties of large land snails. Purpose: 1) Presentation of additional concrete experiences in properties concept using living organisms. 2) Increased interactions and observations between child and materials. Special Activity B A game was used with the children to reinforce the concepts of property and materials. In the game a single object was placed in a grab-bag prior to the children entering the room and then a set of com- mon objects (10-15), including a duplicate of the object in the grab- bag, were placed upon a table. One child would give one of the prOp- erties of the object in the bag and the other children would then select objects from the table with that property. When no objects were left on the table with the prOperty given, the remaining objects would be removed and the selected objects would be returned to the table. A second property would be given and the process repeated. It would con- tinue until only one object was left and then it was compared with the object in the grab-bag. Purpose: 1) The children apply the property and materials concepts. 42 2) Child-child interaction increases as children compare prOp- erties of the objects they select. Instruments Selected Visual perception. The Marianne FrostingevelOpmental Test of Visual Perception, was selected as a measure of visual perception. Austin, in her review of the Frostig Test in the Sixth Mental Measure- ments Yearbook (1965), eXpressed enthusiasm in the statements: "The Frostig test appears to be a Significant one. It has proved useful as a screening tool with groups of nursery school, kindergarten and first grade children, primarily because it permits identification of those children who need special perceptual training in five important areas of visual perception (p. 857)." Test-retest reliability of the per- ceptual quotient is reported as 0.90. Subtest scale score test-retest correlations range from 0.42 to 0.80. Split-half reliability corre- lations range from 0.78 to 0.89. Validity correlations between scaled scores and teacher ratings of classroom adjustment were 0.44; motor coordination, 0.50; intellectual functioning, 0.50. Correlations between the Frostig and Goodenough scores range from 0.32 to 0.46. Both reviewers, Anderson (1965) and Austin, questioned the adequacy of the standardization pOpulation. Anderson stated that the present pri- mary use of the Frostig test would be to predict learning success in the primary grades. The Frostig test offered promise as a predictor of reading problems when administered by classroom teachers to kindergarten children. It was, therefore, selected as the measure of visual per- ception. 43 Languagp development. The Verbal Expression subtest of the Illinois Test of ngcholinguistic Abilities, Experimental Edition, was selected as the measure of language facility. The test authors, McCarthy and Kirk (1961), described verbal expression as the ability to express one's ideas in Spoken words. Verbal expression is assessed by asking the student to describe simple objects. The Specific objects used in the Verbal Expression subtest were: a nail, ball, block, envelope, and a button. The descriptive terms used by the student are tallied to obtain the raw score. Reliability of the difference between test and retest scores, over a period of three months, has been deter- mined by comparing the ranges obtained by using the standard error of measurement for the raw scores on both the test and the retest. If the range of one standard error of measurement on the retest overlaps the range of one standard error of measurement on the original test, no reliable difference between scores is inferred. If the ranges do not overlap, a reliable difference in scores is inferred. The standard for the raw scores reported on the Verbal Expression subtest for ages five years three months to five years nine months is i2.45, for ages five years nine months to six years three months is il.92, and for ages six years three months to six years six months is i2.59. Weener, Barritt and Semmel (1967) evaluated the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities and reported a range of internal consistency coefficient for the Verbal Expression subtest from 0.54 to 0.82 with a median coefficient of 0.75. The split-half reliability coefficient ranges for age groups from 0.48 to 0.84 with a median of 0.72. The test-retest stability coefficient reported for the Verbal Expression subtest ranged from -0.25 to +0.48 with a median of -0.17 for a 44 twelve-month interval between testing periods. The internal consist- ency measures are moderately high but the test-retest stabilities are quite low, according to the evaluators' judgments. Validity studies conducted by Weener, Barritt and Semmel using eighty-six children showed a median concurrent validity coefficient for the test battery of 0.15; the median predictive coefficient was 0.23. Results for the subtests were not reported. Although the validity and reliability of the test battery and sub- tests are questioned due to an inadequate standardization sample, the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities is considered a fruitful beginning as a diagnostic measure of the psycholinguistic abilities. The Verbal Expression subtest, which measures the spoken descriptive language, was chosen as a measure of language facility. Metropolitan Readiness Test. The Metropolitan Readiness Test was selected as a partial measure of overall readiness and a measure of the factors related to each of the subtests. Test 1 Verbal Concepts Test 2 Knowledge of Words and Comprehension of Spoken Words Test 3 Visual Perception Test 4 Recognize Letters of Alphabet Test 5 Number Concepts Test 6 Visual Perception and Motor Coordination Construct Validity Murphy-Durrell Reading Readiness Analysis (Revised Edition) and Metropolitan Readiness subtests correlations range from 0.47 to 0.78 while the total correlation was 0.80. The correlation between total 45 score on the Metropolitan Readiness Test and the Lee-Clarkpgeading Readiness Test was 0.70. Split-half Reliability Correlations - Kindergarten (administration May) Correlations for Form A were 0.90 to 0.95 with subtest correlation ranging from 0.33 (Listening) to 0.89 (Alphabet). The authors indicate that the subtest's correlations are lower due to their brevity. Form B of the MetrOpolitan Readiness Test total scores ranged from 0.92 to 0.94 with subtest correlations ranging from 0.48 (WOrd Meaning) to 0.91 (Alphabet). Material Objects Test. This test was first develOped by the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) staff to assess children's attainment of the concepts and process skills developed through the use of the Material Objects unit. The original test has been modified by the investigator to include some concepts not included in the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) developed test and is also being used to measure the experience factor for reading readiness. The Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) staff has never claimed or implied that the Material Objects unit develOps reading readiness when used with children. The test as used consisted of the following sub- tests. For the purpose of this study, the research modified this test and therefore there is no data on validity of the test. Material Identification subtest was used to determine the child's knowledge of the materials concept and to assess his skill in sorting, based upon the material's concept. The child is asked to sort a number of objects into two groups based upon material, objects of one material and the second group, 46 objects made of more than one material. Then the child was shown four of the items and asked the number of materials in each and to name the materials. Sequence Discrimination subtest was used to determine the child's ability to sequence a series of pictures so that they appear in a log- ical order and to establish their relationships through describing the series of events (telling the story). The child is asked to arrange four sequence cards so that they tell a story. Once the child has arranged the cards in sequence to his satisfaction, he is then asked to tell the story. Comparison subtest was used to assess the child's ability to make comparisons based upon degrees of difference among a set of three objects and to use the comparison signs .> (greater than) .< (less than) in a logical manner. The child was asked to compare two then three objects in relation to some particular property such as texture, weight, shade, and size. He is asked to arrange them using the comparison Sign ( >’) and to verbally describe the arrangement. Property Sort subtest was used to assess the child's knowledge of the prOperty concept and application of this concept in sorting objects. The child was asked to find objects with Specific prOpertieS such as a thin and Silver-colored object and place them in compartments within a clear plastic container. 47 Tester Training Three examiners each with either pre-school or primary school teaching experience (experience ranged from one to three years) were selected to administer and score the instruments used in the post-test phase of the study. During the initial training session the investi- gator discussed the format, testing procedures and special materials required for each instrument used. Each examiner then worked with from three to five kindergarten-aged children who were not involved in the study to familiarize themselves with the techniques of presentation of the testing. Sample tests were scored so that questions concerning scoring procedures would be resolved. A special testing space for the use of the examiners was scheduled by the principal in each building to insure a minimum of interference during the testing. Post-Testing Prqgram Post-testing was begun during the last two weeks in March and com- pleted by the end of the first week of April, 1971. Examiners were provided student lists with names listed in alphabetical order and no identification as to the individual child being in a treatment, control or placebo group. The Metrppolitan Readiness Test was administered in small groups, ten to fifteen children. The tests were scored by the examiners and checked by the investigator. 48 The Frostig tests were administered by one of the examiners and scored by that individual to insure that judgmental decisions would not vary. The Verbal Expression tests were administered individually and recorded using a tape recorder to insure accurate evaluation of each child's responses. The tapes were then transcribed and scored by one examiner to insure that the judgmental decisions would not vary. Selection of the Statistical Analysis Procedure The statistical analysis procedures selected for use in this study was Multivariate Analyses of Variance programmed by Jeremy Finn, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York. The following statements provide the basis of reasoning for the selection of the Finn Multivariate Analyses of Variance. l) The study includes seventeen dependent variables and seven covariates. This requires an analysis procedure which can examine multiple factors. Readiness is based upon the child's attainment of a number of factors, not just one. 2) There was a possibility of no univariate effects while there may be a multivariate difference. 3) These procedures provided evidence of the interaction of dependent variables. In the case of reading readiness we expect to find interaction among dependent variables due to the necessity of the child's attaining a number of readiness factors. 4) 49 Three treatment groups were examined; a treatment, a placebo control and a control group. To examine these groups with the number of variables of interest requires an analysis procedure with the potential that is found in the Finn procedure. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA The data collected and analyzed by the procedures described in Chapter III are presented in this chapter. The data pertaining to each of the hypotheses will be presented followed by the data for the addi- tional questions of interest. The cell means and their standard devi- ations for dependent variables for males and females in each of the groups is presented in the appendices (see Appendix E). The combined means for each of the study groups is presented in Appendix D. For the purposes of this study the level of significance for multivariate analyses is g_ p. S 0.05 and for univariate analysis g p. _<_ 0.01 was selected. Cell sizes for each group were as follows: treatment, 42; placebo, 32; and control, 28. Hypothesis 1:, Sex XITreatmenthnteraction Null Hypothesis Tested: There will be no interaction between sex and treatment in readiness factors as measured by Metropolitan Form B, Frostig, Verbal Expression, and Material Objects tests in kindergarten Children. Multivariate analyses of covariance were used to determine whether a significant interaction existed between sex and treatment. If there are interactions between sex and treatment there will be a high 50 51 relationship between diagonal cell means. For example, there are possible interaction between the cell means of: treatment females and placebo males; control females and control males. Cell Means Treatment X X (SCIS) Placebo Control Control X The Frostig, Metropolitan Form B, Material Objects Test, and the Verbal Expression subtest scores were used as dependent variables. The pre- test MetrOpolitan Form A score and age were the covariates. The results, as shown in Table 4-1, indicate no significance in sex treat- ment interaction. Therefore, the treatment X sex interaction can not be rejected. TABLE 4-1 ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE FOR TREATMENT > monounom waumoum monounnm m Show oeuafionouuoz muooflno HMAHOumz ammunde<> HZHQZMQMQ 1 mZOHH blue correct placement If the child places objects in correct position ask, What does the sign tell us about theypencils? If child is confused go back to the previous statement. If child's explanation is correct the Examiner states, Yes, we would place the yellow pencil here because the sign tells us that it is longer than the blue pencil. (After the proper comparison has been made proceed.) Give the child the third pencil (red) and a second comparison sign and state, Now would youpplace this pencil and this comparison sign so that they tell us how all three pencils can be compared by length? possible correct placements: (m «=1: fl)or(m m an) y>b>r br If the child does nothing, incorrectly places pencils, or is con- fused the Examiner asks, Which pencil is longest? Place it here... Which pencil is next longest? Place it here... Which pencil is the shortest? Place it here... (y, b, r order) After the subject has placed the objects in either of the possible correct comparisons or the Examiner has rearranged them the Examiner states, Now what do the signs tell us about the pencils? correct response Examiner states, Good, it tells us that... If the child gives an unacceptable response the Examiner states, No, the signs tell us that this pencil (yellow) is longer than this one (blue) and that this one (blue) is longer than 88 this one (red) (for arrangement y, b, r). The signs tell us that this one (yellow) is longer than this one (blue) and is also longer than this one (red) (for arrangement b, y, r). The Test Instructions: (1) Sandpaper - (roughness) Examiner hands the child two pieces of sandpaper coarse and medium and a comparison sign. Now, will you put theseypieces of sandpaper on each side of this comparison sign so that it tells something about the sandpaper's roughness? Record what the child's response is. If the. child is unable to do this, note it and proceed to the next set of items. If the child places the objects then state, What does the sign tell us about the sandpaper? Record response as either acceptable or unacceptable and indicate position of sandpaper and comparison sign. If the child changes comparison sign at this time, note this also. Examiner gives the child the third piece of sandpaper (fine) and the second comparison sign and states, Would youpplace this piece of sandpaper and comparison sign so that they tell us how all three pieces of sandpaper can be compared by roughness?... Record child's response then Examiner states, Now, what does it tell us? Record if the child’s response is acceptable or not. (2) Boxes - weight (heaviness) Use same format but substitute boxes and heaviness in appropriate places. Order of presentation of boxes - red and blue then yellow. 89 (3) Green Squares - shade (greenness) Use same format but substitute green squares and greenness in appropriate places. Order of presentation - dark green, medium green then light green. (M) Green Squares - size (bigness) Use same format but substitute green squares and size in appro— priate places. Order of presentation - light green and medium green then dark green. (light green) (dark green) (medium green) 90 Record Sheet - Comparison of Objects Test Example: pencil - length Record child's response sign [—7 /'—7 (l) Sandpaper - roughness Record child's response [—7 /'—7 (2) Boxes - weight heaviness Record child's response [—7 [—7 [—7 /—7 [—7 y b I‘ #58 R B Y yellow blue red verbal response acceptable verbal response unacceptable verbal response acceptable verbal response unacceptable coarse medium fine verbal response acceptable verbal response unacceptable verbal reSponse acceptable verbal response unacceptable red-heavy blue-medium yellow-light verbal reSponse acceptable verbal response unacceptable verbal response acceptable verbal response unacceptable 91 (3) Green Squares - shade (greenness) L = light green M = dark green S = medium green Record child's reSponse 7 7 verbal response acceptable 7 7 7 7 verbal response acceptable (M) Green Squares - size (bigness) L = large M = medium S = small Record child's reSponse 7 7 verbal response acceptable 7 7 7 7 verbal reSponse acceptable verbal response unacceptable verbal response unacceptable verbal response unacceptable verbal response unacceptable 92 Material Objects - Test 5 Parts A and B (Group Test) (administered to small groups of eight to ten children, total time about twenty minutes) Equipment and Instructions for the Two Group Tests: Each child will get: Three plastic boxes with six compartments each; left compart- ment key —- colored red, white, and blue respectively. One envelope containing an assortment of screws, washers, and nuts, made of plastic, brass, aluminum, and steel. One paper plate General instruction preceding the parts: (Give all instructions slowly and clearly.) Today we are going to play some games and ask some questions about objects. Each one of you is going to get a paper plate, a couple of envelopes containing some objects, and some boxes we're going to use to sort the objects. (Equipment is handed out.) This envelope has objects in it that you may have seen before. Maybe you even know the names of some of the objects. (Pull out a large screw.) Does any one know what this is called? Wait until you hear the right answer. That's right, it's a screw. (Hold up display washer.) Does anyone know what this is called? (If no one knows, identify it as a washer. Hold up display nut.) Does anyone know what this is called? It's a nut. Remember, the screw is long,ythe washer is round like a penny with a hole in the middle,yand the nut has six corners. Now take your envelope and open it very carefullyyonto the paper plate. Be sure 93 you empty everything out of the envelope. There are a lot of objects, aren't there? Can you remember which is the screw? Everyone hold up a screw. That's right. Now show me a washer... That's fine. And now a_oo§. Good. Each of them comes in different sizes and we'reogoing to play some finding and sorting games with them. In the two parts of the group test that follow, you will move among the children to check sources of confusion. Do not "hint" or approve/disapprove. The only help you can give is to restate instructions, but only when a child asks for help or does not know how to begin. 94 Examiner proceeds with Part B - Sorting by Material Now we're going to play another finding game. Take the box that has the white space in it. Now I want you to look over all the objects left on your plate. Do you still remember what the screws look like? Hold up model screw. Pick out all the screws. (Allow time for this.) All right. Now put all the screws together in a pile onoyouryplate. (Wait for children to do this.) Screws can be made out of different materials or stuff. I want you to sort the screws according to the materials or stuff they're made of. Put all the screws that are made of the same material or stuff together in the space with the white label. If you find another bunch of screws that are all made out of another material or stuff put them all together in the next space. Use as many spaces or as few spaces as you need. When you are finished, each space should have only screws that are made of the same material or stuff. (Wait until all the children have finished.) Fine. Now close your box up tightly and put it on the side of your desk. You can put all the objects that are left on youryplate vepy carefully back into the envelope. Procedure: The envelOpes and red-and-white spaced boxes are collected, and then each child is given a small envelOpe containing nine washers. NOTE: Before the sets of screws, washers, nuts are used again they should be rechecked against the inventory to be sure they are complete. 95 Material Objects - Test 5 Examiner now proceeds with Part A - Identification and Sorting by Property Instructions: The first game we're going to,playywith these objects is a finding game. Take the box that has a red space in it. I'm going to tell you to find something, and you're going to put it into its own space in the box with the red space in it. Are you ready? All right. (Wait for children to complete each part before going on with your instructions.) First, find a white screw on your plate and put it into the red Space. (Any white screw is all right.) Now find a gold colored washer and put it in the next space. Next, find a fat, thick black object, and put it in the next space. (Be sure to enunciate "fat" clearly so it won't be confused with "flat.") Now find a thin silver-colored object and put it in the next space. Make sure you give each object its own space. Don't_put more than one object in each space. Now find the smallest thin black object and put it in the next space. The smallest flat black object. The next one is a little harder. Take out the very shortest screws you can find--the very shortest screws, and put them together on your plate. Now, just using these very shortest screws, find the one that feels the lightest (pause) and,put it in the next space in the box. Remember, the one that feels the lightest. Very good. Now close the box up tight, and we'll go on to another game. 96 Material Objects - Test 5 # Record Sheet - Test 5 - Group Test Date Examiner (1) Identification: Below each item put a check mark if the item is completely correct, and put a diagonal slash if the box is left blank. Write lp_the description of any incorrect item, e.g., "silver nut" if ”silver washer" was requested. white gold black silver smallest lightest screw washer nut washer black smallest washer screw SCORE (2) Sorting_by Material: material(s) that are represented in the box. objects other than screws are included. Place a check mark in each box next to any Note in the boxes if alum. steel plastic brass alum. steel plastic brass alum. steel ___plastic brass ___a1um. ___steel ___p1astic brass alum. steel ,___ ___plastic brass ‘ plastic alum. steel brass SCORE APPENDIX B APPENDIX B PLACEBO ACTIVITIES The following activities were used with the placebo groups during the course of this study. The activities were selected from Marjorie Latchou's book A Pocket Guide of Movement Activities for the Elementapy School. It should be noted that the activities selected for use were not selected or organized by the investigator to develop any specific motor skills. TYPE OF ACTIVITY NAME OF ACTIVITY Running and Chasing Wild Horses Running and Chasing Whistle Stop Running and Chasing Beanbag Tag Running and Chasing Frog in the Sea Running and Chasing Walk, Walk, Run Relays and Races Walk-Run Race 97 BEHAVIORAL GOAL To run very fast from the "range" to the "valley." To run on a signal and stop when the whistle blows; to solve the movement problems given by the teacher. To overtake and tag the player with the beanbag; to avoid being tagged if one is IT. To see how close one can get to the Frog without being tagged. To move quickly to tag another and to avoid being tagged. To walk quickly and run fast in racing others. TYPE OF ACTIVITY Relays and Races Throwing and Catching Throwing and Catching Throwing and Catching Throwing and Catching Throwing and Catching Classroom Games Classroom Games 98 NAME OF ACTIVITY Carry Home the Beanbag Hot Ball I'll Roll the Ball to. Bounce and Catch Moon Shot Fox and Squirrel Little Tommy Tiddlemouse Lion Hunt BEHAVIORAL GOAL To retrieve an ob- ject and carry it back across the line as fast as possible. To push or roll the ball away from oneself quickly. To roll the ball to another person, using one or two hands. To bounce and catch a rubber playground ball. To throw the bean bag and hit the "moon . H To toss objects rapidly around the circle. To guess who is knocking on one's "house." To mimic the action of a story; to make up a story for others. Several modifications of the above relays and games were used. In addition to the activities above the placebo children were engaged in some activities where they used hand tools to construct wooden toys. The children spent three days driving 1" flat head nails into a 4 x 4 pine wood slab prior to constructing pre-cut wooden airplanes. Con- struction of the wooden airplanes took three days with the children having free play with planes during the construction period. 99 \wmmll Another activity consisted of the children assembling pre-cut wooden cars. This activity took from eight to ten sessions for the children to complete. Each child sanded and painted (magic markers) his car. APPENDIX C APPENDIX C SIMPLE CORRELATIONS Dependent Variables Lang Fat 1 1.00000 B-Hrd Mn 2 0.10926 1.00000 B-Lis 3 0.29267 0.52326 1 00000 8~Match 4 0 10773 0.30630 0.31801 1.00000 B-Alpha 5 0.07647 0.22765 0.33244 0.24767 1.00000 B-Math 6 0.20593 0.36444 0.46307 0.41970 0.42608 1.00000 B-Copv 7 0.03616 0.10025 0.13374 0.36873 0.19582 0.30206 1.00000 B-Total 8 0.20242 0.60312 0.67344 0.68198 0.65555 0.75937 0.54606 1.00000 Mater Id 9 0.41150 0.11151 0.32450 0.19543 0.20533 0.32304 0.09121 0.31881 1.00000 Seq Disc 10 0 27048 0.22447 0.39678 0.33361 0.27387 0.43286 0.36316 0.51373 0.30412 1.00000 Obj Comp 11 0.23907 0.02119 0.11292 0.08838 0.21445 0.23986 0.13768 0.21992 0.43601 0.15779 Id Sort 12 0.08989 0.12676 0.18061 0.17763 0.14693 0 15308 0.04149 0.21119 0.06960 '0.14395 Mat Sort 13 0.07081 0.18425 0.14133 0.03422 0.03221 0.14220 0.02049 0.13616 0.02074 0.19707 M.0. Sc Total 14 0.41840 0.16699 0.36798 0.26238 0.30865 0.43332 0.21721 0.45260 0.81294 0.53592 Eye-Motr 15 0.02195 0.05697 0.18270 0.32349 0.03271 0.14895 0.35952 0.27900 0.16440 0.14347 Fig-Grad 16 0.07758 0.17479 0.10458 0.11903 0.17312 0.22516 0.36988 0.29539 0.08608 0.39024 Form Con 17 0.18556 0.10495 0.26259 0.18414 0.00717 0.25701 0.09314 0.22147 0.30208 0 28053 Spac P03 18 0.11339 0.26845 0 38192 0.40191 0.27725 0.39652 0.40250 0.54536 0.14418 0.33349 Spal Rel 19 0.28291 0.23361 0.25142 0.47168 0.18134 0.33853 0.50921 0.50585 0.20304 0.46393 Fr Total 20 0.18958 0.23721 0.32585 0.38685 0.19083 0.40053 0.49005 0.51286 0.27350 0.49921 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 16 17 Lang Fac B-Hrd Mn B-Lis B-Match B-Alpha B-Math B-Copy B-Total Mater Id Seq Disc Obj Comp 11 1.00000 Id Sort 12 0.07231 1.00000 Hat Sort 13 0.09848 0.06798 1.00000 M.0. Sc Total 14 0.77157 0.28767 0.22307 1.00000 Eye-Mott 15 0.10089 0.08441 0 00173 0.18501 1.00000 Fig-Crnd 16 0.10155 -0.02761 0.10305 0 10051 0.23492 1.00000 Form Con 17 0.19726 0.10468 0.17434 0.35885 0.06940 0.23529 1.00000 Space P05 18 0.07428 0.15055 0.07439 0.22828 0.16871 0.25426 0.24351 1.00000 Spal Rel 19 0.05248 0.12193 0.03914 0.27519 0.26987 0.33292 0.17502 0.31909 1.00000 Fr Total 20 0.08414 0.10251 0.14074 0.34149 0.53663 0.78586 0.61193 0.49762 0.54745 1.00000 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Obj Comp Id Sort Mat Sort Sc Total Eye-Mott Pig-Grad Form Con Spac Pos Spal Rel tr Total Language Facility - Lang Fac -- Verbal Expression subtest of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities Metropolitan Readiness Test Form 8 Material Objects Science Test Marianne [routi' DevelOpmental Test of Visual Perception Hord Meaning - B-Hrd Mn Listening - 8-Lis Matching - B'Match Alphabet - B-Alpha Copying - 8-Copy Total - T-Total Materials Identification - Mater Id Sequential Discrimination - Seq Disc Object Comparison - Obj Comp Property Sort - Id Sort Materials Sort - Mat Sort Total - M.0. Sc Total lye-Motor - lye-Motr Figure Ground - Fig-Grnd Form Constancy - Form Can Position in Space - Spac Pos Spatial Relations - Spal Rel Total - Pr-Total lOl APPENDIX D APPENDIX D COMBINED MEANS Treatment Placebo Control Control N = 42 N = 32 N = 28 Verbal 17.93 13.91 12.11 B-Word Meaning 8.619 8.781 8.321 B-Listening 9.524 9.156 8.107 B-Matching 7.167 6.031 6.500 B-Alphabet 9.714 9.125 8.107 B-Math 9.381 9.719 8.536 B-Copying 6.381 5.187 5.821 B-Metro Total 50.86 48.16 45.39 Materials Identification 27.40 20.16 18.61 Sequential Discrimination 8.095 6.062 6.714 Object Comparison 13.29 6.844 4.321 Property Sort 5.333 6.062 6.786 Materials Sort 2.762 2.937 2.429 Science 56.90 42.06 38.86 Eye-Motor 10.81 8.844 10.36 Figure Ground 13.36 10.97 14.32 Form Constancy 7.214 6.156 6.071 Position in Space 5.976 5.937 5.286 Spatial Relations 4.214 3.000 3.750 Frostig Total 41.57 34.87 39.68 Covariates: Age 69.98 71.75 70.14 A-Word Meaning 7.762 7.281 7.429 A-Listening 7.857 7.625 7.250 A-Matching 4.595 3.219 4.857 A-Alphabet 6.429 6.094 5.321 A-Math 8.214 7.562 7.536 A-Copying 5.738 3.937 4.179 A-Metro Total 40.60 35.72 35.89 102 APPENDIX E APPENDIX E CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIAIIONS Treatment N = 23 N = 19 Variable _ S.D. __ 9 S.D. x SZZ' r. 2 Verbal Ex-ressioo 19,99990_ 5,16984_ 16.63158_ 3.96107 3. B-WOrd Meaning 8.73913 2.64948 8.47368 1.95415 4. B-Listening 9.60870 2.57151 9.42105 2.24390 5. B-Matching 6.73913 3.10743 7.68421 3.44887 6. B-Alphabet 8.60870 3.48685 11.05263 2.93397 7. B-Math 9.34783 3.22784 9.42105 2.79515 8. B-Copying 5.73913 2.71724 7.15789 2.29161 9. B-Metro Total _4§.91304"_w12.18760 .__ 53.21053 9.36648 17. Materials Identification 27.34783 6.91250 27.47368 8.80889 18. Sequencial Discrimination 8.08696 3.64209 8.10526 3.60393 19. Object Comparison 12.78261 7.74571 13.89474 6.69904 20. PrOperty Sort 5.91304 2.85901 4.63158 3.05888 21. Materials Sort 2.52174 1.72862 3.05263 1.39338 22. Material Objects ____Test 56.73913 15.57451 57.10526 12.38231 23. Eye-MOtor 10.73913 3.30588 10.89474 2.96076 24. Figure Ground 13.43478 4.93435 13.26316 5.45529 25. Form Constancy 7.13043 2.89677 7.31579 4.17735 26. Position in Space 6.00000 1.44600 5.94737 1.47097 27. Spatial Relations 4.30435 1.39593 4.10526 1.52369 ZB;_Er08tii_I9Eélm .1 .41-60870 __8-9§979-l&13526;2_ .-19.23299 Covariates: 10. A-Word Meaning 8.00000 3.08957 7.47368 2.98828 11. A-Listening 7.65217 2.14495 8.10526 2.02470 12. A-Matching 3.69565 2.00986 5.68421 3.00097 13. A-Alphabet 5.60870 4.03101 7.42105 4.07316 14. A-Math 7.86957 3.36161 8.63158 2.73273 15. A-Copying 5.56522 3.53972 5.94737 3.11758 16. A-Metro Total 38.39130 12.81242 _43.26316 9 83103 70.21739 103 69-684z1_j'_ 104 CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Placebo N = 19 N = 13 Variable S.D. S.D. in‘ x2 2. Verbal Expression 13.00000 3.69685 15.23077 6.94207 3. B-Wbrd Meaning 8.10526 2.57972 9.76923 2.77350 4. B-Listening 8.73684 2.90291 9.76923 2.52170 5. B-Matching 5.57895 3.90606 6.69231 2.56205 6. B-Alphabet 8.31579 4.30829 10.30769 3.30113 7. B-Math 8.94737 3.56641 10.84615 2.91108 8. B-Copying 4.36842 3.13068 6.38462 2.50128 9. B-Metro Total 44.26316 13.64975 53.84615 9.19099 17. Materials Identification 19.89474 8.62100 20.53846 6.07749 18. Sequential Discrimination 4.94737 4.83590 7.69231 4.38529 19. Object Comparison 6.31579 7.58692 7.61538 8.15004 20. Property Sort 5.26316 2.51312 7.23077 3.41940 21. Materials Sort 2.63158 1.64014 3.38462 1.70970 22. Material Objects Test 39.05263 17.01135 46.46154 12.71230 ——=’_ 23. Eye-Motor 9.15789 2.91096 8.38462 2.36426 24. Figure Ground 10.00000 5.62731 12.38462 5.82435 25. Form Constancy 6.00000 4.49691 6.38462 4.97558 26. Position in Space 5.73684 1.52177 6.23077 1.36344 27. Spatial Relations 2.89474 2.07885 3.15385 1.90815 28. Frostig Total 33.78947 1.40945 36.46154 9.01494 Covariates: 10. A-Word Meaning 7.63158 3.09499 6.76923 1.73944 11. A-Listening 7.36842 2.43152 8.00000 3.60555 12. A-Matching 3.10526 2.78677 3.38462 2.36426 13. A-Alphabet 5.31579 4.50990 7.23077 3.63212 14. A-Math 7.36842 3.57787 7.84615 2.88231 15. A-Copying 3.00000 2.38048 5.30769 2.92645 16. A-Met§o_ToEaln__ 33.78947 3 45601 38 53846 7 77405 105 CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIAIIONS Control N = 16 N = 12 Variable S.D. S.D. xd x9 2. Verbal Ex ression 11.43750 4.53091 13.00000 4.32750 3. B-Word Meaning 8.37500 2.30579 8.25000 3.33371 4. B-Listening 8.62500 2.12525 7.41667 3.08835 5. B-Matching 5.62500 3.44238 7.66667 2.18812 6. B-Alphabet 8.18750 4.03681 8.00000 4.28528 7. B-Math 8.31250 2.52240 8.83333 3.37998 8. B-Copying 5.81250 3.91950 5.83333 3.24271 9. B'Metro Total 44.93750 11.53816 46.00000 13.46376 = l 17. Material Identification 18.12500 7.12624 19.25000 8.51870 18. Sequential Discrimination 7.12500 4.73110 6.16667 4.89589 19. Object Comparison 3.31250 6.01907 5.66667 7.60781 20. PrOperty Sort 6.50000 2.47656 7.16667 2.88675 21. Materials Sort 2.12500 1.99583 2.8333 1.99241 22. Material Objects a===Test 37.18750 15.69806 41.08333 14.79839 23. Eye-Motor 10.06250 2.51578 10.75000 3.59608 24. Figure Ground 14.93750 3.41504 13.50000 4.79583 25. Form Constancy 6.50000 3.70585 5.50000 3.82575 26. Position in Space 5.37500 2.02896 5.16667 1.74946 27. Spatial Relations 3.81250 2.94887 3.66667 2.01509 28. Frospig Total 40.50000 9.52890 38.58333 9.77435 Covariates? 10. A-Word Meaning 6.68750 2.41437 8.41667 2.23437 11. A-Listening 6.81250 2.73785 7.83333 2.75791 12. A-Matching 5.00000 4.14729 4.66667 2.77434 13. A-Alphabet 5.25000 3.19374 5.41667 3.28795 14. A-Math 6.93750 2.43499 8.33333 2.74138 15. A-Copying 4.37500 3.40343 3.91667 2.87492 16. A-Metro Total 34.18750 10.21906 38.16667 10.96136 70.62500 69.50000 1. Age APPENDIX F APPENDIX F KEY FOR THE DATA CARD PROGRAM AND RAW DATA Column Number of Range of Item - i Numbers Columns Valid Cards Description . 1: 1-3 3 001-107 Subject Identification E 4 1 1-3 Group 1 = T 2 = PC 3 = C 7 5-6 2 60-85 Age in Months 7 1 1-2 Sex 1:0) 2=? 8 1 - Blank 9-10 2 01-35 Verbal Expression 11-12 2 - Blank 13-14 2 00-16 Metro Form B Test 1 Word Meaning 15-16 2 00-16 Metro Form B Test 2 Listening 17-18 2 00-14 Metro Form B Test 3 Visual Per- ception 19-20 2 00-16 Metro Form B Test 4 Alphabet 21-22 2 00-26 Metro Form B Test 5 Numbers-Math 23-24 2 00-14 Metro Form B Test 6 Copying 25-26 2 00-99 Metro Form B Totals 27-38 2 - Blank 29-30 2 00-16 Metro Form.A Test 1 31-32 2 00-16 Metro Form A Test 2 33-34 2 00-14 Metro Form A Test 3 106 107 KEY FOR THE DATA CARD PROGRAM AND RAW DATA (continued) Column Number of Range of Item Numbers Valid Cards Description 35-36 00-16 ‘Metro Form A Test 4 37-38 00-14 Metro Form A Test 5 39-40 00-14 Metro Form.A Test 6 41-42 00-99 Metro Form A Totals 43-44 - Blank 45-46 00-41 Material Objects Science Test 1 Identification of Materials 47-48 00-18 Material Objects Science Test 2 Discrimination of Sequence 49-50 00-16 Material Objects Science Test 3 Comparison of Objects 51-52 00-12 Material Objects Science Test 4 Identifying and Sorting by PrOperty 53-54 00-08 Material Objects Science Test 5 Sorting by Material 55-56 01-95 Material Objects Science Totals 57-58 - Blank 59-60 00-16 Frostig Sub-test 1 Eye-Motor Word 61-62 00-08 Frostig Sub-test 2 Figure Ground 63-64 00-32 Frostig Sub-test 3 Form Constancy 65-66 00-08 Frostig Sub-test 4 Position in Space 67-68 00-08 Frostig Sub-test 5 Spatial Relations 69-70 00-72 Frostig Totals 108 KEY FOR THE DATA CARD PROGRAM AND RAW DATA (continued) Column Number of Range of Item Numbers Columns Valid Cards Description 71-72 2 - Blank 73 1 1-2 School Identification 1 = School A 2 = School B 74 1 - Blank 75 1 1-2 AM or PM Sessions 1 = AM 2 = PM 76 1 - Blank 77 1 1-3 Teacher Identification 1 = Teacher 1 2 = Teacher 2 3 = Teacher 3 78-80 3 - Blank 8851781 8111651 8121671 8141751 8231651 0261641 8381691 8681731 8421661 8431781 8441651 8681661 8721781 8731661 8741661 0881731 8841731 8881691 8941731 0971741 8981761 1881751 1841851 19 8811782 0841722 8871732 8181692 8131742 0281722 8281662 8331652 8341682 8361652 8391692 8411692 8691722 8781652 8871732 8931772 1811662 1851742 1861652 19 8822691 8882651 8892721 8172761 8182781 8212771 8222661 8242751 8492681 8512781 87891286148452 18121112188661 12110986148961 89898589128953 11891118111163 06188886128850 19138986111866 13118387090447 11118388118448 08098513888245 09121812108760 88888415128552 09088518078746 03848684858527 07898618838338 89868286038531 89128687888858 87188489188242 11110812128559 85038185858819 18138916138566 05108986080745 88118983870644 2 11111014110663 09888915100960 86868418188448 88141211151171 12121814888662 87898218128646 89118715118558 10890913868648 18888618861151 87998388848738 89111312128764 87858586841138 06188809890547 18881014108759 05888311118644 10081210110657 18181189898554 89130705101155 06891014108756 1 86898884838822 86888313118546 11111115158770 85860113128845 05868088858525 09120306060036 06188818118247 12111884148657 13878489878343 87878585118338 109 INDIVIDUAL DATA CARDS 09080203100991 12090610120857 10060300050731 11060202070533 12070110111051 11090708100752 07100506110948 10120607100095 06070707050638 07080404050432 09030610101149 07080313070947 00080303030033 09070203060527 02080200060117 02030304040521 11100302110744 09070003050024 09090608120650 03060203050019 11110515120256 09070506130949 05078202030019 89868413138651 18898512118552 87898489858337 89888789111155 18188588878242 18868485181449 85188613868444 89188586188944 18878287898742 87888582888131 85898885188744 84858582838423 86868481098531 13891188888958 85878818848943 10138688120554 87851486118649 88888182188326 86898415878047 88898182828822 12888814128147 10078814100453 86878818118438 88868083868225 86878184868824 11898287888138 14108783128458 87108984848736 87848681058427 211216040457 321218888878 341113048466 340718040265 251120068466 318828888471 321217068471 380708108249 230828040257 160808068030 210408180237 341118040471 278728888258 258215848248 198388188234 140303060026 381216080074 270814848457 351214868471 218818888241 371219060680 328815188865 218888888441 300518040469 321218100274 290617040460 381118060073 340416040058 280400000234 270819040260 251216020459 130817040446 190011090938 191014060998 100417080993 350515020460 310919060267 311000090499 311219120478 321200000448 301110020465 171120060256 280405080449 250918100062 181203060443 270700090290 180209060939 210302040939 241020080466 311200090931 120101020016 000008020414 001500000645 111607070546 111813080454 151908060452 171810070557 120204070530 111900070651 121004050435 071801080539 081407060439 121603080645 131306050340 121108050541 131107040338 091911070192 061300050335 111906060547 040907040428 071310050641 101304030131 131612070452 001207050537 170005050532 091413060648 000401060322 071706040135 131617080660 141107060543 061806040640 090406060227 091404060437 191709060450 091004040431 111003080537 051711050243 121705080345 121613080554 101902090333 182010040557 131707070650 121610070348 130005060529 031610060035 060702060324 081615060651 081214088345 090207070227 060005050117 101406060339 111610080348 101200050532 111000030024 thiNMUhHVIDNHVhHUhH-un—un—uanun—nur- nu»runn—-~wunnununnv-—n--—n- AHV00HHV~'find—Hi!”hflvhflvhflvhahflflhflfl0’ idhdhHUithhHVfUhHVfunoun-unname- fUhJ“NVfUhth-I-nu—u-unuu—ui—H—h- wflppwppppp F'H—FF'F'HHHH uuuuuuuuuuuu-----u NNs-ls-Is—a—s—e-a—s- INDIVIDUAL DATA CARDS 8682681 0662811 0672641 0892781 8912741 8922661 0952721 8962781 8992661 13 8832782 0152662 8162772 0192652 0532782 8552732 8562762 8582762 8592712 8652752 0982672 1832742 1872732 16 8253781 8273651 8293711 8313711 8383731 0463731 9473741 8483731 8543691 0573661 8623731 0643711 0793711 8813771 8823651 8863681 12 8353712 0373722 8453722 0503722 0523642 8633752 8753692 8763652 8773682 0783752 0833682 8853712 110 (continued) 06188709101153 86878384868430 11131886118657 88898688878333 87848183828118 84068188838014 88898515110149 87898686180038 11151112128465 11188711118858 85868387868633 88008080888383 18181811888158 07098218110241 89871885878543 87878483100637 07850411880944 86860185060928 2 18118501118246 85068388868333 12180818198766 87888312898241 12180888118958 89108685098443 89898786880443 88888318820536 12898813110558 87050787080938 12888913128762 88828389880434 87848688891145 83810082871124 12138915120667 87130613140356 848883878909“5 85118982188748 13140212180657 88090085888333 89890587870348 85118386868334 86128215188752 88898811188745 89181013128761 88118584851144 1 11898614878451 07130287870““0 08898611080951 84858781898733 06118611180448 89888686080340 86098618881158 85038985868432 06858912180858 87840886870329 89128814138755 18060309870944 09111011061259 180889881187“3 88088918128754 84111086880746 12890909090250 86050612060035 05848083868018 85078084858122 89881885881353 86838886871242 18880485888237 85888086188829 88898387888338 04070505040w29 13110603118448 12891383180450 86888682830538 87050000020814 88878884868227 86078288840~19 2 88180987888547 85188486068132 10870614850345 11050407050537 11860909131159 88891187108653 12140915130669 89108113138854 89868788878542 88048407898133 13888988180957 12110506120349 05880202860225 88898181100231 04021002050023 05060580050016 03860913121853 06118604090844 11888684148758 18878885078340 85848887868535 89838485850329 08180887878747 10898304090540 108888848216 111288848827 178888840425 298319068259 388885868453 118888888811 280008880238 258818868445 131128888254 291128128476 228115888458 218808868439 238412868449 128012180438 138685868434 281208880832 191288188445 161188868833 148418828442 248717188462 211288888647 331288188257 240008100034 110200060019 101200060038 101200040430 250607060044 231217180466 251118080466 201207080451 130300080226 070302060422 251202060449 310800068449 200400040028 131200080033 130000000013 200500080437 880380860421 191100820436 198288188435 211007080450 180011068237 121200880436 230014108097 208300820025 360216100064 301120060269 050808088627 281200108446 101404060539 142011080457 098903030024 111108038235 151107060544 080480060220 890006060021 110703060633 850983050527 880715060339 081213080344 081608058441 850013040224 050503080324 101700050335 101700080237 091684850438 101885050543 871002060025 881007078832 142009070656 071384070636 121703080141 151783060445 101710080651 111707070345 061485840433 181501040232 121688080751 101814060456 .051004060328 071509040338 102011071253 101786040441 891311030137 131005060640 110782010021 101605840136 111407070839 861703058334 141701070746 881711860446 101184030634 101785070544 140409030232 048402830114 171503070345 111512050447 131708060448 111401030534 NNNH—qu—u—n—Huu ----~ NNNN—Io—u—uo—p—n—t—n—H rvnnvnunnvu-uu—u-un— 8—8—8—8—8—8-8—8—8—8—8—NNNNN NNN—IH—I—b—nu—p— ----H UUUUUUNNNNNN UUUUNNNNNNNNNNNN UUUNNNNNNHFFF’ UUUUUUNNN ppupppo—u—t—Nmfu 1le11111111111111[11111HIWIIH'I'IIHJI 3129310801 1291