A STUDY OF AN EXPERIMENTAL READING READINESS PROGRAM IN A LARGE CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM

408 Pages·025.33 MB·English

by  MCDAID, ELMER WILLIAM

A STUDY OF AN EXPERIMENTAL HEADING- READINESS
PROGRAM 3N A LARGE CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM
V
,^ (ynar.iV.iVJ 3HYAW,
•'\ .ffiiw . ,-.n .^. 3i AW
k rl
by*
Elmer William McDaid
. 4
o>\
/ V
V
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate Council of Wayne University*
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Doctor of Education
in the
Department of Education
Detroit, Michigan
1950
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was made possible through the cooperation
of principals and teachers in one hundred sixteen elemen­
tary schools in the City of Detroit, who made available to
me their personal evaluation of the Reading Readiness Pro­
gram, pupils* records, and original test data over a period
of three years.
Acknowledgment of their cooperation and professional
spirit is here made to Dr. Charles Boye, Dr. Roland Faunce,
Dr® William Reitz, Dr. Fritz Redl, and Dr. Ray Smittle,
the committee which has directed the preparation of my dis­
sertation® It is a pleasure to express my grateful appre­
ciation to the members of this committee for their advice
and counsel throughout the period of the study.
Special acknowledgments are due to:
Dr. Paul Rankin, Assistant Superintendent of Schools,
who was responsible for my introduction to, and my
continued interest and activity in, educational re­
search
Dr. Herman Browe, Deputy Superintendent of schools,
who encouraged me through his intense interest in
the study and the implications of the findings
Dr. Wilmer Menge, Assistant Superintendent of Schools,
Minneapolis Public Schools, who gave helpful advice ill
the experimental planning of the study
Dr. Walter Bergman, Director of Instructional Research,
who offered thoughtful advice as well as encouragement
at critical times
Robert Grant, Assistant Professor, Wayne University,
who gave instintingly of his time to aid in developing
the spot maps which show the geographical location of
the Experimental and Control schools involved in the
study
Dr. Elmer Pflieger, Department Head of Mathematics,
Mackenzie High School, who gave his assistance to help
me gain insight in the application of statistical de­
tails of the study
Mae McDaid, who gave sympathy and encouragement over
the entire period of the study, as well as typing the
first draft from longhand
Mabel ftogge, who gave unsparingly of her time in as­
sisting with the tedious task of proofreading the
final copy
Mary Jane Boyd, whose skill and judgment as the aman­
uensis gave this dissertation its final form.
E. W. Mc
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACMOWLEDGMEN TS . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES . . . viii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xiii
Chapter
I. EDUCATIONAL AREA OF INVESTIGATION 1
A» Introduction 1
B. Background and Implication . 5
1. Representative Groups Expressing
Interest and Concern
2. Illiteracy Still a National
Problem 11
3. Surveys Often Misleading . * '. . 15
C, Delimiting the General Area of Concern 21
1. Tentative Program to Determine
Readiness for Reading • . . 23
D. Survey of Related Studies 28
1. Delaying Formal Instruction in
Reading 42
2. A Reading Readiness Test Cited as
Predictive of Reading Success or
Failure 45
3 Reading Readiness Tests vs,
#
Teachers' Fbrecasts of Pupils1
Success or Failure in Reading . . 46
The Question of Special Classes fo
4.
Immature Six-Year Olds 47
5. The Sex Factor in Reading Readiness 52
E. Summary • . 53
II. THE PILOT STUDY . 60
A. Introduction 60
1, One Class, One School, Beginning. 61
2. Purpose of the Study 63
3« Developmental Stages to Be
Considered . . . . 64
iv
Page
Chapter
B. The Validity and Other Aspects of the
T e s t • • • • • • • • • • • . . . • « « • 6 6
1, Tentative Norms and Interpretations
of the Detroit Heading Readiness
Test 82
C. Recommendations for a Proposed P gram
TO
1« The Reading Readiness Program in
Jburteen Experimental Schools ... 95
2. Pattem of the Program 96
D. Teachers' and Principals* Evaluation . . 98
1. The Personality Inventory . 100
2. The Reading Readiness Test 101
3. The Teachers* Workbook . . 103
4« The Teachers1 Bulletin . . 103
5. The Parents' Comments . . 103
E. Advantages, Disadvantages, and In
General, Was the Program Worthwhile . . 104
IP. Evaluation of the Personality Inventory 110
G. Summary 116
III. THE PROBLEM UNDER INVESTIGATION 124
A. Introduction 124
1. Need for the Study ........ 128
B« Definition of Problem 132
1. Limitations Imposed on the Problem 132
2. Basic Hypotheses Underlying the
Study . 135
0. The Source and Nature of the Data . . • 138
D. Summary 147
IV, EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN MD METHODOLOGY 149
A. Introduction 149
v
Chapter ^ P &Se
1. Research Methods 152
B. Experimental Design . 154
1. Variable Factors Controlled . . . . 156
2. Determining the Experimental Group 161
3. Determining the Control Group ... 166
4. Description of the Post-Kinder­
garten Population 170
C. Plan of Procedure 171
1, Alternate Plan Adopted ....... 173
D. Teachers* and Principals* Look at the
Program ISO
1. Teachers* Questionnaire Concerning
School Practices 181
2. Principals* Questionnaire 184
3. Observing the Program in the
Classroom 189
E. Summary 195
V. .ANALYSIS AND UTTECEPHETATION OF THE DATA . . . 197
A« Introduction 197
B« Characteristics of the Study Population . 199
1. Mean Chronological Age 200
2# Mean Raw Intelligence Score .... 203
3» Determining Significant Difference
Between Means ....... .... 206
C. Sampling the Study Population 213
1, Method Used to Secure Random Sample 215
D. Comparison of Eight Random Sample Means
With Study Population 218
1. Experimental Reading Readiness
Group A, 588 Pupils—One-half the
Study Population . 222
2. Control Group B, 588 Pupils—
One-half the Study Population . . . 224
3. Summary of Sampling Results • • . . 228
vi
Chapter Pag©
E. Representative Samples Three and Seven 232
1« Significant Difference Between
Samples, September, 1946 «..•<> 241
2. Significant Difference Between
Samples, June, 1946, as Measured
by the Test Variables 244
3. Grade status of Groups, June, 1949 254
4. School Adjustment, Teachers1
Ratings of Individual Pupils . . . 258
F. Summary 262
VI. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS 264
A, Conclusions Based on Statistical Data 265
B, Teachers' and Principals* Evaluation of
the Program 271
C, Limitations of the Study 274
D« Implications 277
APPENDIX
A« Pupil Accounting Sbrms 280
B« Tests and Rating Scales 289
C, Questionnaires and Communications ... 336
D. Statistical Tables . • • . 350
BIBLIOGRAPHY 365
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I. Comparison of Two Groups of Post-Kinder-
garten Children in Terms of Likes, Dis­
likes, Success, Failure, and Emotional
Disturbances as Measured in the First
Semester of Reading . » 40
II. Comparison of Detroit's School Population
in 1874 to the Present Population, 1949 . . 56
III, Correlations Between Detroit Reading Readi­
ness Test (Experimental)Scores and the
Criterion 69
IV. Correlations Between the Revised Detroit
Reading Readiness Test and Reading Tests
10C and IB 71
V. Correlations Between the Revised Detroit
Reading Readiness Test and Detroit Reading
Tests 10C and IB by Schools 72
VI. Correlations Between the Revised Detroit
Reading Readiness Test Plus the IB
(8th Week) Reading Test (Weighted) and
Detroit Reading Tests 10C Plus IB (18th
Week) Plus the Teachers' Rating by Schools 74
VII. Validity of Reading Readiness in Predict­
ing Reading Success in IB 77
VIII. Percentages of Pupils At or Below Various
Percentile Points in Reading According to
Various Percentile Placements in Reading
Readiness 79
IX. Percentage of Pupils Failing Below Specific
Reading Readiness (Revised) Scores for all
446 Pupils, and for the Sixty-eight Pupils
Who Failed SO
X. Various Percentile Scores for Detroit Read­
ing Readiness Test (Revised) and Percent­
ages Failing in Reading Above and Below
Various Percentiles (N 446) 81
=
viii
tfable PaSe
XI. Various Percentile Scores for Detroit Read­
ing Readiness Test (Revised) and Detroit
Reading Tests 10G Plus IB (Experimental,
18th Week) 446 Cases . . « . . . . <> • . . 82
XII. Profile Graph of Pupil's Achievement ... 88
XIII. Responses to the Individual Items (1-7) Set
Forth in the Teachers* Evaluation of the
Child' s Personality Inventory or Rating
Scale 112
XIV. Responses to the Individual Items (8-14) Set
Forth in the Teachers' Evaluation of the
Child's Personality Inventory or Rating
Scale 114
XV. School Code Number, Number of Pupils, and
Average Intelligence Rating of Schools
Participating in the Study 140
XVI. Codes of the Participating Reading Readi­
ness Schools, Post-Kindergarten Enrollment,
Number and Per Cent of Children Tested,
Number and Per Cent of Children PlacecLin
Reading Readiness or Regular IB Urade in
Each of the Eight Elementary District in
the City 162
XVII. District Codes, Number and Per Cent of
Children Tested, and Their Subsequent
Classification ...... 164
XVIII. Distribution of Chronological Ages, by Sex,
of Children Comprising the Study Popula­
tion • 201
XIX, Distribution of Raw Intelligence Scores,
by Sex, of Children Comprising the Study
Population 204
XX* Characteristics of the Study Population 206
XXI, Means of Chronological Age and Raw Intel­
ligence Score for Group A and Group B,
Together with the Significance of the Dif­
ference Between Such Means • 209
ix
Table Page
XXII. Chronological Ages, by Sex, of Children
Comprising the Study Population ...... 210
XXIII. Raw Intelligence Scores, by Sex, of Chil­
dren Comprising the Study Population . . . 211
XXIV. Distribution of Chronological Ages, by Sex,
of the Four Numerically Equal Reading
Readiness Samples Dravm 218
XXV. Distribution of Chronological Ages, by Sex,
of the Four Numerically Equal Control
Samples Drawn 219
XXVI. Distribution of Raw Intelligence Score, by
Sex, of the Four Num®ricall3ir Equal Reading
Readiness Samples Drawn .. .. 220
XXVII, Distribution of Raw Intelligence Score, by
Sex, of the Four Numerically Equal Control
Samples Drawn 221
XXVIII, Means Obtained From the Four Random Samples
Drawn from Group A of the Study Population 223
XXIX. Means Obtained From the Four Random Samples
Drawn from Group B of the Study Population 225
XXX. Characteristics of the Eight Random Samples
Drawn, Four from Reading Readiness and Four
from Control Schools 227
XXXI. Comparison of the Four Random Samples
Drawn With the Experimental Reading Readi­
ness Study Population . . 230
XXXII. Comparison of the Four Random Samples
Drawn With the Control Study Population . . 231
XXXIII. Distribution of Chronological Ages of
Samples Three and Seven 235
XXXIV. Distribution of Raw Intelligence Scores of
Samples Three and Seven 237
XXXV. Distribution of Raw Intelligence Scores of
Reading Readine ss Pupils by Chronological
Age and Sex Drawn in Random Sample Three . . 239
x