A COMPARISON OF BRIGHT AND DULL CHILDREN OF COMPARABLE MENTAL AGES WITH RESPECT TO VARIOUS READING ABILITIES

159 Pages·6.122 MB·English

by  BLIESMER, EMERY P

A COMPARISON OP BRIGHT AND DULL CHILDREN OF COMPARABLE MENTAL
AGES WITH RESPECT TO VARIOUS READING ABILITIES
by
Emery P. Bliesmer
Chairmen
Professors J« B, Stroud and A. N. Hieronymus
A d isse rta tio n submitted in p a rtia l fulfillm ent of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the College of Education in the Graduate
College of the State University of Iowa
August, 1952
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The w riter wishes to express his gratitude
for the careful direction and guidance given in this
study by Dr. J. B. Stroud and Dr, A, N. Hieronymus.
Sincere thanks are also expressed for the
time and helpful assistance given by Dr. P. J.
Blommers.
To Mr. Jack Logan, Superintendent of the
Waterloo Public Schools, Dr, Ralph A usterm iller,
D irector of Curriculum, and Miss Evelyn Peterson,
Elementary Supervisor, and to the p rincipals, teachers,
and pupils in the schools and classes involved in this
study, a debt of gratitude is acknowledged. Without
th e ir p e rsiste n t cooperation, assistance, and patience
th is study could not have been made.
ii
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Chapter page
I I n t r o d u c t i o n ........................... . ...................................................1
Purpose ............................................. 2
Related Research . . . . .................................... 3
II Procedure .....................................................................................12
Method of S a m p lin g ......................................................12
Selection of Comprehension A b ilities
Investigated. . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C riterion Tests Used . . . . . . . . . . 26
Administration of C riterion Tests, . . . 32
Analysis of R esu lts......................................................35
III Results .................................................. 39
IV Summary .................................................................. 72
Purpose and Procedure........................................ , 72
Results and Conclusions. .................................... 78
Bibliography, .............................................. . . . . . . 82
Appendix A, Supplementary Tables . . . . . . 87
Appendix B, C riterion Tests, . . . . . . . . 90
Check L ist fo r Word Recognition........................91
Word Meaning T est......................... 93
Test of Comprehension A b ilitie s . . . . . 97
Listening Comprehension Test ......................126
Reading Rate Test. ......................... .136
Appendix C. Specific S k ills or A b ilities
Suggested by Various Sources as Being
Involved in Reading Comprehension . . . . . .ill3
i i i
LIST OP TABLES
Table Page
I Summary of Information Relative to Dull and
Bright Groups in Sample* 17
II Frequency D istributions, Means, and Standard
Deviations for Word Recognition Test Scores
(Maximum Possible: 80) . . . . . . . . . . . 1+2
III Summary of Analysis of Word Recognition
T e s t * * , . « . , . . » » . * > « . » # * » 53
IV Frequency D istributions, Means, and Standard
Deviations for Word Meaning Test Scores
(Maximum Possible: 50) . . . . . . . . . . * 55
V Summary of Analysis of Word Meaning Test . . 55
VI Frequency D istributions, Means, and Standard
Deviations for Memory for Factual D etails
Subtest Scores (Maximum Possible: 27). . . . 50
VII Summary of Analysis of Memory for Factual
Details Subtest, .......... L|7
VIII Frequency D istrib u tio n s, Means, and Standard
Deviations for Location or Recognition of
Factual D etails Subtest Scores (Maximum
Possible: 25). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
IX Summary of Analysis of Location or Recognition
of Factual D etails Subtest . . . . . . . . . 59
X Frequency D istributions, Means, and Standard
Deviations for Perception of Relationships
Among D efinitely Stated Ideas Subtest Scores
(Maximum Possible: 25) • • 50
XI Summary of Analysis of Perception of
Relationships Among D efinitely Stated Ideas
Subtest, , 51
XII Frequency D istributions, Means, and Standard
Deviations for Recognition of Main Ideas
Subtest Scores (Maximum Possible: 27). . . . 52
iv
LIST OP TABLES (cont'd.)
Table Page
XIII Summary of Analysis of Recognition of Main
Ideas Subtest................................................................... 53
XIV Frequency D istributions, Means, and Standard
Deviations for Drawing Inferences and Con­
clusions Subtest Scores (Maximum P ossi­
ble: 26) . . . . .................................................... 5U
XV Summary of Analysis of Drawing Inferences
and Conclusions Subtest, .............................. 55
XVI Frequency D istributions, Means, and Standard
Deviations for Test of Comprehension A b ili­
ties Total Scores (Maximum Possible: 130), . 56
XVII Summary of Analysis of Total Test of Com­
prehension A b ilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
XVIII Frequency D istributions, Means, and Standard
Deviations for Listening Comprehension Test
Scores (Maximum Possible: i;2). .......................... 58
XIX Summary of Analysis of Listening Compre­
hension T e s t ............................................. 59
XX Frequency D istributions, Means, and Standard
Deviations for Rate Scores on Reading Rate
Test .................................................. 60
XXI Summary of Analysis of Reading Rate (Rate)
T e s t ............................................. 61
XXII Frequency D istributions, Means, and Standard
Deviations for Comprehension Scores on
Reading Rate Test (Maximum Possible: 15) . • 62
XXIII Summary of Analysis of Reading Rate
(Comprehension) Test , . . . .............................. 63
v
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd.)
Table Page
XXIV Summary of Mean Scores for Each Group,
Differences Between Means, and F-Values,
for Each A bility (From Tables II-XXIII). . . 65
XXV Summary of Results , . .................................................... 73
XXVI Summary of Raw Scores Obtained for Each
Subject in Dull Group on Each Test . . . . . 83
XXVII Summary of Raw Scores Obtained for Each
Subject in Bright Group on Each Test . . . . 89
XXVIII Summary of Information Relative to Test
of Comprehension A b ilities ............................. 98
XXIX Summary of Information Relative to
Listening Comprehension Test . . . . . . . . 12?
XXX Specific S k ills or A b ilitie s Suggested by
Various Sources as Being Involved in
Reading Comprehension...................................................IJL4I4
vi
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Studies in which the generality of the mental age
concept has been investigated have been reported in con­
siderable number. These have dealt with a wide range of
a b ilities or factors, from specific mental tasks, such as
spatial orientation, memory for digits and nonsense sy lla ­
bles, relationships among abstract symbols, perception,
induction and deduction, common sense judgments, and the
lik e, to academic achievement in several areas, or in a
specific area, or general achievement. While the impli­
cations of some of the results of these investigations of
the nature of intelligence have remained in the realm of the
purely psychological, other studies have yielded implications
which have been of considerable import to the educational
psychologist and the educator in that such implications have
offered suggestions for specific problems in education.
With the current awareness of, and emphasis being
given to, problems arising in connection with the education
of exceptional children, there has been an increasing number
of studies In which bright and dull children with sim ilar
mental ages have been compared with respect to educational
achievement. Results of such studies have been of more
general significance to the educator and can be related to
his problems more sp ecifically. However, just as a mental
age score is an average of performance scores on various
kinds of mental tasks, and, thus, it is possible that bright
and dull children may differ in a compensatory fashion with
respect to some of the specific components of intelligence,
so a given attained level of achievement is also the resu lt­
ant of degrees of various a b ilitie s, and bright and dull
children may differ with respect to these various a b ilities
involved. Thus, the question of comparability of bright and
dull children with respect to specific a b ilities involved
In achievement becomes one of some import and significance.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare bright and
dull children with comparable estimated true mental ages
(Revised Stanford-Binet Scaled) with respect to each of
several a b ilities involved in reading comprehension. Spe­
c ific a lly , the a b ilities which were compared are:
1. Word recognition
2. Word meaning
3. Memory for factual details
T~. Published by Houghton M ifflin Co., 1937.
I4.. Location or recognition of factual d etails
5. Perception of relationships among d efin itely
stated ideas
6 . Recognition of main ideas
7. Drawing inferences and conclusions
Measures of reading rate and of liste n in g comprehension were
also obtained, and the bright and dull groups were compared
with respect to each of these a b ilitie s .
Related Research.
Reports of studies sim ilar or d irectly related to
the one being reported are markedly few in the lite ra tu re .
Numerous investigations of the comparative achievement of
bright and dull children have been made; but the majority of
groups so compared have been sim ilar with respect to some
variable other than mental capacity, js.jg., grade placement
level; and the comparisons made have, in general, been of the
rela tiv e achievement of each group (i._e., actual achievement
in rela tio n to expectations based upon capacity) rather than
direct comparisons of achievement of bright and dull groups
with sim ilar mental capacity. Also, the comparisons made
tended to be ones of to ta l achievement or general achievement
in an area rather than of achievement in specific phases of
a specific area. In a number of other studies, the
comparisons have been between normal and dull or bright
groups.
However, resu lts of these types of investigations
offer some suggestions and indications of some pertinence to
the present, study. Among the most extensive of the studies
in which rela tiv e achievement of bright and dull groups was
compared are those by Lewis-*- and by McGehee^, The former
concluded that, in general., gifted children tended to be
retarded in school achievement, _i*®*> achieving at levels
below expectations based on in te lle c tu a l capacity, McGehee
concluded that, in general, mentally retarded children were
achieving more, in the subjects investigated, than one would,
be led to expect by th eir indications of mental capacity.
Measures of in te lle c tu a l capacity, in both Lewis's end
McGehee's studies, were obtained with Kuhlman-Anderson
Intelligence T e s ts.3 These investigators included over 1+500
children in each of th e ir groups. Selections were made on
T.
W, D»Lewis7~A Study of Superior^Children in the Ele''-
mentary School, George Peabody College Contributions to
Education, No, 266, 191+0,
2, W, McGehee, A Study of Retarded Children in the Elemen­
tary School, George Peabody College Contributioris to
Education, No, 2i;6, 1939,
3, Published by Fducational Fress,