‘ u I. C :II t) OI 7N!” IP19]. . 1N": .mHl . - ~ l {1‘ ‘tt «4 . :8 .l..v.on 0§.$tb: 2 .«JJ . . I , It}... h«V!¢.WI! t. 32.1.. . . (Jugvtunn Wing: an. £1.5m . (IL I c .t 9U "h! V. ‘1 .11. . . ‘ 1 ; . LNn t-..4$...-....n-.3.- I. lllbfi A v I‘ A o~500 un‘ .- v I! ' . .: . 901.1. . .IlcsIMHo . . . (:1. £030.!!!th- . o ..-!0 Ila-Q I I II A: r - . 'V I-~ 31:33.1. 8...!!!“ . -‘u’p’l? .Pfx. 95.13”!” IE. 1.6.? not“ flufihfi... -. .m”... Jvflflduuvnflil 1.3.5”?! étfi.-r...wu no." . roll. . Pet wit!!! . I n)§.v‘ .1.~I“o>ull0 . . N gl'.‘. I .mp7“! 3 .nB; .1.)..H..s.t.ur,t....udnzuLfru.3¥.. ox .. . . ‘Atofivgl‘l‘. fl“) . . . :1. . .5 -. . y... . cw . . l I I O fighting Hindu :11: . .0! l»! 3. 04' a... J'ollviolllo‘l’nl II MI 0 :0 u '59:. 1"”! {I a... I. i. ’D I 'nI-I-i . i... i . ¢}M\.VKI.\.>IAI I .v.5o.v . 44. I. . ..au. A. .54 It" ‘3 n . ‘ .. I: J . .u ‘ .1 v ........ 33.1.33}? ‘1... .- -. :1 Z. 1......2 . ... . .. 2:. ..... .1. 1 .i :u. . . 5 7 . . v . .3 . . . . .u ‘ . I. A l. (lit I l b 1‘ . ‘ I I| n. I. . ,il‘ LV. I li..l!059cl1c . I," {I ‘I: 3:3 . a till! dwif 5.3- v £ .aa.lfimv.-H(II.J\[...\W.MH..\ .‘Crfltclz. ox .1 .3 . ‘. . ‘ . w,.tc b vfiv ‘ vu.,n\dlilu.tv:1... .. . . f.) ‘ 4 5.3.: n ‘ Q .1 . . .13 ’ Nu. ! ..4.\..,.7n...y.f \ I. ul. .. UL . o' 'p .‘ :‘ . Am; i a 1 9% ' 3‘ ’3; V! .. . ‘ . on! ..t.n. “A .III Iv..- ‘ ‘pl oli- . - I“TIIIIIIIDIIIII! 1 E E" l. I. «2'5, . ‘fit dv-srUOl‘b'"0-Zi‘ i 32'! 2': o ,3 fuss-1.."- «yo-‘4 a , ‘ o'lm " n_-—-u--'UIO . I646 “Quilter E} o a; '. ‘7" l-arn”;,..a~-" " cauv'i-vl’Q-‘d‘hl This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ARABIC READING INVENTORY FOR JORDANIAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS FIRST THROUGH FOURTH GRADE LEVELS presented by Zaidan Ahmad Qasem has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Curriculum and Instruction 7 a Major professor flfl Date W MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. .i' " THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ARABIC READING INVENTORY FOR JORDANIAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS FIRST THROUGH FOURTH GRADE LEVELS BY Zaidan Ahmad Qasem A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1986 \\ ABSTRACT THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ARABIC READING INVENTORY FOR JORDANIAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS FIRST THROUGH FOURTH GRADE LEVELS BY Zaidan Ahmad Qasem The purpose of this study was to develop an Arabic Reading Inventory useful to teachers in testing their students' instructional levels in reading. The study iden- tified the types of reading, oral or silent, which might be more influential in the determination of reading level, determined the accuracy of teachers' judgment with regard to estimating student reading level, and identified error frequency in reading among elmentary grade students. The subjects of this study were 120 students from Jordanian elementary schools, 30 from each grade from first through fourth. The materials for the test were selected from Jordanian readers. The test formats com- prised a word list of 20 items and two reading passages: one for oral reading, and one for silent reading for each grade level. A retelling approach was used to check the students' degree of comprehension. Teachers then evaluated their students' reading level. Zaidan Ahmad Qasem Four null hypotheses were formulated for the study. On the basis of the data analysis (Pearson and Nonpara- metric correlation coefficient, T-test, and Chi-square), it was found that (1) there was a significant positive correlation between reading words in isolation and reading words in context for all students; (2) there was a sig- nificant positive correlation between the teachers' judg- ment and students' reading scores on the test; (3) it was found that there were significant differences between oral and silent reading comprehension at all levels; (4) there were significant differences among students' scores in omission of letters, grammatical structures, insertions, teachers' aid, mispronunciations, repetitions, and self-correction. It was also found that there were no significant differences in the following types of errors: substitutions, omissions of words, and the order of words and letters. DEDICATION To my father, Ahmad, and to my mother, Hind, for their hOpes and dreams. To my wife, Safa, for her love and patience. To my brother, Badie, for his love and support. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to the many individuals whose ideas, assistance, and support have contributed to my professional development and the completion of this dissertation. I wish to thank my advisor and committee chairman, Dr. Kenneth Neff, who helped and looked out for me since my enrollment at Michigan State University, for his support and guidance during the course of this endeavor. He taught me the joy of being a learner and gave me the support and freedom to pursue the study according to my own instincts and needs. I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr. Lois Bader, who as one of my major professors and a committee member, generously gave of her time patiently to guide this research from its start. Her sensitive direction and encouragement were major factors in the completion of my research. She provided great assistance, and her gentle manner and belief in me were extremely important. In addition, I want to thank the other members of my committee: Dr. Bohnhorst, who gave useful advice and from iii whom I learned so much, and Dr. Donald Burke for his insightful comments and support. All of my gratitude goes to my friend, Dr. Amein Al-kuhun, who provided important moral support, advice, as well as his time for reviewing and selecting appro- priate materials for the test. Special thanks are extended to Abdul Razak Habib from the Office of Research Consul- tation for his statistical help and advice. My thanks are extended to Rafieq Qraqeesh and Itaf Salah whom I loved and trusted in their participation in developing and administering the test. My deepest appreciation is extended to my father, Amah, and my mother, Hind, and to my brothers and sisters: Baha, Zaher, Bade'a, Bahe'a, Aida, Shade'a, Sa'eda, and Gada for their support and encouragement throughout the period of my study. My deep appreciation is extended to my brother, Badi, and his wife, Zouhur and daughter Haneen, whose encourage- ment, financial, and moral support will be remembered forever. Thanks to my uncle Dr. Abdulaziz Sartawi for his help and encouragement. Thanks to Nancy Heath for her help in the final preparation and typing of this manuscript. Finally, with deepest gratitude, I express apprecia- ILiOD to my lovely wife, Safa, and to my children, Rawan, iv Bian, and Ahmad, for their patience, love, and understand- ing during my doctoral study. Mere words are an inade- quate tribute to the moral support they have given me during this time. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . Description of the Informal Reading Inventory . - - . . . . Achievement Levels . . . . The Advantages of the I. R. I. . . Research Questions . . . . . . . Definitions of Terms . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . Organization of Subsequent Sections . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . Oral and Silent Reading . . . . . Oral and Silent Reading as Methods of Teaching and Testing . . . . . Comprehension . . . . . . . . Word Recognition Errors . . . . . What is an Error and How It Should Be Scored . . . . . . . . . Repetition . . . . . . . . . Correction Behavior . . . . . . Teacher Judgment . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . Research Questions . . . . . . . Null Hypotheses . . . . . . . . Sample of the Study . . . . . . Procedures . . . . . Development of the Inventory . . . Part I . . . . . . . . . Part II 0 O O O O O O O 0 vi Page viii xi bld 10 11 12 14 14 16 16 19 25 31 32 4O 42 43 46 48 48 49 49 50 51 52 53 54 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Pilot Study . . . . . . . . 53 Administering the Test . . . . . . . 55 Form II . . . . . . . . . 59 Statistical Treatment of the Data . . 60 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 DATA ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Form II . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Form I . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Form II . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Word Recognition Errors . . . . . . . 75 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . 95 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Conclusion . . . . . 100 Recommendations for Educational Implementa- tion in Jordanian Schools . . . . . 102 Recommendations for Future Research . . . 105 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 vii LIST OF TABLES Page Students by Gender and Type of School Involved in the Study . . . . . . . 51 Number of Words in Oral and Silent Reading .Passages for Each Grade Level by Form I and Form II . . . . . . . . . . . 56 The Code and Scoring Guidelines for Errors Used in Administering the Test . . . . 61 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Reading Words in Isolation (W1,W2) and Reading Words in Context (R1,R2) on the Arabic Reading Inventory, Form I and Form II . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Students' Mean Scores of the Word Lists (Reading Words in Isolation) and Oral Reading Passages (Reading Words in Context) on the Test . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Nonparametric Correlation Between Teachers' Estimate of Their Students' Reading Level and Students' Oral Reading Scores on the Arabic Reading Inventory, Form I and Form II . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 The Result of Correlation Test and T-Test Between Oral Reading Comprehension (O.CO) and Silent Reading Comprehension (S.CO) Scores on the Arabic Reading Inventory for Form I . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 The Result of Correlation Test and T-Test Between Oral Reading Comprehension (O.CO)' and Silent Reading Comprehension (S.CO) Scores on the Arabic Reading Inventory for From II . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 viii Table Page 9. Chi-Square, p Value, and degrees of Freedom for Each Type of Error that Interferes with the Meaning in Form I and Form II . . . 31 10. Means and Standard Deviations of Omission Letters in Oral Reading for Students in the First Through Fourth Grade Levels in Form I and Form II . . . . . . . . . . . 82 11. Means and Standard Deviations of Grammati- cal Structure Errors in Oral Reading for Students in the First Through Fourth Grade Levels in Form I and Form II . . . . . 33 12. Means and Standard Deviations of Insertions for Students in the First Through Fourth Grade Levels in Form I and Form II - . . 84 13. Means and Standard Deviations of Students Mispronunciations in Oral Reading in the First Through Fourth Grade Levels in Form I and Form II . . . . . . . . 36 14. Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers' Aid in Oral Reading for Students in the First Through Fourth Grade Levels in Form I and Form II . . . . . . . . 36 15. Chi-Square, p Value, and Degrees of Freedom for Each Behavior that Does Not Interfere with the Meaning in Form I and Form II . Among Students in Elementary Schools . . 88 16. Means and Standard Deviations of Self- Correction for Students in Oral Reading, First Through Fourth Grade Levels in Form I and Form II . . . . . . . 39 17. Means and Standard Deviations of Phrasing for Students in the First Through Fourth Grade Levels in Form I and Form II . . . 90 18. Means and Standard Deviations of Repetition for Students in the First Through Fourth Grade Levels in Form I and Form II . . . 91 ix Table 19. 20. 21. 22. Page Students Mean Scores for Oral Reading and Comprehension on the Test for Students in the First through Fourth Grade Levels . . 92 Number of Students Who Got 90% and Above in Reading and 60% and Above in Comprehension in Form I . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Number of Students Who Got 85% and Above in Reading and 50% and Above in Compre- hension in Form II . . . . . . . . 94 Number of Stduents Who Got 85% and Above in Reading and 60% and Above in Compre- hension for First Grade Level in Form I . 95 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 B. Students' COpy of Form I . . . . . . 110 C. Teachers' Copy of Form I . . . . . . 123 D. Students' Copy of Form II . . . . . . 136 E. Teachers' Copy of Form II . . . . . . 149 xi INTRODUCTION This section presents the problem, the purpose of the study, and research questions of this study. They are followed by a description of the informal reading inven- tory, the definitions of terms used in this study, and the limitations of it. Also included is a summary and a brief outline of the organization of the remaining sections. Statement of the Problem Appraisals of each pupil's achievement, according to McKee (1948), should be made from time to time during the school year by means of standardized tests, informal tests, and the teacher's observation of the pupil's performance in regular school work. These appraisals can indicate the growth which the pupil has made during a given period of time. They can point out teaching or reteaching which needs to be done, and they can give the teacher some idea of the effectiveness of the teaching which he/she has accomplished. Farr (1969) stressed the usefulness of appraisal resources in the following statement: Information with regard to the learner's reading ability may be obtained from informal and standardized measures, both of which should be employed to obtain the best possible estimate of reading ability. According to Alkuhun (1980), the field of reading in Jordan lacks studies in the different educational stages. In this regard he states: Despite the fact that reading has a great role and a big impact on the field of education, we don't find any field study which attempts to study the comprehension level in reading for students in any educational stage in Jordan. The field of reading in Jordan has no published instrument to help classroom teachers estimate the child- ren's level of achievement and to determine their strengths and weaknesses. The lack of reading instruments makes. teachers unable to meet each child at his level of func- tioning, and it is difficult to provide instruction unless teachers can determine with a fair degree of accuracy what that level is. Furthermore, the shortage of reading tools makes school children in Jordan spend more time when necessary trying to gain information beyond their grasp because a book may be too difficult. The Ministry of Education controls the entire educa- tional system. It applies the same curricula through all schools in the country. Students in the same grade level have the same textbooks to read, an arrangement which could hurt both the poor readers and the good readers. Students in these situations should be examined and eval- uated, yet they are treated alike. Due to the shortage in reading tests, students transfer from grade to grade based only on their teachers' evaluation. Evaluation of a child's reading ability, especially in the elementary grades, is accomplished by oral reading. Assessment of these procedures provide the basis for the child's transfer to the next grade or retention in the same grade if he does not get 50% in reading and math. Because of these conditions, there is a need to develOp an adequate reading assessment tool. Austin and Huebner (1962), Botel (1961), Cooper (1952), Durrel (1956), Mckee (1948), Smith (1963), and Sipay (1963) have stressed the usefulness and the efficacy of the informal reading inventory for evaluating the performance of pupils to insure their proper placement in reading material for instructional purposes. The emphasis placed by the previously mentioned writers on the advantages of the informal reading inventory suggests that it is advisable to develop an Arabic reading inventory. The informal reading inventory will provide classroom teachers in Jordan in schools with fundamental information which will enable them to determine their students' achievement level as well as their reading strengths and weaknesses. The results of this research endeavor will eventually help first to fourth grade teachers in Jordanian elementary schools to place their students at their pr0per instruc- tional level, provide them with apprOpriate material, and prevent them from reading at the frustration level. This study will help to alleviate the shortage of reading tools and be a first step toward the future development of an evaluation and placement instrument for Jordanian students from the first grade to high school. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to develop an Arabic reading inventory with two forms based on the Jordanian reading curriculum for elementary school children from the first to fourth grade level in order to assist the classroom teacher in determining a child's instructional reading level. The test is called the Arabic Reading Inventory and employs testing procedures similar to those used in informal reading inventories. The inventory includes the following criteria: 1. Graded word lists were developed as an entry for graded reading passages. 2. Four graded reading passages were developed for each level. 3. Oral and silent reading was assessed. 4. Comprehension testing was a part of the oral and silent reading testing. 5. The test had two forms. Both forms I and II were used in testing oral and silent reading. 6. The scoring criteria for achievement levels were based on word recognition and compre- hension for oral reading, and on comprehen- sion for silent reading. Description of the Informal Reading Inventory The informal reading inventory is an individual test in which the child reads, both orally and silently, increasingly difficult material until reaching the frus- tration level of not knowing the words, not being able to pronounce them, or not understanding the ideas presented. It is a diagnostic test which reveals many specific areas of difficulty in reaching to the observer. Zintz (1980) considers the I.R.I. as a tool for measuring the independent, instructional, and frustration levels for children by the use of graded material. The informal reading test or informal reading inven- tory (Betts, 1946), as it is commonly called, has been discussed by reading experts for more than 60 years (Beldin, 1970). Betts (1946), Harris and Sipay (1975), and others have acknowledged the usefulness of the informal reading inventory and explained how it is to be con- structed, administered, and scored. Basically, the informal reading inventory should be constructed from graded instructional material. It is composed of two main parts: (1) graded word lists, and (2) graded reading passages. The first part of the inventory is comprised of word lists of 10 to 20 words for each grade level. This part is usually administered first to give the teacher an indication of the prOper entry level for the graded passages in the second part. Bader (1980) indicates the graded word lists helps the teacher to obtain an estimate of the student's: (1) level, (2) sound symbol association, (3) structural analysis skills, (4) sight words, (5) automaticity, and (6) word recognition approaches. The methods usually used in administering the informal reading inventory for both oral and silent reading are as follows. Qral Reading The child reads aloud a passage estimated to be at his instructional level, based on the graded word list. The teacher records on a copy of the passage any deviations from the printed words, i.e., all errors or miscues (Goodman, 1969). The child first reads silently from his independent level based on the graded word list, and then the child reads the passage orally. While the child reads aloud, the teacher records his/her errors. In this case, the child may or may not have prior preparation for the oral reading, depending on the test directions. During oral reading the teacher notes hesitations, speed, word pronunciation errors, and indication of tension movement. The oral reading is guided by sequential ques- tions that the child has to answer with brief accounts or phrases that he/she should recall. Silent Reading The child reads the passage silently. The silent reading is guided by sequential questions that the child has to answer with a few words or phrases that he/she can recall. During silent reading, the teacher notes speed, lip movement, tension movement, head movement, and other evidence of confusion or frustration. In oral reading, the child's reading achievement level is determined by word recognition and comprehension. Silent reading achievement is determined by comprehension alone. .Achievement Levels The major purpose of the informal reading inventory is to determine the child's independent level, instruc- tional level, and frustration level (Zintz, 1980). V The following standards are suggested for judging the instructional reading level. Betts (1946) defined the instructional reading level as the highest level at which the child can read satis- factorialy with some assistance and supervision from the teacher. His criteria for achieving this level are pro- nunciation accuracy of 95% or more of the running words, and 75% for comprehension accuracy. William Powell (1969) indicated that there is no valid research data to support the Killgallon (1942) assertion and that these criteria are unrealistically high. Powell points out that there is no universal acceptance or agree- ment with what he calls the Betts-Killgallon criteria, and cautions that agreement with them should be guarded because the reports are based on a study of thirty-nine fourth grade children, which Powell considers too small a sample. He summarizes the situation in the following way. Since its origin, the informal reading inven- tory has undergone several modifications, both in terms of administrative procedure and of the per- centages used to designate reading levels. Reading authorities have varied in Opinion regarding the exact percentage at the instruc- tional reading level. For instructional reading level, percentages suggested for the lower limits of needed accuracy in word recognition and in comprehension, for example, are as follows, with word recognition first and comprehension second in each instance: E. A. Betts (and P. A. Kill- gallon), 95 and 75; A. J. Harris, 95 and 75; M. Botel, 95 and 75: R. A. Kress and M. S. Johnson, 95 and 75: M. C. Austin and M. H. Huebner, 95 and 75; L. R. Wheeler and E. H. Smith, 95 and 70; R. Karlin, 90 and 70: N. B. Smith, 80 and 70: and L.-Cooper, 98 and 70 (primary), and 96 and 60 (intermediate). With few exceptions, even in those instances where the criteria have been modified, the Betts- Killgallon paradigm has been generally retained. Powell provided an excellent review of several studies and indicated that he would show if he played with the raw data from some of them. He then presented his own study which tested the hypothesis that the word-recognition criterion was lower than the 95% level. He gathered data from 178 protocols of children already studied by examin- ers other than himself. Powell then analyzed his data as follows: 10 The data suggest that the mean scores of grades one and two tend to cluster together percentage-wise, and the mean percentage of grades three, four, five, and six form a relatively similar percentage zone. The data clearly indicate that pupils in grade one and two could tolerate on the average an 85 percent word recognition score and still maintain 70 percent comprehension. To say I found this astounding is an understatement. The finding that pupils in grades three through six could tolerate on the average a 91 to 94 percent word recognition score while maintaining 70 percent comprehension is commensurate with the data of Killgallon and Schummer. This finding was expected. The Advantages of the I.R.I. Betts (1946) has pointed out the advantages of the informal reading inventory as a teacher's primary tool in teaching reading skills: 1. The teacher uses the material at hand, thus reducing the cost. 2. With direct and rapid administration, the teacher gets some needed answers quickly. 11 3. The informal reading inventory can be used for groups or individuals to achieve spe- cific purposes. 4. The student should be made aware of how well he/she reads it. 5. The student can be made aware of progress as he/she achieves it. 6. Interesting materials can be selected to use in the inventory. 7. The testing situation should create an instructional situation. 8. As achievement is appraised, specific needs are revealed. 9. Readability of materials can be checked in a series of texts. Research Questions The following research questions were formulated to guide the study: Research Question 1: Is silent reading compre- hension superior to oral reading compre- hension among students in first through fourth grade levels? Researchguestion 2: Which types of reading error that occur in oral reading are most frequent among students in elementary schools? 12 Researchguestion 3: Does accuracy of reading words in isolation have an association with accuracy ofreading words in context among students in first through fourth grade levels? Researchguestion 4: Are the teachers' estimates of their students' reading achievement levels based on his/her observation and experience related to students' reading performance on reading tests? These preceding questions were expanded and restated in null hypothesis form for statistical testing. They are presented in Section III. Definitions of Terms In order that the reader may understand this study, an explanation of relevant terms is provided. Independent level: The highest level at which the reader misses no more than 5% of the words, reads fluently, and retells at least 80% of what he/she reads. Instructional level: The teaching level at which the child can read successfully at leat 85% of the words, and can retell at least 50% using new materials. For reading materials with which the child is already familiar, he/ she has to read at a 90% level and above and to recall 60% or more. 13 Frustration level: The point at which the child becomes unable to handle the reading material because of errors. A child is considered at the frustration level if he/she scored less than 90% in reading, and less than 85% for Form I and Form II, respectively. A comprehension score of less than 60% for Form I and 50% for Form II is also indicative of the frustration level. Arabic Reading Inventory: The Arabic Reading Inven- tory is an individual test for Jordanian elementary class- rooms in which the child reads both orally and silently from a series of increasingly difficult passages in two forms constructed from Jordanian reading curricula. Each passage has a set of pausal units to check comprehension. Both word recognition and comprehension are evaluated to determine the child's instructional level. Jordanian reading curricula: The series of textbooks which are prepared by the Ministry of Education in Jordan for all schools in the country from first through twelve grades. This means that students in the same grade level all over the country read the same textbook which is supposed to fit the average students in that grade level. Miscue/Error: The actual response in oral reading which deviated from the exact word that the reader is to read in the graded reading passages. Ministry of Education: The Ministry of Education refers to the central organization responsible for 14 providing, controlling, and supervising nationwide educa- tion for all students at the elementary, preparatory, and secondary levels in Jordan. District: A district is the geographical division of territory within Jordan. The country is divided into five districts for educational purposes; one of these is Amman. Limitations of the Study The primary limitations of this study are the following: First, the test presents only a limited sample of the child's total language skills: consequently, it is possi- bel that there are facets of reading not adequately assessed. Second, the study is limited to the use of grade level classification curricula used in the Jordanian schools by the Ministry of Education. Third, the relatively small sample used in the study limits the generalizability of the results. Fourth, the criteria used to judge the instructional reading level may not be the most appropriate one to evaluate students' instructional reading level. Organization of Subsequent Sections The content of Section I includes an introduction, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, 15 research questions to be explored, limitations of the study, and definitions of terms. In Section II, pertinent research and literature relating to the content of this study will be reviewed. In Section III, the design and methodology used in the study will be discussed. In Section IV, presentation of the data collected and analyzed will be reported and discussed. In Section V, a summary of the study results, appro- priate conclusions, and recommendations for using the test will be presented. Recommendations for further study and research will also be presented. REVIEW OF LITERATURE A substantial amount of literature is pertinent to this study. In this section, the basic issues related to the tOpic under investigation are reviewed. This section is divided into three parts. The first part deals with oral and silent reading, i.e., the nature of oral and silent reading, oral and silent reading com- prehension, and oral and silent reading roles in teaching reading. The second part deals with word recognition errors that occur during oral reading. The third part of this section deals with teachers' judgment. Oral and Silent Reading There has been considerable controversy as to whether oral and silent reading are the same process. Conflict- ing results and interpretations have stemmed from research in three principal areas: eye movement, reading rate, and comprehension. Two researchers (Buswell, 1937; Cole, 1938) suggest that oral and silent reading are dis- tinct processes because of differences in eye movement and rate between the two modes. Gray and Reese (1957, p. 247) have pointed out that the silent reading rate moves ahead of the oral rate. 16 17 Other investigators have been convinced that the oral and silent modes are basically distinct. Loroy-Boussion (1964), on the other hand, presented evidence suggesting that the task of silent reading is more complex for the beginning reader than is that of oral reading. He found that the children's oral reading was even faster than their silent reading through the first several months of instruction. Weber (1968) reviewed the research on similarities and differences between oral and silent reading. She found no conclusive evidence indicating that the central processes were identical. One of the apparent differences between oral and silent reading has to do with vocalization. In oral reading attention to matters, such as the correct pronun- ciation and the careful enunciation of each and every word, is essential. In contrast with this, however, the very best of silent reading is really translation of written words into some type of communication without pronuniciation of the words. Another important difference between oral and silent reading is the area of eye movement. For oral reading it is very important to pronounce and enunciate carefully each and every word on a page. Such care and attention takes time--far more than it would take the eye to span the same material. The difference in the rates of voice and eye causes something of a conflict in real reading. 18 The mouth moves when one reads orally and should not move when one reads silently. In the first case, one is read- ing primarily for an audience, and in the other, for one- self. On the other hand, researchers analyzing the reading process have assumed that the process of oral reading approximates the process of silent reading so closely that the two can be considered one and the same. Fairbanks (1937) emphasized that the description of oral reading provides a convenient and objective technique for study- ing the central processes occurring during reading, if it is assumed that oral reading errors are representative of central errors. Swanson (1937) and Anderson and Dearborn (1952) suggest that differences between oral and silent reading are relatively superficial and do not represent a fundamental difference in assessing meaning. Also, the inaccuracies in oral reading reflect those that are made when a person reads silently. In seeking further evidence of the basic similarity between the two reading modes, Swanson (1937) correlated adults' total number of oral reading errors with perform- ance on a silent reading test, as well as with comprehen— sion of oral reading. He interpreted his data as evi- dence for considering both oral and silent reading identical ways to extract information from print. Gilmore (1947) attempted to substantiate the value of oral reading 19 test as a measure of basic reading ability. He analyzed in detail the types of oral reading errors made by more than 400 students in grades one through eight and corre- lated them with over-all oral reading scores in both silent and oral reading comprehension. Although the types of errors varied in their relationship to over-all per- formance, especially with grade advancement, he found that there was a positive correlation between oral reading scores and comprehension scores at all grade levels. With particular attention to types of errors, Swanson and Gilmore used basically the same method and concluded by relating oral inaccuracy to comprehension. Oral and Silent Reading as Methods of Teaching and Testing Reading instruction orally and silently in schools reveals three different trends in the last two centuries. First, in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the emphasis on teaching children to read was largely on good oral reading: correct enunciation and pronunciation. Reading aloud, if properly directed, serves a double purpose: it tends to correct errors in articulation, pronunciation, and certain careless habits of speech; it also enables the teacher to see whether the pupil compre- hends what he/she is reading. It is the business of the teacher to insure exactness in articulation and 20 pronunciation of the given oral reader and to provide the class with a good model to imitate. Huey (1908) indicated that reading as a school exer- cise has almost always been thought of as reading aloud, in spite of the obvious fact that, in practice, reading is primarily silent reading. The emphasis on oral reading was to give pleasure not only to the children, but also to those who listen to them (Baldwin & Bender, 1911). In the early 1920's a widespread shift of emphasis from oral to silent reading introduced a second trend. Ada V. Huatt (1943) and numerous research reports stressed the need for instruction in silent reading. Rowell (1976) indicated that in the last half-century there has been a gradual increase in the amount of silent reading and a decline in the amount of oral reading. He explained that the shift was brought about by changing social conditions that emphasized a need for efficient reading and by new methods of silent reading. The arguments in favor of silent reading over oral reading were based chiefly on two considerations: (1) most reading outside of school is silent reading, and (2) silent reading emphasizes mean- ing rather than sound (Debore & Dallmann, 1960). The third and latest trend now demands a balance between oral and silent reading to give the student the Opportunity to practice the two modes. Oral reading is 21 used to give pleasure and to convey information to others. Silent reading allows the reader to develop fluency and to focus on meaning. Both silent and oral reading skills are used in two different types of situations: recrea- tional and informational. Rowell (1976) stressed the acceptance of a balanced emphasis on both oral and silent reading. "Now," he stated, "the most popular pedagogical position is that a balance should be maintained between silent and oral reading." The benefits of oral and silent reading instruction have been a focal point of controversy for professionals in the field of reading for several years (Heilman, Blair, & Rupley, 1981; Tinker & McCullough, 1978). However, it now appears that the dichotomous nature of the oral versus silent reading controversy may be somewhat oversimplified in light of the recommendation of Heilman et a1. (1981). These investigators point out that the focus should not be solely on silent reading instruction, but teachers should identify other ways to increase the efficacy of oral read- ing instruction for the learner. Emphasis,they contend, should be placed on the middle ground or on_a balance in the treatment of oral and silent reading instruction. Good oral reading should be one of the major goals for reading instruction. If teachers use oral reading in an appropriate and effective way, they actually help 22 the students to improve their silent reading and to become good readers. Heinrich (1976) stated: "Good oral reading is important in the development of a good silent reader. A child who reads orally right from the beginning is likely to sense the oral language base of written language." Heilman et al., (1981), indicates that many profes- sionals still tend to accept the superiority of oral read- ing over silent reading in teaching reading. A possible explanation for the superiority of oral reading over silent reading is that by reading orally, a student is forced to pay closer attention to the word. The reader not only sees the word, but hears it when it is read aloud (Swalm, 1973). Therefore, oral reading involves two senses, while silent reading and listening involve only one at a time. Many researchers have seen that the analysis of oral reading is a useful way to study children's processing of written information (Beebe, 1980; K. Goodman, 1965: Weber, 1970a, 1970b; Mackinnon, 1959). Oral reading has been advocated as a method for teachers to determine if the students are able to apply various word perception techniques, and as a method to communicate or interpret information to an audience (Stoodt, 1980). Since there is evidence that oral responses reflect basic reading ability, oral reading tests have been 23 developed to measure growth in reading and to diagnose disability (Durrel, 1955; Gilmore, 1952; Robinson, 1963). Since a child's oral reading gives some clues to his abil- ity in silent reading, oral reading at sight is recom- mended by Gray (1963) for testing. The purpose is to find the difficulties the child faces and to evaluate progress. Other authorities agree that oral reading provides many clues to a child's reading strengths and weaknesses (Heilman et al., 1981). According to Gray (1963), various studies in the teaching of reading show that oral reading in school: 1. Helps to show whether or not a child can recognize words and phrases quickly and accurately. 2. Gives practice in correct pronunciation of words. 3. Gives practice in using correct grammar. 4. Stimulates interest in vocabulary enrichment (If a child reads a word aloud, he is more apt to use it in speech than if he/she had only read it silently.). 5. Permits sharing of literary enthusiasms. 6. Sometimes helps to overcome speech defects. One of the chief values of oral reading is the prac- tice it affords in using oral language. Since it is an 24 easy transition from talking aloud to reading aloud, children, according to Gray (1963), in the first year should do a great deal of oral reading. He advises that the student even at this level should read a sentence through first silently. He considers silent reading in. the beginning stages to be a "junior partner" of oral reading. Later, the junior partner assumes full partner- ship status, and in the second and third grades, the amount of silent reading increases. Because oral reading reflects the child's ability in silent reading, the teacher should not encourage children to do much independent silent reading until he/she knows the children can read orally materials of apprOpriate difficulty with reasonable ease. If children hesitate or fail in oral reading, then silent reading will be equally faulty. Hilderth (1958) indicates that half or more of the pupils' reading time in the first two years should be spent on oral reading. Toward the end of the primary period, 30% of the total time may be devoted to oral reading for all purposes. The tendency to neglect oral reading past second grade means that children miss receiving oral reading advantages, such as the improvement in enunciation, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure, as well as social advan- tages, such as development, sharing, and interpreting. Generally speaking, one cannot safely generalize that for all individuals either oral or silent reading is easier 25 or more productive. Silent reading may be more conducive to understanding difficult concepts than oral reading because it allows a person more time to think about what has been read. Silent reading comprehension is regarded by many experts as the better way of investigating compre- hension skills (Harris & Sipay, 1975). Using silent reading gives the student wide Opportu- nities to understand the material quickly. It helps him/ her to be more active in problem solving. Silent reading provides basic progress in all other subjects. It is the skill that the student will use after graduation, and it becomes a permanent approach to knowledge and communication (Samak, 1975). Both oral and silent reading have their special values for teaching reading. An integrated approach suggests that teachers in early years should encourage the student to read aloud and to read silently. Later, silent reading should be used widely for classroom reading. Comprehension Comprehension is now considered to be the major objec- tive in reading rather than the ability to pronounce written words with ease and fluency. Goodman (1970) points out that the main purpose of reading is not simply emitting sounds and naming words, but rather, the compre- hension or acquisition of meaning. 26 Comprehension is achieved through different modes of reception: oral reading, silent reading, and listening (Ashloch et al., 1969). Elgart (1978) found that there was significant difference among the three modes of reception, with oral reading significantly more effective than silent reading in comprehension. Comparative research between silent and oral reading comprehension has produced conflicting results. Some studies reported the superiority of oral reading comprehension over silent reading compre- hension (Collins, 1961; Rowell, 1976; Duffy & Durrel, 1935; Cooper, 1952: Glenn, 1971). Others found silent reading comprehension to be superior (Mead, 1916; Buswell, 1937). Spache's (1971) concludes, following a review of the literature comparing oral reading comprehension with silent reading, that "many authorities agree that oral reading, unlike silent, is not conductive to comprehen- sion." Many studies, however, have found no consistent dif- ferences between oral and silent reading comprehension (Swanson, 1937; Poulton & Brown, 1967). Burge (1983) finds that the advantages of oral read- ing comprehension over silent reading comprehension depends on age and proficiency. He astutely points out that: "One possibility which may account for the significant dif- ferences between oral and silent reading comprehension is 27 that students have more experiences with oral language as described by Stoodt (1980)." Another possible causal factor which may explain the significant differences between oral comprehension and silent comprehension is more a matter of accountability. When students read materials aloud, they know that the teacher is able to determine whether or not they have read. Still another factor, and one supported by learning theorists (Adams, 1976), which may account for the dif- ferences between oral reading comprehension and silent reading comprehension, is that during oral reading the students are engaged both visually and aurally. Perhaps, hearing their own voices read the materials orally enabled the students to concentrate more on the task at hand which resulted in improved comprehension. The assessment of reading comprehension has been an area of ongoing concern. Traditionally, comprehension has been assessed using questions after oral or silent reading. Regarding the type of questions used in the I.R.I., Tuinman (1971) has made a strong plea for using only those questions that can be answered only on the basis of refer- ence to information contained in the selections read. Johnson and Kress (1965),on the other hand, suggest the use of four types of questions: factual recall, infer- ential, vocabulary, and background of experience. 28 A new trend considers comprehension as much more than the ability to answer questions. It also involves the ability to reconstruct or remember, to interpret, and to evaluate the information contained in a selection. Researchers in the area of prose comprehension recog- nized the deficiency of the traditional questioning tech- niques many years ago and turned to free recall as more informative. Instead of being asked questions, a reader is simply asked to recall everything that can be remembered from the selection. The Durrel Analysis of Reading Diffi- culty (1980) does include elicitation and evaluation of free recall. Several other instruments, most notably the Analytical Reading Inventory (1981), the Basic Reading Inventory (1981), and the Bader Reading and Language Inventory (1983) suggest using free recall as an alterna- tive method of comprehension assessment. It is important to remember when using this technique that there is a normal developmental tendency: older students recall more information in a better sequence (Taylor, 1980). Gambrell and Wilson (1985) say that retelling (free recall) has been frequently used as an assessment task in reading research. According to Johnson (1983), "retelling is the most straightforward assessment . . . of the result of text- reader interaction." 29 An overwhelming number of studies investigating read- ing comprehension have used free recall as a dependent variable (Johnson, 1983). The basic assumption among researchers is that retelling indicates something about the reader's assimilation and reconstruction of text informa- tion, and therefore, reflects comprehension. Some reading experts, such as Goodman and Goodman (1978) and others (Goodman & Burke, 1973), have argued that questioning provides cues for the reader. In an effort to rule out the possibility of questions facili- tating the reader's comprehension, Goodman suggests that after reading, the student should orally retell a selec- tion; thereafter, the examiner should probe using infor- mation already given by the reader. Similarly, Bahrick (1979) advocates the use of both retell and probe ques- tions as comprehension measures. While informal reading methods of appraising reading ability have long been valued as diagnostic tools for the classroom teacher, there has been considerable disagreement among reading experts regarding the criteria for estimat- ing instructional level. Betts (1946) and Austin and Heubner (1962) recommend a comprehension score of 75%, with 95% accuracy in word pronunciation. Spache and Spache (1969) have criticized Betts' criteria as being arbitrarily high and have suggested a comprehension norm 30 of 60% as more useful. Wheeler and Smith (1957) advo- cated a comprehension score ranging from 75 to 90%, with 95 to 98% accuracy in word recognition. Smith (1959) suggests standards of 80 to 95% accuracy in word recog- nition and 80 to 90% in literal comprehension. Other criteria are presented earlier in the definition of informal reading inventory. The general guidelines for establishing reading levels in Bader Reading and Language Inventory are as follows. The instructional level is one where students can comprehend at least 75% of what they read and can recall at least 60%, and read with accuracy 90% or more of the words. Students may be considered to be at a frustration level when they exhibit behavioral indications of stress, miss more than 10% of the words, and understand less than 60% of what they read. Students may be considered at an independent reading level when they miss no more than 5% of the words, read fluently, and comprehend at least 80% of what they read (Bader, 1983). Regarding the relationship between word recognition and comprehension, some reading experts have assumed that word recognition and comprehension are highly related; others have argued that the relationship is less substan- tial. In two recent studies, implicit support has been offered for the latter position. Both Cromer (1970) and 31 (Suthrie (1973) have concluded that there may be two types of disabled readers, one primarily deficient in word recog- nition skills and the other primarily deficient in compre- prehension skills. Word Recognition Errors The analysis of oral reading errors has been used to increase our understanding of the reading process (Goodman & Goodman, 1977; Smith, 1971). Oral reading error analy- sis has also been used as a basis for making decisions about classroom instruction (Allen & Watson, 1976: Goodman, 1973: Goodman, 1970; Goodman & Burke, 1972). Kenneth Goodman (1969) believes that by studying an individual's oral reading miscues, the researcher or teacher can learn much about a reader's predicting, samp- ling, self-correction, and reorganizing strategies. Goodman (1977) makes it clear that: "oral output reflects the underlying competence and the psycholinguistic proc- esses that have generated it." Oral and silent reading are sufficiently similar in Goodman's (1977) view to warrant the conclusion that how one reads orally essentially mirrors how one reads to oneself. Furthermore, the relationship is not necessarily stable throughout the readers' development. Data from Gilmores' (1968) study indicate that the strong correla- tion between oral reading error rate and silent reading 32 comprehension in grades one and two rapidly declines from ‘the third through the eighth grades. Verifiable differ- ences between oral and silent reading indicate that, by the end of second grade, the silent reading rate becomes faster than the oral reading rate (Durrel, 1956) and that by the end of grade six, the silent reading rate is double that of oral reading (McCracken, 1967). What is an Error and How It Should be Scored Unfortunately, it is typical for most reading error studies to ignore questions related to the definition and categorization of oral reading errors. The failure to reach even a broad consensus about what should be included as error behavior and how error behavior should be cate- gorized has resulted in widely divergent scoring systems. Weber (1968) and later Hood (1975-76) have bemoaned the different ways in which oral reading error researchers counted errors prior to 1968. After 1968 there continues to be a variation among studies as to what should be included as error behavior, and how it should be analyzed. There is disagreement, for example, over whether or not to include certain types of errors, such as repetitions, when calculating percentages of accuracy in oral reading errors . 33 There is disagreement over whether all oral reading errors should be counted or whether only significant errors, that is, those that alter the meaning of the sentence or passage, should be counted. Some studies (Goodman, 1969: Hood, 1976-76) choose to include punctua- tion errors, while others (Biemiller, 1970, 1979; Clay, 1968; Cohen, 1974-75; Weber, 1970a, 1970b) do not. Other studies fail to define exactly what they consider to be an error (Burke, 1976). For instance, Cohen (1974-75) used the following types of errors to analyze oral reading errors made by 50 children during the last eight months of first grade: 1. Substitutions: The child says something other than the word on the page. This includes real and nonsense words. u 2. No response: If the child stops reading just before a word, it is assumed he does not know it. 3. Omission: The child skips a word in a sentence. 4. Insertion: The child adds a word while reading a sentence. 5. Self-Corrections: The child corrects error without any prompting. 34 6. Sounding Out: The child attempts sounds by lip movements, voiced or unvoiced, but utters no actual words. 7. Don't Know. The child says, "I don't know that word." Weber (1970) analyzed oral reading errors observed in a first grade classroom. The following classification accounted for all the errors collected: (1) Substitutes word, (2) Omits words, (3) Inserts word, and (4) Reverses or scrambles words. Gray (1963) used the following type of errors in scoring his test: Gray Oral Reading Tests, 1. Mispronunciation of a word: Such an error was marked by drawing a line under the entire word and writing the pupil's pronunciation. 2. Aid: When the pupil hestitates for five seconds without making any audible effort to pronounce the word. The error was marked by an underlined bracket. 3. Omission of a word, one or more elements: Circle the omitted word or elements. 4. Insertion of a word or elements: An insert mark was placed and the word or the elements were written above the point at which they were added. 35 5. Substitution: The number of errors depends on the number of words replaced by the substitution. 6. Repetition of one or more words: Underline with a wavy line. Not all errors can be considered negative; some--for example, self-correction--may actually indicate an understanding of what is being read. Nurss (1969) indi- cates that such self-corrections are not necessarily errors in comprehension. The child has realized that what has been read does not make sense, and that a correction must be made. Any attempt to compare the developmental findings of reading behavior through the early grades, specifically by types of errors, reported by various investigators, proves unrewarding. The lists of pertinent categories differ and the items that fall into identically labeled categor- ies vary. Research, however, does agree on one thing: substituting a different word from the stimulus consistently outnumbers other types of errors at all stages. There is little evidence for a shift in proportion of substitution errors with maturity. To obtain information about students' reading behav- ior, D'angelo and Wilson (1979) conducted an analysis of insertions and omissions produced at the instructional 36 level in oral reading. One hundred cases were randomly chosen and each reader's instructional level on the Diagnostic Reading Scale was identified. Six were dis- carded as being grossly miscoded, leaving an N of 95. Oral reading substitution, insertion, and omission miscues made at instructional grade levels of one through eight were examined. Of the total miscue, substitutions accounted for 87%, insertion for 6%, and omission for 7%. The findings of the study would indicate the time spent coding and interpreting insertion and omission miscues. This is of little use in clinical practice, and might well be suspended. Thus, coding and interpretations can be simplified and attention can be focused on other reading behaviors (substitutions) which may indicate causes for difficulties with the reading process. Ilg and Ames (1950) reported that substitutions that closely approximated the visual form of the stimulus pre- dominated through age seven, but that by age nine meaning substitution outnumbered them. Gilmore (1947) found that omissions and insertions composed such a small proportion of errors that they were negligible. On the other hand, Ilg and Ames (1950) and Monroe (1932), as well as Madden and Pratt (1941), reported increases with maturity in the proportion of omissions relative to the prOportion of insertions made by the age groups. 37 To determine the diagnostic usefulness of analyzing insertion and omission miscues, D'Angelo and Mahlios (1983) examined those miscues produced at the frustration and instructional levels by both good and poor readers on the Informal Reading Assessment (Burns & Roe, 1980). In their study, error categories included substitution, insertion, and omission. No significant differences were found in the percent- ages of the various miscue types made by good and poor readers. The results of the study showed substitutions were most frequent, omissions were next, and insertions showed the lowest percentages. These findings confirm Goodman's (1976) assertion that substitutions are the most common misue type, with omissions next, and insertions last. In the most intensive developmental study, Schale (1966) traced the pattern of errors made by a total of 180 subjects, 40 in every other grade from grades two through nine. The material used was the Gray Oral Read- ing Test (Robinson, 1963). Schale found a decrease in the overall occurrence of errors from grade to grade. Sub- stitution errors and repetition were found most frequently. Increasing with grade level were errors of partial mis- pronunciations and gross mispronunciations, both of which can be considered substitutions. The occurrence of no 38 response errors and repetition declined with maturity, while substitutions, omission, and insertions remained proportionately the same. Schlieper's (1977) study was concerned with oral reading errors made by children in the first three years of school, and the relationship of these errors to grade and to level of performance. The first four paragraphs of the Oral Reading test were used in the analysis of errors. All errors made on these paragraphs were cate- gorized as real words, nonsense words, omission, or repetitions. Real words included all substitutions or additions of meaningful words. The error patterns changed sharply from grade one to grade three with most changes occurring between grades two and three. The grade three children produced more real words and fewer nonsense words, repeated more often, and attempted more words. They showed a large increase in grammatically acceptable errors. It seems that between grades one and three, children are likely to increase their use of context and to sub- stitute, rather than leave out, words of which they are not sure. In an early study, Ilg and Ames (1950) found increasing responsiveness to context between the ages of seven and nine. Goodman (1965) studied the ability of first, second, and third grade children to read para- graphs and word lists. The children were increasingly 39 able to read words in context correctly, even though they might make errors on the same words in isolation. He also reported that substitutions and repetitions increased and omissions decreased over the three years. In another investigatory study, Christie (1981) studied the miscue patterns of high and low ability readers in second, fourth, and sixth graders. The quali- tative analysis systems was utilized, and the percentages were yielded for the variables of graphic similarity, acceptability in context, and contextually unacceptable miscues. It was revealed that the percentage of miscues acceptable in context increased as a function of both grade level and reading ability. It was, therefore, con- cluded that grade level and reading ability affects children's miscue patterns. Elder's (1971) data do not show many differences between second grade and third grade pupils. The only change of any magnitude was a decrease in the proportion of words "aided," that is, words that were told to the children after they hesitated and did not attempt them. Schlieper (1980) studied letter reversals, word reversals, and letter sequence errors made by Grade 1, 2, and 3 children while reading a meaningful text. The errors occurred infrequently in all grades, decreased steadily from Grade 1 to Grade 3, and did not seem of 40 special significance in signalling reading problems, as the poorest readers at each grade remained close to the total sample both in mean number and in proportion of errors. A qualitative analysis showed that the three types of errors clustered at different points in the text and that the clustering seemed related to the con- text in which the error occurred, as well as to the wrongly-read word itself. Repetition There is a considerable disagreement as to whether repetitions should be counted as errors when administering informal reading inventories. Silvaroli (1969) suggests that repetition should be counted as reading inventory errors in administering his Classroom Reading Inventory. In an attempt to answer the question of whether repeti- tions should be counted as errors in administering IRIs, Ekwall (1974) used the polygraph to measure the frustra- tion reading level of students while they read informal reading inventory passages. These IRIs were then scored counting repetitions as errors, and then not counting repetions as errors, to determine which procedure more closely approximates the commonly accepted criteria (10% errors) for the frustration reading level. The result showed that there was a significant difference (.05 level) between the two when repetitions were not counted as 41 «errors. As a result of his research, Ekwall indicates that all repetitions should be scored when estimating reading level. Harris and Sipay (1975) recommended that repetitions should be counted as a total of one miscue, regardless of the number of times the behavior occurs. Others suggest counting repetitions only when a student repeats two or more consecutive words. This latter pro- cedure is suggested by Gates and Mckillop (1962) for administering the oral reading section of Gates-Mckillop Reading Diagnostic Tests. On the other hand, in a rather well-known publication on how to administer informal reading inventory, Johnson and Kress (1965) do not consider repetition as I.R.I. errors. The latter procedure is suggested for this study. Repetition has been included in several taxonomies (Madden & Pratt, 1941; Monroe, 1928; Gilmore, 1947; McCullough et al., 1946), although it is clear that a repetition of a response does not indicate inexact proces- sing of the written word as effectively as would the sub- stitution of a different response word for the representation on the page. None of these works consider the possibility that a repetition may be a form of hesita- tion or an act of confirmation, rather than an error. Searching for an explanation behind a specific error type, Goodman (1965) studied repetitions in grades one through 42 three. He discovered that almost all repetitions were made in order to correct an error, such as substitution. Therefore, he suggested that repetitiOn could be an important technique for deriving meaning from the text, and, as such, should not be demanded by teachers. Correction Behavior According to Goodman (1969), correction behavior may be, "the most significant factor in analyzing any miscue." The reader who makes a miscue in oral reading and corrects it without being prompted, exhibits an important reading behavior. The ability to self-correct miscues made in oral reading may show classroom teachers and reading specialists a number of things about the reader. First, correction behavior indicates meaningful interaction between the reader and the printed word. The reader who corrects miscues is actively involved in reconstructing meaning from printed materials (Goodman, 1973). Second, correc- tion behavior indicates an awareness of distorted language. The reader who makes corrections recognizes a mismatch between the miscue and the syntax, or semantics of lan- guage (Weber, 1970). Recent studies investigating correction behavior point out differences between good and poor readers. They consistently indicate that good readers correct higher percentages of miscues than do poor readers. A study of 43 oral reading errors made by 15 second graders reported a significant difference in self-correction between good and poor readers (Au, 1977), with good readers correcting higher percentages of miscues. The relationship between correction behavior and comprehension was clearly estab- lishing in a study of substitution miscues made by 46 fifth-grade boys (Beebe, 1980). The best readers cor- rected nearly twice as many miscues as weaker readers, and significant positive correlations were found between the number of corrected miscues and both retelling and comprehension. As the number of corrections increased, comprehension and retelling scores also increased. Teacher Judgment The accuracy or validity of teacher judgment of pupil achievement levels is a particularly important issue because so many decisions about pupils are based on teachers' perceptions of the pupils' performance levels (Borko & Cadwell, 1982). Elijah and Legenza (1979) reported correlations on the Metropolitan Readiness Test, Teacher Rankings of Read- ing Readiness, and socio-economic status of 536 beginning first grade pupils. Each teacher was asked to rank the students in his/her classroom as to level of reading readiness. The Metropolitan Readiness Tests (Form B) 44 were administered one week after the teacher rankings were completed. The results of the study indicated that teacher rankings of reading readiness correlated signifi- cantly with the test. It appeared that the teachers' rankings of reading readiness status were as useful an indicator of the stu- dents' readiness status as the Metropolitan (Form B). In short, teachers were able to evaluate reading readi- ness status at least as well as commercial readiness tests. Kermoian (1962) and Smith (1968) found that teachers were able to predict reading readiness status as accurately as do commercial instruments. In determining the relationship between reading readiness tests and teacher ranking, socio-economic status must be considered. Hanson and Robinson (1967), and Hirst (1969) found socio-economic status is a factor in predicting reading achievement. In another study by Crook et a1. (1982), 81 boys and girls from the second and sixth grades in elementary school were included in the study and served as subjects. The students in each grade has been assigned the same level of basal reading mate- rials. Four teachers were asked to rate their students as good or poor readers. All four teachers were able to classify individual students according to these differ- ences, and the present level of reading performance. 45 By second grade, most teachers can reliably detect differ- ences in reading performance, and children who are more fluent readers can be readily identified (Crook et al., 1982). Research (Henig, 1949; Smith, 1968; Merrill, 1968) supports the conclusion that teacher judgment of pupils' reading readiness status are as reliable an indicator of readiness as are standardized reading readiness test results. Hutton (1972) reported significant correlations were obtained between three screening tests, teacher judgment ratings, and first grade academic performance measures for disadvantaged children attending a Head Start Project. The results suggested that more attention be given to teacher judgment measures as means for screening Head Start children who are most likely to encounter difficulty in meeting first grade expectations. It is interesting to note that the correlation coefficients obtained between teacher prediction and academic performance criteria are very similar to those relating academic performance criteria and screening tests. The results indicate that the rating made by Head Start teachers is of importance in predicting first grade academic performance. Bray and Estes (1975), Daniels (1962), Katelis (1975), and Wilson and Burke (1937) reported that teachers are only moderately able to predict how well their students 46 twill do. On reading test-correlations between teacher predictions and actual student scores on various measures of reading fall into the low-moderate range, usually in the 303 and 40s. Hoge and Butcher (1984) analyzed the accuracy of teacher judgment of pupil achievement levels. A sample of 12 teachers were asked to provide for each of their pupils an estimate of achievement test performance, a rating of basic intellectual ability, and a rating of motivation to do school work. Standardized reading achievement and IQ tests were administered to the pupils. Analysis revealed a high level of accuracy for achievement judgment where they were assessed against test scores, and a very close association existed between the judgment and the stand- g.._ ardized achievement test scores. Summary In this section, a review of the literature perti- nent to the study has been made and is seen to cover four basic areas. The first part of the review covered oral and silent reading. Under this heading there are other subheadings which have been covered: the nature of oral and silent reading, the role of oral and silent reading in teacher reading, and oral and silent reading comprehension. 47 The second part dealt with word recognition errors which occur during oral reading. Different types of reading errors were discussed: conflicting ideas regarding errors scoring, and some behaviors which are under great debate were presented. The third part of this section dealt with related studies on teachers' judgment. Many studies examining this area were presented. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this study was to develop an Arabic reading inventory which might be a useful instrument in helping teachers test their students' instructional level, and to reveal their strengths and weaknesses in reading. A consideration was the type of reading, oral or silent, which might be more influential in the determination of reading level. Another concern was the accuracy of teachers' judgment based on their observation, and their experiences with regard to estimating reading level. Error frequency in reading among elementary grade students was also examined. This section describes the methodology used in con- ducting the study. The population and the sample are herein identified and defined, procedures are outlined, and the development of the inventory is described. The following research questions and hypotheses are investi- gated and tested. Finally, the statistical treatment of the data is explained. 48 49 Research Questions Is silent reading comprehension superior to oral reading comprehension among students from first through fourth grade? Which types of reading error that occur in oral read- ing are found more frequently among this sample of students in one through four grade levels? Does accuracy of reading words in isolation have an association with accuracy of reading words in context among students in the one through fourth grade levels? Are the teachers' estimates of their students' read- ing achievement level based on his/her observation and experience related to students' reading performance on reading tests? Null Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference between students' comprehension performance in oral and silent reading conditions in the first, second, third, and fourth grade levels in Jordanian elementary schools. Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between grade levels of Jordanian students regarding the type of errors during oral reading in the first four grade levels in Jordanian elementary schools. 50 Hypothesis 3: There is no correlation between accuracy of reading words in isolation and accuracy of reading words in context in the first, second, third, and fourth grade levels in Jordanian elementary schools. Hypothesis 4: There is no statistically signifi— cant difference between teachers' estimates of their students' instructional reading level and that of the Arabic Reading Inventory for the first, second, third, and fourth grade levels in Jordanian elementary schools. The Target Population Identification The population under investigation consists of the first, second, third, and fourth grade children in Jordanian elementary schools located throughout the country's five educational districts. Sample of the Study Jordanian public schools and schools in the Palestin- .ian Camps supported by the United Nations in the District <3f Amman, the capital of Jordan, were the population for 'this study. The schools involved in this study are dis- 'tributed in a variety of locations throughout the dis- -trict. All of the schools apply the same reading curricula iMhiCh is developed by the Ministry of Education in Jordan. 51 The subjects of the study were a sample of first, second, third, and fourth grade level students in the elementray regular public schools and Palestinian elemen- tary schools representative of the Amman district. Thirty students, both girls and boys, were randomly selected representatives of schools at each grade level, based on the class lists. Teachers in these schools were asked to estimate theirstudents' instructional reading level as excellent, good, or poor after the testing process. Table 1 Students by Gender and Type of School Involved in the Study Government UNRWA Grade Male Female Male Female Total 1 5 4 11 10 30 2 9 7 9 5 30 3 5 10 9 6 30 4 6 11 7 6 30 Procedures The researcher went to Jordan in November, 1985, to get permission from the Ministry of Education to allow him to use Jordanian reading curricula to build a reading 52 inventory for first, second, third, and fourth grade levels and to administer it and collect additional data relating to this study. The researcher received a hand- delivered letter written in Arabic allowing him to admin- ister the test. He then submitted it to two offices of Education in the district of Amman. The letter requested officers and offices to give the researcher every assist- ance in order for him to complete his task in an expedi- tious manner. The Offices of Education are Jable .Al-Hussain and Qasser Shabeeb. Each education office then provided a letter of introduction to be submitted to each of the principals of the schools which had been chosen randomly in its area. Similar procedures were used to get permission from the Educational Depart- ment of Palestinian schools. The researcher delivered by hand the letters to all of the school principals he visited where the test was to be administered. Development of the Inventory The major purpose of the study was to develOp an Arabic reading inventory for Jordanian elementary students in the first through fourth grade levels. The test con- sisted of word lists and passages that students could read either orally :9 silently. The Jordanian reading curricula have been prepared by the Ministry of Education for Jordanian schools. It 53 is intended to fit the average at each given level. The two forms (Form I and Form II) were selected from the reading books for children from the first through fourth grade levels. The graded word list and the graded reading passages were selected and developed based on a careful review of Jordanian reading curricula of first through fourth grade children. The researcher and faculty members at the University of Jordan, who are specialists in reading and language, worked together in reviewing and selecting the material for the two-part test. Part One The first part of the Arabic Reading Inventory is Form I. Form I is selected from material covered in the first semester of the reading curricula which the students had already covered. It consisted of four passages for oral reading, four passages for silent reading, and four word lists to measure word pronunciation in isolation. The procedures and steps listed below were applied to select the material for the graded word lists, and the graded reading passages of Form I. Twenty words from the list of new words located at the end of each reading curricula were chosen for each grade level. Two passages which fit the instructional level and appeared to be appropriate, given the mandated curriculum 54 for each grade level, were chosen to be the material of the test. The passages were long enough so that several ideas were included, and there was sufficient content to measure comprehension. The passages were equated for ‘ difficulty in word meaning and pronunciation, syntax, and concepts. Passages were selected that seemed to be equally appealing to children. They were then assigned randomly, one for oral reading and the other for silent reading. Sentence length, content, and general style were based on the Jordanian reading curricula. Part Two The second part of the Arabic Reading Inventory is From II. Form II is selected from material in the second semester reading curricula which students had not yet covered. Like Form I, it had four passages for oral read- ing, four passages for silent reading, and four word lists to measure word pronunciation in isolation. The same procedures and steps that were used in Form I were applied to select the material for the graded word lists, and the graded reading passages of Form II. Twenty words from the list of new words were located at the end of each reading curricula and two passages were also selected from the beginning, middle, or end of the second semester Jordanian readers. These two passages were randomly assigned, one for oral reading and the other 55 for silent reading. The passages were long enough so that several ideas were included, and there was sufficient con- tent to measure comprehension. In sum, all the materials in Form II were new so that students had no idea what it was about prior to the admin- istration of the test. By contrast, all the materials in Form I had been taught to them during the semester. Each form had two passages for each grade level, one used orally while the second was used silently. The passages varied in length, and each passage had a set of facts and ideas which formed the passages and were used to check compre- hension. Each of the word lists consisted of 20 words. Validity A content validity study was conducted in Jordan where the test was reviewed by two professors. One was a faculty member of the College of Education at the University of Jordan who is a specialist in teaching Arabic language methods and curriculum courses. The second person works in the Development and Training Center of UNRWA in Amman and is a specialist in Arabic language and the training of Arabic language teachers for elementary and preparatory schools. They were each asked to judge the materials of the test in terms of their relevancy and to suggest changes they felt were necessary. 56 There was a high level of agreement between them regarding the acceptability of the test, as well as agree- ment of their own ideas with the second part of the test for first grade students in Form II. Table 2 Number of Words in Oral and Silent ReadingyPassages, for Each Grade Level by Form I and Form II Form I Form II Grade OR St OR St 1 22 27 n.a. n.a. 49 2 93 106 105 74 3 104 85 81 126 4 172 160 244 183 Pilot Study After the word lists and the graded reading passages were selected and the two professors approved of the con- tent, the researcher administered the test to twelve students (three students from each grade level) in one of the elementary schools in Amman. The school used as a pilot study was selected randomly from the population. 57 The pilot study was carried out in order to insure that the materials were appropriate; and instructions of the test were clear. The initial selections of the graded word lists and the graded reading passages were administered orally, even though some of the passages were used for silent reading in the subsequent study. The number of oral errors each pupil made as he read each passage was used as the criterion of passage difficulty. This criter- ion seemed adequately to reflect the difficulty a child was having in reading a passage. After reviewing data received from the pilot study, it seemed clear that the word lists, the paragraphs, and comprehension of the ideas of the passages adequately dif- ferentiated among students. Only Form II for the first grade level was so difficult that students could not read it. Form II was dropped from the study for the first grade level only. The reason that first grade students were excluded from.Form II is that the reading curriculum of the first semester covered only half of the Arabic letters. All the lessons and skills covered in that semester concentrated only on those letters, leaving the others for the second half of the year. This division made students in the first grade level unable to read the word list and the passages prepared for them. 58 Administering the Test The following procedures applied in administering the test. The two forms of the Arabic Reading Inventory were administered in a sample of elementary schools, which were located in different areas of Amman. From the first four grades, 120 students were randomly selected as a sample for the study, and 30 students from each grade level were tested. Both boys and girls were tested at each grade level. Two examiners (the primary researcher and an expert teacher) administered the test after extensive prac- tice and communication regarding the criteria. The researcher decided at the inception of this pro- posal to use a randomly based sample from the student name lists. Numbers (1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30) were selected from each class list. In each school that the researcher visited to administer the test, teachers were asked to provide him with the students whose name corre- ponded with these numbers on the class lists. Then teachers sent the students in one by one. Principals in all the schools where the test was administered provided the researcher with a room--principal's office, library, or teacher's room--to use. The researcher used a cassette recorder and audio takes to record each student's oral reading and retelling of the passages which they read. When a student came 59 into the room, the researcher asked him/her to sit on a chair on the opposite side of the table. The researcher ‘then asked the student some questions about his/her name, school, grade level, and reading class. The researcher explained the idea of the test to the student: he/she was going to read some words and passages and would be asked to talk about what he/she had read. If one of the subjects initially selected was absent, the next boy or girl on the list was substituted. Each passage and word list were produced in two copies; one c0py for the student, and the other for the examiner. The student's copy had the passage he/she was to read, while the examiner's c0py had the passage and the pausal units that a student had to retell. The researcher first administered Form I and then Form II. For Form I, the student was asked to read the word list, and then the first passage in Form I orally. For the oral reading the researcher said to the stu- dent, "Here is a passage I would like you to read. Please read this one aloud. If you come to a word you don't know, just do your best, and continue reading. Try to remember what you read so that you might be able to tell me about it." While the student read from the copy, the researcher recorded on his own copy the deviations of the oral 60 reading from the printed word. Two types of errors were marked while the student read orally: 1. The type of error that interferes with meaning: substitutions, mispronunciations, insertions, omissions, words pronounced by the examiner, grammatical structures, and word and letter order. 2. The type of error that does not interfere with meaning: self-corrections, repetitions, and phrasing. The examiners used symbols to indicate the kinds of errors a student made (see Table 3). When the student had finished, the examiner took the passage from him/her and asked the student to tell what was in the passage. To make this approach work well, each passage was broken into pausal units to be used for free recall. Then these units were listed sequentially down the right side of the paper and a short line was drawn to the right of each one. The examiners checked the facts or ideas accurately recalled by the subject as they occurred, i.e., 1, 2, 3, etc. Sequences were assessed subjectively. If a response was not clear, the examiner said: "Tell me more." The amount recalled was computed by dividing the units recalled by the total number and multiplying by 100. 61 Table 3 The Code and Scoring Guidelines for Errors Used in Administering the Test Behavior Coding Scoring 1. Substitutions Write the response above the word. 1 2. Mispronunciations Write the response above the word. 1 3. Insertions Write the word with a caret. l 4. Omissions and Circle the omitted partial omission word, words, or word part omitted. 1 5. WOrds pronounced Wait at least five by the examiner seconds; the error is marked by an underlined bracket. 1 6. Grammatical Write the wrong structures structure above the word 1 7. Order Draw a curve to show the way that a student read. 1 Behaviors Observed and Recorded by the Examiners but Not Scored Behavior Coding Scoring 1. Self-corrections , Write C above corrections 0 2. Repetitions to make corrections As above 0 3, Phonics Put a wavy line under the words phrased 0 62 For silent reading, the examiner said to the student, "Now, I will ask you to read a passage silently and then ask you to tell me what you have read." The student read from the c0py silently. As with the oral reading, when the student finished reading, the examiner took back the passage from the student and asked the student to tell what was in it. To make this approach work well, each passage was broken into pausal units to be used for free recall. Then these units were sequentially listed down the right side of the paper and a short line was drawn to the right of each one. In Form II the examiner did exactly what was done in Form I. The student was asked: (1) to read the word list, (2) to read the oral reading passage and to talk about it, (3) to read the silent reading passage and to talk about it. The examiners checked the facts or ideas accurately recalled by the subject as they occurred, i.e.,“ 1-2-3, etc. If a response were not clear, the examiner said: "Tell me more," and encouraged the student to tell him everything he/she remembered. The percentage of word recognition errors was com- puted by dividing the number of word recognition errors by the total number of words read in each passage and multi- plying by 100. Comprehension was checked with each passage 63 that the student had read. The comprehension score was computed by dividing the number of correct facts and ideas the students recalled by the total number of the ideas contained in the passage. Teachers were asked to assess and estimate their students' ability as "excellent," "good," or "poor" by giving 1 for a poor reader, 2 for an average reader, and 3 for an excellent reader. "Excellent" and "good” meant that the student was in an instructional or reading level and that the student could read satisfactorily under teacher supervision. A poor rating, however, meant that the student was at the frustration level and that the curriculum might be too difficult for him/her. Teacher judgment was actually based on the knowledge and observa- tion of student performance. Teachers gave their estimate of ability without knowing the results of the word list and passage tests. Statistical Treatment of the Data Basically four statistical techniques were used to test the hypotheses. 1. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was used in measuring the relationship between reading words in isolation and reading words in context. In Form I and Form II, 20 new words were selected from the word list along with an oral reading passage that students should 64 have read during the first semester. They were then read orally to see if reading words in isolation reflected a correlation with reading words in context. 2. The nonparametric correlation coefficient was used to examine the relationship between teachers' judg— ment of their students' reading level within the instruc- tional material of their grade levels, and their reading performance on the test. The scale that teachers used to judge their students reading level was: "1" for poor readers, "2" for average readers, and "3" for excellent ones. Students' scores on the test were recoded into three categories to correspond with the teachers' scale: scores from 0 to 89% = 1, from 90% to 94% = 2, and from 95% to 100% = 3. 3. The T-test was used as a measure of the mean scores of oral and silent reading comprehension and to examine which was superior to the other for students in the first through fourth grade levels. Each form had two passages for each grade: one for oral and the other for silent reading. Each passage was guided by pausal units that students were asked to recall and talk about when they were finished reading. The comprehension score was calculated by dividing the number of phrasing units, or ideas recalled, by the total number of ideas and multiply- ing by 100. 65 4. The Chi-square test was used in the case of oral reading errors to see if students from grade levels one through four predicted the same or different numbers of errors. Because of the large number of errors made by some students, the numbers of each type of error was divided into six categories: zero to one error in the first category: two and three errors in the second cate- gory; four, five, and six errors in the third category; seven, eight, and nine errors were in the fourth category; ten, eleven, and twelve errors were classified in the fifth category; more than twelve errors were classified in the sixth category. Further analyses were used to discover the mean differences among students in different grade levels. The data were submitted from the students' responses, recorded in the examiner sheets and the tapes, and trans- ferred to computer punch cards. The analysis of data was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) at the Computer Center of Michigan State University. The .05 level of significance was used. The data were presented and reported in the form of correlation coeffi- cients, mean differences, and Chi-square results. Summary This section offers a description of the methodology involved in conducting the study. 66 The subjects in the study were 120 students from Jordanian elementary schools from the first through fourth grade levels. Thirty students were selected randomly for each grade level. The materials for the test were selected from Jordanian reading books after a careful review of the content. Two forms were developed.» Each form had a word list of 20 words to be read in isolation, and two passages. One passage was for oral reading and a second for silent reading was selected for each grade level. Students' errors were marked, and a retelling approach was used to check students' comprehension. Teachers were asked to estimate their students' reading level, after the test, by giving 1 for poor readers, 2 for average students, and 3 for excellent ones. Four kinds of statistical techniques were used to test the null hypotheses of the study. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to explain the correlation between reading words in isolation and reading words in context. The nonparametric correlation coefficient was used to see the relationship between teachers' estimates of their students and students' reading performance on the test. The T-test was computed to examine the mean differ- ences between oral reading comprehension and silent reading comprehension. 67 Chi-square was used to see whether or not there were significant differences in the type of reading errors among grade levels first through fourth. Means and standard deviations were compared for each type of error between the first through fourth grade levels. DATA ANALYSIS Introduction The purpose of this study is to develop an Arabic Reading Inventory for Jordanian students in the first through fourth grades in Jordanian elementary schools. Two forms were chosen from Jordanian reading curricu- lar. Form I was selected from the first part of the curricula that students had already covered, while Form II was selected from the second part, using reading books which the students had not yet read. Each form had a word list of 20 isolated words and two passages that students read. One passage was for oral reading and the other was for silent reading for each grade level from first to fourth grade. A total of 120 students were tested on both forms, with 30 students drawn from each grade level. Analysis of students' performance in oral and silent reading comprehension, and their errors frequency are reported. The relationship between reading words in iso- lation and reading words in context, and the correlation between teachers' estimation and students' scores in oral reading are presented in this section. Appropriate tables 68 69 and statistics for each research question and hypothesis are presented. Reading Words in Isolation and Context The first null hupothesis for this study is: Hypothesis 1: There is no correlation between accuracy of reading words in isolation and accuracy of reading words in context in the first, second, third, and fourth grade levels in Jordanian elementary schools. The data were analyzed by computing the Pearson corre- lation coefficient (E) between reading words in isolation and reading words in context for the grade levels first through fourth in Form I and Form II on the Arabic Reading Inventory. Table 4 shows the correlation coefficient (5) values and the p values for reading words in isolation and read- ing words in context in Form I and Form II of the inven- tory. The results of the correlation analysis, between reading words in isolation and reading words in context in Form I of the inventory, yielded correlation signifi- cant beyond the .05 level for all grade levels. Reading ‘words in isolation for the first and second grade levels correlated positively with reading words in context with an r value of .73 and a p value of .001 for first grade, 70 Table 4 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Reading Words in Isolation (W1, W2) and Reading Words in Context (R1, R2) on the Arabic Reading Inventory; Form I and Form II Form I (W1,R1) Form II (W2,R2) Grade E p value E. p value Grade 1 .73 .001*** n.a. n.a. Grade 2 .30 .053* .42 .001*** Grade 3 .61 .001*** -.02 .461 Grade 4 .86 .001*** .74 .001*** Form 1: * = .05 ** = .01 *** = .001 71 and an.£ value .50 and a p value of .05. Also, reading ‘words in isolation correlated positively with reading words in context for the third and fourth grade levels with anpg value of .61 and a p value of .001 for third grade, and with an r .86, and a p value of .001 for the fourth grade. Therefore, the null hupothesis stating that there is no significant relationship between reading words in iso- lation and reading words in context is rejected for all grade levels among the study on Form I. ReadingyWords in Isolation and Context For Form II, the results of correlation between read- ing words in isolation and in context revealed a positive correlation significant beyond the .05 level for second and fourth grades with an E value of .42 and a p value of .001 for second grade and an 5 value of .74 and a p value of .001 for fourth grade. On the other hand, the findings for the third grade for reading words in isolation and reading words in context were not significant. Based on the findings displayed in Table 4, the null hypothesis was not rejected for third grade only, but was rejected for second and fourth grade levels. Table 5 shows that all grade levels, either in Form I or in Form II, students' mean scores were higher in r . ImL 'L. .L L. :h Table 5 Students' Mean Scores for the Word Lists (Reading Words in Isolation) and Oral Readinngassages (Reading Words in Content) on the Test Form I Form II Grade W. L. Oral Passage W.L. Oral Passage 1 76 88 n.a. n.a. 2 86 95 74 85 3 81 96 70 87 4 88 92 82 88 reading words in context, rather than reading words in isolation. The result indicated that the difference between reading words in isolation and reading words in context is less for students in fourth grade level. Students' Performance and Teachers' Judgment The second null hypothesis in this study was: Hypothesis 2: There is no statistically signifi- cant relationship between teachers' estimate of their students' reading level and the latter's reading performance on the Arabic Reading Inventory in first, second, third, and fourth grade levels in Jordanian elemen- tary schools. 1‘. // 9h 73 The data were analyzed by computing the nonparametric correlation coefficient (r) between teachers' estimate of their students' reading level and their reading perform— ance measured on the Arabic Reading Inventory: Form I and Form II for students (first through fourth grades). Table 6 shows the correlation coefficient (5) and p values for the teacher estimated reading levels and actual student reading performance on both forms: Form I and Form II. A nonparametric correlation was calculated to examine the correlation between teachers' judgment and students' reading performance on the inventory. The results indi- cated that there was significant positive correlation for all grade levels in Form I. In Form II the results revealed a significant positive correlation for the fourth grade only. Teachers' judgment and students' reading performance correlated positively for fourth grade stu- dents with an E value of .51 and a p value of .005 for Form I, and an r value of .57 and a p value of .002 for Form II. The significant positive correlation for each of the first, second, and third grades yielded an 3 value of .35 and a p value of .050 for the first grade, an E value of .43 and a p value of .017 for the second grade, and an r value of .61 and a p value of .001 for the third grade on 74 Table 6 Nonparametric Correlation Between Teachers' Estimate of Their Students' Reading Level and Students' Oral Reading Scores on the Arabic Reading Inventory: Form I and Form II Form I Form II Grade E p-value r p—value l .35 .050* n.a. n.a. 2 .43 .017* .31 .096 3 .61 .001*** .04 .827 4 .51 .005** .57 .002** General .47 .001*** .10 .275 * = .05 ** = .01 *** _ .001 75 Form I. For the second and third grades in Form II, the results indicated that there was no significant correla- tion between the two variables. The null hypothesis stated that there was no signifi- cant correlation between teachers' judgment and students' reading performance on the Arabic Reading Inventory. The null hypothesis is rejected at alpha - .05 level for each grade level and as a whole in Form I. Also, it was rejected for the fourth grade in Form II. There is a positive relationship between teachers' estimate of their students and students' reading performance in all instances on Form I, and it was significant in only instance in Form II. Oral and Silent Reading Comprehension The third null hypothesis was: Hypothesis 3: There are no significant differences between students' comprehension performance in oral and silent reading conditions in the first, second, third, and fourth grade levels in Jordanian elementary schools. Table 7 reports for oral and silent reading compre- hension on Form I. Oral and Silent Reading Comprehension-~Form I The data on Form I were analyzed by using E-test to determine if there were significant differences in the 76 Hoe. u ... .Ho. u mo. u . m¢.NH mv.mh 00.m «amoo. mm mv.ml amm. Nd. om vm.mm mo.mm 00.0 compo mm.wH mc.mb 00.m mmm. mm oo.HI «taboo. av. om 50.0H 50.05 00.0 oomuo mm.HH mH.mm 00.m «erooo. mm mm.v «seooo. No. om mv.mH mm.hh 00.0 oomuw mn.o~ mm.om 0m.m «eeaoo. mm mm.MI rerooo. Hm. om mm.NN NN.hm 00.0 compo ooum .m.o oon>IM .>oo coo: ocam>|m M mommu 00.m\0 Hananm .oum moomuo H Euom How auouco>cH mcflomom ownmud or» :0 mouoom .00.m. cowmcmnoHQEoo mcwommm ucmawm one 6A00.0. cowmconoumeou mcflocom Homo coo3uom unmet» com Home :ofiuoaouuou mo vacuum one a magma 77 mean of percentage scores of oral and silent reading com- prehension for students across the grade levels first to fourth in Form I on the Arabic Reading Inventory. No significant difference between the means of oral and silent reading comprehension scores was found for third grade students in Form I. The t—test for oral and silent reading comprehension indicated significant differences beyond the alpha level = .05 for three grades. For students in the first grade, p equals .001; for the second grade, 2 equals .000; and for the fourth grade, B equals .002. Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that there are no significant differences between students' compre- hension in oral and silent conditions across the grade levels first to fourth is rejected for all of the grade levels in the study with the exception of the third grade. There were differences in oral and silent reading compre- hension in that students in the first and second grades scored higher in oral reading comprehension than in the silent reading comprehension, while comprehension scores were higher in silent than oral reading for students in the fourth grade. 78 Oral and Silent Reading Comprehension--Form II Table 8 reports the mean scores, standard deviations, .E values, and p values for oral and silent reading com- prehension in Form II. The data for Form II were analyzed by using E-test to determine if there were significant differences in the mean percentage scores of oral and silent reading compre- hension for students in Form II on the Arabic Reading Inventory. No significant differences between oral and silent reading comprehension were found for the second, third, and fourth grade students. Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that there was no significant difference between student's compre- hension performance in oral and silent conditions across the grade levels second to fourth grade children was not rejected. Word Recognition Errors The fourth null hypothesis was: Hypothesis 4: There are no significant differ- ences regarding the type of errors that occur in oral reading for the first, second, third, and fourth grade levels in Jordanian elementary schools. 79 .aoo. I «rs no.m~ oa.vm 00.m mhm. mm 0H.I «erooo. Nh. om mv.mH vo.mm 00.0 momuu mm.hN m5.~m 00.m mun. mm mm. «krooo. Nm. om hm.mN mm.mm 00.0 QUQHU mm.mm om.mm 00.m com. mm MH.I «rec mm. om ov.HH HH.mm 00.0 N TQMHU omoc omafi .moc .moc .moc .moc omog .mog H GUMHG .noum .m.o moao>lw .>mo coo: osam>lm H mommo 00.m\0 HAMBIN .Oum mmcmuu HH Euom How huouco>cH mcwomom oahmud or» so mouoom A00.m. coamcmzoumEou mcaooom ucoawm one A00.o. coamconmumeou mcwooom Hmu0.cmo3uom unmet» one umoa coauoaouuou mo pasmmm one a magma 80 Eleven types of errors were observed and coded while students read the oral reading passages. These errors were classified into two categories: 1. Errors that interfere with the meaning of the sentences which were observed, recorded, and scores. These errors are: (a) substitutions, (b) omission of words, (c) omission of letters, (d) grammatical structures, (e) insertion, (f) teacher aid, (9) mispronunciations, and (h) order. 2. Behaviors observed, recorded but not scored, that did not interfere with meaning. These behaviors are: (a) repetitions, (b) self-corrections, and (c) phonics. The data were analyzed by computing Chi-square to see if there were significant differences among students in the different grade levels in the type of errors that occur in oral reading. For errors that interfere with meaning, the results displayed in Table 9 indicate significant differences between students across the grade levels first through fourth on each of the following: omission letters, gram- matical structures, insertions, teachers' aid, and mis- pronunciations in Forms I and II beyond .05 level. The findings yielded no significant differences among them on each substitution, omission word, and order in the two forms. Based on the results presented, the null hypothe- sis was rejected for omission letters, grammatical 81 Hoo. H see HO o N “as. mo . N R mmo. m mNMHv.NH mmm. m HNmNo.m HOGHO «rsooo. mH 0NONN.m0 «ssooo. mH mmvmm.mm nOHueHOGDnOHQmHZ «nmoo. NH mnonm.wN some. NH ovoov.0N UHG .B «ssvoo. m omVOH.VN stucco. m OMNHm.Hm mnOHuHmmnH sarooo. NH ommmo.mo senooo. NH Nthv.mm HeEEeHQ «sHoo. NH NHmmo.Nm «erooo. m mnemm.mm .H COHmmHEO OMH. m HmMBm.m mmh. m vmmNo.H .3 nOHmMHEO mMH. m howmQ.MH th. m vmmhm.0H GOHUSUHquDm «337m me «x 3317mm me «x nonum HH EHOh H EHOh HH Euom one H Show nH maneez on» nqu oounomuounH pen» uouum mo ooze noem MOM Eooeonm mo monumoo one .enHe> m .euenwm H50 m wands 82 structures, insertions, teachers' aid, and mispronuncia- tions on the two forms. There were differences in these types of errors between students in the first through fourth grade levels. Further analysis was applied to calculate the mean and standard deviation for each of the significant dif- ferences for omission letters, grammatical structures, insertions, mispronunciations, and teacher's aid in both forms. The results are displayed in the following tables (10, 11, 12, 13, 14). Table 10 Means and Standard Deviations of Omission Letters in Oral Reading for Students in the First through Fourth Grade Levels in Form I and Form II Form I Form II Grade Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. 1 .17 .38 n.a. n.a. 2 .67 1.03 1.07 1.32 3 .27 .64 1.77 2.23 4 1.97 2.31 2.93 2.60 83 When the means and standard deviations of omission letters for the grade levels were examined, it was found that both were higher for the students in the fourth grade than for the first, second, and third grade levels. The second, and third grade means and standard deviations were found to be higher than those of the first grade students. The findings of this study showed that the first grade had fewer omitted letters than students in other grade levels. Students in the different grades made more errors in Form II (see Table 10). Table 11 Means and Standard Deviations of Grammatical Structure Errors in Oral Reading for Students in the First Through Fourth Grade Levels in Form I and Form II Form I Form II Grade Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. 1 .07 25 n.a. n.a. 2 1.00 1.46 4.46 2.70 3 .83 1.05 3.38 2.65 4 2.63 2.13 5.41 2.75 84 A closer examination of Table 10 shows that the mean and standard deviation of grammatical structure errors for students in the fourth grade level were higher than those of the first, second, and third grade levels, whereas, second and third grade students made more gram- matical errors than first grade students. The findings of this study showed that students in the upper classes made more grammatical errors than students in the lower classes. The means and standard deviations for grammatical error was one of the highest among the various types of errors (see Table 11). Table 12 Means and Standard Deviations of Insertions for Students in First through Fourth Grade Levels on Form I and Form II Form I Form II Grade Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. 1 .27 .52 n.a. n.a. 2 .30 .65 1.77 1.86 3 .30 .47 1.65 1.78 85 A close examination of Table 12 shows that the means and standard deviations for insertion were almost the same among students in the first, second, and third grade levels in Form I; and in Form II, for the second and third grades only. On the other hand, the mean and the standard deviation for the fourth grade was higher than those of the other grades. The findings of this study showed that students in the fourth grade had more insertion words than the other grades. The means and standard deviations were found higher in Form II for all the grade levels (see Table 12). When the means and standard deviations for mispro- nunciation were examined for students, it was found that students in the fourth grade had higher means in both forms than students in the other grade levels. First grade students made fewer errors than second and third grade students. The finding of this study showed that students in the upper classes made more errors than students in the lower classes (see Table 13). A close examination of Table 14 shows that the means and standard deviations of teachers' aid for the fourth grade students were higher in Form I than other grade levels. In Form II the means of teachers' aid were lower for the fourth grade students than for the second and third grade students (see Table 14). 86 Table 13 Means and Standard Deviations of Students' Mispronunciations in Oral Reading in First Through Fourth Grade Levels in Form I and Form II Form I Form II Grade Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. 1 .03 .18 n.a. n.a. 2 1.03 5.47 2.27 2.94 3 1.03 1.09 3.15 4.18 4 5.00 6.04 5.55 6.73 Table 14 Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers' Aid in Oral Reading for Students in the First Through Fourth Grade Levels in Form I and Form II Form I From II Grade Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. 1 .67 1.49 n.a. n.a. 2 .43 .72 3.19 2.74 3 .13 .34 1.84 2.25 4 1.00 2.41 1.65 2.16 87 The findings of this study show that students in the lower grade levels were more dependent on their teachers for aid when they read the new material not in Form I. For repetition, self-correction and phonics, the data were analyzed by computing Chi-square to see if there were significant differences among students in the type of behavior that occurs in oral reading. The results displayed in Table 15 indicate significant differences among students on each of repetitions, and self-corrections in both Forms I and Form II beyond .05 level. The find- ings yield no significant difference in phonics in Form I, while it was significant in Form II. The null hypothesis was rejected for repetition and self-correction in both Forms I and II, while it was rejected for phonics in Form II. There are clearly differences among students across grade levels for these types of errors. For self-correction the means and standard deviations were found higher for fourth level in Forms I and II. First, second, and third grade students made almost the same self-corrections in Form I as did the second and third grades in Form II (see Table 16). The findings of this study show that students in the upper classes tend to correct themselves more. Students corrected themselves more when the material was new to them as indicated in Form II. 88 Hoo. u «rs Ho. 0 «« mo.fl.<. ...ooo. NH mqmm~.sq amw. G menem.s moncoaa .vmo. m mosm~.mn ...ooo. o mmsmo.om conuomnnoo .m «Ame. NH smnmn.mm «amo. a Hemme.hn mconunummmm enHe>Im mo Nx enHe>Im mo Nx Honum HH shoe H Show mHoonom mueuneEon nH muneonum mnoE< HH Euom one H Euom no manemz nH ouewuounH uon moon uenu noH>enom poem Hem Eooeeum mo wmeumeo one .enHe> m .enenwmlHnU mH oHneB 89 Table 16 Means and Standard Deviations of Self-Correction for Students in Oral Reading: First Through Fourth Grade Levels on Form I and Form II Form I Form II Grade Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. 1 .27 .52 n.a. n.a. 2 .20 .48 1.12 1.66 3 .36 .85 1.04 1.11 4 1.57 1.30 1.68 1.74 The means and standard deviations for phonics behav- ior were found close for all the grade levels in Form I. Form II shows that student means for the second and third grade levels were higher than for the fourth grade (see Table 17). The findings of this study show that students in upper grade classes made fewer phonics errors than those in lower grades. When the means and standard deviations for repetition were examined, it was found that the fourth grade students made more repetitions than other grades either in Form I or in Form II. While the results show that there are significant differences for repetition among students, 90 Table 17 Mean and Standard Deviation of Phonics for Students in the First through Fourth Grade Levels in Form I and Form II Form I Form II Grade Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. 1 .10 .30 n.a. n.a. 2 .30 .70 2.88 3.05 3 .40 .77 2.37 5.60 4 .77 1.14 1.78 3.17 Table 18 shows that student in the different grades have close means in Form II. For the criteria used to judge the instructional reading level for administering the Arabic Reading Inven- tory Table 19 shows the students' mean scores for reading and comprehension in oral and silent reading. Table 19 shows students' mean scores for oral read- ing, and oral and silent reading comprehension for each of Forms I and II. In Form I where students have read the passages before, the results are as follows. Students in the first grade level have a mean score for oral reading of 91 Table 18 Means and Standard Deviations of Repetition for Students in the First Through Fourth Grade Levels in Form I and Form II Form I Form II Grade Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. 1 .23 .50 n.a. n.a. 2 .53 .77 1.38 1.89 3 .40 .67 1.35 1.80 4 1.23 1.54 1.72 2.20 88%, while students in the second, third, and fourth grade levels have mean scores above 90%. The mean scores of oral and silent reading comprehension are between 60% and 80% for all grade levels. In Form II the mean scores of oral reading, oral and silent reading comprehension, are different from Form I. For oral reading, the mean scores for the second, third, and fourth grade levels are above 85%, while the mean of oral and silent reading comprehension is between 50% and 60%. The general guidelines for administering the Arabic Reading Inventory for reading are given on page 90. 92 em mm mm mp mm mm v mm mm hm mm mp mm m mm mm mm me he mm N .e.n .e.n .e.n om no mm H .800 unoHHm .800 Heuo .m Heuo .500 uneHHm .E00 Heno .m Heuo eoeuo HH Euom H Euom mHo>eH ooeuo nuunom nononna umHHm on» nH muneonum MOM name on» no nonneneumEOU one wnHoemm Heuo How neuoom new: munoonum mH mHneB 93 Reading with Prior Experience for the First through Fourth Grade Levels Oral Reading Recall passage with 85% for first grade 60% comprehension for all 90% for other grades grades Reading Without Prior Experience for the Second Through Fourth Grade Levels Oral Reading Recall passage with 85% and above 50% comprehension and above Tables 20, 21, and 22 show the number of students who scored equal to, or above, the criteria stated. The criteria stated above are derived based on the mean scores of oral reading and oral and silent reading comprehension on the Arabic Reading Inventory (Form I, Form II). Summary Section four deals with data analysis. Four null hypotheses were explained. The data were analyzed by using four types of statistical methods: Pearson 94 Table 20 Number of Students Who Got 90% and Above Word Accuracy In Reading and 60% and Above in Comprehension in Form I Grade N Oral R. Oral R. Com. Silent R. Com. 2 30 21 27 25 3 30 29 23 25 4 30 23 21 29 Table 21 Number of Students Who Got 85% and Above Word Accuracy in Reading and 50% and Above in Comprehension in Form II Grade N Oral R. Oral R. Com. Silent R. Com. 2 30 20 22 21 3 30 20 22 22 4 30 25 20 18 95 Table 22 Number of Students Who Got 85% Word Accuracy in Reading and Above 60% in Comprehension and Above from First Grade Level in Form I Grade N Oral R. Oral R. Com. Silent R. Com. 1 30 30 27 23 correlation coefficient, nonparametric correlation coef- ficient, T-test, and Chi-square test. The Pearson correlation coefficient was computed to see if accuracy of reading words in isolation was asso- ciated with reading word in context. The results revealed significant correlation between reading words in isolation and reading words in context for all grade levels in Form I. In Form II there was significant correlation in the case of the second and fourth grade students, while there was no significant correlation for third grade. Nonparametric correlation coefficients were used to see the relationship between teachers' judgment of their students' reading level and students' performance on the Arabic Reading Inventory. For Form I the results indi- cated that there was a significant positive relationship between teachers' judgment and students' reading perform- ance on the test for all grade levels. For Form II, there 96 was a significant positive relationship between the teachers' judgment and student performance for students in the fourth grade only. This means either that teach- ers can estimate for students in upper grades while it was difficult for them to estimate for students in the first, second, and third grade levels, or that Form II does not measure reading ability as well as Form I. For oral and silent reading comprehension, the E-test was used to examine the differences between means for oral and silent reading comprehension among students in the first grade through fourth grade in Jordanian elemen- tary schools. For Form I, the findings revealed signifi- cant differences between oral and silent reading compre- hension. It was found that oral reading was superior to silent reading comprehension for the first and second grade levels, while silent reading was found superior to oral reading comprehension for the fourth grade level. The result showed that there was no significant difference between oral and silent reading comprehension for the third grade level. The findings of Form II did not show significant differences for oral and silent reading comprehension among students in the first through fourth grade levels. While the results did not indicate significant differences in Form II between oral and silent reading comprehension, it was found that oral comprehension scores were still 97 higher than silent reading scores for the second and third grades, and silent comprehension was higher for the fourth grade level. To examine if there were differences in the type of oral reading errors among students in different grade levels, Chi-square was computed to see if there were significant differences in each type of error among the grade levels. The results showed that there were significant dif- ferences among grade levels in omission letters, grammati- cal structures, insertions, teachers' aid, mispronuncia— tions, repetitions, and self-corrections in both forms, and phonics on Form II only.. The means and standard deviations were calculated for each one of the significant errors mentioned above to see which grade level predicted more or fewer errors. Students in the fourth grade level predicted more errors in omission letters, insertions, mispronunciations, grammatical structures, and self-corrections while fourth grade predicted fewer in phonics and did not wait for teachers' aid. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section presents a summary of the purpose of the study and the research design, including the popula- tion and instrumentation. The research findings, conclu- sions, and recommendations are also presented. Summary The purpose of this study was to deve10p an Arabic reading inventory which might be a useful instrument in helping teachers to test their students' instructional level and to reveal their strengths and weaknesses. A consideration was the type of reading, oral or silent, which might be more influential in the determination of reading level. Another concern was the accuracy of teachers' judgment, based on their observation and expe- rience of students' reading level. Error frequency in reading among elementary grade students was also examined. The subjects in the study were 120 students from Jordanian elementary schools for the first through fourth grade levels. Thirty students were selected randomly for each grade level. The materials for the test were selected 98 99 from Jordanian reading books after a careful review of the content. Two test forms were developed. Each form had a word list of 20 words to be read in isolation, and two passages. For each grade level, one passage was selected for oral reading, while a second was picked for silent reading. Students' errors were marked, and a retelling approach was used to check students' comprehen- sion. Teachers were asked to estimate their students' reading level after the test by giving 1 for poor readers, 2 for average students, and 3 for excellent ones. Four null hypotheses were formulated for this study and four kinds of statistical techniques were used to test them. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to explain the correlation between reading words in isolation and reading words in context. The Nonparametric correlation coefficient was used to see the relationship between teachers' estimates of their students and students' reading performance on the test. The Ertest was computed to examine the mean differ- ences between oral reading comprehension and silent read- ing comprehension. Chi-square was used to see whether or not there were significant differences in the type of reading errors among lOO grade levels first to fourth. Means and standard devia- tions were compared for each type of error between the first through fourth grade levels. Findings and Conclusions The first question raised in the study asked whether accuracy of reading words in isolation has an association with accuray of reading words in context among students in first through fourth grade levels. On the basis of the data analysis, it was found that there was a significant positive correlation between reading words in isolation and reading words in context for all students from the first through fourth grade levels, either in Form I or Form II. This is expressed in Table 4 which shows a highly positive correlation of between 70% and 90% for each of the first and fourth grade levels on the text. However, while the data indicate a significant positive correlation between accuracy of reading words in isolation and accuracy of reading words in context, students' scores were found to be higher in reading oral passages than in reading word lists for almost all of the grade levels. A second question asked whether teachers' estimates of their students' reading achievement level based on her/his observation and expeience related to students' reading performance on reading tests. 101 As shown in Table 6, the data analyzed indicated that there was a significant positive correlation between the two estimates for all the grade levels in the first through fourth grade levels in Form I. Form II shows that there was a significant positive correlation of .57 for the fourth grade and a moderate one of .31 for the second grade level. Also, there was a slight positive correla- tion for the third grade students. The third question for this study asked if silent reading comprehension is superior to oral reading compre- hension among students in first through fourth grade levels. Tables 7’and. 8, present the correlation and mean scores for oral and silent reading comprehension. On the basis of the data analysis, it was found that there were significant differences between oral and silent reading comprehension in first through fourth grade levels. For Form I, the findings revealed that the mean scores of oral reading comprehension were higher than silent reading comprehension for students in the first and second grade levels. On the other hand, silent reading comprehension scores were higher for fourth grade levels. In the case of the third grade students, the findings did not yield significant differences between oral and silent reading comprehension. Table 8 shows the correlation and the mean scores of oral and silent reading comprehension in Form II for the 102 second, third, and fourth grade levels. The findings of Form II did not show significant differences. However, oral reading comprehension mean scores yielded almost the same result as in Form I. The means for oral reading comprehension scores were higher than silent reading com- prehension scores for second and third grade levels, while the means for silent reading comprehension were higher than oral reading comprehension for the fourth grade level. The fourth question addressed in this study asked which types of reading error that occur in oral reading are found more frequently among this sample of Students in first through fourth grade levels. As shown in Tables 9 and 15, the findings of the Chi-square analysis of the type of error in oral reading on the test (Form I and Form II) show that there were significant differences between students' scores in the first through fourth grade levels in omission letters, grammatical structures, insertions, teachers' aid, mis-‘ pronunciations, repetitions, and self-correction. It was found that there were no significant differences in the following type of errors: substitutions, omission words, word and letter order in the two forms, while there was no difference for phrasing in Form I. 103 The findings of this study indicate that students are able to read words in context more accurately than reading words in isolation. This seems consistent with Goodman's (1965) findings which determined that children were increasingly able to read words in context correctly, though they might make errors on the same words in isola- tion. The findings also indicated that teachers were able to estimate accurately students' reading instructional level in the first through fourth grade levels. This seems consistent with Smith's (1968) and Kermoian's (1962) findings which show that teachers are able to predict reading readiness status as accurately as commercial instruments do. It is also supported by Elijah Legenza's (1979) findings which indicate that the teachers' ranking of the reading readiness of their students correlates significantly with the Metropolitan Readiness Test (Form B) . In Jordan teachers concentrated more on oral reading for first and second grade levels, increased the amount of silent reading in third grade, and put more emphasis on silent reading for students in the fourth grade level. This is in line with Hilderth's (1958) suggestion that half or more of the pupils' reading time in the first two years should be spent on oral reading. Toward the 104 end of the primary period, 30% of the total time, he believes, should be devoted to oral reading for all purposes. According to Gray (1963), children in the first year should do a great deal of oral reading since it is an easy transition from talking aloud to reading aloud. On the basis of the analysis of the data regarding the type of oral reading errors among the first four grade levels, the following findings were obtained: 1. Mispronunciation and grammatical structure errors were found to be most frequent among students in the first through fourth grade levels. This finding was consistent with studies of D'Angela and Mahlios (1983), D'Angelo and Wilson (1979), and Goodman (1976) in which substitution errors of mispronunciation are the most frequent among students in the first, second, and third grade students. In a previous study done by Schale (1966), substitu- tion errors of partial and gross mispronunciation was also examined and found to be more frequent among students from grades two through nine. 2. The results also indicate that the portion of word omissions and insertion were found to be small among students in the first through fourth grade levels. This observation is in agreement with the findings of D'Angelo and Wilson (1979), D'Angelo and Mahlios (1983), and Goodman (1976) which indicate that substitutions were most 105 frequent, while omissions and insertions showed the low- est percentages. They recommended that the time spent coding and interpreting insertion and omission is of little use in classroom and clinical practice. Previous inves- tigation has shown that omission comprised a small portion of students' errors (Gilmore, 1947). 3. Second and third grade levels did not show many differences for most of the oral reading errors, especially omission of words and letters, mispronunciations, inser- tions, self-correction, phonics, and repetitions. On the other hand, the results show that there is a decrease in the proportion of grammatical structures and teachers' aid. This finding was consistent with Elder's (1971) find- ing which did not reveal many differences between the second and third grade pupils. The only change of magni- tude was a decrease in the pr0portion of words "aided," that is, words that were told to the children after they hesitated and did not attempt to try them. Recommendations for Educational Implementation and Future Research in Jordanian Schools 1. Since Jordanian teachers use personal judgment from their experience to provide an evaluation and to place students in their reading levels, it is recommended that teachers use other reading tests in addition to their personal judgment. 106 2. The present study aimed to determine the appro- priate materials for instructional reading level by choosing a sample of 30 students from each grade level and having them read the selected passages and word lists which are supposed to fit the average students in that grade level. As a second step, it is recommended that another sample of Jordanian elementary school students be selected and that they read the graded word lists and the graded reading passages, starting with easy selections and increasing the difficulty until the student reaches his instructional level. The results, then, can be compared with expert teachers' estimates of the students' reading ability. 3. Since reading and writing are an integral process, it is important for Arabic reading students not only to promote their reading performance, but also it is impor- tant for them to enhance their writing competence. It is, therefore, recommended that the development of future Arabic reading inventories should take into account the measurement and evaluation of the writing ability in the Arabic language. 4. Readability or comprehensibility of reading materials is an area that future researchers should deal with. The development of readability guidelines assists teachers in selecting material both for instruction and developing their own inventories. APPENDICES 107 APPENDIX A LETTERS 108 ewe-{ma rag (34‘3“: z—efi‘ 0‘): W2" A‘C‘ I\\~ ’ \/.\ ,\ f3!” .4 al.‘ lt'I/Z/ <' 6);. -o -HA°/H/\~.. 91);: oMJIHJu/WIeLIJ .1.“ 39.3,.” ' (~13 0'42) 49—“ 'v-J-d'wle-fiwp-h-JLéi-‘Ja‘ 9' (~15 01"..5 39.11:...— J-rr-‘J'DI J‘Mfi-fi: 09"” 9“ 001"" 9' 05‘“ to" ;,:I.~.;,YIQ,J.AJ ‘-"'"' ..__—-w ,--|--’. -I,-s..-.:,J/--'- ~ - (l._...Jl r-‘L‘J' 3.9,.» (haw/:1...- 109 APPENDIX B STUDENTS' COPY OF FORM I 110 -:.L:.J| -2..pr fab-LP“ J?“ 0351...“ .- u.» ' gLi‘JT' -._—.—-_ o Jae 6,151 at: ' 111 -391.th l... -:2_,.1.Jl PI 112 M‘sé—zs .~>-:= M‘ec—e 5? 303-“ EL, .1...» 538.24 Cue-1.1.3 LEWHefi-I 0% WM:Q}LJ1§ élg’lrwl J 0’ -:~._|JLLJI PI ”.6 [TA-13” £31- ‘1'. gig: ‘ ~ "-5 w flff37£~fi J . ‘ ) ~ 9 )o‘ CED-’1 ijad ,1 P‘s. .1211! a! SL315 ”agape; gs: 3:55:41 I '34)}- Lu +1‘JM‘J-xa-3 ‘ Ml tgLa-JH-g-figflxé :rLag. ZJLS eel-6. qu-séwlqjir 1.1.1.; 4236 «91:13:41; Jae-é“ -¢~ét¢342.u-2553’Mlsu;ba¢; éfi:’&. Uh- $2le @4626le 333-3110;; GU L‘JLS Egg-15.: 1.3L; Elf-rut «gm—“J": I cud-5c}: Li; 116 Mg. gwlfp’fi-ilsw I 34:. QAILLMLHI ¢UI Ire w. 4302'} :5.ch ' )4 )fi‘ .nggu- :QDI s"¢_’_.:.2 Law}: ’bfiLc. .gtfliggigflb: gUI 117 -:~J.4-“ -ivJLh." Pl -1Ua.>L8J| -3LJJaJ'f—J éIJJgYI .‘LIJL‘ZJI gaJ—AM my: I b—«I? 4.: Lin—:- 14:: LA.“ wk. :25qu Ag...“ M\ am .L...» 118 '4,” . s "I J, a I ,. ’ 3‘ WDJ;MIJ1W aaflsxngiwIQ-Js ./ I . I .II 4‘ ’ 3’ , chMLi .1»ngch gig-Ucchfafl a; 0’. {. .,’ ’I ’01 I I I :I .Ifxfl xi .4... my 95’“!- L. .53“? $3,, ’I 0 ‘II o I '6‘. ‘ OI I 4" ’I'I JGQJv-Jcéjwra“ ugh—I (Y‘aj) I '2‘ I OI I . :I ‘I o ’.I -~_5;:’b1 ’§?L~ Ié/‘J ‘9 1&1ij .tkELW .CLIY :4; as.“ 5L4 ' , J . ; 5’ 4: , o I , .gwggcgzwuuw 5: I II.‘/ 5: {’ . 3.4 .L.;.:..;.; wU :L..u| uLéJ‘ c.5419? 0". ’1‘ ’ o- I I .I I 0 {’2’ ’Wff‘éluJLb}l'LVT"L"j 9.9)...) )’.l £g . I II . I . g I f ’1’": .II 0‘ . I JaJJLyI‘) .1194.) QerLWJ‘ WI 1&3} 1 .I . 3);": L541 —_—..-.-—— 2's cud-3 'wd I. _ . . .‘g, i f of ’ -" l . . w.“ r}: L-L.‘ I 33V)? ‘J'JL’ ’4‘ JL’ 0 >3? rLgfpagpgrygu “ I 3"”. I ’ :(I_.¢f Jun .94; 3‘4; ; JIJJIs :I ’ 0.: ’ 0“ ’1 . 9 I ’0.’ “Law dry.” )5...» ngIWJJI 3; if»; .§_.=3L.4J| fI___’.II 37g; ‘24- \ 3": ,,f . (I). '4 - :4!— $1 3r“ ~'-.-== :—-.~J‘ 3;? a3 a 0': ‘t , I .g, . T J .._: I. ’ _’ 94.3 3‘1»)- L03)» ‘jJL'JI-L’ . JL’Q-‘cy‘ u’u—Q 4.1+? ::3 ’r ’ 9 I o ’ ’z— :I I (\fi £~<> . Jy—Jé.“ QIJ ‘r~l:.-) . 3L4 934—,- , 1’ , , us * :1 ‘ , = L’Lr. I «L9,.- Uta.“ (L49 4;.) .4;wa QI._-I.<~II gw 9:. J34} a; «a; Haw ,w : l. I? 1’ ’ :1. _: IOI. I»\‘l ’a” Bug}; 53 fig Jj‘u; __. 'J‘tj‘J‘L'J I I 5’ .’ . .’./ .’.||0 } 5.? I . IJ-rJL—j - J’ua“ d 4.54934 :4...\1l 3"“ (L, II , . .‘ I I I 5’ .- . I - . :II JL’.’ . W )5; \F? 1 ‘ . ~— -’ 120 -:._LaJ| -:_..JLLJIP_.I -IL-JJ‘J'f-J 121 gm «is-g; L3 . U: );fw, 1:1, _,,:,' :.v.‘., J . -’ - .20 3"’ ’ 0’ I "””’I ,: .1 14:1 , ,, 5,,° .. J ,, : 46"le ~44: CU: ‘IPM‘ 6&1 xL- djb 5‘ ’ O’.’O PELQ'JEM‘ yawn a: La I» We a: o, 5 ' 1' ’ -o ’ o '95‘9‘5 Jfi‘w‘j dLaL‘JI 0‘ 9:4‘ ..1 {'30 ‘2': 4,; 1, _5,-' ” E’L’L 43:1.- cst.’ J}; [*3 ska“) 41:...“ 5.1415" , , ' ' ,', a , , .i '1- Lb; L.) @193.“ glalfiJl. m xL. WI TQIJJY! ”’1 ’. , -’ 3'2: 11‘ 1’ ' 1"“ ”'- -r-+’-: wit J" u") £112,43wa ,rJ—J Cr: ’ ,0 f .’o . {’0' :3 ’ l.’ . I J , 1 l .1. -0 .3 I’ .~ '. ’ =3 - [1.1! at" 4))“ .94: ‘5’“ 32*“ 5154‘ 0‘ ‘43 ’ ’ O ’0’ . ”. ’3” 1’ 'EJL‘?‘ 2.25.3 S} Qua-1%..) £kAEJ‘ \ \ l . .2 1 . .,‘ ’ a , 4""; -0" ‘I I Q’I IszI ’ f «2.31-9).: [fijfl L571; Jr") sly-J: - ‘0’ -I’. I o i). ’0 ' to. I .5911] 5.1.. (I: 43 «3...! pt; I}? :LHLg-T ‘31.»... J M. "5 ‘ I ‘I" . a J c. ‘é? g E. ’ ’. . 4,). 1, .o, o . ’ 5.: )5! , I: I} [.LL‘JI U}; “5|; 5.71.: $.31:- .c..L...>-1:«..|:LJL9 I” 0’. .313.“ 9.3).“ 122 35.4% Eogmb‘wldolfl w‘ofljw (J1:;;;1-’{ II”. ‘0 -I O J...“ I ” a 0’ 0 II. II C JLJL1L’11QJJQ6f-L’c “wbyfijy1é1s 313% £13 3.55 m Legit-9TB gm wig (re-)5 "4;: )1. I ', ,‘ I I. ” I 0” Uy1 ”-1., £§L:.-J1 rL-l: 3).-Y1 J31; u1 Jay} an; L553 sigflJlg ' 1):“) 35.2“ $qu Lem: II" ") La; liLa- M FYI Cali-1) 4.)); E3 1315-1 ‘1ij tuwl“ 1.353} ‘51.:ij Lib; 3313M U41. CI». 1.4; LLB, ”(:3 ‘JerLIviIWu “53.111”. :LJJJ 922 133V)? :YW 91.51.; c§p193 2'” o I 3;. ’ ’ f0 ’, .1 3’, .J , '0’ ’ I 1),)nm1j ”0’1" 9’1 JYJY1 La: € ‘3...” £33) 01:- «331.43 ’JLY1 CPL; ’11-... APPENDIX C TEACHERS' COPY OF FORM I 123 -:~...JLLJI P' 4wa -31-)4...“ Pl gab-'9‘“ J?“ aflwl L.L. Cut-3.0 flab) 9.1..) 9", 63-5-7 ‘23 “"5 P}: J); 615." (‘3 os—J- .....‘:S J...L - 124 125 4.9.1! -iyu.“ ou—J' Lei-ado 53.5.“ L...L. w Gm' va—g‘or—afl Jen—— as Rush J5 9,...1... c.2593 a?” LSL. 9951....)13 1.3L. :bbaahi saJ-‘J' - Pi"- 5454'- ‘or-P é»):- .,.,_aJn -wuu- 5U." - 1.3L, 99.3304) cgu'Jl .mgjfi m. (9 L.L., L,L,.JJ,.a.-; up, $351: 9,...1... 3L... “Jmamgskl, L. SBA-55 15L- MAL- gamut-aw» -:....JUaJI 9...! -:2_.J.;.th..l e-L: 43-345 as mm» up “4.41an L.L. GEL-‘4' vfi-JQH mszb 4....15 J3; JLHI CLLJIQLS); graham), 126 -zgaJ' l -:....JLLJI,..I v4.3.5“ car-v: #9; a") WIUJIPQCI) ML! “'43 ‘31-!) 9‘”! War-9- ,LLiJL, “3'4! PL! cymldchllJ ‘5qu WthI I,..IJ ‘9 J-.-"-e arr-J45” J-nJL: gal-u é-QJ gar-.- - ~39: - 55- 3J-5JLIQH Ova-J JWL‘ “J 65-" Jw‘e‘ PL? 2"” Lrl-r - p—h - agh- ¢5I,§JI¢L§,I¢5J¢ Lu. 95“.; 4.2.5 1.3: 9.3g; 2,434,!) I. 99'“ '5“ 03—9": ‘74-!) J55:. .6,» 4;» .45 .55., JLLJ Pb...” iuL—o - 25%| / JB.“ 0 LA..." 9L5); $5,931.35): 127 44.9.1! -:¢;LiJ| filgfllrmu £3 0.3.0 -1 van-L." P' -13—5.4...“ Pl 128 -;U....ut -; 2._..,...JI,.I c—qflJ'Jfl-‘J' J35 .5593!ng .gflIW134” .ENI an w,ru,flao..aé #1.." an. 9., .JfiL‘aJlafld, ‘Jcl : ”mats .fimn Lyle. ”mix... ”.1... .gu‘vm, “SJ ' q": War-‘4' uUr‘UJ'JJ-Hcfifi Q‘PvJM' 41:" J" . 4,5... 3 La}. Qi- .u.._mu.,L.u cu..- t... wuuls - t w.» mu mu JL -‘—--’ '23-“: 4’33'03'41-53‘4'45 «film-.411“ t'a.__.a.....u.,...so. a.._3.....n a," 1,...3 VL-uew' q‘u'JU ’—-—-r.- L’s-54» «1.5.3.- L-al‘th—GJ' MI g’lagfll may! 95M! 1,...) ddd'é-d-JH-uUJ-‘b- EMHWM'Q“ ‘9‘“ in}. 93-! ”—5-‘4' 0" 4‘13" 0‘ M'wh 'r-‘J 'L_.J'~r,.:¢ J-‘J - M',“ H' 45L .351- 525., 41,)" C,- 'JHJL—L - ? JAIL- 'JL Luge. “chubby 1.5m, LJMfl'yL, 41,)" cu ) tog—:5 ( “UJU’Jh' r' 555;.” 'J‘ ) J'rj: «55,-0.1. cud-Il- J'd’——g' BU. / .JL'D J. "LLJIeISJ. (fig—'J‘Y'C-E). (Jun—J! 343L- 129 - H' -zqu'r’1 -g‘fi—bw' -: L—J‘h‘ur' EL 1:“ .C_-'L“.J—-J cJ—U'Qnglf'I-IDLSJ aJfiAJ'séfiglE’bJL-n twipwlahw'él. : ,u H'sfi‘k“ Hr" ‘h—q‘r‘ia': = rL‘ .Lfixvfij‘ :hyy' ‘Hfi'JL—J} .- ’1‘ “wifh'qiéb Wan {HieerL-v ar' Hiqatyt. t th¢,u .4.qu Muourn,»u J__..:J|c._.°lS J_____..a;|.3l_. H-~,—-J'£-.,.JIJS1:- ._____,.J. 1.1, n ,t.|¢uS\-.J.,..JIJ.-.nu5~ .__..,._...'r.¢,l ‘L_.'..‘.J| .. a..." - c-v-o” - l—qirqifijéi \‘ Ml'hqidy‘)L¥~J'ajflqJ-d'fifi «Hum tLJJi—Lmujdn ‘L_.'._‘Jiqi-SEJ f ULJ (Iii bwgé'w-WJ o'H—e-r Who-‘1”- {'L‘Ji but NI.- 4| mum-.6, ...,.I,.sI.-.ts,. fin—1| 30L- 130 -IchLL." 9" -1 LJA‘J' PI #3133“ ~;.Jl.:‘..ll air-J' W' l,—.L? J»; J}: . «BibL. 99L: «ELL; 0 15...." 9‘.” “Hal 0 5.3.3 C5" Jib 93-5- ‘2’" 131 -2“. -:HLU'P' -: ”w. -: .h—Jd-J'r' 2,34! 2.4.4: .13.! : may.» .rLaJnJ' #1.,31.’ Maul an 1...: 3.9.! 5.4.1! awn“, .r,,J' 4541...... vbuwb Jun... .5}, .5.” k9,: 5491—... 9".) aLg-D :G—JB,.h.-q)3 ”kc—hp, (chLLr: a L'qu-quy'h’pj) Mar-5: .«L... Q95. 1.. :L,‘ was; .31.»: y .e.n» y :%LL.J|.-..l¢ “baa—2' we», mete-42; ,s :wwu «Lp' zwuw var-e '«J'fi‘ Lr-‘a 5.3:an .wl w '55-» Hfi‘fl twig...” 'JLJ 93—..." a" (‘1' 39,; L,.;..-....u. ,_-,. I.,..I 3,“! 2.1.4!“ng UL ,L_..LJI a ‘15.," 5,1.- 0: my“, L,..L;.,..,~n..-..s;, gamut gum a) a?) y' - ‘JLLJthaJ‘J my! - J'J': 0' 3).-“1.61.0." 99-4-5 v.2..." - ark—J 19%;...» 3,“! LL—UrSIcJIB Lab/s 95,5 all—L: ubud-‘a' - H.954“ «LL-L ”Q- 94%, We“. '1." 9'9" .° #5345." “I WI ¢Jngwuht,womgéglgsul '11)”. V w '14-'- oJVL-I'J' Y'JL—J, 9; «U, l. 3,1.“ LL..U,L..UI rm,“ ,1 Y f‘lld,‘ fJaiL. 'JU (3196.95.91, ,I,_s: .qfiqa. .2459; My...» ELM/J15.” c'hJ'c—Lfifi .g'fflofi, A...” 3.3L... 132 -,._1L1.11,_..1 -: g2d'r' .0 fl, YHflL‘H‘V'L‘JL cant-QJ'fy'ulJ' : OJ’,’~LH,'J3 "J-“J'JLa-I‘ 1| UH Chic)“ dig—.0.» :fL. J13 1...... “1,113an J13 .«_.au1 owed.” .21...." )1... hi, 1,3...» ”1,31 L.,..s: 21...»... ,1: 3,111....sz1 CL..." 2_1.... u...“ ,1...” .wlgpml was. 411.11...» 5.1., .‘L Jr...) ,L..LJI .11.»! 91....” wk: ,s.:...,..1|...-L:1|._p.... ,1.1, v": 4.21, 3.1.4.11 a1 ,1. .r..: 4L...,,...1.N,.JU' t§,L:, . .53-.1! 1.? 21,9... 3,.‘11 4')! ,3 ‘Ufi¢‘4’:‘:~u‘r"9‘5@ .Hxl'gl'bl’ffl :UL‘J'H ,Le-w .11.... - cums,“ - 91—11.; - u—U31r'aos 2L».- 1.11.1135... - Ody-Jul." “by wail-£3 - .,.L..qu.l.6~l| 9;... .- “LB‘JC’IP J... .11..) 9' “Ida-“5 IJI ? calapbrL-UI qu' v! 14-1 344-. 5.1...- v‘ ww|rg1.J-c1 2,21 41,1 JJL; “,1... 1...; 41.1) 1. --'"-'u J'— ”,3:— J....1., “,1 .bfueuag 14—.” '4-5Lo‘l / Jla'. 4' Hill {W' 3 5L1" ’1' H43 H! c-‘U'JJLF‘ ‘1' 319*” J'W-L‘ «Jo-e 33-3-3- J‘vLD-U' 'L— Jpn-fir} 9H6.” 5.4. oL-J " VP 3...)...“ “um 1,.._-.;1 (WI .11.»: J’——i-J' V. d” cr—v-JU' '35)“ , J1 H' lhf'fy'h'vfi). (Jan-H 3.1M.— 3.45.1.3. a'L-HJ'G'Sf 133 -:_§..aJI -ZBQUJI Jud-“h.“ 9" - ':;""J""‘J' P' é'J-Lfllcglfl' Gal " 55“)“ 41.3.1; 95.” 15"“! " h‘,.:.al J’s—'3 loaJ J “L... '- &,.&°> “I 22"“ 4": )J-f' ‘3.“ J—Js new 134 -345.“ -1TJLLJIP| ':LPLU| -12.”..‘1 P" LIL-Jim‘s °JLL51'¢1)L?~0,b“iJIh-fi 1...: I... .._.,.i . 1.995.111; .51, . 2...)...11'415. ,.L.J.’>a 091-945 31-9-3J'afi-U'u‘ Lfi'i “Jag-e: 1 Lv-i'u' 931:5: 1 93194' 1.54" 14- J3“: -.:.L;1,...J1, ,,.LJI,JL5.D11¢.- 3.1....J1 3......" .-.L_,.I,.,.Jla......, ,..L.. .e.n “1,111,191.39. . 3,1. ,,... L... . abwl .2115 ~11.th (135-: 9.6-“: His-3' 13*:Jl-‘H'n-Ja- Lune-5 L, 3.11... 1 1,111 ..-, my» a...» nun» m paw-141.5 as); "as .u..1,1. aw .a,m11,m¢a...l,_1...,.w1 1.1,: 1.3L. :...1c.JL.5,.:.. 14,1. 9.1.1.31“ bgwwwlcfi1ywlcu ,L. .11.. oLNILJLwGFI 1.1.251; :L,.,L..1<:,.L. .19..." uglquwlg “5.4.351, - a...» mu .-.Jl.i alas-"5.19141 J‘L- 4?, [AL- Cuxofi-J', “a”, v.35.” ?, 1}!)‘LG‘J4—U' L,..°.,..-..1, al.,...n‘wJ,L-.: «3|- 4...I- 4.5- L,.;I,JI, b,:~c¢l,.~:sl$u?.J ”DJ,)'"¢.A.33J,$ ¢h|fl|hhgw| 29.0fm - fL—ifiJ-I-o- J‘L-‘o'- “xii—g.“ J‘L' Jul 9 “dbl” ~1J?—,f-Ll-n—" OJLB' 5,21,;19..a.115;.1 9 3.4316511, l. .01-.5." ;,L..-:..l.p11 ”31 S'UU’ ”.11 9.391;. 6.3L“, . Jlfi .3345» «.JSJJD JLt—gl pLquiasL—o- HUI /JL°»J| ¢LL9J|¢lSr> *lleéLS); 135 -iU-aUJI .zydLLJ! 9...! tawd'abl’"Wtdrl,%a‘P”J-SJ*OJ‘J" N'fhflq-ofiigo-L‘u‘lfik Jug-‘3 ”1 °WJJOI+I— .11,Y|¢.g.L: 34-405: 4.3.113 1,3”. #12mgmyvléuuulpuzr‘uu,uol1..., 1,4— WYprfi ZhhéJmSJp‘HcaBl, . “'31“? I551“; . 1.4. 9.1.1,... .313. juml,L.1;,.‘11.-.._zyub.,,.112.?1,., . 3313,11 ;.1.-.$ “mag oJL'gJI‘HHJm‘I H5.1.31”. ...1.1;,.L. m1,1,11¢1?u.3,,_113, ° H41“: 31-" EWP'W '91-“: 1 1"“: 2"“ 4“?“ W 1 "-3” 4133.15 9.1-1.) HMS-lama- 1.-;,,_.JI a. msg#19191; BL... L3..u,...l:.u.11.;.au 1....15- MAI-ii- phat: vrfl'w-rw'w—B- 15:55- uu 5mm 1.1.1‘,_L...-.01 c... ,1 1.31 1.1;.“ 59,301.... 1?th Jaw. 3'15“ th-L: M1 :1" tau-"1 m—J' 4.45.11 642-1 ‘J “a“ '1 11?:3-1' JLp-i-i-l cu..." 1.5.3,...“ .11,i|JLL;.;1 '11:: H' 19‘“! 19‘) ”I 1.51 “mag. «Ll-5597' jLLL'J! 1.1.1 3,911 5L4.» o‘J‘J' 3.1.941 3.1.1.1.. ‘n-‘J' ~81 MN'Ja-b ,,..-.11;.s,,111, .911 111,11 L9 clam... IQ)...” 19.15.55; chJlolSJ; 3.5.9“;le J); J}: JLH' /.JL'>¢| APPENDIX D STUDENTS' COPY OF FORM II 136 -:..LaJ| 5‘43“." éléng|J’1' 133.3 .", (Sf-u ' 1.4L" 137 -:~._..JLEJ' p—' -zLJJAJ'f-J 1,4111 513.11 1.334» 111133 Y.L;:.11 111.255 09L» 6.1.1.3.» u-.1-‘ MELJ‘I‘J‘JB _Vfl— ~1.3:.1HC11311 1.... 1 3 C113 3.3L. 73.3“} aid] 8.53": .1541; 211213134 “1111113311331; .1141ng 1.. -..3 C31: 11.1. 140 / 81/1 (1.11-.2.- 3.11.. -: n.aJLLJ' f...‘ -:L,¢.JIF.I ’uo’S J// I O J. J 1JD1:.;L.’;..:;aCuigt1.L..i—L1 '- 4 - ' '1" ’. ; ’ _ - .gi‘fjsflé , o1 a‘ C—Lg-Tgbfilfiéé'SfiJLt- 131.11 away—5°; 25133?- 4.1559115 31L: 51;...j_.'1.11§g1.1_‘...= , étégmflfigug .131 .JEJ .flfliih’ . z , ’ ‘alo 3‘ :\ ’ .yiugdgcigsamgwm 1.31:; ’1 ’, 1 I ,) , I 1’ £1.15 CL... ’ Maul ""¢T.J..L.~'_ .aw1jiufl1,wl.ugbg .rwttifiuéLJdTél; géQ-J’di3l-‘E1QLLUIQ’QBJKE ‘ I , ,' _‘~ ’ _’! .- TEL-f-L‘Jl’iL-Ai 3.2.:1; $541.1depr «1.911. 142 -.:~3 PALEGL»UL§J\ :.:)J‘J UL-S-Sb. JéS‘J’J QM} “5:13:32;le QL} ..123: ,u— 4.. \ .2. «11.1.11 e 34. gs 32.1311 443 2M1 21.. .3 $.14;- 23 1.43.; 1, 9.1211 .UL; L. 63; 9.1L?“ ca 14*. 1111;; e U33»- 55 131. 1...; 33.1: L. .213 121.51 1.391 LIB-31 1;;st 11.1.11 c1111 ’rLji J" 1121 C2.. 13.5.3 £9191 11.21;; .1... 31,; 515.; 51.913 ’52:; {.5 5.15 2.33.3. 911.13 531.11 a-a: 1.1.111. a... 2112.12.11 1.11 :44. SM 14:: 15' .3. .3211 1:. ' —’ , - II I 1 14:0 1.91199 12%“ :—<—‘.' 1.1:: 91.131311: 4;. 1... 2M. 3 . , l :1. .a .( I; . f'i' ,l. ,. l' .3 A) '4 I.“ ‘ '1')”. ‘1'; : 1“ “-1?" .—-" 19". .1 . ' ' \ r ‘ , ' 35- a 19;. ' U-ta 146 -:..La.Jl 4wa 6311-1311131 ‘3 an$ .33 E3431 {a} J--“‘ -:.:..JLLJI P' -:3..J4..Jl‘..l (13.14;; 1..)1J1 ELM—d £41311 1:343 “p.313 can 3,112.1» 1.)!wa .”’a ’l I I cila-y‘ Q‘J; Q‘L}.3JL:H~.A1AAJ 1.1.511... U3.“ 13‘)» UL; 13);! thg W‘?‘ Ci}. ”,3; 0” 1.1.1.1331}; 21.43.13 )3... W‘ J31.“ . ,‘éL'. 1.1.1.1181: 19’1”“ L3; .QM JLJ' H ‘AJB; ~3 . b” ”3’- :U‘ ‘jéLS b ’98.);2“ .ii1L1121L11. 41;; 5. 351111 1.11111; 1.9.3 .:,,s;11’ £31.11; 11.3.1 23:11.1. C. 1211.1113151’. $.21sz '°|J:“C‘L‘"f’3 Jig] UJB z).- 36.); 21,31.C_.’,;1'11.L-.f “(314312319333 2.31.5 1.11311 3.23.11 1131, 31.11 L111 :1311 ‘11.. 1.231 L...” cgirl| (5):“ 1.193.... Q5243 £333.38 QLALJD J3) LULQ.“ 09‘ 6.1L) 3“: 31:; cJLzLiY.‘ if: lfié‘S - 131.111.131.1wa ’ 0’ a J; ”‘6'”. ,jSJLJ- d) «1336‘ 3“: ‘UJJAJ‘ JJ) -,4.-=.J‘¢e931;¢¢«~b 148 3.; 4.1M: 0‘ . 1513' . . 5’ J.J,J f." ’0 , J). ..mefil 3.1 1.411;; n.a.... J.341’.J;;§ ’:I’.:i 3" J. J J - 3.- LLLSWQ3UL.) J’waw‘ar‘v”) I I’ .CJJJ- I"..9 114;: 43*; Abra 9.9:)..43 bu €44“ Luck." U” ....11J31..1J’.3U3;’.J15 «Jupnwmums... ” J’ - ”01 ’O’.”’ GULJJfiJ‘J‘g 4;..1‘) UOLJ‘UJJJ'JJ‘G’UL’“? 21. 123. 21.633 (..13..;1§.1.1; JLSLJm 131:1..5J3E; ‘0’ wléflal dejcmkflwluhplcubjfip 1.33 L3.1311r’.3.11;:.’;'..1vi. 4.13 3311.1 J15? Jun“ cfiéu’ckj‘Lg‘u‘Jqugjpl”: 1......,,.. 1111’. 3.531.331... L,1’1J,31131.3 I 3.0.1.11 APPENDIX E TEACHERS' COPY OF FORM II 149 .:...JLth 3*" 4wa 43-1-3394 gig)! I Jpn «.4»- W' 6154' 541: 55-" 1.95 v95 the 135‘s 0L“ Juli-i $51 +5 Jug é—x' ~52! 5.,— Lil. ..‘m 63...: 150 -:_i.-Jl -i‘Pqu 9051.151; m. 7954'9-9 and r-W'oflols I)»: - 1,5.1 - 5.331 . r-l-I-J'uJ'e-‘re-‘J lSab‘. mark“..- “pug—Mu w' - afi - ELF. - JAJIAUIJLQJLHIBLQJQA?’|5I ‘3 «o 15.34,), ufimou‘lwwlpp1fl 94....” <.' I5L.J,?.-LJ.34.5 mus.) Phi-JILL“..- 151 3.51.5! 4..le H al.,...“ 9...! a—n' 5—439-9 cube-*3 8'5 :4“ PE" Jame-k 1'43" *9: F-LI' J5: r-LI-J'u-J'JJJ ' cube-'3 '5‘ gnu-0' inn-1394' wit-”J“ alt-943 6” 331.43.)! 1434' e-L! 4?: ‘a-rh-J eJ-h-"u-1‘ r-L! v“ or' We—# ,1; 4;..51. 2.45.5.3.» Jib! lJL'»! chngolS,» vlfi‘lléfiy 152 -19 U." Ht)” ab afi-‘J': 3.4." E a)! 4'1““ J35" 4')” 943.4: 14.4.)... Lu... W ‘0ng '1’.‘ 0 '51-;- - Li‘s- _-.,.,JI - cg..." - WI. léL-ii‘u'... ,IZLaeLantsy 99.14:- EJJ... ..Lst 141...: figuring”. 1.1.9:: 9vrr-J'a-éa-J '50 tax—4U) 'J-n-‘J'm-U'tafi-Jaéfi-é-JH 9 Jam; 4‘; 4.}: / JG.“ 0: gw' Pi .I:z.,...Jt,._a hag» at.» Jar-44': c4" 623-! Jul 2:1,. ewe-BUB 4:..." -.-~. .5 d» J'JIPI .QIQISR *Irn'lalsr’ 153 flg‘gfllqgwl . . :1 99? gL‘fJI. w ° an; an}. JJL; / -vaLh-“P' -:3..)4.Jl|...l )I,, New. J“: g H 154 - u—‘J' -:.-_~—JLhJ'r—-' .z‘HU' -: -‘—J‘J'r' Jub‘ffi 'Hfif‘""‘1""°°‘Tf—Jy'0'cu"J‘g’étwaJuW' .M, cc“; ‘cv- r25 uhddl‘m‘e ~a'-‘- "km-“4b dN-‘c-N .5115,» .&,...-...,~..1.Jt as; .L,.;..5L.-..a .ngn Ewan w,» ,Jubl.‘L..., CpJ.¢u.mk:-.old.h:daw nga-w .3“ng ”.qu “4.. 4.31, .wt,;u,u14_.;.l .e.n 1.1.4.1: Cal.“ 411. ".1 J6, 59:...” ,1! 4h, .ousag Jab}: V JJW1'JL.‘ oh—évitugl ”.4! un ahwgiJabJEUL o—J'ewH‘l' ‘-.~—--r-L u‘" Jahrfl.e.§u’.| Obilwbial.» Jun"- cab-"- car-fi- q——')SJ-‘u-LP b...” ,u Jet—4 .4. on. ~11 €1.31 I...“ - L..SL. - kt, .. Hi'eadanJ-L t gum“ ,u JabybngJL ouylmwt r .J__..'.: IJL.‘ «hummus: wgzufluwu fL-JJ JH‘L' J-‘I ‘ou-Y'HaLJ'QUJQJJL‘Jub'J-fi -.-——-U',S-‘ t «as—4.3545, a—«U'MJ-‘L J'J—S: aUyU-I. 02—5555- CJ'uL—q' 3|)! lJlLJI .‘LLJ'cvfif 053551396)- FL...“ 345L- 155 -gU—J‘ -:5.__JLLJ‘r_—' -;.fi—-bw‘ -2 a—-¢;"r-" Jr's-15 o'—-- OL—-" W '1‘" “-2 '4-‘5 (LE-Sevw‘ 1..., “55,.” Q; 3,5." zjwlw, 9L...» ,5 .3fizi,lc.a..,z,;c.,.,wlw, . Pauli. Q; “5531*, ”,1, .956. vs “Fig-I .ZJls. l, Qua: : $3,014. 0- .HW,JLSJ|¥-:c.sli 0L... n.1,,“ bl :JB,~,.‘J|,. ? 0JL_'-J'h:-33, u' Jfli 9' '9‘...“ij \' oJLnJ' u” *5)“ «Ln-09.3.5 flays)” 4"; as. Q, QL-bualg' 6", 0L... «Ll-D Wm am- w - ._.. - vL—sy'w» .ui. JfL-qu-GJ, 9."; on: 4.1.4151 Ml: oiLfiJ'cJS, c 4.5:. nauww v‘ worr|ow ”4"" aha-19' hat-- or: 96 «LL I- «Mannheim»- Y ‘1 f' 4.1:. Jan..- J; ufiuafifi “.33....J J'fi cJ’J-L- «Uni-'1'- cJ'd—q‘ SUI /,Jla'. 4| .‘kJIolSJ. .glfflgfif P413451... 156 -:_§.4JI 4....“th 9...! gym! -:2...J.:..JI ”I 6:11:51! am 5,,Jl 9mm .dLaa ¢~9H 1...»: WI L44; “.1, Li-J, «12.3! 4.3.- ~.~L-= «be 51,5 1...;9 c.,,L..II --.~.~b L3L.J.i r."- ,wu 157 -: Una-U' -: gw' Pl -: L’J‘J'r' ' ' o. ' o . . " 'hJ fish aL-J-p‘r-L‘I—n' -- '“fi’j‘9‘dlw 'UJ‘V~J"JJ 45w“? . LJan3&I-F:JLU;aurz’iJ-‘AJ'G-SS.J‘H—J'deub'vébdbaqq .thqailiJ345 al.,; L,..b “fibrous-r JBbUV-Uafid- 4“ .w-J'3"')ql=-~.- 4‘6 51:?“ . og‘wdfid'éflfi.w)wlldihL-UJ Luf‘LEdAo. ,0 u“ ”Jug-e ,5 a» i.» 4k; Jib-'45 {95.94.1554} g6 01' JUL“ .8"; J54! Jj-i-J'ded-' - ‘4'3'45- - é-FU' - and...” 45364.: Lb,‘}o,b.u-' - «JH|,|aLoléalp - ”am-.1: vaguuru - 145;; @wl V' “hJ'QJ 5.4.9,»; IJI 1dr~i= '5‘. 50b.” '4‘. cf 1 ‘3'":- o'Scpic-ad'flée' JD HJU 3U! /Jl-'. 4' .WI 3);," 33'0“ sit-“”33“ FANG—.91 l._...:.. #' Jflnubn 94,-.» “’33flzr‘u' 9:16.555 thiaa‘a MI?!) I” win-.34. car-)5 1"” '5’- ..r" 50"- CLEUJD. ‘J'H‘ 'U'ofir ‘hr'z‘ym's” f‘L‘J‘ 34".... 158 -: “fin-nth“ -: L‘)u|rbl .nflaJ'Uo. 5”")dréd" a...” ”aw'?‘ unrth'c. 3.1., 9' pr't—OJ :HL L143"; IJL. L9,: 9.4....) chLJ' 'uv‘llr, ”Idle... .8" take. Lw' Hagan! Ignaz... 4|, w .JL..J! teal; .WIcwlrun ab c“: r-—‘: «Jr-4“ éo-L-eAIJ-‘Tr-‘J rL-J' cube-«H 05 ~‘9-"- J's-”n w-r'd' .4". dbfir weU'QvJ-“qu 0‘3- (.5 J5 q‘: 3535-" w UJJ‘L‘er-fi"): deecé-J'xd-J‘fifi-‘c “51-244'14-‘5 “*L“: t 4.24515 IJL ‘WU'CH. egg IJL =r-v-L'h-"E-‘J' on 4,155 (1.4! 4., I.» Why...“ - 5.4.”,d- - e—l-"g-J-I'fi- - 9431*," who“ '11-’35.” “Hun..- - “viz” - JUN-lrl-Ue- - rs" ana'd-J' U 4" 3J9}! “313:“"4 " 3' ”“5 4*: 5W o'w 'JU b"- LIP-i *9.” 2,1.5. «U, L ”utfi5mw Lil.“ /.Jli- 4| 3.5.93! ”J w—VU'E‘ u" a") i——1-.-1‘ via-93255 w—U'cfifi “45 H5...» Limo-J 5"" ,LJ' uh w: 9?", .JLud' Luau Hl (1...;ng ,L..-.J' ”L; - H' apt... - ‘51-.” we... - L; 41;- LJ'LJ'XJ' ”Pubs .LJSQJ. .JI.L___,I "b.1196,- cg'fY'efif FL‘J' 345L- 159 -:_i..,.Jl -:.,.JLLJI ”I 49....qu . -:3..J..\..Jl‘..l giggly; ,L.I Jan... 01 .531 9.qu 0,4...JI ,- 2".“ Uri-g “5 L341.- .54" |,.a..,ls 9.: |,.;L: gang .9... put- 160 450“.“ -:_..JLLJI P' .22.,4..JIP_I orLr-‘JL-‘z’ '99.“ J'-.-?.r" fir-u") m Liv-5 ~ i—fi-J' “baa'H‘J-J' induce:- HUI, Huruafl . 2.1,,» 4.14.0: 1., 4,1,..." H—h-g WI 1... 4.5.1.535. Jbfll'ml’k,.fh‘¢?,&gwlelfi¢k.3,.le “3.)? ,m I,...L:,.-6,,JI HMIMI fit... le.&,u13, * UNUW': ~ H'JPQ‘ irL-J' 3m” earl-0L1: '9'? ‘ 9:4.” J'eaJ' 5.1., «5 'ru-SJ': ‘ firm-"r arkfl'afiL-w: ‘ c'fl‘v 334-" ‘ WI é‘fi-I-fi-J': c- Lair,.3r‘_Jl gang. 1.34.3.3. ¢.u.@gnw¢nuuuwuag J..L._.JI,L,I . w...u W.L., 4.213.431!“ 9,9,9}...- Wléldu any." viofidl ,....le gigs"; I,_-.., . Lelfll, mid—4.5 I,.5LL . «giggle!- ,,,.'..Jlaa:.l,., ,L...JI.43.;JI-I,.,Jlg,n.°.:....mlq.sfly,f twp; . ,3..." 55-h; ‘ JLr-‘J'w 134': ~54; ‘ "do—r" 6.5-” Ewan-“~31: * Jar”: aw': awe». . Low-u wp—u—a: a, ‘ 2.,sz “o-J'c-vur Lee-r "Lr—a’J'eN‘L-o- "03'; JJ“ ‘ H-i-JSJLr'tg-ig « LOP-H 4“ ‘ vsfi-J'JJ: 9099‘Jh9Uu-1‘c3v m. fifilwufigulMIe—lfil a... JD! WI «n.a.,qu abquthJl- ”:8- slyl- ark-wheat WI?» 9143'ng LIA-- igh—‘Lr-u'L-“v- 9%3Jfibc—iiu W.L.-.5; L“.- 1'le1) 29:... 1,131: 1.3L. 99555: '93—‘45 aflfiggfiéh "553' uh—Jl Wig, La“; 9.,“ 5,541.1,» 5.41-1&9; 3.13in“ IN.» 941mg..- 0,49; 2.1a; LM'JW'H 5L..." '3“) ,L.-,.JI,..&..JI éfia-L‘ 0L3." cchlZufluJ—Lc, 5., ,u wca. ..m ,1; PJLP‘ '9“ ave-U'ci'va-J air-3' “NH-.- 930” a“kn-’4‘: ail-1.314.; “3,... I,.._,L: .7,le WI 4L: 'LQJIGJSR vlf‘l'éLSp /JL'>AI :55; 3.5L}! 161 -39014." 4...le Pl 0: Zulu—Ln." PI .U_..;..JI ,..‘I I... :JLD‘. fiwpukflgw. “I3.¢wl¢s,.?wuwflwlgu ' Hfib‘wu'wafl'b'v'w'fi'w‘m 'wbfirkmho'dLs‘Jfflhvw'wr‘v-fl 45‘ Jri-es‘br-vr-rrh 5b‘4L-J‘U'U'w'u-d UsrfiéivL-w‘wi-S-J'rhr ‘J-DJ'JB :HuJ'v-‘Se: ' ‘9',»‘1-4'0-9 :1“ A3” “'3 2534' :J-rru ,“Ju Var-Nb“ Us ark-5 JG,. Why'W'é‘l.fi'-J, ,J“ '1? U, ° Juli-1”“. ’3’“; laquJUI L31 :LHJJQ.ZJL.J v'JIJ’IHLF'lPF-‘J$ 43: ~ u-W'M'é- ‘Q‘: u-fi-‘JUP 'wfi'w'vfi' ‘ ‘J Hut—34...”. flan-"4.5:“! ’0’; F‘JJlJ'PJJ' 41.5,. L-Fifici‘thflJ'a'g'J-‘LXH‘Q" ,f‘ 5b ”fr-"$35 “5v 5459-9 QUwL‘J'q-r ”-4 vw'w ,“JL; '5“ 92".)- meL-J'a-u-‘Q'S r- - e’-‘-"-°Lv- 69-"- de'wr‘w'o" "iJ'. A9..." . wl- 94...; Lil-AL. ,SSIIJsJJaJLijJ‘a Lil ¢'~i-~.-L5: L-‘dJ-J'J-rfl'vw'wr-‘W' 4“ L“-""'LJJ bwU'a-r:r‘w'~rr3v o h”flu-II fih-J'q-‘u-Je-r :4 «U'w 3:“ 0441-!“ :5-‘v' 4.1.5! «,1; who' ‘41-: J“ ‘2' a") wfl'w' U' ‘ANa' “J3: u-‘J '2“ L-‘Ja’fl' pas-5" av-JSV'o-r' #:5' '3')“ e-v-‘Lv' H4”: J: u-U' M'é‘ JyUJJ-‘m-e ‘55" We“ 9‘.thle r: J...‘ Uta; tag ,0, J;JJ| 4L; S'IJL-J 9.1....JI3uL... am IJL'NI «was, giants, REFERENCES 162 REFERENCES Ada V. H. (1943). The place of oral reading in the school program. New York: Bureau of Publication, Teachers College, Columbia University. Adams, J. A. (1976). Learning and memory: An Intro- duction. Homewood, IL: The Dorwey Press. Alkuhun, A. A. (1980). The understanding of silent read- ing among Jordanian students in the third preparatory. Dirasat Jordan University, Vol. 7, No. 1. Allen, P. D., & Watson, D. J. (1976). Findinggof research in miscue analysis: Classroom‘implication. Urbana, IL: ERIC, NCTE. Analytical Reading Inventory, 2nd ed. (1981). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Anderson, I. H., & Dearborn, W. F. (1952). Thegpsychology of teaching. New York: Ronald Press. Ashlock, P., Grzynkowicz, W. M., & Dervin, R. L. (1969). Teaching reading to individuals with learning diffi- culties. IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher. Au, K. H. (1977). Analyzing oral reading errors to improve instruction. The Reading Teacher, 31, 46-49. Austin, M. C., & Heubner, M. H. (1962). Evaluating reading through informal procedures. The Reading geaeher, 1;, 338-343. Bader, L. A. (1980). Reading diagnosis in classroom and clinic. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Bader, L. A. (1983). Bader reading and language inven- tory. New York: Macmillan Publisher Co., Inc. Bahrick, H. P. (1979). Broader methods and narrower theories for memory research. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- ciates. 163 164 Baldwin, J. & Bender, I. C. (1911). Reading with expression: Second reader. New York: American Book Company. Bary, N., & Estes, R. E. (1975). A comparison of PIAT, CAT, and WRAT Scores and Teachers Ratings. Journal of Learning Disabilities, g, 519-23. Basic Reading Inventory, 2nd ed. (1981). Dubuque, IO: Kendall/Hunt. Beebe, M. J. (1980). The effect of different types of substitution miscues on reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 1;, 324-36. Beldin, H. O. (1970). Informal reading inventory: Historical review and review of the research. In W. K. Durr, ed., Reading difficulties; diagnosis, correctionLyand remediation. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, pp. 67-84. Betts, E. A. (1946). foundation of reading instruction. New York: American Book Co. Biemiller, A. (1970). The development of the use of graphic and contextual information as children learn to read. Reading Research Quarterly, g, 75-96. Biemiller, A. (1979). Changes in the use of graphic and contextual information as functions of passage diffi- culty and reading achievement level. Journal of Read- ing Behavior, 11, 307-318. Borko, H., & Cadwell, J. (1982). Individual differences in teachers' decision strategies: An investigation of classroom organization and management decisions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 14, 598-610. Botel, M. (1961). Guide to the Botel Reading Inventory. Chicago: Follett Publisher. Burge, P. D. (1983). Comprehension and rate: Oral vs. silent reading for low achievers. Reading Horizons, 33, 201-206. Burke, E. (1976). A developmental study of Children's reading strategies. Educational Review, 22, 30-46. Burns, P..D.,.& Betty, D. R. (1980). Informal reading assessment: Preprimer to tWelfth grade. 111.: Ran McNally. 165 Buswell, G. T. (1937). How adults read. Supplementary Educational Monographs, 3;. Christie, J. F. (1981). The effects of grade level and reading ability on children's miscue patterns. Journal of Educational Research, 14, 419-23. Clay, M. M. (1968). A syntactic analysis of reading errors. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal —;__ Behavior, 1, 434-438. Cohen, A. A. (1974-75). Oral reading errors of first grade children taught by a code emphasis approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 12(4): 617-50. Cole, L. (1938). The improvement of reading. New York: Farrar and Rinehart. Collins, R. (1961). The comprehension of prose materials by college freshmen when read silently and when read aloud. Journal of Educational Research, 55, 79-82. Cooper, J. L. (1952). The effect of adjustment of basal readingymaterials on reading achievement. Unpublished dOctoral dissertation, Boston University. Cromer, W. (1970). The difference model: A new explana- tion for some recent difficulties. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 61, 471-83. Croo, P. R., Gillet, J. W., & Richards, H. C. (1982). Teacher-rated reading achievement and school acceptance among elementary school children. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 190-195. D'Angelo, R., & Wilson, R. M. (1979). How helpful is insertion and omission miscue analysis? The Reading Teacher, 23, 519-20. D'Angelo, R., & Mahlios, M. (1983). Insertion and omission miscues of good and poor readers. The Reading Teacher, 3g, 778—82. Daniel, J. E. (1962). The effectiveness of various pro- cedures in reading level placement. Elementary English, 32, 590-600. Debore, J. J., & Dallmann, M. (1960). The teaching of reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 166 Durrel, D. D. (1955). Durrel analysis of reading_diffi- culty. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc. Durrel, D. D. (1956). Improving reading instruction. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Durrel analysis of reading difficulty, 3rd ed. (1980). New York: Psychological Corporation. Duffy, G. B., & Durrel, D. D. (1935). Third grade difficulties in oral reading. Education, 56, 37-40. Elder, R. D. (1971). Oral reading achievement in 'Scottish and American children. Elementary School Journal, ll, 216-30. Elgart, D. B. (1978). Oral reading, silent reading, and listening of comprehension: A comparative study. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12 (2), 203-207. Elijah, D., & Legenza, A. (1970). Teacher ranking, readiness tests, and socioeconomic status. Reading Improvement, 11, 10-13. Ekwall, E. E. (1974). Should repetition be counted an error? The Reading Teacher, 31, 365-67. Fairbanks, G. (1937). The relation between eye-movements and voice in the oral reading of good and poor silent readers. Psychological Monographs, 4§.(215), 78-107. Farr, R. (1969). Reading: What can be measured? Newark, Del.: International Reading Assocation. Gates, A. I., & McKillop, A. S. (1962). Manual of Directions for Gates-McKillgp Reading Diagnostic Tests. Columbia University: Teacher College Press. Gilmore, J. V. (1947). The relation between certain oral reading habits and orai and silent reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Gilmore, J. V. (1952). Gilmore oral reading test. Yonkers-on—Hudson: World Book. Gilmore, J. V., & Gilmore, E. C. (1968). Gilmore oral reading test. New York: Harcourt Brace JovanoVich. 167 Glenn, H. W. (1971). The effect of silent and oral read- ing on literal comprehension and oral readingyper- formance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Goodman, K. S. (1965). A linguistic study of guess and miscues in reading. Elementary English, 23, 639-43. Goodman, K. S. (1969). Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. Reading Research_guarterly, §(1), 9-30. Goodman, K. S. (1973). Miscues: Windows on the reading process. In K. S. Goodman (Ed.), Miscue analysis: Applications to reading instruction. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Goodman, K. S., & Burke, C. L. (1973). Theoretically based studies of patterns of miscues in oral reading performance. (Final Report, Project No. 9-0375, Grant No. OEG-0-9-320375-4269). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research. Goodman, K. S., & Goodman, Y. M. (1977). Learning about psycholinguistic processes by analyzing oral reading. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 317-333. Goodman, K. 5., & Goodman, Y. M. (1978). Reading of American children whose language is stable rural dialect of English or a language other than English. (Final Report, Project NIE-D-00-3-0087T. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Institute of Education. Goodman, Y. (1970). Using children's reading miscues for teaching new strategies. Reading Teacher, 23, 455-459. Goodman, Y. (1976). Developing reading proficiency. Findings of research in miscue analysis: Classroom implications. P. D. Allen & D. J. Watson, eds. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Gray, L., & Reese, D. (1957). Teaching children to read. (2nd ed.). New York: Ronald Press. Gray, W. S. (1963). Gray oral reading tests. Edited by H. M. Robinson. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Co. 168 Guthrie, J. T. (1973). Reading comprehension and syn- tactic responses in good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 19-24. Hanson, E., & Robinson, H. A. (1967). Reading readiness and achievement of primary grade children of different socioeconomic strata. The Readinngeacher, 31, 52-56, 79. Harris, A. J., & Sipay, E. D. (1975). How to increase reading ability, 6th ed. New York: David McKay. Heilman, A. W., Blair, T. R., & Rupley, W. H. (1981). Principles and practices of teaching reading, 5th ed. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill. Heinrich, J. S. (1976). Elementary oral reading: Methods and materials. The Reading Teacher, 39, pp. 10-15. Nenig, M. S. (1949). Predictive value of a reading readiness test and of teachers' forecasts. Elementary School Journal, 52, 41-46. Hilderth, G. H. (1958). Teaching readingif A guide to basic principles and modern practiCes. New York: Holt. Hirst, W. E. (1969). Identification in the kindergarten of factors that make for future success in reading and identification and diagnosis in the kindergarten of pgtential reading disability cases. Final report. ERIC Document. ED 029710. Hoge, R. D., & Butcher, R. (1984). Analysis of teacher judgments of pupil achievement levels. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1g (5), 777-781. Hood, J. (1975-76). Qualitative analysis of oral reading errors: The inter-judge reliability of scores. Reading Researchguarterly,‘ll(4), 577-595. Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York: The Macmillan Co. Hutton, J. B. (1972). Relationship between teacher judgment, screening test data, and academic performance for disadvantaged children. Training School Bulletin, fig, 197-201. 169 Ilg, F. L., & Ames, L. B. (1950). Development trends in reading behavior. Journal of Genetic Psychology, .16, pp. 291-312. Johnson, M. S., & Kress, R. A. (1965). Informal reading inventories. Reading aid series. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Johnson, P. H. (1983). ‘Reading comprehension assessment: A cognitive basis. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Katelis, L. (1975). Early identification of reading failure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 638- 41. Kermoian, S. B. (1962). Teacher appraisal of first grade students. ElementaryEnglish, 39, 196-201. Killgallon, P. A. (1942). A study of relationships among certain pnpil adjustments in language situations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State College. Loroy-Boussion, A. (1964). L'interiostiol de la lecture entre 5 est 8 ans. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologigue, §l(3), 295-312. Mackinnon, A. R. (1959). How do children learn to read? Toronto: Copp Clark. Madden, M., & Pratt, J. (1941). An oral reading survey as a teaching aid. Elementary English Review, 18, 122-26, 159. McKee, P. (1948). The teaching of reading in the ele- mentary school. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. McCullough, C. M., Strang, R., & Traxier, A. E. (1946). Problems in the imgrovementbf reading. (lst ed.) . New York: McGraw-Hill. Mead, C. C. (1916). Results in silent versus oral read- ing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, 367-368. Merrill, J. D. (1968). An investigation of teachers' informal estimates of first-grade reading readiness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon. 170 Monroe, M. (1928). Method for diagnosis and treatment of cases of reading disability. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 4, 335-456. Monroe, M. (1932). 'Children who cannot read. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McCracken, R. A. (1967). The informal reading inventory as a means of improving instruction. In T. C. Barrett (Ed.), The evaluation of children's reading achievement, pp. 79-96. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association. Nurss, J. R. (1969). Oral reading errors and reading comprehension. Reading Teacher, 22, 523-527. Poulton, E. C., & Brown, C. H. (1967). Memory a reading aloud reading silently. British Journal of Psyghology, 58, 219-227. Powell, W. R. (1969). Reappraising the criteria for interpreting informal inventories in reading diagnosis and evaluation. In D. DeBoer (Ed.), Proceedings of the thirteenth annual convention, pp. 100-109. Newark, Delaware. Robinson, H. M. (1963). Grny oral reading tests. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Rowell, E. H. (1976). Do elementary students read better orally or silently? Reading Teacher, 22, 367-370. Smak, M. S. (1975). The art of teaching Arabic langnage. Cairo: Egyptian Anglo Library. Schale, F. C. (1966). Changes in oral reading errors at elementary and secondary levels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. (Summarized in Academic Therapy Quarterly, 1, 225-29). Schlieper, A. (1977). Oral reading errors in relation to grade and level of skill. The Reading Teacher, 39, 283-87. Schlieper, A. (1980). Reversal and sequence errors in a meaningful text. Reading Improvement, 11, 74, 79. Silvaroli, N. J. (1969). Classroom reading inventory. Dubuque, Iowa: W. C. Brown. 171 Sipay, E. R. (1963). A comparison of standardized read- ing scores and functional readingylevel. UnpuBlished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut. Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Smith, M. H. (1968). Kindergarten teachers' juggments of their pupil's readiness for reading instruction compared with readiness test results and first grade achievement measures. Unpublished doctoral dissertatiOn, University of Oregon. Smith, N. B. (1959). Graded selections for informal reading diagnosis, grades one throngh three. -New York: New York University Press. Smith, N. B. (1963). Reading for today's children. Englewood, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Spache, G. D. (1964). Reading in the elementary school. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Spache, G. D., & Spache, E. B. (1969). Reading in the elementary school (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Spache, G. D. (1981). Diagnosing and correcting reading disabilities (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Stoodt, B. D. (1980). Reading instruction. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co. Swalm, J. E. (1973). Comparison of oral reading, silent reading, and listening comprehension. Education, 22, 111-115. Swanson, D. E. (1937). Common elements in silent and oral reading. Psychological Monographs, 48 (215), 36-60. Taylor, B. M. (1980). Children's memory for expository text after reading. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 15, 399-411. Tinker, M. L., & McCullough, C. (1978). Teaching elemen- tary reading (4th & 5th eds.). New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts. Tuinman, J. J. (1971). Asking reading dependent ques- tions. Journal of Reading, 14, 289-92, 336. 172 Weber, R. M. (1968). The study of oral reading errors: A survey of the literature. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 4, 96-119. Weber, R. M. (1970). First graders' use of grammatical context in reading. In M. D. Levin & J. P. Williams, (Eds.), Basic studies in reading, pp. 147-63. New York: BaSic Books. Weber, R. M. (1970a). A linguistic analysis of first grade reading errors. Reading Research_Quarter1y, 5 (3), 427-451. Weber, R. M. (1970b). First graders' use of grammatical context in reading. In H. Levin & J. Williams (Eds.), Basic studies on reading, pp. 147-163). New York: Basic Books, Inc. Wheeler, L. R., & Smith, E. H. (1957). A modification of the informal reading inventory. Elementary English, 32, 224-226. Wilson, F. T., & Angnes, B. (1937). Reading readiness in a progressive school. Teacher College Record, 38, 565-80. Zintz, M. V. (1980). The readingyprocess the teacher and the learner. 3rd ed. Dubuque, Iowa: W. C. Brown Company, Publisher. "I7'1?11111111111111115