Relationships Between Difficulty Levels Of Assigned Texts And Reading Ability Of Elementary School Pupils

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
ut-W- ; • : ■
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF
ASSIGNED TEXTS AND READING ABILITY
OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PUPILS
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Education
The University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
by
Helen Burke Truher
January 1961
This dissertation , written u n d e r the direction
oj the (ihnirniiin of the enndidnte's (ritidance
d o m mittee a n d a p p r o v e d by all m e m b e r s of the
d o m nut t e c , has been p resen ted to a n d a c c e p te d
by the i'atiilty of the S c h o o l of E d u ca tio n m
pa rtia l f ul fill merit of the re q u irem en ts f o r the
detjree of D o c t o r of E du cation .
Date , ’nr.uary, l.'l
.-2 . v - 7 \ . l J *-< ( r '
I Dean
( i uutaru < ( 'n n n n iilta
v
L e t b l e t c ( r / d C i e U. e. \
J (I hair man
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ix
Chapter
I. PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM................. I
Introduction
The Problem
Hypotheses
Questions to be answered
Assumptions
Limitations of the study
Definition of terms
Importance of the Problem
Organization of the Remainder
of the Study
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE............... 25
Reading Texts
Basal readers
Texts in content areas
Readability of children's texts
Summary of studies and opinions
Reading Skills
Characteristics and influences
Component skills in reading
Summary of studies and opinions
Diagnosis of Reading Level
Informal appraisal of reading skills
Standardized reading tests
Integration of informal appraisal and
standardized test scores
ii
Chapter Page
III.
IV.
Summary of studies and opinions
Organization for Individual Differences
Inter-classroom organization
Intra-classroom organization
De-emphasis of grouping
Summary of studies and opinions
Differences among Inferior, Average
and Superior Readers
Summary of Chapter
PROCEDURES AND SOURCES OF DATA ..........
The School System and Its Reading Program
The Sample
Selection of the random sample
Distribution of the random sample
Sources of Data, and Procedures Used
Preliminary arrangements
Appraisal of reading proficiency
Interviews with teachers and principals
Description of distribution and
experience of teachers
Use of cumulative records
Computation of readability of textbooks
Description of Inferior, Average and
Superior Readers
Treatment of Data
Summary of Chapter
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA CONCERNING PUPILS OF
INFERIOR READING ABILITY ..............
Difficulty Levels of Texts Assigned to
Pupils of Inferior Reading Ability
Assigned reading textbooks
Pupil performance in assigned
reading texts
Difficulty levels of texts in
content fields
191
257
iii
Chapter
Page
Relationships Between Difficulty Levels
of Assigned Reading Texts and Pupil
Performance as Measured by Appraisal
Instruments
Gilmore Oral Reading Test scores and
difficulty levels of texts
California Reading Test scores and
difficulty levels of texts
Informal Reading Inventory placements
and difficulty levels of texts
Comparison of Pupil Performance on
Various Appraisal Instruments
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and
California Reading Test
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and
Informal Reading Inventory
California Reading Test and
Informal Reading Inventory
Summary
V. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA CONCERNING PUPILS
OF AVERAGE READING ABILITY .............
Difficulty Levels of Texts Assigned to
Pupils of Average Reading Ability
Assigned reading textbooks
Pupil performance in assigned reading
texts
Difficulty levels of texts in content
fields
Relationships Between Difficulty Levels of
Assigned Reading Texts and Pupil
Performance as Measured by Appraisal
Instruments
Gilmore Oral Reading Test scores and
difficulty levels of texts
California Reading Test scores and
difficulty levels of texts
Informal Reading Inventory placements
and difficulty levels of texts
iv
298
Chapter Page
VI.
VII.
Comparison of Pupil Performance on
Various Appraisal Instruments
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and
California Reading Test
California Reading Test and
Informal Reading Inventory
Summary
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA CONCERNING PUPILS
OF SUPERIOR READING ABILITY ...............
Difficulty Levels of Texts Assigned to
Pupils of Superior Reading Ability
Assigned reading textbooks
Pupil performance in assigned reading
texts
Difficulty levels of texts in content
fields
Relationships Between Difficulty Levels of
Assigned Reading Texts and Pupil Perform
ance as Measured by Appraisal Instruments
Gilmore Oral Reading Test scores and
difficulty levels of texts
California Reading Test scores and
difficulty levels of texts
Informal Reading Inventory placements
and difficulty levels of texts
Comparison of Pupil Performance on
Various Appraisal Instruments
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and
California Reading Test
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and
Informal Reading Inventory
California Reading Test and
Informal Reading Inventory
Summary
ADDITIONAL DATA GATHERED FROM PUPILS AND
TEACHERS ..................................
333
368
v
Chapter Page
Further Data Related to Pupils
Pupil performance in assigned reading
texts
Comparisons of report card grades in
reading
Comparisons between the ability to
pronounce nonsense syllables and
other measures of reading ability
Pupil judgment of the suitability
of assigned reading texts
Appraisal of Reading Ability by Teachers
Teacher judgment compared with other
measures of reading ability
Reasons for differences between
difficulty levels of texts assigned
and judgments of suitable reading
levels
Measures used by teachers in
appraising reading ability
Teacher opinion of informal reading
inventory criteria for the
instructional level
Teacher opinion regarding need for
standardized oral reading tests
Summary
VIII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 405
Summary of the Study
The problem
The sample
Method of gathering data
Statistical treatment of the data
Summary of Findings
Difficulty levels of texts
Pupil accuracy in reading assigned
textbooks
Comprehension of oral reading
vi
Chapter Page
Comparison of difficulty levels of
reading texts according to
readability formulas and pub
lishers' recommendations
Difficulty levels of texts in content
fields
Gilmore Oral Reading Test scores and
difficulty levels of texts
California Reading Test scores and
difficulty levels of texts
Informal Reading Inventory placements
and difficulty levels of texts
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and
California Reading Test
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and
Informal Reading Inventory
California Reading Test and
Informal Reading Inventory
Comparisons of letter grades in
reading on report cards
Phonics ability as measured by
pronunciation of nonsense words
Pupil judgment of the suitability
of assigned reading texts
Teacher judgment of reading grade
placement and other measures
Reasons for differences between difficulty
levels of reading texts and teacher
judgments of suitable reading level
Measures used by teachers in appraising
reading grade placement
Teacher opinions of informal reading
inventory criteria for the
instructional level
Teacher opinions regarding the need
for standardized oral reading tests
Conclusions
Examination of the hypotheses
General conclusions
vii
Chapter Page
Educational Implications and Recommendations
Recommendations for Further Research
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................... 444
APPENDIX A. Nonsense Words Used in Testing
Pupils................................ 498
APPENDIX B. Difficulty Levels of Assigned
Reading Texts ........................... 500
APPENDIX C. Fifty Widely Used Reading Tests .... 508
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Vocabulary of First Readers Published 1920-29
Compared with Those of First Readers
Published 1930-35 and 1935-38 ............. 61
2. Words Presented for the First Time in Each of
Thirteen Second Grade Reading Series . . . 65
3. Formula Grade Placements and Teachers
Approving Books ............................ 68
4. Distribution of the Random Sample According
to Individual Schools ...................... 202
5. Distribution of the Random Sample According
to S e x ..................................... 205
6. Distribution of the Sample According to
Chronological A g e .......................... 206
7. Distribution of the Sample According to
Intelligence Quotients .................... 208
8. Distribution of Teachers Included in Study . . 228
9. Years of Teaching Experience of Teachers
Included in Study.......................... 231
10. Sample Work Sheet for the Dale-Chall
Formula..................................... 235
11. Dale-Chall Formula: Correction Table .... 237
ix
Table Page
12. Dale-Chall Formula: Refined Correction
Table....................................... 238
13. Sample Work Sheet for the Spache Readability
Formula..................................... 239
14. Reading Scores Which Characterized Pupils as
Inferior, Average and Superior Readers in
This Investigation........................ 241
15. Percentages of Inferior, Average and Superior
Readers at Each Grade Level............... 244
16. Distribution and Percentage of Inferior,
Average, and Superior Readers at Each
Grade Level................................ 246
17. Distribution of Inferior, Average and
Superior Readers According to
Chronological Age and Grade............... 247
18. Distribution of Inferior, Average and
Superior Readers According to Sex ........ 249
19. Distribution of Fourth Grade Inferior,
Average and Superior Readers
According to IQ Score..................... 250
20. Distribution of Sixth Grade Inferior,
Average and Superior Readers
According to IQ Score..................... 251
21. Range, Mean and Standard Deviation of
Difficulty Levels of Reading Texts
Assigned to Inferior Readers ............. 261
22. Percentages of Inferior Readers Assigned
Reading Texts at Various Levels of
Readability................... 262
x
Table Page
23. A Comparison of the Range and Mean Difficulty
Level Ratings by Publishers and by
Readability Formulas for Reading Texts
Assigned to Pupils of Inferior Ability . . 265
24. Percentage of Accuracy of Oral Reading in
Assigned Reading Texts by Pupils of
Inferior Reading Ability ................. 268
25. Comprehension of Oral Reading of Assigned
Reading Texts by Pupils of Inferior
Reading Ability ............................ 271
26. Comparison of Mean Grade Placements of
Assigned Reading Textbooks with Those
of Other Texts Assigned to Inferior
Readers..................................... 273
27. Differences Between Difficulty Levels of
Assigned Reading Texts and Gilmore
Oral Reading Test Scores for
Inferior Readers .......................... 277
28. Differences Between Difficulty Levels of
Assigned Reading Texts and California
Reading Test Scores for Inferior
Readers..................................... 281
29. Differences Between Difficulty Levels of
Assigned Reading Texts and Informal
Reading Inventory Instructional Level
for Inferior Readers ...................... 284
30. Range and Significance of the Difference
Between Scores Obtained by Inferior
Readers on the Gilmore Oral Reading
Test and the California Reading Test . . . 287
xi
Table Page
31. Range and Significance of the Difference
Between Scores Obtained on the Gilmore
Oral Reading Test and Placement Accord
ing to the Informal Reading Inventory . . . 289
32. Range and Significance of the Difference
Between Scores Obtained on the
California Reading Test and Placement
According to the Informal Reading
Inventory................................... 292
33. Range, Mean and Standard Deviation of
Readability Levels of Reading Texts
Assigned to Average Readers ............... 301
34. Percentages of Average Readers Assigned
Reading Texts at Various Levels of
Readability................................ 303
35. A Comparison of the Range and Mean Difficulty
Level Ratings by Publishers and by Read
ability Formulas for Reading Texts
Assigned to Pupils of Average Ability . . . 305
36. Percentage of Accuracy of Oral Reading in
Assigned Reading Texts by Pupils of
Average Reading Ability ................... 308
37. Comprehension of Oral Reading of Assigned
Reading Texts by Pupils of Average
Reading Ability ............................ 309
38. Comparison of Mean Grade Placements of
Assigned Reading Textbooks with Those
of Other Texts Assigned to Average
Readers..................................... 312
39. Differences Between Difficulty Levels of
Assigned Reading Texts and Gilmore Oral
Reading Test Scores for Average Readers 315
xii
Table
Page
40. Differences Between Difficulty Levels of
Assigned Reading Texts and California
Reading Test Scores for Average
Readers..................................... 318
41. Differences Between Difficulty Levels of
Assigned Reading Texts and Informal
Reading Inventory Instructional Level
for Average Readers........................ 322
42. Range and Significance of the Difference
Between Scores Obtained by Average
Readers on the Gilmore Oral Reading
Test and the California Reading Test . . . 325
43. Range and Significance of the Difference
Between Scores Obtained on the Gilmore
Oral Reading Test and Placement
According to the Informal Reading
Inventory................................... 327
44. Range and Significance of the Difference
Between Scores Obtained on the
California Reading Test and Placement
According to the Informal Reading
Inventory................................... 328
45. Range, Mean and Standard Deviation of
Readability Levels of Reading Texts
Assigned to Average Readers ............... 336
46. Percentages of Superior Readers Assigned
Reading Texts at Various Levels of
Readability................................. 337
47. A Comparison of the Range and Mean Difficulty
Level Ratings by Publishers and by Read
ability Formulas for Reading Texts
Assigned to Pupils of Superior Ability . . 340
xiii
Table Page
48. Percentage of Accuracy of Oral Reading in
Assigned Reading Texts by Pupils of
Superior Reading Ability ................. 343
49. Comprehension of Oral Reading of Assigned
Reading Texts by Pupils of Superior
Reading Ability ............................ 345
50. Comparison of Mean Grade Placements of
Assigned Reading Textbooks with Those
of Other Texts Assigned to Superior
Readers.................................... 347
51. Differences Between Difficulty Levels of
Assigned Reading Texts and Gilmore Oral
Reading Test Scores for Superior
Readers.................................... 350
52. Differences Between Difficulty Levels of
Assigned Reading Texts and California
Reading Test Scores for Superior
Readers.................................... 352
53. Differences Between Difficulty Levels of
Assigned Reading Texts and Informal
Reading Inventory Instructional Level
for Superior Readers ..................... 356
54. Range and Significance of the Difference
Between Scores Obtained by Superior
Readers on the Gilmore Oral Reading
Test and the California Reading Test . . . 359
55. Range and Significance of the Difference
Between Scores Obtained on the Gilmore
Oral Reading Test and Placement
According to the Informal Reading
Inventory.................................. 361
xiv
Table
Page
56. Range and Significance of the Difference
Between Scores Obtained on the California
Reading Test and Placement According to
the Informal Reading Inventory ........... 363
57. Comparison of Percentage of Accuracy of Oral
Reading in Assigned Reading Texts ........ 370
58. Chi Squares Among the Three Groups for
Accuracy and Comprehension of Oral
Reading..................................... 372
59. Comparison of Percentage of Comprehension of
Oral Reading in Assigned Reading Texts . . 373
60. Letter Grades in Reading on Report Cards . . . 375
61. Chi Squares Among the Three Groups of Pupils
for Letter Grades in Reading............. 3 76
62. Nonsense Words Pronounced Correctly ......... 379
63. Correlations Between Ability to Pronounce
Nonsense Syllables and Other Measures
of Reading Ability........................ 381
64. Pupil Judgments of the Suitability of
Assigned Reading Textbooks ............... 383
65. Comparison of Means of Teacher Judgment with
Other MeasuiwS of Reading Ability ......... 386
66. Number of Cases When Teacher Judgment Was
on the Same Grade Level as Various
Measures.................................. 388
67. Chi Squares of the Differences Between
Teacher Judgments and Various
Measures of Reading Grade Placement .... 390
xv
Table Page
68. Teachers1 Reasons for Differences Between
Recommended Grade Placements for
Reading Texts and Levels of Texts
Assigned................................... 391
69. Measures of Appraisal Used in Isolation . . . 394
70. Combined Measures Used by Teachers in
Appraising Suitable Difficulty Level
of Reading T e x t s .......................... 395
71. Teacher Opinion of Informal Reading
Inventory Criteria for Determining
Instructional Level ........................ 399
xvi
CHAPTER I
PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM
I. INTRODUCTION
Brain-power, it is said, has replaced both man-power
and horse-power as a national resource during the current
century. The natural corollary is the present-day demand
for increasingly higher levels of education for all stu
dents . It is to be hoped that this increase in educational
standards will eventually be accompanied by corresponding
increases in general reading efficiency and scholarship.
In past decades it was an educational truism that
society's needs were such that only a small percentage of
the nation's youth would have need of training beyond the
primary grades. As late as the turn of the present cen
tury, low-ability students were discouraged from going
beyond the primary grades by the effective means of
repeated retention. The ability to read was the criterion
1
which separated the successful from the unsuccessful
candidates for promotion. It was shown by Durrell (405:
106) that as recently as four decades ago pupils who failed
to learn to read were required to repeat the primary grades
so often that, finally discouraged, they would obtain work
certificates and end their schooling. Their teachers were
not faced with the problem of providing for wide individual
differences in learning ability and achievement, for only
30 per cent of the youth entered secondary schools.
Since the depression of the thirties, when social
promotion became an accepted fact, the shifting spotlight
of critical educational evaluation has been focused, in
turn, upon the slow reader who formerly quit school, upon
the wide range of average pupils, and, most recently, upon
the needs of the superior reader. Despite several wars,
economic upheavals , dramatic population increases, inade
quacy of school housing, and shortages in teaching person
nel, educators have insisted that differentiated
instruction should be provided, particularly in the
fundamental skill of reading.
Adequate reading skill is basic to all academic
learning. The elementary schools of America are currently
3
committed to providing reading instruction which will
encourage each of some thirty million pupils to achieve at
his own highest rate. Wide differences in reading ability
among individuals of the same age are accepted as normal.
At present, a typical heterogeneous self-contained fifth
or sixth grade classroom is likely to include a range of
at least seven years in reading level as measured by
achievement tests. Tiegs (227:5) reported a range in read
ing ability of from 2.0 to 8.9 to be typical of fifth grade
classes throughout the nation.
Many classroom problems have resulted from efforts
to differentiate instruction to meet the reading needs of
all pupils. Solutions have been proposed, some of which
have been tested, and recommendations to teachers have
been made.
Among recommendations which reading specialists and
administrators regard as critical is that of matching the
difficulty of reading materials to the reading level of
the individual pupil. Whether research findings and
recommendations in this area are being implemented in
classroom practice is a matter of conjecture. Twenty
years ago Horn (266:202) declared that, even though the
4
existence of a wide range of reading ability at each grade
level is commonly recognized, this diversity in ability is
not always taken into consideration by teachers when the
reading program is being planned and assignments are being
made. More recently Hester (431:84-87) and Gray (427:1-35)
speculated that a wide gap may exist between theory and
practice with respect to provisions for individual differ
ences. Bond and Tinker (6:1) proposed that the failure to
adapt materials and instruction to the known needs of the
individual may be the most important single cause of read
ing problems in the United States today.
The literature contains little objective evidence
that provisions are actually being made for differentiated
instruction in the classroom, and the extent to which the
individual needs of the pupil are being met cannot be
determined from information available.
II. THE PROBLEM
This study was concerned with the practical class
room implementation of research findings and recommenda
tions of specialists regarding provisions for differentiated
instruction in reading for elementary school pupils. The
5
specific areas investigated were various means of apprais
ing reading ability, difficulty levels of assigned text
books , and the accuracy and comprehension with which pupils
read the texts assigned. Opinions of pupils and teachers
were also sought.
Hypotheses
In order to determine the extent to which provisions
were being made for individual differences in elementary
reading instruction, ten hypotheses were tested. The sig
nificance of each of the first eight hypotheses was tested
with respect to inferior, average and superior reading
ability levels, as defined in this study. The final two
hypotheses related to teacher opinion. The following
hypotheses were tested:
1. The number of errors in accuracy of oral reading
in assigned reading textbooks made by inferior,
average and superior readers differs signifi
cantly. Comprehension of assigned reading texts
does not differ significantly among these
groups.
2. Pupils are assigned textbooks in content sub
jects having readability levels significantly
different from those of assigned reading texts.
Pupils are assigned reading textbooks with
readability levels which differ significantly
from scores earned on a standardized oral read
ing test.
Pupils are assigned reading textbooks with read
ability levels which differ significantly from
scores earned on a standardized silent reading
test.
Pupils are assigned reading textbooks with read
ability levels which differ significantly from
the instructional level of the Informal Reading
Inventory.
The grade placement scores earned on a silent
reading test and on an oral reading test differ
significantly. The scores earned on the stand
ardized tests differ significantly from the
instructional level as determined by the
Informal Reading Inventory.
Phonics skills, as determined by the number of
nonsense words pronounced correctly, are pos
itively correlated with grade placement scores
on a standardized reading test.
8. Most pupils agree that difficulty levels of
assigned reading textbooks are suited to their
individual reading abilities.
9. Teachers assign reading textbooks having pub
lished grade recommendations which differ from
those they recommend as desirable for individual
pupils.
10. Teachers do not agree with the criteria for
determining instructional levels contained in
the Informal Reading Inventory.
Questions to be Answered
1. What were the difficulty levels of basal reading
texts assigned to pupils of poor reading abil
ity, those of average ability, and those of
superior ability, as determined by readability
formulas and publishers' recommendations?
2. At what levels of accuracy and comprehension
did pupils read these texts?
3. How did assigned textbooks in the content areas
compare in readability with the basal reading
texts?
8
4. How closely did grade placements, as indicated
by certain standardized tests, by the Informal
Reading Inventory, and by teacher judgments,
match those of the reading texts?
5. Did teachers assign textbooks at the level which
they judged to be suitable for individual
pupils? If not, why? Did teachers agree with
proposals of the Informal Reading Inventory?
What means were used by teachers in appraising
reading levels and deciding upon difficulty
levels of texts?
6. Is the ability to use phonetic and structural
analysis closely related to general reading
achievement, as measured by standardized reading
tests?
7. Did pupils approve of the difficulty levels of
reading texts which had been assigned to them?
Assumptions
It was necessary to make certain assumptions in
planning this investigation. A major assumption was that
elementary school pupils are most likely to make maximum
progress in the development of reading skills when they are
9
working with materials on a level which is neither so easy
that there is little progress , nor so difficult that they
become discouraged.
A second assumption was that the criteria used in
the Informal Reading Inventory as described by Betts (2:
438-485) agreed with the concept involved in the first
assumption, and would be generally accepted by specialists
who advise elementary teachers of reading.
A third assumption involved readability formulas.
While it was admitted that present readability formulas are
still in the process of development, it was assumed that
the formulas used were of sufficient validity and reliabil
ity so that objective comparisons of grade levels could be
made in comparing the readability levels of books.
It was also assumed that the silent and oral read
ing tests used in gathering the data were comparable to
other similar tests and would give similar grade placement
and diagnostic results.
Limitations of the Study
Certain delimitations were inherent in the assump
tions stated above. Strengths and weaknesses of the
instruments used in appraisal of reading level necessarily
10
influence the findings of the study.
Not all possible provisions for individual differ
ences in reading were examined. For example, provisions
to minimize problems caused by physical abnormalities were
not a part of this study. The study emphasized the rela
tionships between diagnosed reading level and assigned
reading texts.
Definition of Terms
Certain expressions which are important to the
understanding of this problem have been variously defined
in the literature. These terms are clarified here as they
are employed in this investigation.
Reading. Neither a limited definition of reading
as a mechanical calling of words, nor an inclusive defini
tion as synonymous with sense perception was used in this
study. Hildreth gave the following inclusive definition
of reading: "Reading is a mental process involving the
interpretation of signs perceived through the sense
organs." She explained further:
Interpreting print is a specific form of learned
behavior which requires grasping meanings through
associations which have been formed between oral
experience and the printed sentence constructions.
11
Like a phonograph record, the printed lines have
to be played back or decoded to discover the
meaning of the symbols. (47:2)
In this study, reading was defined as interpreting print
in the sense that reading is a thoughtful process of recog
nizing, interpreting and evaluating printed symbols.
Reading ability, reading skill. The terms reading
ability and reading skill have been used interchangeably
to refer to general reading proficiency. The expressions
do not refer to the extent of reading proficiency , whether
inadequate or successful reading, but refer to many degrees
of reading proficiency. When either term was used in the
plural, a difference existed and reference was made to
component parts of generalized reading ability or skill.
Reading grade placement, reading grade level ,
reading level. These terms were interwoven in the hypoth
eses and were used frequently throughout the study.
Standardized tests and readability formulas both deal with
grade placement. The commonly used symbol for the actual
grade placement of a fourth grade pupil during the first
month of the school year is 4.1; during the second month
it is 4.2, and so on. On a standardized reading test
12
administered during the first month of school, a fourth
grade pupil who made the same score as the average pupil
in the first month of third grade would score a reading
placement of 3.1. This reading grade placement of 3.1
would be one school year or ten school months below the
norm for his actual grade placement of 4.1.
Reading groups, grouping in reading. These terms
refer to practices of assigning pupils to work together in
reading for the purpose of minimizing individual differ
ences. It is assumed that these pupils are assigned to
the same basic reading text. Russell explained reading
groups as follows:
In an effort to reduce the range of differences
found in the children of a whole class many teachers
divide the class, for purposes of reading instruc
tion, into two or more groups. Probably three
groups are the most usual number. (75:332)
Basal readers, assigned reading texts, basic reading
series. These terms are used interchangeably to refer to
the sequential texts specifically designed for develop
mental reading instruction. The definition of Gray and
Reese was accepted for the purposes of this study:
13
Basic readers are . . . Che set of readers,
selected by the city, county or state instruc
tional authorities, used in regular daily
instruction periods to teach the fundamental
reading skills. (39:152)
Inferior readers , average readers , superior readers.
Pupils retarded in reading by at least one fourth of their
actual grade placement were arbitrarily considered inferior
readers. Pupils accelerated in reading by at least one
fourth of their actual grade placement were considered
superior readers. Average readers were defined as those
pupils not in the other two groups. In second grade,
pupils scoring below 2.0 on the Gilmore Oral Reading Test,
Accuracy Section, were called inferior readers; those
scoring above 3.4 were superior readers; and those whose
scores were from 2.0 through 3.4 were average readers. In
fourth grade, those pupils scoring below 3.5 were named
inferior readers; those scoring above 5.9 were superior
readers; and those whose scores were from 3.5 through 5.9
were considered to be average readers. Sixth grade pupils
whose scores on the same test were below 5.0 were named
inferior readers; those whose scores were above 8.4 were
superior readers; and those who scored from 5.0 through
8.4 were considered average readers.
14
Differentiated guidance in reading, individualized
instruction. These terms were used interchangeably to
refer to classroom provisions made for adjusting materials
and methods to meet the reading needs of the individual
pupil. These terms do not refer to the method of organiza
tion of reading instruction.
Self-selection in reading. In this context, self
selection referred to a method or organization of teaching
reading in which the pupils are usually taught on a com
pletely Individual basis. Further explanation of this
term may be found in Chapter II. In the professional lit
erature this method is sometimes called "individualized
reading," but in this study the latter term has been
rejected as a synonym for self-selection.
Informal Reading Inventory. The capital letters
distinguish the specific reading inventory as described by
Betts (2:438-485) from other informal measures of
appraisal. The Betts proposals are described in detail
in Chapters II and III.
Readability, readability formulas. While in a
broad sense these terms refer to many elements inherent in
15
printed materials, in this context they refer to relative
difficulty of reading materials when vocabulary and sen
tence structure are considered.
Readability level, difficulty level. These terms
refer to placement of textbooks in specific grades. Read
ability level was used when readability formulas had been
used to compute a precise difficulty level, as described
in Chapter III. The term difficulty level was used inter
changeably with the former term, except that it was not
used when specific reference was made to publishers'
recommendations of appropriate grade levels for books.
School grade, or actual grade. These terms are
used to describe a given step reached by a pupil or group
of pupils within the whole school organization from kinder
garten through sixth grade.
III. IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM
The importance of adequate reading ability was
emphasized by a mid-century, world-wide study of literacy
undertaken by the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization tinder the direction of
16
William S. Gray. In a text devoted to the teaching of
reading and writing based on the findings of the UNESCO
study, it was emphasized:
There is no need to argue here the primary role
whicn literacy can play in social and material
betterment. The fact it almost universally
accepted today, and the multiplicity of national,
regional and international efforts being directed
toward making children and adults literate is a
rich testimony to the awakening of mankind's
conscience in this matter, as well as to the
acceptance of the role basic, social or funda
mental education have to play in the pursuit of
a better world. (41:Preface)
Gray also reported that at least 50 per cent of the world's
adults can neither read nor write. Another 15 per cent
are not functionally literate. The lower limit of func
tional literacy was defined in the UNESCO study as the
ability to read and write at a level at least that of the
average child completing the fourth grade.
While the same study found the illiteracy level in
the United States to be less than 3 per cent, this figure
pointed to almost five million illiterate adults in the
United States, to which an estimated four million may need
to be added to include those whose level of reading stopped
at a level inadequate for the ordinary business of living
(439:309). A warning that this situation may not be
17
improving was implied in a recent study by the National
Education Association (279:1-16) in which it was reported
that if today's trend continues, four of every ten pupils
now in fifth grade will never complete secondary school.
The increasing need for highly literate citizens in
today's technological society is a matter of common agree
ment. It has been proposed frequently that the schools
have failed to improve the teaching of reading to meet this
need. It has been suggested that for thirty years the
elementary schools have been running at top speed in order
to remain in the same position in the critical area of
reading instruction.
Despite the assertions of critics of education, it
appears that reading achievement levels of pupils have not
deteriorated in the past several decades; however, signif
icant improvement in over-all reading proficiency has not
been substantiated experimentally. More than 4,000
research studies related to reading instruction have been
found by Gray (332:987-1005) and more than 15,000 articles
on the teaching of reading were found by Smith and
Carrigan (77:1-5); but little upgrading of reading achieve
ment has resulted. Betts (321:325) and Gray (333:1121-
1123) made comprehensive reviews of research related to
reading achievement of elementary school pupils at mid
century as compared to student achievement at previous
decade intervals. They concluded that, while pupils of
the 1950's read somewhat more rapidly and may comprehend
slightly better, their accuracy in oral reading is less
satisfactory. Differences do not appear to be statis
tically significant when all reported studies are consid
ered. Gray found more unjustified differences in
achievement between school systems throughout the nation
than had been reported previously. At the same time, it
was re-emphasized that achievement standards of the past
are not adequate to meet today's accelerated needs in
scholarship, and that the reading achievement of most
individuals could be improved.
It is likely that the median achievement has not
varied appreciably since the 1930's, and that both superior
and inferior readers have increased in proportion, accord
ing to the estimates of Smith and Carrigan (77:1, 2). The
wide range of variability in reading achievement was also
emphasized by Clark (388:76) who recently reported a study
of 150 third, fifth and eighth graders drawn from a
19
population of almost 70,000 pupils throughout the nation.
He stressed that a principal finding was verification of
the wide range of achievement at each grade level studied ,
and again emphasized the need for dealing educationally
with these individual differences among pupils.
A recent publication purportedly representing con
sensus of a group of school superintendents of city school
systems underlined the importance of adapting instruction
to individual differences. It was asserted that spread of
achievement in classes has been more of a problem than the
size of classes. Reavis, who prepared this educational
platform, wrote:
In the primary grades, the major objective is
teaching pupils to read. In all reading instruc
tion any group to be taught together should be
similar enough in their reading levels so that
they can be taught effectively with the same
materials. Instruction in reading should have
priority in the primary grades and in the pro
grams of all pupils in other grades who cannot
use reading profitably in the study of other
subjects. Reading is an important factor in group
ing pupils on all grade levels. . . . In the inter
mediate grades , for pupils who have normal reading
achievement, the chief objective is basic general
elementary education with continued emphasis on
reading and the other skill subjects. Pupils are
taught both reading and other subjects with equal
emphasis. In the other subjects, an instructional
group should either be able to read the same
20
materials on the topic under study or be supplied
adequate and suitable differentiated materials.
(286:13, 14)
The most frequent suggestion for improving reading
instruction is related to individualized instruction. One
of the leaders in the crusade for tailoring methods and
materials to meet individual pupil needs is Betts , who
stated:
The key to the improvement of reading instruc
tion is guidance in terms of individual needs.
This approach requires professional competence in
estimating reading levels , in classifying and
providing direct help on specific needs, in con
ducting class activities which yield effective
human relationships, and in organizing group and
individual activities to meet special needs and
interests. . . . Differentiated guidance must
become a reality--an accepted practice rather
than a shibboleth, or meaningless pass-word to
modern education. (2:11)
While the term individualized instruction is com
monly used, reading specialists generally have not
recommended completely individual teaching in today's
classrooms of thirty pupils or more. The same writers who
call for instruction tailored to the individual, also
censure proposals for return to the inefficient individual
recitations of centuries past. Cubberly commented upon
such undesirable teaching in early American schools in
these words:
21
The greatest waste of time came from the indi
vidual methods of instruction universally followed
in teaching. Children came forward»to the teacher’s
desk and recited individually to the master or dame,
and so wasteful was the process that children might
attend school for years and get only a mere start in
reading and writing. Hearing lessons, assigning new
tasks, setting copies , making quill pens, dictating
sums and keeping order completely absorbed the
teacher's time. (17:36, 37)
Educators who insist that the individual needs of
pupils must and can be met by teaching methods and mate
rials in today's large classrooms, assume that teachers
are capable of judging correctly the reading levels and
needs of their pupils and the reading materials which will
meet these needs , and that they can arrange the classroom
program to the best advantage of each of more than thirty
individual pupils.
Evidence has been reported repeatedly that teachers
have seriously pondered the findings of research and the
advice of theorists , but are concerned about problems of
implementation. In a five-year study which included more
than 800 teachers, Hester found that 225 different prob
lems were mentioned in relation to teaching reading; among
the ten most common were the following:
How to provide for individual differences.
How to determine reading levels.
22
How to evaluate pupil progress.
How to find suitable materials.
How to analyze and interpret test results.
How to develop reading skills.
How to use a basic textbook series most effectively.
How to teach content subjects when pupils can not
read the textbooks. (431:86)
It is apparent that information regarding the prac
tical implementation in the classroom of the theory of
adjusting to individual differences in reading is far from
complete. Gates reacted to this problem with an opinion
that specialists in reading instruction are not themselves
certain what procedures would be practicable in the class
room situation. He wrote:
Most of us make plenty of criticisms of group
instruction and heartily approve of individualized
procedures, but are unable fully to describe a
procedure that embodies the principles we so
stoutly uphold. (417:333)
In the meantime, the teacher is teaching and the
individual pupil is attempting to learn to read. The
classroom does not cease to operate while the theorists
and researchers consider the problems related to the indi
vidualization of instruction for 30 million elementary
school pupils. It is likely that, as Clymer suggested
23
(389:92), the major task and real frontier in reading is
the testing of research and theory in the classrooms of
the nation.
IV. ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER
OF THE STUDY
In this chapter the problem was introduced and
defined, and its importance in the constellation of educa
tional dilemmas was described. In the following chapter,
research and authoritative opinion related to the problem
are reviewed. The review of literature included research
and opinion regarding reading materials for instruction in
the elementary grades , individual pupil characteristics
related to reading identification of reading skills,
appraisal of reading texts and skills , organization for
differentiated guidance, and significant differences
between good and poor readers.
Details of the design and procedures of the inves
tigation are described in Chapter III. The schools and
the surrounding community as they relate to this study
have been depicted. Included is the procedure for securing
the sample, description of the steps taken in making
24
various appraisals of reading skills, description of teach
er and pupil interviews, and explanation of the methods
for computing readability formulas. The statistical treat
ment of the data is also briefly reviewed.
Data concerning inferior readers, as analyzed, are
presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V deals with average
readers, and Chapter VI with superior readers. Chapter
VII deals with further data gathered from pupils and
teachers.
The final chapter reviews and summarizes the sig
nificant findings of the investigation and presents
conclusions and recommendations.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The premise that differentiated guidance is the
core of efficient reading in the elementary school empha
sizes the unique characteristics of each individual pupil
as well as the suitability of the materials he reads. In
this view, a pupil's reading achievement is affected by
almost every facet of his physical, mental, emotional,
environmental and educational entity. The books that he
reads and the methods of instruction and evaluation used
by his teacher are inextricably interwoven into his pattern
of individual progress toward maturity in reading.
For much of recorded history, children were expected
to learn to read adult materials in their initial experi
ences with printed symbols. Analyses of the development
of materials for reading instruction by Smith (78),
Irwin (52) , Cubberly (18) , Tuer (92) , Lamport (268) , and
others have demonstrated that the omnipresent basal
25
26
readers of the twentieth century are a product of slow
evolvement through thousands of years of recorded history
and a hundred years of experimentation and appraisal.
Since the advent of graded schools, the basal reading
series developed as it is known and used today in most of
this nation's elementary schools.
A detailed consideration of methods used in teaching
reading would not serve the purpose of this study. It is
apparent, however, that the basal readers analyzed in this
study generally reflect an eclectic trend in methodology.
Gray in a recent study (41:77-101) of the teaching of read
ing throughout the world concluded that, while many
experiments have been designed to determine the efficiency
of various methods, no conclusive evidence has pointed to
any one method as best. Gray proposed that the eclectic
approach in basal readers is an attempt to overcome weak
nesses in more individualized methods, while at the same
time attempting to use the strengths of the latter approach.
Along with the eclectic trend, Gray found a movement
toward learner-centered content which is based upon the
immediate interests of the learners. After questioning
more than two hundred teachers in three states regarding
27
their reading programs, Purcell (473:449-453) reported
that moderation, flexibility and variety were the keynotes
of teacher responses to questions about reading programs.
The following review of related literature deals
with (1) textbooks with emphasis upon texts used in read
ing instruction, (2) reading skills, (3) appraisal of
reading skills , (4) organization for individual differ
ences , and (5) differences among groups.
I. TEXTBOOKS
Instructional materials have undergone a long and
not always logical development. Unplanned evolvement
still exerts influence on reading texts for children.
Earliest materials used in teaching children to
read were religious and historical in nature and were
intended for adults. By the fourteenth century, according
to Plimpton (70:4-35), the alphabet had been inserted in
prayer books for children. The development of the horn
book about 1450, as described by Tuer (92:1-19), was a
highly significant step in reading pedagogy. Smith (78:
18-25) has described early reading instruction in the
28
United States which included the use of hornbooks and the
New England Primer. The next critically important text in
this field was the Blue Backed Speller which, according to
Noble (66:114), sold as many as 80,000,000 copies in
seventy-five years. The influence of Horace Mann, Bernard,
Clifton and others led to new instructional materials in
the nineteenth century, Lamport (268:4-35) found. Graded
sets of readers grew out of the investigation and sugges
tions of these public-spirited men, Smith (78:74-114)
asserted. William McGuffey was first to grade texts to
fit the growing reading abilities of children in each
elementary grade. Although the difficulty level of these
books was subjectively estimated, they were so successful
that dozens of series have followed.
The following pages review the principles, uses and
criticisms of basic readers in today's schools, and
describe measures for estimating difficulty levels.
Basal Readers
After a detailed study of materials and methods
used throughout the world in teaching reading, Gray (41:
87-89) wrote that sets of readers were being used more
than any other type of reading material. In the United
29
States these readers are usually accompanied by charts,
word and phrase cards, workbooks, tests, teachers' guide
books, and sometimes by filmstrips and films. The authors
generally use word, sentence and phonic approaches, but
differences exist among authors as to when such techniques
should be introduced and the amount and kind of emphasis
to be given.
Betts (2:455) wrote that by 1936 there were at
least fourteen series of basal readers for elementary
school pupils. He categorized these readers into four
types: (1) those based on story materials, such as the
Alice and Jerry Books and Gray1s Curriculum Foundation
Series; (2) books based on content material, such as
Smith's Unit Activity Reading Series; (3) study readers,
such as Horn's Progress in Reading; and (4) literary
readers, such as Huber's Wonder-Story Books.
An extensive questionnaire survey of forty-eight
states and Hawaii was made in 1957 by Staiger (503:46-48).
On the basis of 474 replies to a questionnaire sent to
teachers, Staiger reported the following facts regarding
the use of basal readers, their manuals and workbooks:
69 per cent used one series of readers basally; 20 per cent
30
used two series co-basally; 40 per cent felt free to change
series at any time; 50 per cent changed series only after
administration approval; 92 per cent approved of using
readers other than those adopted as basal for supplementary
reading; 90 per cent of the single basal reader schools
used workbooks; 75 per cent of the schools using two series
used workbooks; 50 per cent of the tri-basal schools used
workbooks; and 99 per cent reported that teachers' manuals
were often used (503:46-48).
The staff of the Syracuse University Reading
Laboratory (488:175-183) surveyed a thousand elementary
schools in New York State and found that 95 per cent of
the teachers in these schools used basal texts selected by
the administration as the major source for instruction.
A 1955 study by Belden (334:1567) of practices in
New York state involving 1,000 kindergarten and primary
teachers in 136 schools chosen at random disclosed that
95 per cent of the teachers included all first grade
pupils in basal reading books before the sixth month of
school. Teachers responding also used some method of word
recognition techniques during the first grade year.
31
Hildreth (47:33) recently predicted a trend away
from the use of basal readers. Moreover, a widely cir
culated book by Nila Smith, written in 1934, predicted
that the basal readers would disappear. She wrote: "In
time it will march silently out of the classroom and be
relegated to dusty attics with its progenitor, the horn
book" (78:266-267).
Reed and Klopp (71:1-8) thought that basal readers
were limited in intellectual challenge. They asserted
that many children come to first grade knowing more about
baseball or space travel than do their teachers , and find
the stories about middle-class family life most uninterest
ing. Gates (415:83-88) pointed out that basal readers
tempt teachers to use mass instruction. While the manual
encourages teachers to study individuals, many teachers
find this impossible or impractical, Gates concluded.
Taking another point of view, Wheeler, of George Peabody
College for Teachers , wrote in 1958 that basal readers
"constitute the only body of material designed specifically
for the teaching of good reading habits" (97:11). Margaret
McKim called the basal series "the best source of carefully
graded materials" (61:184), since they are written with
32
vocabulary gradation and grouped around subjects interest
ing to children. McKim cautioned teachers to choose
readers to cover at least a four-year range in ability,
and to use several series. Hester (46:295) emphasized
that the total reading program could not be separated from
the total development of the child. She asserted that
materials in basal programs were prepared after scientific
investigations, and that they were adapted to continuous
child growth in maturing skills, habits and attitudes.
Gray and Reese (39:152) described the sequential content
plan of basal readers which takes into account the child
and his experiences. These authors sharply criticized a
multibook plan which permitted each pupil to read according
to his interests, contending that time does not permit the
teacher to give necessary individual guidance. In this
view, although the teacher is encouraged to have basic
readers on three difficulty levels with accompanying work
books and other materials such as supplementary books ,
mimeographed sheets , newspapers , dictionaries and other
helpful materials , nevertheless the basal readers should
provide the principle vehicle for developing reading
skills.
33
Three essentials of reading instruction are built
into the basic reading programs, according to Betts:
1. The development of permanent and worthwhile
interests which are satisfied through reading
and the use of other aids to learning.
2. The development of phonics and related word
perception and recognition skills needed for
effective listening, speaking, reading and
spelling.
3. The development of concepts and of the abil
ity to think. (236:3)
New materials have been added to the basal reading
programs over the years. Preprimers were added about 1927,
according to Betts (2:15-34). Gray (41:84) described the
addition of colored pictures , word cards and workbooks as
important steps which promoted the development of reading
skill. The newest materials to be incorporated into the
basal reading program are still films. A long-term
experimental reading program carried on at Thaddeus
Stevens School in New Castle, Pennsylvania, was reported
by McCracken (460, 461, 462, 59). Still films or text-
films were provided for every lesson in a basal reading
series, since it was believed that interest would be
heightened by introducing and teaching lessons from large
images projected on a screen. Each day's lesson was shown
34
in color on a screen about 40 by 50 inches. McCracken
(59:63) stated in a recent report of his thirteen-year
experiment, that within this period of time very few pri
mary pupils had scored below the national norm on the
Gates Reading Achievement Test. He wrote that this method
was particularly successful with slower pupils. Reasons
for such success were said to be the high interest which
the pupils manifest, the writing on the chalkboard projec
tion when the screen is raised, the large type for far-
point viewers, the good class control, and the development
of word games based on the projected image on the screen
or board. While some pupils were listed with IQ scores
below 90, McCracken wrote:
For five straight years, in 21 classes involving
more than 600 pupils taught by this visual method,
no child has achieved below the norm while in all
of our traditionally taught groups ten to twenty
per cent of inadequacy exists. (461:243)
The senior author of the Ginn basal readers recently
pointed out advantages and dangers in the use of any series
of readers. Russell analyzed values and problems as
fo1lows:
Advantages
1. Saves teacher time.
2. Provides practice through workbooks.
35
3. Provides a center of interest for group
activities.
A. Encourages individual development through
capitalizing on special interests.
Dangers
1. Basic readers must be carefully chosen for
group.
2. Supplementary materials must be added which
are pertinent to community and current.
3. Reading must be related to remainder of
school day.
Russell also analyzed ten trends appearing in basal reading
programs of the 1950's:
1. An increase in variety of content in basic
books.
2. An increase in amount of material for each
grade.
3. A greater emphasis upon reading at all grade
levels.
A. A more careful gradation of difficulty.
5. An improved physical format and use of
illustrations.
6. A suggested method or combination of teach
ing methods which promotes more efficient
learning.
7. An encouragement of a wider variety of pur
poses and methods of reading.
8. An emphasis upon thoughtful interpretation
and application of the pupils' reading.
36
9. More ways of evaluating growth in reading.
10. A modern basic series emphasized child
development, sees reading as one of a number
of important learning activities, helps
children to judge when it is to their advan
tage to read, and rather than usurping the
place of other worth-while classroom activ
ities , suggests how reading can be combined
with them. (288:4-6)
Durrell declared in 1956: "The advantages of
orderly procedures in reading instruction are such that
few, if any teachers can serve all pupils well by inciden
tal or improvised reading methods" (27:22). Advantages of
basal readers were listed by Durrell to be orderly prac
tice, teacher guidance, motivation, and adaptations to
individual differences.
Yoakam (309:1-10) recently summarized advantages
and disadvantages in the use of basal readers of this past
decade. According to Yoakam, arguments against them are:
(1) They are based upon a mechanistic theory of learning.
(2) They do not provide for individual needs. (3) They
follow the theory that the whole is made up of the parts
and that reading is a complex hierarchy of skills.
(4) There is no such thing as a homogeneous group of
children needing the same instruction. (5) They perpetuate
the lock step which hampers child development. (6) They
37
encourage teachers to teach reading rather than teach
children. (7) Material is often of inferior quality
because of vocabulary control which discourages develop
ment of the child's vocabulary.
Yoakam also suggested that arguments in favor of
basal readers were: (1) Basal reading instruction is
planned, systematic and economical. (2) Research and cur
rent theories are reflected in basal reading instruction
which begins with wholes and ends with wholes. (3) There
is danger of emphasizing individual differences; to offset
this, basal readers provide common as well as differen
tiated experiences for pupils. (4) Basal systems are
abandoning the graded system and grade designations on
books. (5) Misuse of texts is a reflection of teacher
education weakness rather than a weakness of the basal
reader. (6) Child growth and development knowledge is
incorporated into the series. (7) Careful authorship,
expert editing and careful selection of content character
izes basal readers. Yoakam concluded:
Without the use of basal reading materials it
would be impossible to teach the millions of
American children to read. In spite of great
improvement in teacher education and the rapid
rising of standards , there are thousands of
38
American teachers who are not capable of developing
their own basic reading instruction without the
guidance of a basal reading program, even if the
latter plan would produce superior results.
(309:6)
Texts in Content Areas
A survey made in 1958 by the Syracuse University
Reading Laboratory (488:175-178) revealed that 95 per cent
of the teachers surveyed in the New York elementary schools
used textbooks as the major resource in the content areas.
It was concluded that the poor reader is unable to read
many of the required texts.
A study conducted by Wyatt and Ridgway of the read
ing difficulty of nine Kansas state-adopted textbooks in
social studies for the elementary grades was reported by
Gray (426:203-221). These researchers found wide vari
ations in reading difficulty within grade levels and sug
gested that serious problems were inevitable when all
pupils were expected to read these texts.
Traxler (514:90-99) reported studies which appeared
to suggest that above the primary grades , reading ability
becomes more differentiated. Pupils seem to develop
specific abilities to read different kinds of material
with differing degrees of success. He also reported that
39
reading and spelling correlate rather well and that word
discrimination in reading is improved by emphasis upon
spelling.
Mallinson and Lockwood (274:172-174) reported a
series of studies which suggested that reading levels of
science texts are too difficult for the grade levels
recommended. They also found that, while some textbooks
were suitably graded, some passages within these books are
far more difficult than the average context. Measurements
using readability formulas were more consistent than
estimates made by elementary school teachers or reading
specialists.
Studies at the University of Michigan pertaining to
the suitability of thirty science textbooks were reported
by Leary (270:163), who concluded that all of the science
texts contained extensive vocabulary problems for pupils.
In 1952 Gray (259:252-258) stated that a primary
requirement for satisfactory pupil progress in all curric
ulum areas involved the adjustment of reading materials to
individual differences in ability, achievement and needs.
40
Readability of Children's Texts
The proper matching of printed materials and the
ability level and interest of the individual child is the
focal point of readability studies, according to Chall
(11:3-15). Varying concepts of readability are described
in her recent text. Readability as legibility was first
investigated by researchers. These studies related to
typography and format in an attempt to learn the most suit
able forms to use for ease and speed of reading. The
second aspect of readability studies involved interest.
Chall concluded that the major contribution of the studies
of the factor of interest was that reading interests are
highly individualized. A third aspect of readability is
currently receiving particular attention--the concept of
readability as ease of understanding. Most of the read
ability formulas to be discussed on the following pages
were devised as a means of predicting content difficulty
as related to the reader's ability to comprehend the
material. Chall's definition of readability is concise:
In the broadest sense, readability is the sum
total of all those elements within a given piece
of printed material that affects the success a
group of readers have with it. The success is
the extent to which they understand it, read it
at optimum speed, and find it interesting. (11:7)
41
Foshay (llrvii) described Chall's extensive bibli
ography of readability studies as the most comprehensive
index now available. Only eighteen of the studies reported
by Chall (11:175-190) were dated before 1930. In contrast,
sixty-one studies were listed for the four-year period
1950-54 when the list was compiled.
Vocabulary studies. A preliminary step in the
design of readability formulas was the development of
graded word lists of various types. The 1921 research of
Thorndike and others (89:138-140) resulted in an early
list which was revised as late as 1944. The 1944 edition
of The Teacher's Word Book of 30,000 Words (89:ix-xii)
includes the data of the 1921 and 1931 counts and of three
other counts of more than four million words each. The
authors stated that the most important use of the list is
in guiding treatment of words found in texts to be read by
pupils.
The Horn (234:186) list of more than one thousand
of the most common words in the spoken vocabularies of
children under the age of seven was included in a 1925
publication of the National Society for the Study of
Education. In the same yearbook, a study by Kircher
42
(234:193-198) listed the words common to thirty-seven
primers and first readers in the early twenties. Refer
ence was made in the Kircher study to earlier vocabulary
studies reported in 1918 and 1921.
In 1935, Gates (254:2-29) listed 1,811 words highly
suitable for use in texts written for the first three
grades. These words were separated into groups of five
hundred, according to frequency of use, and were listed
alphabetically.
The results of a vocabulary study of 12 preprimers ,
29 primers, 26 first readers, 20 second readers and 11
third readers was reported by Stone (84:101-130) in 1936.
About 2,000 important words were selected and grouped
according to their placement in the readers. A study in
1941 supplemented the previous study and in 1945 another
graded list was published containing 1,957 words distrib
uted into five levels from a compilation of the vocab
ularies of 84 preprimers, 69 primers, 84 first readers,
85 second readers and 47 third readers. Stone emphasized
the importance of the first 100 words for early primary
reading.
43
The Rinsland (73:68) list of words found in chil
dren's writings, supplemented and enlarged the work of
Ayres (273:59) who, as early as 1915, attempted to identify
the 2,000 most commonly-used words in written English.
Rinsland used more than 200,000 papers written by children
from first through eighth grade throughout the nation.
Ayres identified the ten most commonly-used words as making
up more than one fourth of all words written in English,
and Rinsland offered more detailed lists according to fre
quency of use. For example, one list included 252 words
having a frequency of 3 ,000 or more tabulations in the
sample.
Dolch (23:438-439) offered a list of 220 words
which he estimated to comprise from 50 to 75 per cent of
all ordinary reading materials. He stated that these
words are recognized immediately by superior second grade
readers and average third grade readers , and insisted
that pupils should learn them by sight.
Dale and Chall (249:1-28) constructed a list of
3,000 words by testing fourth grade pupils, using a list
of 10,000 words compiled from the most common words in the
Thorndike list and others. A word was included when 80
44
per cent or more of the pupils tested responded correctly.
A second list of 769 easier words was selected from words
common to the first 1,000 of the 1945 Thorndike list and
the International Kindergarten Union List (331:178).
A number of other word lists which are possibly
less well known have been used by teachers , administrators
and writers. For example, Clark (271) used an alphabetical
list of the 500 most common words in compiling the "Los
Angeles City Schools Vocabulary Grade Placement Formula,"
not in current use. Horn (436:424-432) proposed a list of
10 ,000 words which he asserted made up over 99 per cent of
running words written by adults. Fitzgerald (411:224)
listed the 100 most frequently misspelled words in grades
two through six. Reeve (474:237-239) recently made a
vocabulary study of preprimers, primers and first readers
in seven series of basal readers. All words were counted
except proper nouns. Reeve found that of the 633 words
introduced, only 109 were common in all seven series. New
words introduced in all the preprimers totaled 115 words.
Fry (413:456-458) developed a word list for remedial read
ing using the Thomdike-Lorge first 500 words, the Rinsland
list, the Faucett list which combined the most frequent
45
words from the Thorndike and Horn Studies, the Fitzpatrick
and the Dolch lists. The Fry list is grouped into units
of 25 words, according to frequency of use.
Dolch presented a table of new words in the primary
basal readers of five major series. He warned that each
book also includes the words from previous books which the
pupil is expected to know (393:140);
A B C D E
Preprimer 55 54 78 60 58
Primer 141 99 141 129 127
First Reader 169 158 255 163 180
Second Reader 170 188 73 295 260
Second Reader (2) 129 231 387 146 340
Third Reader 256 306 36 460 404
Third Reader (2) 222 372 502 325 501
1,142 1,408 1,472 1,568 1,870
A comprehensive review of studies of children's
speaking and understanding vocabularies was published by
Larrick (451:100-104), who found that differences in the
figures reported may have resulted from differing methods
used in obtaining the count. While Terman and Childs in
46
1912 estimated that twelve-year-old children have average
vocabularies of 7 ,200 words , Kirkpatrick in 1907 estimated
10,666 words for the same group, and M. K. Smith in 1941
estimated 55,000 words for this age level. Smith estimated
that first grade pupils have a vocabulary of about 24 ,000
words, in contrast to Dolch's 1936 estimate of 2,703 words.
Smith based her study on the Seashore and Ereckson word
recognition test which had been compiled from sampling a
dictionary of 371,000 words, while Terman and Childs had
used samples from a dictionary of only 18,000 words.
According to Larrick (451:100), other scholars within the
intervening twenty years have produced estimates which
have been within two or three thousand words of the Smith
estimate.
Chall (246:177-180) recently reviewed the history
of controlled vocabulary, stating that the vocabulary con
trol of primary materials is based upon the speaking
vocabularies of the pupils. She divided the history of
vocabulary control into three periods: (1) Pre-McGuffey
to 1840, (2) McGuffey to 1920, and (3) Word-List Period
from 1920 to the present time. Chall pointed out the
uncontrolled vocabulary of early-day reading materials ,
47
declaring that McGuffey’s subjective choice of words was
surprisingly good, and at least a year in advance of
today's standards. The vocabulary and readability studies
since 1920 were encouraged by the scientific movement in
education and the success of Thorndike's 1921 word count.
The meaning emphasis in reading, a concern with individual
differences, and a child-centered orientation also contrib
uted toward motivating these studies. She found that as a
result of vocabulary and readability studies, the average
number of words in first readers was cut to about one half
of the 1880 McGuffey figure of 750 words. The decrease
began in 1920, when the average number of words was 650 in
a first reader. By 1930 it was 500, by 1940 it was 350,
and by 1950 the number of words had been decreased to 325.
Chall declared that before 1950 some writers had protested
that the primary readers were becoming too easy, but that
there is "little experimental evidence as to whether they
are now too easy, just right, or still too hard" (246:179).
Readability formulas. From the day when McGuffey
tried out his materials on children of different ages,
until well into the twentieth century, writers had no
criterion but subjective judgment for writing selections
48
for children. Readability formulas were first attempted
in the 1920's, according to Dale and Chall (391:1-35).
They asserted that it was unfortunate that the prestige of
the writer carried to the teacher an authority and con
fidence in book placement that was undeserved. If a fourth
grade child, for example, had difficulty with a fourth
grade text, it was considered to be the result of inade
quacy on the child's part. These unsuitable criteria of
suitability for grade level gave rise to the readability
movement, stated Chall (11:10).
Spache (455:4-28) related that as early as 1889
Rubakin made an analysis of reading materials used in
Russia.
A 1923 Lively and Pressy study was the first quan
titative study in readability, according to Chall (11:9-
40), although Spache cited the Kitson study of magazines
and newspapers as earlier. These authors attempted to
find a method of estimating the vocabulary difficulty of
texts. Eleven books of increasing difficulty, from a
second grade book to Stevenson's Kidnapped and college
physics texts, were sampled using 1,000-word selections.
It was concluded that a weighted index number, based on
49
Thorndike's first list, yielded a satisfactory estimate of
the difficulty of the text.
Chall listed the Winnetka study of 1926 as one of
the most significant readability measures. Washbume and
Morphett (521:355-364) questioned 37,000 pupils about
books they had read and liked during the year. Pupils'
scores on the Stanford Achievement Tests were used in
computing the difficulty level of the books read. Each
book was graded by using the average reading score of all
pupils who had read and enjoyed it. The Winnetka Graded
Book List included the titles of the 700 books read by
these pupils and the grade placements thus computed.
Washbume and Vogel then attempted to analyze other books ,
using as their criterion 1,000 samples from the Winnetka
list with difficulty levels from grades three to nine.
Ten factors distinguishing easy from difficult books were
studied, but only four were found to be significant.
These four were (1) the number of different words in the
1,000-word sample, (2) the number of propositions, (3) the
number of words outside Thorndike's list of 10,000 words,
and (4) the number of words in 75 sample sentences. These
factors were weighted and used to predict suitable grade
levels for books. This formula was revised in 1938 and
extended downward into first and second grade materials.
The criterion was simplified to three factors, the first
and fourth above, plus the number of words outside
Thorndike's first 1,500.
Studies conducted during the 1930's which related
to readability levels of books for adults contributed to
an understanding of factors of measurement. Ojemann
attempted to judge the difficulty of parent education
magazines. Dale and Tyler worked on the problem of pre
dicting the difficulty of materials for adults with
limited reading levels, Chall (11:9-40) reported.
Gray and Leary (42:121-123) measured the reading
ability of 1,690 adults and found grade equivalents below
the third and above the sixteenth grades. An extensive
survey of librarian opinion resulted in a list of 288
factors influencing the difficulty of reading materials.
Using measures of correlation, the number of factors was
reduced to 82, 44, 20 and finally to four categories.
These major categories were format, general features of
organization, style of expression, and presentation and
content. Gray and Leary concluded that the number of
51
difficult and easy words , the percentage of monosyllables ,
the number of personal pronouns, average sentence length,
the percentage of different words, the number of preposi
tional phrases, and the percentage of simple sentences were
the elements of greatest predictive value.
Also in the 1930's, the Lewerenz (271) formula was
developed and used in the Los Angeles City Schools. This
formula was recommended for use in selecting texts suitable
for specific grades, selecting readers suitable for spe
cific groups , selecting supplementary materials for the
dull over-age and superior under-age pupils , measuring
compositions, checking vocabulary problems in spelling,
and general use of librarians. The formula involved the
use of the Clark list of 500 most common words. A random
sample of 1,000 words in a book to be evaluated was com
piled from the third line of each page. The vocabulary
difficulty, diversity and interest were computed in order
to find the grade placement of a given book.
According to Chall (11:28-29) the Yoakam formula,
first proposed in 1939 and revised in 1948, estimated
grade levels of books from the fourth through the four
teenth grades. It was based on a weighted index of
52
vocabulary difficulty, using the Thorndike 20,000 word
list.
In his 1948 formula, Lorge (324:184-194) used the
number of hard words according to Thorndike's list, the
average sentence length, and the number of prepositional
phrases. His criterion was the McCall-Crabbs Standard
Test Lessons in Reading which was already graded in dif
ficulty. He concluded that vocabulary difficulty was the
best single predictor of readability.
Flesch wrote The Art of Plain Talk (412:344-351)
for the purpose of interesting the lay public in the
problem of how to measure reading difficulty. His formula
used the average sentence length in words, the number of
prefixes , suffixes and inflectional endings per hundred
words , and the number of references to people per hundred
words. This formula did not take into account the number
of difficult words , the author believing that the adult
readers for whom his formula was designed would not find
it practical to consult tables of common words. Although
his formula was not designed for children's books, it has
been used successfully to test readability of such books
as the Newbery Prize winners and textbooks. Flesch pointed
53
out that for mature readers vocabulary difficulty plays an
unimportant role in comprehension.
Dale and Chall (248:1-29) criticized Flesch's
formula, particularly with respect to the important factor
of references to people. Lorge and Flesch had used the
McCall-Crabbs test lessons , and this material was also
selected as a criterion by Dale and Chall. The McCall-
Crabbs Standard Test Lessons in Reading are booklets con
taining 376 passages which were graded in difficulty on
the basis of comprehension of q\iestions. Dale and Chall
stated that this material had "serious deficiencies as a
criterion, but it is the best we have at the present time"
(248:5). The criterion was the grade placement for pupils
who got half of the test questions correct on given para
graphs. The heart of the formula, then, involved pupil
comprehension of passages read silently and checked by
written comprehension questions. An important next step
was to check each passage in the McCall-Crabbs lessons and
count the words which were not on the Dale list (described
earlier). The Dale list of 3 ,000 words was chosen as a
measure of vocabulary, rather than the Thorndike list,
because the Dale list measures familiarity of reading
54
rather than frequency of use. According to the Dale-Chall
study, the highest correlation with the McCall-Crabbs
criterion occurred with the Dale score on words outside
the list of 3,000 words. They found that the next highest
measure of difficulty was average sentence length. This
two-factor simplified formula correlated .92 with judgments
of readability experts and .90 with reading grades of
children and adults on the McCall-Crabbs test lessons. In
order to use the Dale-Chall formula it is necessary to
tabulate the following information about the book analyzed:
(1) number of words in the sample; (2) number of sentences
in the sample; (3) number of words not on the Dale list of
3,000; and (4) average sentence length. Further details
are explained in Chapter III, since this formula was used
in computing the readability of textbooks in the present
s tudy.
Because the most satisfactory readability measures
focused upon adult materials or children's books above the
fourth grade level, Spache (498:410-413) devised a formula
for measuring the readability of primary reading materials.
The Spache formula was chosen for analyzing primary books
in this study. Like Dale and Chall, Spache chose average
sentence length as a predictive measure. Instead of the
Dale list of 3 ,000 words , Spache used the Dale list of
769 words, described earlier. He found that in primary
materials , sentence length was somewhat more closely
related to reading difficulty than was the proportion of
difficult words. Spache recommended the use of three
100-word samplings from each book and the averaging of
these samplings for reliability. From his study he com
puted a regression formula which defined the grade level
of a book as equal to .141 times the average sentence
length, .086 times the number of words outside the Dale
list, and the addition of .839, a constant, to the
product. Spache (331:177-184) computed the formula by
using 224 samples of 100 words each from 132 books com
monly used in grades one, two and three. The use of the
Dale list of 769 words in the Spache formula was recently
criticized by Stone (509:36-41), who asserted that some of
Dale's words are too difficult for the primary level.
According to Stone, words such as doll, kitten, and toy
are omitted, while more unusual words such as company,
quarter and reason are included. Stone revised the Dale
list, deleting 173 words and substituting 173 others which
56
he considered more suitable. He stated that the Stone
revision of the Dale list would cause the Spache formula
to give lower ratings to many of the primary books.
Directions for computing Spache's formula included
a sampling procedure which involved use of three 100-word
samples from the beginning, middle and ending pages of the
book under consideration. Clymer (248:245-250) studied
the sampling reliability of this technique. He analyzed
the entire content of six science textbooks and compared
his results with the Spache sampling method, concluding:
Three samples will provide an estimate of read
ability precise enough for most uses. In nearly
all cases three samples gave a readability
estimate within two months of the parameter
value. (248:249)
Wheeler and Wheeler (528:486-489) reported the
readability formula used at the University of Miami Reading
Clinic. The procedure recommended several steps. In the
first step, 1,000 words are tabulated from samples at five-
or ten-page intervals in the book. The Winnetka Chart for
Determining Grade Placement of Children's Books was recom
mended, since it listed the 1,500 common words ready for
alphabetical checking, and allowed space for writing
uncommon words. A second step included the use of the
57
Thorndike 20,000 word list. The third step involved
counting the number of tabulated words appearing at each
grade level on the Thorndike list. The next step was based
on the assumption that the average child knows 90 per cent
of the vocabulary of the materials he uses in instructional
reading and at least 95 per cent of the vocabulary he meets
in independent reading. Such a measure, it was concluded,
would fit the books to the child in terms of vocabulary
difficulty. The following sample of the vocabulary anal
ysis of a given book illustrates the procedure (528:486):
Number of Words
Grade on Thorndike List Per Cent
1 and 2 213 56.0
3 155 33.5
4 92 21.0
5 and 6 61 13.4
7 and 8 42 9.2
9 28 5.8
10 26 5.3
11 23 4.6
12 12 2.3
1,110
Instructional level: pupils in grades 7 and 8.
Independent level: pupils in grades 9 and above.
The influence of readability research upon teacher
planning is illustrated by a report by Carlson and
58
Northrup (245:53-62). The faculty of a New Jersey elemen
tary school met to formulate criteria for judging basic
readers. One section of their worksheet was related to
readability and included the following items for checking
against the books being evaluated:
A. Vocabulary--Is it carefully controlled to
insure:
1. Total number of new words appropriate to
level.
2. Appropriate rate of introduction of new
words.
3. Adequate repetition.
4. Occasional plateaus.
B. Sentence and paragraph structure:
1. Sentence length and structure adjusted to
reading level.
2. Paragraph length and structure adjusted to
reading level.
C. Story--length adjusted to average ability and
to reading lesson.
Believing that the classroom teacher needs to learn
to judge readability, Wheeler and Wheeler (525:397-399)
devised a simplified formula by taking a random word count
of nine basal series , finding the mean percentage of poly
syllabic words on each level, and determining the mean
unit or sentence length for each of the levels. These
means were combined and set up as the criterion for each
of the levels. These authors found that readability
formulas tended to "estimate instructional level," and
warned that when books were assigned for independent read
ing, one grade level should be subtracted from the read
ability score, whatever formula may have been used.
Application of readability formulas. While read
ability formulas have been studied for more than twenty
years, practical application of their uses has been
limited. Chall remarked:
Readability measurement has often been used almost
as a secret tool. Textbook publishers have used
it in appraising and editing manuscripts. In most
instances they have not felt an obligation to
report their results. . . . Authors, editors and
publishers of educational materials have used
readability to appraise the difficulty of manu
scripts , to edit manuscripts for specific
grade-levels, and to estimate the grade-level of
books already published. (11:113-114)
Chall continued that, since authors and publishers did not
share their results , most reports of the applications of
60
readability formulas had to be obtained from educators.
Studies reported in the 1930's, Chall pointed out, con
cluded that texts intended for a given grade level but
published by different firms differed greatly in vocabu
lary difficulty, in diversity and in the use of words
outside the experience of the children for whom the books
were intended. However, since each author used his own
estimate of vocabulary difficulty, the studies often were
not comparable.
A study by Hockett in 1938 was cited by Chall as
particularly significant for its attempt to determine the
relative difficulty of basal readers through fourth grade.
Table 1 shows the effect of readability formulas in
simplifying primary reading materials.
Another study which gave evidence of the effective
ness of readability formulas in simplifying readers was
made by Yoakam in 1945 (11:119):
Yoakam Formula Publishers'
Publication Number of Average Grade Average Grade
Date Books Placement Placement
1930-39 10 readers 3.5
1940-45 10 readers 4.3
1940-45 33 readers 3.9
2.2
4.7
3.3
61
TABLE 1
VOCABULARY OF FIRST READERS PUBLISHED 1920-29
COMPARED WITH THOSE OF FIRST READERS
PUBLISHED 1930-35 AND 1935-38
Average for Average for Average for
1920-29 1930-35 1935-38
Number of running
words 9,015 9,094 8,508
Number of different
words 644.8 540.3 458.0
Average repetition 14.0 17.0 18.5
Percentage of words in
Gates' first 500 61.0 66.4 69.0
Percentage of words in
Gates' first 1,000 81.4 84.2
Source: Jeanne S. Chall, Readability: An Appraisal of
Research and Application (Columbus: Ohio State
University Press, 1958), p. 119.
62
In 1941, Spache (500:139*148) studied vocabulary
characteristics, physical makeup, adaptation to instruc
tional needs and other features of primers; concluding
that most primers current that year met standards of
physical makeup and organization established by previous
research. However, in vocabulary selection, repetition
and integration, many of these books did not use the find
ings of research. Spache characterized the average primer
as containing about 275 different words , each of which was
repeated an average of eighteen times in each book, at the
rate of about two new words per page.
Using the Dale-Chall formula for predicting read
ability, Dunlap (402:499-501) compared a Maryland local
newspaper with the eighth grade basic reader, Wonders and
Workers. A comparison of 31 samples of newspaper content
and 38 samples of the basic reader revealed that the read
ing levels of newspaper and text were comparable and that
pupils who read the text successfully should be able to
comprehend the newspaper.
Trends in readability of elementary school readers
were studied by Walchak (304:138-149). A total of 96
basic readers published from 1929 through 1954 were
63
included. There appeared to be no pattern of difficulty
common to all the readers. The 33 readers intended for
grade four received readability scores of from 4.3 to 7.2.
All of the readers intended for fourth grade which ranked
within that grade level were dated later than 1940, the
two lowest readability scores being given to two texts
dated 1953. The two most difficult books were published
in 1929 and 1931. It should be noted, however, that in
some individual cases , revisions of texts were more dif
ficult than the earlier editions. When sixth grade readers
were analyzed, no appreciable change in difficulty level
was found. The average grade level for each of the periods
studied was 7.4 for books intended for sixth grade.
Walchak concluded that the vocabulary burdens of inter-
mediate-grade basic readers were excessive, and that pupils
were not generally able to acquire new vocabulary at the
rate anticipated in intermediate-grade readers.
A study of vocabulary from nine basal reading
series , preprimer through second grade, was reported by
Trotter et al. (353:1-4). The total number of different
words used in these books was found to be 2,058, but only
121 words were common to all nine series by the end of
64
second grade. Almost 500 words were common to six or more
of the series.
Vollbrecht's 1954 study (519:206-209) of thirteen
series of second grade readers was undertaken because
grade designations of publishers did not appear to give a
true picture of vocabulary load. If teachers are to meet
children's individual differences, they must be sure of
the vocabulary content of the materials in order that slow
or average readers shall not be unduly handicapped. The
total new vocabulary presented in the books ranged from
236 to 598 words, the new vocabulary in all thirteen
second grade series totaling 1,914 different words. No
single word was found which was taught as a new word at
this level in all of the series. Table 2 summarizes the
s tudy.
Readability of twelve widely used texts was computed
by Wood (538:214-216) in 1954, using the Yoakam and the
Dale-Chall formulas. In addition, teacher opinions of the
suitable level for use of these books were gathered. Wood
found that in most cases the teachers and the formulas
agreed. The two formulas were in precise agreement in
only two cases and in one case were more than a year apart.
65
TABLE 2
WORDS PRESENTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN EACH OF
THIRTEEN SECOND GRADE READING SERIES
Total Words Total Words Per Cent of Words
Introduced Found in Found in
for the No Other No Other
Series First Time Series Series
1 598 130 22
2 552 57 10
3 516 86 17
4 473 48 10
5 447 58 13
6 440 53 12
7 419 26 6
8 410 98 24
9 380 98 26
10 353 62 18
11 349 37 11
12 260 38 15
13 236 22 9
TABLE 2--Continued
VOCABULARY SUMMARY
805 words were found i n ........... 1 series
342 words.......................... 2 series
222 words.......................... 3 series
142 words.......................... 4 series
129 words 5 series
88 words.......................... 6 series
68 words 7 series
43 words.......................... 8 series
41 words.......................... 9 series
21 words 10 series
13 words 11 series
0 words .......................... 12 series
0 words .......................... 13 series
Source: Dorothy M. Vollbrecht, "Vocabulary Analysis of
Thirteen Second Grade R e a d e r s Elementary
English. XXXI (April, 1954), 207.
67
Pertinent findings are shown in Table 3. It will be seen
that the Dale-Chall formula was lower than the Yoakam in
nine of the twelve cases.
Sixty juvenile books found on three of six selective
book lists published since 1940 were studied by Russell
and Fea (483:136-145). Sixty-three children's librarians
were asked to estimate the reading levels of these books.
The dozen books on which the librarians were in closest
agreement were chosen for analysis using six readability
formulas. The students found that the Dale-Chall, Flesch
and Lorge formulas were equally good estimates of read
ability when related to the ratings of the librarians. It
should be noted, however, that individual librarians dif
fered widely on the ratings of many books, and that
appreciable variations were found in the estimates of
various readability formulas. As an example, Stevenson's
Treasure Island was rated as follows (483:143):
Average rating of Librarians 7.4
Children's Catalogue 6.9
Dale-Chall 5.93
Flesch 5.43
Lewerenz 3.54
Lorge 6.24
Winnetka 8.17
Yoakam 10.3
Mean of Formulas 6.85
68
TABLE 3
FORMULA GRADE PLACEMENTS AND TEACHERS
APPROVING BOOKS
Book
Yoakam
Grade
Placement
Dale-Chall
Grade
Placement
Teachers
Approving
of Those
Questioned
Exploring in Science 4.71 4.60 10 of 12
Working with Science 5.25 5.27 9 of 10
New Ideas in Science 6.76 5.11 10 of 10
Healthful Ways 4.88 4.89 10 of 12
Let's Be Healthy 6.12 5.40 9 of 10
Habits Healthful and Safe 6.41 5.60 8 of 10
Life in Early America 5 .02 4.19 1 of 12
Life in Modern America 5.94 6.32 3 of 10
Other Lands and Other
Times 5 .91 5.11 10 of 10
Visits in Other Lands 4.65 4.97 5 of 12
American Nations 6.46 6.20 6 of 10
Nations Overseas 8.18 8.31 6 of 10
Source: LeRoy N. Wood, "Readability of Certain Textbooks,"
Elementary English, XXI (April, 1954), 215.
69
While Russell and Fea found that the Yoakam formula
scored more than four grades higher than the Dale-Chall in
certain cases, Smith (292:18-26) found that the Dale-Chall,
Lorge and Yoakam formulas yielded similar scores on fourth
grade social studies texts. She found that books published
for fourth grade social studies have a readability average
of beginning fifth grade. History selections scored lower
than geography. Workbooks scored higher than texts. The
Weekly Reader intended for fourth grade also received a
fifth grade score, according to this analysis.
Social studies texts designed for fourth, fifth and
sixth grades were analyzed by Sloan (352:928-929), who
found that eleven of the twenty-one texts scored by means
of the Dale-Chall formula received the same grade level
placement as that given in publishers' estimates. He found
little continuity within and between grade level texts of
given series. Readability of questions, activities and
projects tended to be more difficult than that of the text.
The vocabulary difficulty of content subjects in
the intermediate grades was studied by Johnson (441:277-
280). A text constructed from textbooks in arithmetic,
history, health, geography, science and literature was
70
presented to 684 fifth grade pupils in an effort to find
the percentage of words whose meaning was comprehended.
Johnson concluded that a program of word enrichment was
needed for the understanding of textbooks commonly used in
the content subjects.
In 1934 and again in 1954 Edgerton (408:219-225)
analyzed the reading difficulty of three leading children's
encyclopedias. In 1934 he rated Britannica Junior at the
ninth grade level, Compton1s at the tenth and World Book
at the eleventh, and concluded that they were not appro
priate for elementary school use as advertised. Twenty
years later he found, on the basis of the one hundred
articles analyzed in each encyclopedia, that World Book
had dropped readability difficulty five full grades to the
sixth grade level, that Britannica Junior had dropped two
grades to the seventh grade level, and that Compton1s had
dropped two grades to the eighth grade level. Edgerton1s
analysis was made on the basis of vocabulary load or words
outside Thorndike's first 1,500 words, and of sentence
length.
Characteristics of high interest and low-ability-
level reading materials were studied by Barbe, who
71
identified five major characteristics of successful
materials of this nature:
1. Vocabulary level low, sentence structure
simple.
2. Content of interest to children several
years older than vocabulary level.
3. Size of print typical of child's actual
grade, instead of the larger print used
for younger children.
4. General appearance of the book cover, the
binding, and illustrations characteristic
of materials at the child's actual grade
placement.
5. Plot somewhat simplified, not too many
characters, fast moving events , rapid
conclusion. (361:281-284)
Certain criticisms applicable to all existing read
ability formulas have been offered. Strang (508:418-421)
warned that, while the formulas give an idea of structural
difficulties, they do not consider concept difficulty,
vividness of expression, logical organization or general
appeal. Carner and Sheldon (382:226-229) also declared
that most analyses of readability fail to consider concept
difficulty. That adaptability to the needs of the group,
text organization, simple but colorful illustrations,
simple sentence structure, format, and the use of tested
72
principles of learning should be rated with the readability
formula score in assessing texts , was suggested by Wheeler
and Wheeler (528:478-489). Thorndike (512:60-63, 67)
warned against the acceptance of one set of words as the
final answer to problems of vocabulary for children at a
given grade level.
In 1951 Russell and Fea summarized a review of the
literature on readability and concluded that the formulas
so far fail to:
1. Give any measure of conceptual difficulty
in the textual material.
2. Take into consideration the way the mate
rial is organized or arranged.
3. Allow for variations in the meaning of
multiple-meaning words.
4. Accept the fact that a fresh or unusual
word may make a sentence or idea clearer
than a commonplace word.
5. Vary their ratings in terms of different
interests which persons may have at dif
ferent developmental levels or in individ
ual activities.
6. Provide measures of difficulty below the
fourth-grade level.
7. Take account of physical factors such as
format and illustrations. (483:143)
73
In 1953 Yoakam (308:97-104) summarized the results
of studies in readability conducted at the University of
Pittsburgh during a fifteen-year period. Comparative
studies made by students under his direction have shown
that the various formulas agree reasonably well. However,
while publishers have succeeded in a general way in devel
oping series of readers of increasing difficulty, in some
the third grade reader is harder than the fourth grade
reader, or the fourth may be more difficult than the sixth
grade reader. A dearth of easy reading materials suitable
for the child whose reading is below grade level was found.
In general, Yoakam's students found that readability levels
of texts which have appeared during the current decade are
more suitable than those published twenty years earlier,
but that many books are still overgraded.
Chall found that only one minor study has been pub
lished of an experiment to determine an optimum vocabulary
load for pupils in the primary grades, and concluded
(11:121) :
We have no evidence as to whether the books are
in fact, too easy, whether more words can be
introduced or whether the books should be sim
plified further.
74
Spache also emphasized subjective errors in judgment
of writers , teachers and others when he recently wrote
(80:21) :
False predictions of the readability of books are
available everywhere. We see children's books
which fail to sell, school textbooks which cannot
be read at the grade levels for which they are
designated. . . . When the pooled judgments of
experts are compared, as in various book lists
and catalogues , we find wide variations in
estimates.
Summary of Studies and Opinions
For more than a thousand years after written com
munication had its beginning, few materials were especially
prepared for illiterates, young or old. By the nineteenth
century, when increasing numbers of children were expected
to be educated and with the coming of graded schools ,
texts for beginning readers were common. Reading texts
were graded according to the subjective evaluation of the
author, who decided what material pupils in a certain
grade ought to be able to read. In the current century,
research accompanied the growth of the basal reading series
with their manuals , workbooks and other supplement airy
materials. In spite of studies of teacher and librarian
opinion, vocabulary load, sentence structure and general
75
reading complexity, wide variations in reading difficulty
exist among texts intended for the same grade levels.
In spite of improvements made over the years as a
result of scientific studies , there is still surprisingly
little objective evidence regarding the difficulty of
materials that children can successfully read at varying
levels of proficiency. Nevertheless, it has been demon
strated repeatedly that grade level scores obtained through
the use of readability formulas are more comparable in
difficulty than are grade recommendations of publishers.
II. READING SKILLS
Reading ability is both a generalized entity and a
complex of individual and interdependent components.
Efficient reading skill depends upon the reaction of a
complex organism and its interrelated physical and mental
structures, as well as its emotional responses to past and
present experiences. This section contains a review of
the literature concerning two aspects of reading skill:
(1) the unique characteristics and influences which affect
the development of efficient reading and (2) the component
and interrelated skills which comprise the process of
76
reading.
Characteristics rnd Influences
Principal characteristics and influences which have
been demonstrated to be of critical importance in the
development of reading proficiency, as reported in the
literature, are discussed here. Numerous studies have been
completed which relate to the importance of intelligence,
sex, chronological age, vision, hearing and speech in the
development of reading. Investigations of the factors of
brain injury, emotional climate and personality patterns,
glandular action, environmental and educational influences
are more recent and less quantitative in nature.
Intelligence. Femald (28:30) pointed out that as
late as 1921 the supposition that there were children with
normal intelligence who could not read was considered
absurd by many educators. Harris (45:222-231) reported
that he has worked with retarded readers whose IQ scores
were as high as 130. However, he found that it is less
common to find a situation where reading ability is sub
stantially higher than intelligence level, and that often
these findings are a result of errors of measurement in
77
the tests or of uneven development. Even on the Stanford-
Blnet, cited as one of the better intelligence tests,
Harris stated that the score of a retarded reader may be
too low because of the weight given to vocabulary and
because a few items require reading ability. This reading
specialist asserted that primary grade intelligence tests
are the most satisfactory group IQ tests because of rela
tive lack of reading matter. In a recent study Durrell
(404:201-208) found that at least one fourth of pupils who
make slow progress in school are of superior intelligence,
but that this fact is not apparent when only means and
medians are considered.
One of the problems involved in relationships
between intelligence and reading ability concerns the
recommended mental age for beginning reading. Two points
of view have prevailed. Almost thirty years ago Morphett
and Washburne (325:266) reported an experiment which was
interpreted as meaning that a mental age of six and a half
years was necessary before a child should begin to read.
These conclusions were challenged by Gates (315:57-62)
six years later. Gates reported the results of tests con
ducted in 1936 on a number of groups of beginning readers,
78
taught by different methods and using different materials,
to learn whether a stipulated mental age for successful
beginning reading could be determined. He concluded that
this was impossible because of variance in methods,
materials, teachers and individual pupils. As late as
1954, Gates (417:331-334) reaffirmed his earlier position
and suggested that the practice of delaying instruction in
first grade should be re-evaluated. The mental ages of
beginning first graders were studied by Hildreth (265:
54-93) who found a range of more than six years , from a
mental age of four years to more than ten years. The data
showed that some classes of beginners covered the full
six-year range of ability.
Vernon (94:75-58) reported a study in Britain
which concluded that the correlation between reading per
formance and intelligence decreased with age from .79 at
age eight to .44 at age eleven. Bond and Tinker (6:111)
reported correlations of .80 between verbal sections of
group intelligence scores and reading scores, but only .36
to .56 between non-language scores and reading test scores.
More than two decades ago Kirk (55:172) found that
mentally retarded pupils were disabled in reading to the
79
same extent as pupils with average or better intelligence.
Recently attention has been given to the reading abilities
of accelerated and superior students. Hildreth (47:580-
589) reported that certain gifted pupils are independent
readers at entrance into first grade, but that others may
have serious problems in reading.
Sex differences. Helen M. Robinson (475:263-270),
who has conducted a number of research studies and has
compiled data from many students, recently observed that
research supports the existence of a sex difference in
reading achievement, especially in the first four grades.
It is not yet known whether being a girl is the reason for
early reading success or whether some factors in the
culture or the school setting cause the boys to lag behind.
In a study of more than 300 elementary school
pupils , Anderson (358:447-453) reported that girls tended
to learn to read earlier than boys and there were fewer
serious delays among the girls. Durrell (27:43) found
that girls possessed superior visual and auditory dis
crimination as compared to boys , but that when boys were
given six weeks of eye and ear training, their rate of
learning equaled that of girls. Earlier, Durrell (26:281)
reported a study of 1,130 pupils who were given individual
intelligence tests in which twice as many boys as girls
were retarded in reading. La Brant (321:154-161) found
that in a group of secondary pupils studied, the girls read
more than twice as much fiction, drama and poetry, while
the boys read more science materials. Anderson and Dear
born (1:35-41) found girls to be less variable than boys;
the girls who were slow to develop were less retarded than
slow-developing boys; while precocious boys excelled
precocious girls in reading achievement.
The proportion of boys to girls in remedial reading
clinics or laboratories has been studied frequently. In
1932 Monroe (62:98) found a distribution of 86 per cent
boys to 14 per cent girls in a clinic population of 215.
Femald (28:149) reported that of the 49 cases of total
reading disability treated in her laboratory up to 1943,
all but two were males. Durrell (27:281) reported that at
the Boston University Educational Clinic, a ratio of ten
boys to one girl is studied.
Betts (2:137) stated that boys make up from 60 to
80 per cent of the entire population of retarded readers
and that this may be traceable to sex differences in
81
readiness for reading.
A study by Clark (388:73-76) of intelligence and
achievement scores of boys and girls contradicted the
above-reported findings concerning differences in reading
ability between the sexes. Clark drew matched samples of
75 boys and 75 girls from a total population of 69,354
pupils and found intelligence and achievement to be
independent of sex.
Chronological age. The problem of chronological
age at entrance to first grade and its effect upon later
achievement was studied by King (447:331-336). The popula
tion of this study was 100 pupils , 50 of whom entered
school before the age of five years eleven months, and
50 of whom entered after the age of six years eight months.
King found that older pupils are more likely to achieve
above their grade level, are less likely to repeat grades ,
have better attendance, and achieve better personal and
social adjustment. A study which disagreed with these
findings was reported by Miller (465:257-263). The
Research Department in Evanston, Illinois, attempted to
determine the academic standing of the under-age pupil and
his ratings with teachers and peers. Additional data were
82
gathered from fifty other school systems. Conclusions
pointed to the lack of importance of chronological age as
a factor in the academic, social and emotional adjustment
of the under-age child. Gates (417:331-334) recently
criticized the practice of delaying instruction in first
grade, claiming that research has demonstrated that chil
dren can learn to read quite well before the age of six.
The suggestion that boys should begin school at a
later chronological age than girls was disputed by Clark
(388:73-76). He reported a study of 69,354 test scores
from 341 school systems in 48 states which constituted a
stratified sample controlled with respect to geographical
areas and community-size categories, and representative of
total pupil enrollment in public schools of the nation.
Second stage random samples of 75 boys and 75 girls were
drawn from grades three, five and eight. Since no signif
icant differences were found between the performances of
boys and of girls, Clark concluded that they should begin
school at the same chronological age.
Other factors affecting reading skills. A 1959
report by the United States Department of Health, Educa
tion, and Welfare (303:2-4) stated that 181,000 children
83
under the age of fourteen are afflicted with visual
impairments which detract from the ability to perform
necessary visual functions in reading. Bergin (366:30-38)
reported a study by the American Optometric Association of
160,000 elementary school pupils in which it was found that
only about 8 per cent of all children failed to pass rigid
visual tests on entering school, but that by the time they
left the sixth grade 82 per cent failed to meet all visual
requirements for reading. The Association concluded that
one of three American school pupils has inadequate vision
for school performance. Eames (406:37-42) reported that
glasses do not necessarily produce normal vision, but that
they should be worn as directed by the doctor, even though
the child may appear to see as well without them.
Melnitsky (464:15) reported a study which revealed that
only 25 per cent of children with untreated eye problems
ever complained of their vision. Buswell (380:99-103)
concluded that perceptual reading habits tend to crystal
lize in the upper elementary grades, far below a desirable
level. Goins (418:9-13) found that pupils in first grade
who could hold in mind a total configuration at the same
time they manipulated parts of the whole were good readers.
84
She concluded that inability to discriminate among com
ponent parts of a word may cause reading problems.
Robinson (263:270) concluded that scores on vision tests
do not appear to be related to reading achievement; but
Sheldon and Cutts (490:517-521) reported that superior
readers have more visual defects than do inferior readers.
Deficiencies in visual perception, rather than inadequate
vision, are almost universal among pupils who lack sight
vocabulary, according to Harris (45:229-240), who con
cluded that an exact statement of the degree to which read
ing problems are caused by inadequate vision is not yet
decided because of individual differences in the ability
to adapt to handicaps.
The United States Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare (303:15) reported that 306,000 children under
age fourteen suffer from hearing impairments, and that
567,000 children have measurable speech impairments. The
California State Department of Public Health (244:3)
reported that 100,000 pupils from a population of more
than 2,000,000 have hearing impairments which warrant
study. Betts (2:205) estimated that about 14 per cent of
school pupils have impaired hearing. Durrell (404:201-208)
85
reported that lack of ability to notice separate sounds in
spoken words , while not synonymous with impaired hearing,
was almost universal in pupils referred to the reading
clinic at Boston University. Betts (2:203) found that
hearing impairments often retard normal speech development.
Bond (6:93) reported that while most studies have failed
to find greater incidence of hearing impairments among
retarded readers than among normal readers, an individual
child may be greatly handicapped in reading by a hearing
loss.
Symptoms of minimal brain injury are often over
looked, it was concluded by Gesell and Amatruda (34:76),
who proposed that some speech difficulties, mixed dominance
and delayed integration may arise from minor birth injuries
and may later hamper normal reading development. This
proposal agrees with that of Harris (45:275-277) who
stated that, while research results are inconclusive, the
number of children who suffer brain injury at birth with
out showing outward signs may outnumber those who do show
clinical signs. He conjectured that the more severe cases
which eventually find their way into a reading clinic may
be proportionately high in undiagnosed brain damage.
86
Brueckner and Bond (7:36) said that, while neurological
damage may be a basic cause in reading problems, its occur
rence is rare. Ford (31:960) concluded as a result of his
studies of brain-injured children that the fact that
clinical symptoms of injury are not present at birth is no
proof that such injury did not occur. Sheer (487:10-13)
differentiated between the primary effects of brain damage
and such secondary effects (psychological reactions to the
lesions) as fear, resentment and discouragement.
The question of whether lateral dominance is highly
significant in reading development has been debated for
more than two decades. Harris (45:249-260) reported that
clinical studies found a significant relationship between
dominance and reading success, while results of surveys of
large numbers of school children indicated a negative
relationship. Harris reported that his own experience at
Queen's College Educational Clinic has convinced him that
lateral dominance is an important factor in reading
achievement. A recent study by Delcato (22:3-109) appeared
to indicate favorable results in reading when retarded
readers followed an elaborate program of training in
dominance. Krise (450:278-284) expressed doubt concerning
87
relationships between dominance and reading problems ,
hypothesizing that reversals in pupils with reading dis
abilities were attributable to a disregard of background
factors. As a result of his experiments, Krise concluded
that reversals in reading are not due to lateral dominance,
but are a problem in space perception that could be elim
inated by proper teaching. Preston (411:330-334) found
that German pupils in German schools had a significantly
higher incidence of reversals than did pupils entering
first grade in Philadelphia who came from English-speaking
parents. Spache concluded that reversals occur among
poor achievers of all ages (293:49-57). Brueckner and
Bond (7:36) agreed that evidence supports the view that
orientational confusions are learning difficulties rather
than confused dominance.
Eight studies pertaining to reading and the emotions
were reviewed by Smith (495:8-10), who reported that three
of the studies concluded that all disabled readers suffered
from emotional maladjustment, one found many pupils to be
emotionally disturbed, and four reported specific incidence
of emotional maladjustment among impaired readers of 90,
72, 52 and 42 per cent, respectively. Spache (293:51)
88
also found that published estimates of the incidence of
interfering emotional problems in reading disability
varied from none at all to more than 75 per cent. He con
cluded that this variation reflected the philosophy of the
individual clinic concerning the importance of the emotions
in reading development. After an extensive study of
research, Robinson (330:90-113) concluded that a relatively
high percentage of seriously retarded readers exhibit
emotional problems, whereas fewer slightly retarded readers
may have developed their superior ability because of
adjustment problems or environmental difficulties was
shown in a report by Russell (289:10-32).
The influence of glandular therapy on reading
achievement has been investigated in recent years. Eames
(407:263-266) reported a study comparing 875 reading
failures with 486 normal readers in which endocrine prob
lems were present in 2.6 per cent of poor readers and in
1.6 per cent of normal readers. He also made a clinical
study of 24 reading failures with endocrine dysfunction
and 100 reading failures without such glandular problems ,
concluding that the most common endocrine problem among
reading failures was hypothyroidism. Pupils in this
89
category exhibited about the same frequency of reversals
but more emotional difficulties than other disabled
readers. In a clinical study with therapy of 40 retarded
readers, Smith and Carrigan (79:90) concluded that synaptic
transmission and neural activity were related to endocrine
function, and that glandular therapy benefited cases of
severe reading disability. They contended that reading
problems which resist correction are probably functional
rather than structural in nature. Gray (426:207) reported
the Smith and Carrigan study in his review of research,
but cautioned that their proposals were hypothetical.
Harris (45:244) suggested that hypothyroidism, hyper
thyroidism and pituitary deficiency should be investigated
in pupils who are not achieving well in reading, stating
that the frequency of endocrine disorders in disabled
readers studied at his clinic has been greater than that
expected in a normal population. Brueckner and Bond
(7:97) believed that even though glandular disturbances
may be associated with poor reading, the evidence must be
interpreted with caution.
A recent area of investigation regarding achievement
in school has been that of the child's self-concept.
Tryon and Henry (301:156-182) proposed that the child's
concept of himself as developed from the generalizations
he has conceived in his developmental history will be
important in predetermining his chance of success or fail
ure in school work. A child who holds a failure concept
of himself is likely to expect failure when he tries to
read and will, therefore, be less likely to be successful,
while the reverse is also true, these authors asserted.
Bodwin (335-1645) found positive and significant relation
ships between immature self-concept and reading disability
significant at the one per cent level of confidence.
Mumpower (347:152) studied two groups of college students,
and found that students who achieve beyond expectancy have
higher concepts of themselves than students who are
achieving at expectancy. A doctoral study by McKillop
(277:48) at Columbia University concluded that the influ
ence of a pupil's attitude toward reading and toward the
material being read is a highly important factor influ
encing his development of reading skill. A child's
attitude toward his parents and teachers may cause him to
learn to read to please them or fail to learn to read to
punish them.
91
Several environmental influences have been studied
in relation to achievement in reading. Vernon (94:133-135)
described a study which concluded that children whose
parents were indifferent to school progress and whose
discipline was lax were retarded in reading by an average
of two years. He found that children whose parents were
demanding were also considerably retarded in reading, even
though the problem may have been aggravated rather than
caused by parental pressure. Ford (31:61) reported an
experiment which found statistically significant differ
ences in the achievement of pupils whose parents held
differing perceptions of future occupations. Over
achievers reported more punishments and scolding for poor
marks. Missildine (468:263-272) found that thirty children
diagnosed as disabled readers had mothers who were hostile,
markedly tense, over-indulgent or neglectful. Apparently
television viewing has little effect on reading achieve
ment, according to studies of Witty (535:450-456) and
Sekerak (351:230). Strang (86:168) found that comic book
readers are found among both gifted children and slow
learners. Sheldon and Carrillo (489:265) found that the
number of books in the home, the size of the family, the
92
educational level of the parents, and the child's attitude
toward school were significantly related to reading
achievement. Brown (336:273-317) concluded that a child's
achievement in school may be influenced by his inclusion
in a racial or ethnic minority group.
Brueckner and Bond (7:52-59) emphasized that certain
instructional factors may be at the root of many learning
confusions. They conjectured that an unfortunate trend in
curriculum development which assumes that a child can
learn the fundamental tool subjects as an incidental out
come of experiences designed to further social studies has
contributed to the high incidence of reading disability.
These authors listed faulty instruction as the most impor
tant of all causes of reading problems. A study by Mills
(344:247) emphasized the importance of adjusting method
ology to individual pupils. He found that for children of
low intelligence the kinesthetic method was best in the
greatest number of cases and was statistically more
effective than the phonic method. For the child with an
average IQ score a combination of audio-visual methods was
good and the kinesthetic method was least effective.
Children with high intelligence appeared to learn well,
93
regardless of the method of instruction. Bond and Tinker
(6:114-119) listed school administrative policies, lack of
reading readiness , lack of adjustment to individual dif
ferences and inappropriate teaching methods as causes of
poor achievement in reading.
Interaction of multiple characteristics and
influences. While most research studies are limited to
one or several aspects of the relationship between reading
achievement and individuals or groups , and while the
research is often contradictory regarding these specific
aspects of the problem, there is widespread agreement that
the entire physical, mental, emotional, environmental and
educational constellation of the child must be probed for
understanding of reading development. Harris (45:273-275)
concluded that most pupils who have problems in reading
have several handicaps and that dangers exist in biased
research studies which consider only one handicap. Bond
and Tinker (6:120) agreed that a single factor is seldom
the cause of a reading problem and that reading disability
is due to multiple causes which are usually complicated by
emotional involvement. Brueckner and Bond (7:58) empha
sized the complexity of the learning process , finding
94
therein many possible causes of problems associated with
reading development. Anderson and Dearborn (1:4-15) pro
posed that reading achievement is a function of the
organism as a whole. They accepted and elaborated upon
the theory credited to Olson and Hughes that "organismic
age" must be studied in order to assess the expected level
of achievement for the individual child. Organismic age
is a composite of weight, age, dental age, carpal age,
grip age, mental age and reading age.
Component Skills in Reading
Analysis of the component skills essential to suc
cessful reading has been offered by a number of investi
gators. Gray recently classified these skills as:
"Perceiving words , grasping meanings , reacting to what is
read, using or applying the ideas required" (41:64).
Harris (45:12, 13) analyzed skills necessary for three
types of reading--developmental, functional and recrea
tional. Hester (46:136-281) identified necessary skills
as those of learning new words, understanding what is read,
organizing and remembering what is read, locating informa
tion, evaluating critically what is read, and reading
aloud.
95
An indication of the number and variety of specific
reading skills is apparent when reading tests are analyzed,
Anderson and Dearborn (1:312-313) tabulated forty-eight
different reading skills in twenty-four standardized
reading tests.
A simple but inclusive list of component reading
skills was suggested by Piekarz:
1. Ability to recognize words.
A. At sight by configuration.
B. With the aid of picture clues.
C. With aid of context clues.
D. By analyzing phonetic elements.
2. Ability to associate appropriate meanings
with word forms.
3. Ability to grasp all the meanings of the
reading material.
4. Ability to read at a satisfactory speed.
5. Ability to read well orally.
A. To read in thought units.
B. To observe punctuation.
C. To read fluently, avoiding omissions,
insertions, and repetitions of words
and phrases. (284:89)
Five definitive factors were cited by Dolch (395:
200-203) as comprising reading ability. Sight vocabulary
was listed as the most important factor; the other factors
were sounding ability, meaning vocabulary, sentence
comprehension and larger unit comprehension.
96
Word recognition skills. In the earlier discussion
of vision and hearing, the importance of visual and audi
tory perception was discussed. Harris (45:384) declared
that a clear mental image is not formed if perception does
not take place, even though vision and hearing may be
perfect. Deficiencies in visual and auditory perception
or discrimination are almost universal among pupils who
have serious difficulty in mastering a sight vocabulary.
Perception was defined by Catterall and Weise (386:212-
219, 25) as an on-going process which uses past sensory
experiences as a foundation for integrating current
sensory input. Perception is usually selective according
to the individual's past experience and emotional need.
Perceptual processes of all senses are included in this
definition, and the ability to integrate these processes
is highly significant in building a self-concept of ade
quacy necessary to efficient learning and successful
reading. Buswell (386:108) also emphasized perception as
an element in reading:
The essential difference between knowing how to
read and how to understand oral speech is the
substitution of visual perception of printed
97
symbols for the auditory impression of the same
symbols when spoken.
Gray (426:83-85) observed that research and experience have
shown that efficient habits of word perception always
accompany thoughtful and fluent reading. He insisted that
a good reader perceives most words as wholes , usually in
phrases recognized instantly at sight. The goal of the
teacher is to establish these mature skills of word
perception.
Gray (41:65) also elaborated upon the development
of the skill of efficient word perception in his latest
book which reported a study of the teaching of reading
throughout the world. Since young children perceive
objects as wholes and with increasing detail, Gray recom
mended that words should be presented repeatedly to insure
recall. When a number of words have been learned as
wholes, the child is then given instruction in phonetic
and structural analysis. Gray stated that research
evidence supported the view that "guidance in word dis
crimination should be provided from the beginning with
increasing emphasis as the pupil advances on word attack
skills" (41:66).
98
Durrell (403:2-6) reported a study of more than
2,000 first grade pupils in which he found no basis for the
theory that a given number of words should be taught as
wholes before word analysis skills are begun. He recom
mended that early instruction in letter names and sounds
followed by phonetic analysis , and concurrent development
of sight vocabulary and comprehension would prevent most
reading difficulties from developing. Durrell (404:201-
208) also reported that the lack of ability to notice
separate sounds in spoken words was "almost universal" in
pupils referred to the reading clinic at Boston University.
While many of the pupils had been given phonic training in
reading, they had not noticed that spoken words contained
these same sounds. It was concluded that ability in
phonics is more closely related to successful reading and
spelling than are most other factors measured.
Inaccuracies of perception were studied by Vernon
(517:547-549), who reported that inaccuracies are a con
siderable handicap in learning to read, but that for most
children accurate perception occurs with maturity. For
pupils who have difficulty in learning to read, these
inaccuracies tend to persist. Research findings were also
99
cited by Vernon (518:2-13) which substantiated her belief
that reversals are simply immature evidences of perception
and tend to occur in many beginners. In the case of back
ward readers, however, these habits of perception persist
longer than in normal readers.
As a result of studies in the perception abilities
of first grade pupils, Goins (418:9-13) indicated that
first grade pupils who learned to read readily were those
who could hold in mind the entire configuration of a word
at the same time they worked with its parts. She con
cluded that several words should be taught to beginning
readers as wholes , but that attention should be called to
significant details and unusual features as well as to the
sequence of letters , since the relationship between the
parts and the whole is highly important for rapid and
accurate word recognition.
The importance of word recognition skills in the
elementary school was underlined by Roswell and Chall
(477:200-204) who offered a simplified table of the reading
levels at which these skills develop. According to this
table, auditory discrimination is emphasized at the
readiness level. During primer and first grade programs,
100
consonant sounds, word families, endings and simple com
pounds are taught by associating auditory and visual
processes. Consonant blends are begun at the end of first
grade; short vowel sounds and other common endings are
added during the first half of second grade. Before third
grade, long vowel sounds, the rule of the silent e, and
vowel combinations are usually emphasized. Syllabication
is begun in third grade in most basal reader programs.
The importance of building phonics skills was
stressed by Hildreth, who wrote that all good teachers
today give instruction on the structural and phonetic
relationships among words so that children can learn to
generalize about recurring sounds and parts in unknown
words. She pointed out that phonics is interwoven with
building sight vocabulary, and that the majority of the
20,000 to 25,000 sight words of the typical adult have been
learned by structural and phonetic analysis. She stated
that the phonics skill is not complete until one has the
mature ability "to identify the familiar sounds in new
words quickly with minimum vocalization, and to use partial
sounding deftly and swiftly in conjunction with context
clues" (435:29).
101
Evidence that teachers consider the phonics skill
highly important was gathered by Russell (482:371-375),
who questioned 220 experienced teachers and administrators
from thirty-three states. Only 2 per cent of the teachers
reported that they gave no attention to building phonics
skill; the majority believed that emphasis on phonics
should come in grades one, two and three; most teachers
felt that phonics should be integrated with the reading
lesson rather than being taught in a separate period.
Phonics was seen as one of several methods of word attack,
and word attack skills were conceptualized as one of the
important goals in developing successful readers. Purcell
(473:449-453) questioned 210 teachers concerning their
practices in teaching phonics. More than half of these
teachers from three eastern states reported that they had
a separate phonics period frequently, more than one fourth
always had a separate phonics period, and 22 per cent
never taught phonics in a separate period. However, more
than 80 per cent of these teachers included daily phonetic
drill as part of their reading programs , either in connec
tion with the basal series or in a separate period.
102
Dolch (24:180-184) emphasized the importance of the
"connective" or ''service” words which comprise more than
half of the words a pupil reads through the sixth grade.
He recommended extra practice with flash cards and games ,
so that pupils can recognize them instantly. He found
that all 220 words appear in basal readers during the
first two years; an average second grade child knows about
half of them; and an average third grade child can be
expected to know all of them by instantaneous "flash
recognition."
A study of more than 500 second grade pupils in
Boston was reported by Harrington (429:375-380), who
attempted to relate perceptual abilities and mental matu
rity. She found auditory and visual discrimination of
word elements to be highly important in successful primary
reading. Measures of phonics skill correlated higher with
reading achievement than any factor studied. She concluded
that specific instruction in phonics and in auditory and
visual perception of words is essential to successful
vocabulary building.
In a comprehensive survey, Brownell (378:195-216)
found that there was increasing emphasis on phonics
103
instruction with each subsequent grade level through the
third grade. He also found that teacher practices followed
supervisory policy regarding emphasis on phonics, and that
there was no relationship between the amount of phonics
taught and classification of teachers as progressive or
conservative.
In 1939 Agnew (310:70-81) compared results achieved
when pupils were given heavy phonetic training with results
where little phonetic training was given in the first
three grades. Agnew found that phonetic training in large
amounts increased independence in word recognition, and
improved pronunciation and the quality of oral reading.
He found no evidence that this training resulted in neglect
of context clues, or that it decreased content interest or
caused slow recognition. He found no evidence that the
phonetic training decreased silent reading efficiency.
In an attempt to measure relationships between
phonics ability and total reading ability, Tiffin and
McKinnis (513:190-192) studied 144 pupils in the fifth
through eighth grades. These pupils were tested on 100
nonsense words, the Iowa Silent Reading Test and the new
Stanford Reading Test. It was found that phonic ability
104
is significantly related to reading ability. The authors
concluded that any program of reading instruction which
does not build a mastery of phonics is inadequate.
An experiment in fourteen first grade classes in
Illinois was reported by Bear (364:394-403). Seven classes
were taught by an analytic or whole word phonic method and
seven classes were taught by a synthetic method. The same
basal reading series was used in both classes, except for
phonics instruction. Each classroom gave 150 minutes each
day to instruction in reading. Bear found that pupils
whose IQ scores were above 120 were not affected by dif
ferences in method; those between 101 and 120 benefited
more from the synthetic phonics program; and those below
101 also achieved better results with the synthetic method
but results were not conclusive. Results of this study
were favorable to the synthetic method of teaching phonics
when this was done in addition to a good basal reader
program.
Henderson (263:2-14) reported results of a three-
year study to test the effectiveness of the method proposed
in Phonetic Keys to Reading. Experimental and control
groups were set up and tests were administered each year.
105
Henderson concluded that the experimental group using the
material being evaluated excelled in reading achievement.
A difference significant at the one per cent level of con
fidence was found on all tests , and at the five per cent
level on all sections of all tests given to third graders.
Sparks and Fay (50:386-390) also planned an experiment to
investigate the Phonetic Keys to Reading results as com
pared with results in classes using a basic reading program.
This experiment was continued during first, second and
third grades for the chosen schools. Tests given at the
end of the fourth grade showed that neither method favored
the boys , but that girls who had been taught by the basic
reading method were slightly higher in reading achievement.
Barlow (363) analyzed 37,000 test scores from four
teen tests administered over a period of three years of an
experimental program using Phonetic Keys to Reading. It
was reported that pupils using these materials surpassed
the control groups. Less than 28 per cent of the experi
mental group ranked below the national norm, while almost
48 per cent of the control group were below the norm. More
than 87 per cent of parents who responded to a question
naire reacted in favor of the phonetic approach. Kelly
106
(445:465-471) studied 100 sets of children paired by mental
age, and found that those who had been taught by the
Phonetic Keys to Reading method tested significantly higher
in reading at the end of second grade than those who had
been taught by the basal reader method.
Smith (496:440-446) reported the results of a Sexton
and Herron experiment with almost 1,000 first grade pupils.
Certain groups were taught phonics, others were not.
Sexton and Herron found less difference at the end of the
second grade between phonic and non-phonic groups than
between groups with different teachers. It was concluded
that phonic skills were learned best by pupils who had
good teachers.
Research in phonics from 1930 through 1944 was
reviewed by Burrows (242:10-15). Among the principal
findings of sixteen studies were the following:
1. Children having superior mental ages may
not acquire usable phonetic ability, but
those in primary grades who have low
mental ages are sure to fail to acquire
phonic skills.
2. Children who received heavy phonetic
training excelled in word pronunciation,
vocabulary and in oral reading, but were
comparable to others in silent reading
tests.
107
3. Children who have had training in phonics
have some advantage in spelling. Those
with less phonetic instruction lost less
reading skill over long vacations.
4. First grade pupils who received a fifteen
minute daily drill in phonics increased
word recognition faster than a similar
group who had no phonetic drill, but had
no advantage in paragraph reading.
5. Incidental phonic methods were judged
superior to non-phonic methods for first
and second graders in one experiment.
6. A nonsense word test of pronunciation
pointed to significant relationship
between phonics ability and general
reading ability for pupils in grades
five through eight. A study of elemen
tary and high school pupils revealed an
inability to use diacritical markings
in pronouncing nonsense words.
Mills (467:221-226) studied methods of building
word recognition skills , and found that children learn to
recognize words efficiently by different methods. In many
cases a diagnostic study of the child will reveal the most
appropriate method of building word recognition skills.
Mills reported that the phonic method was least effective
for the low intelligence group and that the kinesthetic
method was slightly better than the visual and combination
methods with these pupils. Pupils of average intelligence
profited most by the visual and combination methods , while
108
the kinesthetic method was least effective and the phonic
method showed no significant difference. Pupils of high
intelligence tended to learn words readily, regardless of
the method used, but the visual method appeared to be most
effective for this group. A similar experiment was
reported by Rivkind (350:1620), who also found that no
single method showed marked superiority over any other in
building skill for all children in the study, although
each of the four methods tested was effective with certain
children.
A study using nonsense words was reported by
Rudisill (478:264-267) who attempted to obtain a phonics
skill evaluation which would not be affected by the known
sight vocabulary of the child. He concluded that common
factors between reading, spelling and phonic knowledge
were independent of intelligence, and that these factors
resulted from specific training in skills.
An experiment was reported by Spache (499:18-26),
who found almost no statistical relationship between the
ability to cite rules of syllabication and the ability to
use syllabication skill in reading.
109
Correlations of the Roswell-Chall Diagnostic Read
ing Test of Word Analysis Skills with standardized silent
and oral reading tests and with spelling test scores led to
statements made by Chall (387:179-184) that both reading
and spelling success are significantly related to knowledge
of basic word analysis skills.
A study in Sweden which appeared to demonstrate the
advantage of phonics in teaching first graders to read was
reported by Malmquist (275:33-38). In this study, syn
thetic and analytic methods were used in a co-twin
experiment. The synthetic method which isolated phonetic
sounds was found superior to the analytic method with
children of lower ability.
One of the difficulties in building phonics skills
was explained by Kirk (448:266-269), who found that 13
per cent of the words in the English language are non-
phonetic or cannot be sounded in terms of consistent rules.
Examples are "was," "done," "come" and other common words
in beginning reading. Kirk concluded that the beginner
will meet one or two of these non-phonetic words in each
sentence. Horn (436:424-432) also cited the unpredict
ability of letters and their sounds in reporting an
110
experiment with 195 first and second grade pupils who had
been given phonics instruction as a means of learning
beginning reading. Among these pupils the word "circus"
was spelled 148 ways and the word "tease" was given 44
different spellings. Horn studied the 10,000 words in the
list comprising 99 per cent of running words written by
adults , and found that the sound of long a is spelled in
14 different ways , the sound of long e in 14 ways, the
sound of long o in 15 ways and the sound of u as in "rule"
is spelled in 16 different ways. Other vowel and consonant
sounds and spellings were compared, and Horn concluded that
he found little justification for the claim that pupils can
deduce correctly the spelling of most words they can pro
nounce and understand. Horn inspected several thousand
words in A Pronouncing Dictionary of American English and
found that at least one third of the words had more than
one accepted pronunciation.
A recent study completed at the University of
California regarding parent opinion regarding the value of
specific reading skills was reported by Pressnall (470:
29-33); 81 per cent of the parents wanted greater emphasis
on phonics; 91 per cent felt that the alphabet should be
Ill
learned at or near the first grade level; and 39 per cent
believed that not enough attention was being given to com
prehension skills in reading.
Conclusions of reading specialists during the past
decade appear to differ not as to whether phonics should
be taught as one method of building word recognition
skills, b\it as to when and how. Hildreth (433:436-441)
stated that the process of learning phonics skills requires
several years and that there is inconclusive evidence of
the efficiency of the analytic or synthetic methods.
Morrone (345:2030) searched through 198 research studies
on phonics and concluded that, while there is a significant
correlation between phonics ability and reading achieve
ment, there is no conclusive evidence regarding the
specific method or optimum mental age for teaching steps
in phonics. Betts (236:1-4) pointed out that many deaf
children become excellent readers with almost no help on
phonics , and that exceptionally bright pupils who learn to
read at three or four years of age commonly have no
instruction in phonics skills. Betts also studied rela
tionships between reading achievement and phonics skills
and concluded that poor readers are less able to apply
112
phonic skills Chan are good readers and that overemphasis
on phonics results in lower pupil scores on comprehension
tests. Smith (496:440-446) searched the studies on phonics
and concluded that it would be a mistake to assume that
all pupils need instruction in phonics. She believed
phonics instruction to be most valuable at second and
third grade levels, that configuration and context clues
should be included with phonics , and that more attention
to visual and auditory discrimination should be given in
teaching all types of word recognition skills. In December
1959, Traxler (515:91) brought up to date his synthesis of
recent research on phonics. The implications of recent
studies are that systematic phonics instruction is neces
sary but that no one system is most successful. Needs of
pupils for instruction in phonics skills vary widely and
methods and materials should be related to these needs ,
Traxler concluded.
Comprehension and study skills. While a wealth of
research studies are related directly to word recognition
skills , literature on comprehension and study skills tends
to be opinion rather than research, except for research
113
gathered by publishers of tests (reviewed in a later
section).
Comprehension was described by Russell as "largely
a central process , or an activity of the brain closely
related to intelligence or mental maturity" (75:80).
Comprehension involves more than recognition of words and
phrases--includes understanding of the meaning intended by
the author. Burton (10:311) emphasized that it took many
years to break down the idea that reading and word recogni
tion were synonymous. "The real purpose of reading is
functional comprehension for the guidance of behavior,"
Burton declared. A 1917 study by Edward Thorndike,
"Reading as Reasoning," is said to have exerted a lasting
influence in its emphasis on comprehension. Thorndike
took issue with the prevailing opinion that reading was
a simple compounding of habits. He wrote:
Reading is a very elaborate procedure involving a
weighing of each of many elements in a sentence,
their organization, the proper relation to one
another, the selection of certain of their con
notations and the rejection of others, and the
cooperation of many forces to determine final
response. (511:138)
Most professional texts for teachers of reading
include lists of specific comprehension skills. While the
114
lists differ in minor respects , they tend to agree on
generalized points except that items listed as "compre
hension skills" in one text may be included under "study
skills" in another. Burton's (10:313) list of compre
hension skills included developing skill in word recogni
tion and analysis as well as a great number of study
skills. Hester listed the following comprehension skills:
Relating the ideas read to previous experience.
Reading to get the main idea of a sentence,
paragraph or story.
Reading to select important details.
Reading between the lines , to draw inferences
correctly and to anticipate meaning.
Reading to follow printed directions.
Reading to gain visual images from the material.
Reading for sequential order.
Recognizing various types of material and under
standing the purpose for which material is
read. (46:195)
Five major categories of comprehension ability were
suggested by Brueckner and Bond (7:172-173): (1) reading
to retain information, (2) reading to organize information,
(3) reading to evaluate, (4) reading to interpret, and
(5) reading for appreciation.
115
The comprehension skills described by Dawson and
Bamman (20:177-187) included (1) getting the main idea,
(2) reading to note relevant details, (3) reading to pre
dict outcomes of solutions , (4) reading to follow direc
tions, (5) reading to establish sequence, (6) reading to
gain visual images, and (7) reading to discover the
author's organization.
The relation of reading rate and comprehension was
studied by Tinker (91:177), who reviewed a number of
studies, including some of his own; and concluded that
differing findings may be based upon content of selections ,
nature of required response and the difficulty of the
material. However, a significant relationship between
good comprehension and fast rate appeared to be established.
Sekerak (351) attempted to find relationships
between comprehension, intelligence and time spent with
television and radio. He found no justification for the
assumption that poor reading comprehension correlates with
time spent watching television or listening to the radio.
Sochor (497:47-58) described the reading task as a
reconstruction of the author's ideas. However, the literal
meaning of the author may be understood by a pupil whose
116
comprehension abilities do not include critical reading,
or evaluation of the content. Sochor listed complexities
of word factors, verbal factors and abstract reasoning as
related to comprehension in reading.
Certain basal reading skills are prerequisite to
successful learning in the content subjects, according to
Gates (253:3-11), who considered every teacher of every
subject to be a teacher of reading in the true sense of
the word. He stated that content subjects are often loaded
with technical expressions which are not fully explained,
and the student must learn skills to cope with this kind
of problem. Wulfing listed thirty specific skills neces
sary for efficient study, grouping them under seven major
headings (307:4-5): (1) ability to define a specific pur
pose for reading, (2) skill in locating information,
(3) ability to select and evaluate information, (4) ability
to adjust method of reading to purpose and nature of the
material, (5) ability to comprehend what is read, (6) skill
in using information, and (7) ability to remember what is
read.
The high specialization of mathematical reading was
pointed out by Clark (247:77-84) who asserted that pupils
117
require a discussion type of teaching which will build and
enlarge concepts and generalizations.
Russell (75:305-326) described creative reading
abilities necessary in analyzing, associating, organizing
and using what is read. This assumes critical thinking
while reading, and these processes should be begun in an
elementary form in the primary grades. Certain steps must
be followed: (1) finding the facts, (2) filtering out
unproved facts, (3) organizing the accepted facts,
(4) evaluating conclusions, (5) accepting a solution, and
(6) acting upon the solution.
The conclusion that fast readers are good readers
was criticized by Traxler (299:5-14). Recent studies have
indicated that when comprehension and reading rate are
independent factors, a correlation as low as .30 usually
results. There is no evidence that increase in rate brings
an increase in comprehension, although this improvement
may occur in individual cases.
Roswell and Chall (477:200-204) emphasized that at
the elementary level, most poor readers' comprehension
*
problems stem directly from word recognition weaknesses.
If the teacher should make the mistake of emphasizing the
118
understanding of simple stories, he may confirm the child's
suspicions that he is dull.
Critical reading or evaluation is often cited as
one of the important skills in comprehension. A recent
study of eighty texts included in ten basic reading series
was reported by Williams (529:327), who analyzed the read
ers and the recommended programs to assess specific pro
posals and material for developing critical reading.
Critical reading was defined as "intelligent reading
directed toward the learning purposes of the individual
child." Williams found 33 critical reading skills in 186
thinking-reading abilities in the ten series analyzed.
Only three of the 33 skills were listed in all ten sets of
basic readers. She found disagreement among educators
regarding which critical reading skills should be taught
at the elementary school level; and concluded that some of
the skills were neglected or treated lightly in a number
of the series.
Rate and efficiency of habits in reading. Rate of
reading is often discussed as related to comprehension on
the one hand and eye movement studies on the other. Dodge
invented the original camera for photographing eye
119
movements, Harris (45:510-517) reported. While eye move
ments were studied as early as 1878 , most research involv
ing efficient reading habits , rate and comprehension has
taken place in the present century. Early studies reported
that when letters were presented in meaningless order, the
average span of recognition was about ten letters, whereas
in word combinations, span of recognition might be as high
as thirty letters.
As early as 1913 Huey had begun eye movement
studies, and similar research is under way today. Judd
and Buswell (320:27-33) reported that increased difficulty
of material caused more fixations per line, longer fix
ations, less words per fixation, and slower rate with
difficult materials. Morse (326:33-38) studied fifth and
seventh grade subjects, but found no consistent variation
as difficulty increased. Morse reported that individual
differences in rate were far more significant than differ
ences which occurred as a result of increasing difficulty
in material.
Typical of many studies recently reported is that
of Marvel (459:232-237), who experimented with four groups
of high school students. He found that tachistoscopic
120
training was less important in increasing rate of reading
than verbal motivation by the teacher. Marvel recommended
that classroom teachers improve reading rate among pupils
by increasing motivation enabling pupils to set faster
goals for themselves.
In a recent discussion of the importance of rate,
Buswell (379:113-114) stated that the average reading rate
at the end of elementary school is 250 words per minute,
and that the average college student has improved his speed
by only 50 words per minute. He concluded that when
increase in reading rate is achieved, the change comes in
the span of recognition rather than in the duration of
fixations. He stated that there is no support for the
statement that the slow reader has superior comprehension.
Buswell found evidence in several studies that rate of
reading may be forced as much as 300 words per minute
without lowering comprehension.
On a study calculated on the basis of ten-word
lines, Walton (520:1-10) found that the number and duration
of fixations determined speed. He calculated that the
maximum possible speed anyone can read is 1,451 words per
minute, and that those who report rates above that figure
121
are skimming.
As a result of the emphasis on reading rate early
in the present century, a number of mechanical devices
designed to improve reading speed were introduced.
Westover (305:186-190) has reviewed the research related
to the efficiency of these devices. He found that, while
claims of reading improvement as a result of these mechan
ical devices are generally upheld, reading is also improved
by practice on other materials. He found no advantage to
be attributed to mechanical devices over motivated prac
tice. Spache (295:190-194) cautioned that only certain
types of readers should attempt to improve reading rate by
use of mechanical devices. Those who might benefit include
the reader who scores high in comprehension but low in
rate and those whose reading scores are lowered when tests
are timed. Spache wrote that he did not believe that
increased speed was dependent upon training students to
see more at a fixation, but was dependent upon accurate
visual discrimination of words and word groups.
Tinker (91:15, 177) believed that rate of reading
should vary according to the nature, difficulty and purpose
of the reading. He stated that experimental evidence has
122
shown that devices for reading improvement are not neces
sary, but that we11-motivated reading achieves an equal
improvement. Good and poor eye movements are symptoms,
not causes, of good and poor reading, Tinker found.
Traxler (514:92) found that few studies of eye movements
have been reported recently, in contrast to many reports
made early in the century. Evidence has been added by
recent studies that reading rate depends more upon general
vocabulary, ability to organize and concept formation than
upon trainable perceptual factors.
Gray (41:43-60) found in studying processes of read
ing throughout the world, that all mature readers read
faster silently than orally and that there are great
individual variations in speed between individuals reading
all languages. This world-wide study served to give
further evidence to his findings reported thirty-four years
previously (258:134) that, while some good readers read
slowly and some rapid readers have poor comprehension, in
general, good quality and rapid rate go hand in hand, as
do poor comprehension and slow reading.
Oral reading. The emphasis given to oral reading
during the elementary school years has differed throughout
123
the history of reading instruction in American schools.
Artley (233:105-107) described the period up to 1900 as
invariably stressing oral reading as a means of instruc
tion. Swarts (402:113-123) found that because of its
importance in daily life, oral reading had been considered
indispensible in preparation for adult life. In an 1898
text called How to Teach Reading in the Public Schools ,
Clark (13:7-15) contrasted two leading methods of teaching
reading, that which emphasizes the mechanics of vocal
expression and that which emphasizes reading for thought.
Clark criticized the mechanical method as dry and tech
nical, and praised the thought-getting method as desirable
but often unsuccessful because finer shades of meaning
escaped the reader. In spite of his criticism of pedagogy
which stressed mechanics, Clark's chapters have such titles
as "The Criterion of Pitch" and "Grouping," the latter
referring to a mental technique of grouping words. As
late as 1914, a text by Klapper (56:1-15) listed "proper
vocalization” as one of the three primary elements in
reading. The author discussed oral reading processes in
relation to recent studies of eye movements.
124
Artley (233:105-107) found that by 1918, in response
to the findings of research, the pedagogical cycle had
begun to change in favor of silent reading and emphasis
upon meaning. By 1925, according to Swarts (297:113-123),
the main emphasis in most American schools was on silent
reading. Both Artley and Swarts reported that this trend
continued until the mid-thirties , when a revival of
interest in oral reading took place.
An appraisal of oral reading by Horn and Curtis
(267:254-265) in 1949 crystallized the growing opposition
to the proposals of those who insisted that oral reading
should be de-emphasized. Horn listed several reasons why
oral reading was the best and most natural approach to
beginning reading:
1. Oral language is basic to written language.
2. The pupil comes to school with a relatively
large speaking and hearing vocabulary.
3. Oral reading facilitates the association of
meanings and symbols.
4. It aids in establishing and improving the
basic habits common to both oral and
silent reading. (267:256)
Burton (10:347-359) described the modern use of
oral reading in the classroom as a subsidiary aid to the
teacher in assisting pupils to learn to read, and as a
means of providing information or pleasure to others.
Burton emphasized the importance of the direct relationship
between oral reading and personality development. Dolch
(25:120-123) considered oral reading essential to the
teacher in making certain that the child is correctly
matching the sound and sight of words. Betts (2:499-500)
declared that all systems of reading today require that
silent reading precede oral reading, except for testing
purposes. Russell (75:89-93) pointed out that oral and
silent reading differ in that in oral reading speed
becomes undesirable beyond a rate of about 150 words per
minute. Oral reading also has more regressions and longer
fixation points than silent reading. Russell described
such oral reading skill components as accurate pronunci
ation, efficient use of punctuation, good phrasing and the
ability to vary the voice to indicate meaning.
Hildreth (47:292-301) contrasted oral reading
practice and audience reading as two uses of reading aloud.
She stated that she had found in an earlier study that
almost half of the reading time in the primary grades is
devoted to oral reading, and recommended oral reading in
126
the early school years because when pupils are forced to
read every word, carelessness can be detected and corrected
by the teacher.
As a result of an experimental study with older
pupils, Edwards (409:36-41) asserted that oral reading in
the early grades has value in teaching word recognition and
that lip movement during silent reading should be allowed
to continue until word recognition techniques have been
well established. Edwards discovered that older students
were able to learn nonsense syllables most efficiently
when they could both see and hear the material during the
learning period.
Anderson and Dearborn (1:152-175) demonstrated
experimentally that the rate of articulation increases
until about the fourth grade, and then levels off. During
the primary years the child's reading rate increases;
then, at about the fourth grade in most cases, silent
reading rate exceeds oral reading rate. Beyond that time,
these authors recommended less time needs to be devoted to
oral reading.
Asserting that oral reading is more complex than
silent, Worthington (306:1-8) described needs of children
127
that make necessary skillful oral reading:
1. To share scarce materials.
2. To broaden interests.
3. To carry on classroom or school affairs.
4. To settle an argument.
5. To entertain.
6. To enhance appreciation of selections.
7. To develop tastes for material of high
literary quality.
8. To meet the needs of certain children
for approval, worthy group membership,
or sense of personal worth. (306:2)
Interrelationships of reading skills. The inter
relationships of component reading skills was emphasized
by Kirk (448:266-269), who likened learning to read to
learning to swim. In the first stage of learning to swim,
the body responds as a unit, while later the swimmer dif
ferentiates movements and practices specific needs; in a
third stage the swimmer must learn to coordinate the move
ments into a smoothly operating process. In reading, Kirk
stated, the child appears to respond to whole words or
even groups of words; this is described as the first stage
in building skills. In the second stage, the child is
128
ready for differentiation and at this stage word analysis
is a systematic method of giving attention to the structure
of words. But in the third stage, the individual learns to
short-circuit individual learnings and, in many cases, to
use word attack skills automatically and almost uncon
sciously. Thus, in the mature reader, the skills are
interwoven and interrelated and difficult to differentiate.
A study of specific reading skills of third and
fifth grade pupils was reported by Woestehoff (355:2553),
who concluded that a given level of general reading ability
is accompanied by competency levels in specific component
skills.
Gray (319:132-135) pointed out that, while reading
is a single process, four different steps can be distin
guished: (1) word perception, (2) comprehension,
(3) reaction, and (4) integration.
Each succeeding step in reading is dependent upon
the preceding ones. We can comprehend meaning
only if we accurately perceive the abstract sym
bols that represent that meaning. (319:134)
Summary of Studies and Opinions
Research appears to substantiate the belief that
less intelligent pupils learn to read later and need more
129
repetitions of vocabulary than do more intelligent pupils.
It is probable that intelligence level is highly important
in the beginning stages of reading, for mental age seems
to be more significant than chronological age at that time.
However, it has been conclusively shown that a high intel
ligence score is no guarantee of success in reading. Con
flicting evidence regarding the relationship of sex to
reading achievement has been presented. A prevailing
opinion corroborated by a number of research studies--that
girls achieve better reading skills at an earlier age--has
been challenged in a recent extensive study. However,
reading clinics report a significantly higher incidence of
boys among severely disabled readers. Since visual handi
caps increase steadily during the elementary school years ,
a number of studies have investigated the relationships
between vision and reading achievement, but it has been
concluded that moderate refractive errors do not usually
handicap reading. The perceptual qualities of vision have
been studied in relation to the training of eye movements ,
but conclusions regarding the value of mechanical devices
have been contradictory. Several hundred thousand children
in the nation suffer from visual, hearing and speech
130
handicaps; but it has been repeatedly stressed that indi
vidual compensations for these impairments may be more
significant than the degree of abnormality. In these
sensory areas, precise discrimination may be more important
than structural perfection. Emotional involvements associ
ated with sensory imperfections may also be more signifi
cant than the imperfections. Research in the areas of
brain injury and lateral dominance is still inconclusive,
but is increasingly being studied. Emotional involvement
is variously estimated as contributory to the problem in
from zero to 90 per cent of poor readers. New research in
glandular therapy points toward an opening field of inves
tigation into endocrine involvement in good and poor read
ing. Parental and peer influences, racial and ethnic
environmental factors , and faulty instructional practices
have all been cited as significant in the developmental
reading progress of the child. However, there is wide
spread agreement that progress in reading is related to an
interacting constellation of factors , operating uniquely
in each individual child.
Component abilities within the reading process have
been studied individually, but most attention has been
131
given to word recognition. It has been found that more
than 90 per cent of today's teachers give instruction in
word analysis skills. In a number of studies, phonics
skill has been found to be highly correlated with success
ful reading. The area of disagreement at present appears
to be not whether to teach phonics , but how and when to do
it. One study showed increasing emphasis upon time spent
on phonics in the first three grades, followed by a
decrease in emphasis in later grades. Intelligence level
of the pupil has been asserted to be important in effective
use of varying methods of teaching. It has been discovered
that poor readers are unable to apply phonics skills which
they can describe.
One of the earliest areas of research in reading
was that of rate, an area in which fewer studies have
appeared in recent years. The average rate for pupils at
the end of elementary school was found to be about 250
words per minute. College students were found to improve
their reading rate by an average of only 50 words per
minute. It is now recommended that rate should vary
according to the nature, difficulty and purpose of the
reading material. Poor eye movements are now held to be
132
symptoms, not causes, of inadequate reading. Studies have
shown that all over the world mature readers read faster
silently than they do orally, and that good quality and
rapid rate usually are combined. The pendulum has swung
from primary emphasis upon oral reading in the direction
of emphasis on non-oral reading, and now appears to be at
a mid-point where two uses of oral reading in the elemen
tary school are recommended, i.e., (1) oral reading for
practice and teacher help, and (2) oral reading for
audience enjoyment. Recent research has reported that,
for the average pupil, rate of silent reading begins to
surpass rate of oral reading in early fourth grade. Many
opinions have been offered regarding the importance of
comprehension and study skills, but few quantitative
studies have assessed these skills. Again, it is conceded
that the component skills in reading are interwoven and
difficult to differentiate, and that a given level of gen
eral reading ability is usually accompanied by a variety
of competency levels in specific reading skills.
III. DIAGNOSIS OF READING LEVEL
In order that the pupil's level of reading ability
and the level of difficulty of the reading text may be
133
matched, it must be possible to determine both levels.
Developments in appraising readability of texts have been
reviewed, and complexities inherent in judging each indi
vidual child's reading ability and in analyzing the com
ponent skills within the reading process were reviewed in
the previous section. Recommendations and research
related to the evaluation of reading skills are reviewed
in the following pages.
Some measure of appraisal of individual differences
in reading has undoubtedly been made since the earliest
days of written communication. According to Thorndike
and Hagen (90:1-15), teachers have always attempted to
evaluate responses of their pupils. However, prior to
the present century, this type of evaluation was primarily
subjective. Hildreth (48:158) pointed out that a century
ago Horace Mann gave informal tests to pupils when he asked
them to read his newspaper. His appraisal of their per
formances was necessarily subjective, being performed in
the accepted manner of the century. The first examina
tions in this country were held in Boston in 1845 , accord
ing to Greene, Jorgensen and Gerberich (43:20-24). Mann
defended these examinations as superior to the former oral
134
quiz because they were more impartial, just, thorough and
more easily judged. The foundation of objective measure
ment in education cam? in 1894 with the comparative test
developed by J. M. Rice. The first standardized achieve
ment test appeared in 1908. However, a text written by
Klapper (56) in 1914, for elementary school teachers, made
no mention of any appraisal of reading skill except cor
rections for oral reading. Wheat (96) included both
informal and standardized tests in his 1923 text.
The importance and complexity of reading appraisal
was recently pointed out by Tinker (91:283-317), who
emphasized that evaluation must be a continuing process.
Day-by-day appraisal through careful observation of per
formance, teacher-made tests, and standardized tests are
all essential for a comprehensive picture of reading
ability, Tinker asserted.
The importance and purposes of appraising reading
skills was analyzed by Dawson and Bamman (20:262):
1. To assess the needs of children in terms
of the various reading skills.
2. To determine the nature of instruction in
order to meet the goals of each content
area of the curriculum.
135
3. To assess the level of reading competency
of each child in order to predict his
success in reading at more advanced
levels.
4. To test the effectiveness of instruction.
5. To determine the need for materials of
instruction.
6. To aid the child's personal growth of
interests , attitudes, and tastes in
reading.
Informal Appraisal of Reading Skills
As pointed out above, early appraisals of reading
skills were highly subjective and were usually related to
oral reading. By 1920, classifications of errors of oral
and silent reading had appeared. Wheat (96:308-312) listed
typical errors for teacher checking that included most of
those penalized on today's reading tests. For example,
his list of errors in oral reading included repetitions ,
insertions, omissions, substitutions and mispronunciations.
An entire chapter was given over to informal reading tests
in the 1930 text by Storm and Smith (85:291-320). Various
kinds of informal tests were described, including interview
tests, vocabulary tests, tests of ability to follow direc
tions, establish sequence, grasp meanings and other
comprehension skills.
136
In 1927 Gray and Zirbes (317:197-217) devoted a
chapter to diagnostic testing, suggesting that informal
testing make use of words from basic readers, and that,
even in first grade, a chart be kept of reading rate. A
test based on selections from the Bobbs-Merrill Primer was
used as an illustration. The test was in the nature of
directions to the pupils which could be followed by point
ing to answers in the book. The national committee which
compiled the Twenty-Fourth Yearbook of the National Society
for the Study of Education (234:233-274) also listed
informal tests which would be helpful for teacher appraisal
of reading skills. These tests were also in the nature of
directions to be answered by pointing, giving a simple
yes or no answer, or checking the correct answer. No tests
of oral reading were included, although reference was made
to Gray's Oral Reading Paragraphs Test.
In 1936 Betts (4:223) described the need for
teacher-made word-recognition tests, and declared that, if
a child cannot recognize the words, he cannot read. He
warned that some children are excellent word-callers but
poor readers. Betts suggested that on each level to be
tested, a sample of ten to twenty-five words is needed.
137
When this list is used as an individual test, Betts recom
mended that both flash and untimed scores should be
tabulated.
In 1948 McKee (60:129) suggested a program of
appraising pupils1 reading levels, using one or more
standardized tests together with informal tests to appraise
skills needed in study. He also suggested (1) oral reading
of materials of various levels of difficulty, (2) study of
pupil records, and (3) informal talks with the pupil to
learn his interests, experience and voluntary reading.
Probably the best-known type of informal inventory
of reading skills is the Betts Informal Reading Inventory,
because of its wide usage as recommended in the many
editions of his text, Foundations of Reading Instruction.
Betts (2:438-487) cited criteria of 93 to 98 per cent
accuracy and at least 75 per cent comprehension for the
instructional level. Levels of independence, frustration
and capacity are also described. (Details of the admini
stration and scoring of this inventory are presented in
Chapter III of the present study, since its administration
was part of the procedure.) A 1942 doctoral study was
quoted by Betts as substantiating his proposals for the
138
Informal Reading Inventory. Killgallon had found that
standardized tests of reading achievement averaged a grade
above the instructional level as estimated on these
criteria. The instructional level was estimated at two
grades above the basal level in this study. Most of the
difficulties at the instructional level were word-
perception errors. Betts asserted, "Effective instruction
begins where the learner is" (5:8), and based his proposals
for determining independent, instructional, frustration
and capacity levels on this fundamental tenet.
If the teacher is not to teach the same thing
at the bottom of the class that she teaches at
the top of the class , then she must first acquire
techniques for sorting out her instructional
problems. . . . While research has validated most
of the items included in the criteria for apprais
ing reading performance by means of an informal
reading inventory, total criteria for this purpose
are in need of further study. (2:438, 439)
The growing use of informal reading inventories was
given by Smith (79:vi-xii) as the reason for a recent text
developed by the Reading Institute at New York University.
Graded Selections for Informal Reading Diagnosis was
formulated in order to make a "functional inventory" of
pupils' instructional levels in reading, according to
Smith. A set of literal comprehension questions and a set
139
of interpretation questions accompanies each graded selec
tion from the "Learning to Read" series of readers. The
pupil is expected to read at sight, without study. Smith
mentioned as errors only mispronunciation or unrecognized
words. The instructional level was interpreted as that at
which pupils' scores were approximately 85 to 90 per cent
in comprehension, 70 to 75 per cent in interpretation, and
80 to 85 per cent in pronunciation. It will be noted
that Smith permitted from ten to fifteen more errors in
pronunciation on the instructional level than was permitted
by the Betts proposal on the same level.
Other proposals have been made for the administra
tion and evaluation of informal reading inventories.
Wheeler and Smith (524:224-227) concurred with Killgallon's
results in their finding that pupils who cannot success
fully read a primer scored above second grade on some
standardized silent reading tests. They reported that at
the University of Miami Reading Clinic a modification of
the Betts inventory was used. In this inventory errors
are identified as mispronunciations , omissions, substitu
tions , hesitancies of more than three seconds , distortions,
and word assists by the teacher. Incorrectly called
140
proper names are not counted as errors. The teaching level
was recommended as that where the pupil knew at least 95
per cent of the words and understood at least 75 per cent
of the main ideas. When a child recognized less than 95
per cent of the vocabulary, he was reading at a frustration
level, according to this analysis. The independent or free
reading level in the Miami inventory was placed at knowl
edge of 98 per cent or more of the vocabulary, no mention
being made of capacity level.
The use of the informal reading inventory suggested
by Betts should be supplemented by workbook tests and
teacher-made tests for a complete appraisal, according to
Tinker (91:287-290). Hildreth (47:468) added to teacher
observation, basal reader inventories and standardized
tests, the reports and records kept by pupils through the
year. Informal appraisal of reading skill is not complete
without some measure of pupil interest and industry,
Hildreth proposed. Her estimation of the instructional
level also differs from those described above.
Starting with a book a little below the pupil's
estimated level, the pupil is asked to try out
selections in different parts of the book. As
the pupil reads orally, note errors and make
observations of his behavior. If the pupil
141
misses more than five or six words in 100, and
shows less than 80 to 85 per cent comprehension,
the book is probably too difficult for him to
read independently. (47:378)
Hester (46:384-391) listed teacher observation, check
lists of errors and weaknesses, anecdotal records, interest
inventories and self-appraisal records of pupils as essen
tial to a good appraisal of reading. Burton (10:449-504)
added informal analysis of personality traits and patterns
of behavior to other means of informal appraisal of
reading.
A proposal that potential for growth in reading
comprehension is best measured by ''estimating the highest
level at which the individual can show adequate compre
hension when standardized paragraphs are read to him" was
made by Spache (499:22) at the University of Florida
Reading Clinic. He would disregard mental age as an
estimate of potential reading capacity, since studies have
shown that many pupils far exceed measured mental age,
while others fail to reach this predicted level in spite
of excellent instruction.
A study completed at Illinois State Normal Univer
sity regarding the interrelationships between tactile-
kinesthetic remedial techniques and reading development
142
was reported by Serra (486:456-463). An informal reading
inventory was found to be one of the most effective means
of estimating materials when used with remedial pupils
because standardized test results sometimes rate pupils
from one to four grade levels above actual achievement.
Witty (532:21-26) also considered the child's
ability to read and comprehend selections of assorted
subjects selected from books on several levels of dif
ficulty to be an important measure of reading analysis.
He would include information pertaining to personal life
and to the social experiences of pupils in appraising
individual reading levels.
Informal appraisal of reading skills should include
the areas of listening, speaking, oral and silent reading,
according to proposals made by Sheldon (291:25-33). He
suggested word analysis from a check list compiled from
lists given in standardized tests. He also suggested use
of Betts' proposals in devising an informal reading inven
tory of the type included in materials prepared for the
Sheldon readers.
In 1950 Dolch (400:124-125, 165) suggested a simple
informal method of testing reading with whatever book may
143
be at hand. The method was proposed for guidance inter
views with the pupil, as well as for teacher appraisal.
The teacher was instructed to hand the pupil a book nor
mally seen in the classroom so that the pupil would not be
aware that a test was being administered. Dolch identified
four steps in this informal procedure (400:165):
1. Discovering whether such common words as
"because1 1 are familiar to the pupil, and quickly
supplying any unknown words. (If the pupil
stumbles on uncommon words , he needs a different
approach than if he stumbles on common words.)
2. Checking oral reading comprehension by asking
pupil to give the gist of the material he has
completed reading.
3. Reading the next paragraph or page without help
from the teacher. (The pupil is told to skip
words he does not know by reading to the end of
the sentence, and then to fill in the missing
word. In this way the teacher can check the
child1s ability to use context clues.)
4. Reading a further section orally, unknown words
being analyzed with him by the teacher, who asks
144
how the new word starts, how it sounds, whether
he can see any familiar part in the word.
The test should give answers to these questions:
1. Does the student know the common words he meets
in reading?
2. Can the student tell what he has read?
3. Can the student use context to help with
unknown words?
4. Can the student sound out new words either by
using letters or using word parts?
Dolch (24:175-184) also prepared an informal test based on
his list of 220 sight words, a test which is available in
printed form.
Other informal tests have been developed, such as
that by Fry (338). Fry wrote ten paragraphs of increasing
difficulty, varying from 17 easy words in paragraph one,
to 55 words in the last. If the pupil makes one or two
errors on a given paragraph, this is his independent
level; if he makes three or four errors, this is his
instructional level; five or more errors is the frustra
tion point in this test. A subjective evaluation of
reading rate was also included in this informal appraisal.
145
Informal reading tests using the Weekly Reader
was suggested by the publishers (230:3-6). Standards for
an oral reading inventory were based on the Betts proposals
since the free reading level calls for 90 per cent compre
hension and 99 per cent accuracy in word pronunciation;
the instructional level expected 95 per cent word recogni
tion and at least 75 per cent comprehension; the frustra
tion level was listed at less than 50 per cent
comprehension and less than 90 per cent accuracy in word
pronunciation. Several times each year the regular Weekly
Reader includes both individual and group reading tests
which are not standardized.
A number of publishers of basic reading series
offer test booklets based upon their series. Some have
been roughly standardized, but generally these tests are
of an informal nature. For example, the Ginn testing
program was described by McCullough and Russell (226:1-7)
as telling the teacher whether the pupil's score was
excellent, average or poor, but not assigning a grade
placement score.
Birkett (237:178-181) reported results of a 1959
study of informal tests in which all of the teachers
146
sampled used informal measures of appraising oral and
silent reading ability. Most teachers had developed per
sonal rating scales where they checked phrasing, methods
of word analysis and comprehension. However, it was con
cluded that these informal tests of comprehension appear
to test children's ability to remember rather than their
ability to reason. More than 68 per cent of the compre
hension questions tested the ability to recall or to note
details.
A current example of an informal inventory of
reading skills based upon a series of reading texts is
contained in Sheldon's (76:44-51) 1957 teachers' manual
in which pupils are to be grouped according to instruc
tional levels. Selections from various books in the
series are printed in the manual and in activity books.
The pupil is expected to read orally at sight and
silently. Errors include omissions, substitutions,
incorrect phrasing, punctuation marks ignored, hesita
tions and repetitions. Comprehension questions are to be
prepared in advance. Reading behavior and reading mem
ories are also to be checked. The total number of errors
in accuracy are to be recorded along with comprehension,
147
reading memories and observation of reading behavior. An
individual summary chart is to be prepared for each pupil;
it includes the estimate of the independent level at which
he can read orally without making more than one error in
100 words with at least 60 per cent comprehension, good
recall, and without undesirable reading habits. The error
count for the instructional level is not stated precisely.
Although the maximum number of errors on this level is
given as five, the selections vary in length from about 75
words to approximately 130 words.
Standardized Reading Tests
Variance in subjective judgments of performance has
made the objective standardized test a significant innova
tion in twentieth century reading practices. Grant, a law
professor (420:186-212), quoted a study at the University
of Wisconsin in 1912 in which it was found that when an
examination paper of one high school pupil was graded by
142 teachers, grades ranged from 50 to 98 per cent; grades
on a geometry paper ranged from 25 to 89 per cent, as
graded by 118 geometry teachers. The unreliability of
teacher judgment was also pointed out by Tiegs (227:1-10),
who found that teachers marking the same examination paper
148
after a two-month interval may vary more than 50 per cent.
He also presented a table showing grades by twenty-five
teachers on the same essay examination which covered a
range from 80+ to 40- per cent.
In a text written in 1930, Storm and Smith (85:321-
349) declared that the first scientifically standardized
test in reading was the Gray Oral Reading Test, which first
appeared in 1917. Gray (258), in his dissertation report
of elementary school reading achievement as measured by
standardized tests, reviewed both oral and silent reading
achievement testing, and found that prior to 1917, more
than forty investigations had reported measurement of
achievement in reading. The earliest study reported in
his bibliography was made by Romanes in 1884, who attempted
to determine the speed of silent reading and the factors
which conditioned it. Gray reported his own investigation
of reading in the Cleveland, Ohio, city school system. In
forty-four schools, teachers were asked to select the boy
and girl in each class who ranked lowest in reading, the
boy and girl who ranked highest, and three pupils of aver
age ability. In all, more than 2,000 pupils were given
oral reading tests. He found that the average achievement
149
of the poorest sixth grade class was no better than that
of the best second grade class , and questioned the effi
ciency of reading instruction in some of the schools. The
records of individual pupils within grade levels also
showed marked variations. In some third grade classes,
pupils ranged in ability from those unable to read first
grade materials to those who surpassed the reading ability
of most eighth grade pupils.
Reading tests which were recommended by Storm and
Smith (85:333-349) included the Gray Oral Reading Para
graphs, The Haggerty Reading Examination, The Detroit
Word-Recognition Test, The Stanford Achievement Test and
the Gates Tests.
Among the 957 mental tests listed in The Fifth
Mental Measurements Yearbook (9) were eighty-four reading
tests. An annotated list of more than fifty of the best
known of these tests was included in the 1956 edition of
the Harris text (45:577-591), as reproduced in Appendix C.
Tiegs (227:1-10) cited the wide range of individual
differences within a classroom as the reason for recom
mending the use of the California Reading Tests. (These
tests were used in this investigation, as described in
150
Chapter III.) Tiegs claimed the three essential functions
of these tests to be: (1) providing data for judging
causes of reading problems; (2) diagnosing strength, weak
nesses and needs for each pupil and the entire class or
school; and (3) providing grade placement or percentile
data which objectively rank individuals , classes or schools
in the total population of the schools. A typical sixth
grade classroom of forty pupils would show the following
range of differences in reading ability, according to
Tiegs (227:5):
than 50,000 eighth grade pupils in New York City was
described by DeBoer (21:8). In 1951 fewer than 14 per cent
actually performed at the eighth grade level, 6.9 per cent
made test scores above the twelfth grade level, and 8.6
per cent earned scores below the fifth grade level.
Grade Placement Number of Pupils
2.0-2.9
3.0-3.9
4.0-4.9
5.0-5.9
6.0-6.9
7.0-7.9
8.0-8.9
9.0-9.9
0
1
7
14
12
0
2
2
The distribution of reading test scores of more
151
Bliesmer (373:400-402) studied the degree of sim
ilarity of reading achievement potential yielded by each
of four capacity tests and compared these with an individ
ual test. Tests used were the Revised Stanford-Binet
Scale, Kuhlmann-Anderson Tests, California Short Form Test
of Mental Maturity, and Durrell-Sullivan Reading Capacity
Test. Bliesmer found a lack of relationship between the
Stanford-Binet scores and those of the other test scores.
The differences were significant beyond the one per cent
level of confidence for all tests except that of the
California Non-Language Test. The Durre11-Sullivan Test
tended to give higher estimates of reading capacity than
the Stanford-Binet, while the other tests tended to give
lower estimates. Results of this study indicated that
none of the group tests, nor the median of all, appeared
to yield scores which were close approximations of the
Stanford-Binet estimates.
The Durrell Analysis of Difficulty, the McKee
Phonetic Inventory, and the syllabication section of the
Gates Reading Diagnosis Test were administered by Long
(341:924-925) to pupils in fourteen schools in Davenport,
Iowa. Pupils were selected on the basis of scores on the
152
Iowa Test of Basic Skills which fell within the lowest and
highest deciles. From these, thirty-four pupils whose IQ
scores were 90 and above and seventeen whose scores were
below 90 were selected at random at each grade level.
Long found that the amount of reading retardation increased
through the grades. Retarded readers with IQ scores below
90 exhibited reading deficiencies which were basically the
same as those of retarded readers with IQ scores above 90;
moreover, the teachers of retarded readers did not instruct
the pupils on their appropriate reading levels , but tended
to overestimate reading abilities.
A study by Johnson (440:217-220) at Syracuse
University underlined some of the problems involved in
appraising reading ability, even with the use of standard
ized tests. The California Achievement Test and the
California Test of Mental Maturity were used in testing
512 pupils at second, third, fourth and fifth grades.
Johnson attempted to determine whether these pupils were
reading at a satisfactory level. After searching the
literature, he used as a criterion a minus 0.5 year as
marking the upper limit of reading retardation at second
and third grades, and one school year at fourth and fifth
153
grade levels. He found that pupils reading a half year
and a year, respectively, below the norms for their grades
totaled 15.6 per cent of the group; pupils reading a half
year or a year below their mental grades as determined on
the California Test of Mental Maturity totaled 23.8 per
cent; and pupils reading below a reading index of .80 as
computed on the Monroe Reading Index totaled 15.4 per cent.
However, when a combination of grade placement, mental-age
level and reading index of .80 were used, the total number
retarded a half year at second and third grades and a full
year at fourth and fifth grades dropped to 5.3 per cent.
Johnson concluded that those who fell between 5.3 per cent
and the percentage figures reported above using other
criteria were actually slow learners who were reading very
close to their intellectual expectancies.
Karlin (444:320-322) and Bremer (376:222-224) found
that reading readiness tests were not effective in pre
dicting achievement in reading at the end of first and
second grades. Karlin concluded that it is impossible to
predict achievement from the reading readiness scores , and
Bremer concluded that the diagnostic value of the readiness
test far surpassed its predictive value. A study at Duke
154
University reported by Carr and Michaels (383:133-138)
reported that, while Durham County first grade teachers
could predict with greater accuracy than a reading read
iness test when both were given during the first six weeks
of school, the judgment of certain teachers was far less
accurate than that of the group. These investigators
suggested that when groups are small and somewhat homo
geneous , some teachers have difficulty in judging distinc
tions between pupils' readiness for reading.
Betts (368:4-12) has gone on record as estimating
that on many standardized tests low achievers score from
one to four grades above the level of instructional mate
rials which they can read successfully. His 195 7 edition
of Foundations of Reading Instruction included this
forthright statement:
In a recent study by the Reading Clinic staff,
it was found that not one of several standardized
reading tests designed for use at fifth grade
level was adequate for determining the achievement
levels of pupils at upper and lower ends of the
distribution. Although ten per cent of the class
did not exhibit desirable reading behavior on
first grade materials, some of these tests graded
these pupils no lower than second, third or fourth
grade levels. In general, standardized tests may
be expected to rate pupils from one to four grades
above their manifest achievement levels. This is
155
a caution to people who attempt to use standard
ized test data as a sole criterion for appraising
achievement level. (3:441)
Reasons for dissatisfaction with existing standard
ized group tests were discussed by Strang (508:418-421),
who believed that the complex reading process is not being
measured adequately because general norms do not apply to
specific groups, the experience quotient of the child is
ignored, and the relationships between potential and
achievement are not shown. Preston (472:225-227) found
that a number of teachers considered skill in oral reading
a better criterion for judging reading ability than was
skill in silent reading. These judgments were made in
appraising the reading skill of retarded readers.
Calling attention to his belief that the standard
ized reading test requires "only partial reading to get
the right answer," Dolch (394:12) stated that pupils who
rank as fourth grade readers according to achievement
tests cannot completely read fourth grade books. He
pointed out that formal reading tests which give scores in
terms of grade levels or percentiles do not necessarily
give accurate information on what to teach. He concluded
that, while standardized reading tests have a place in
156
education in the testing of large groups, the best way to
find the reading level of the student is to hear him read.
Dolch also cautioned (399:76-80) that the scores at the
upper and lower ends of the class being tested must be
studied, as well as the average. Charts of averages are
often misleading and fail to draw an accurate picture of
achievement, he declared.
Various districts throughout the County of Los
Angeles participated in an achievement test comparative
study. The Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools
reported that on a County-wide reading achievement testing
program, substantial correlations were found between the
California Achievement Tests and the Iowa Tests of Basic
Skills, the Science Research Associates Achievement Series
and the Sequential Tests of Educational Progress. Shanner
(272:1-5) reported to the principals' study group that all
tests appeared to be adequate to test what they set out to
measure and that the extremes of the test scores were
unreliable, while the upper middle and middle scores were
very reliable. He concluded that tests are much improved
over those available ten years ago, but are still not as
valid as they are generally thought to be.
157
In 1956 Lewerenz (454:25-38) reported a study which
involved 110,553 elementary pupils' scores on achievement
and intelligence tests. Chronological ages were available
and the data were compared by IQ levels and by subject.
Lewerenz found a regular increase in test performance in
the average group. At the 100 IQ level, a six months'
chronological age increase brought an average five months'
growth in achievement. In general, pupils of low ability
worked above expectancy, while pupils of high intelligence
worked below expectancy. Very young pupils worked above
expectancy, regardless of intelligence level, while pupils
over-age for their grade worked below expectancy, regard
less of intelligence level.
Dolch (395:200-203) reported that reading tests
measured a mixture of reading skills and that children
responded to tests by using the necessary mixture of read
ing skills and study abilities. He suggested that test
makers analyze the reading process when constructing tests,
taking into account the following five factors: (1) sight
vocabulary, (2) sounding ability, (3) meaning vocabulary,
(4) sentence comprehension, and (5) larger unit compre-
hension.
158
Roswell and Chall (477:200-204) found at the Reading
Clinic in the City College of New York that standardized
silent reading tests help only in a broad way to indicate
needs in word recognition. If a child in fourth grade
scores on a second grade level, the teacher can guess that
he probably knows the consonant sounds but is insecure
with consonant blends and vowels , and is not yet ready for
syllabication. However, this guess may be wholly inaccu
rate for individual pupils, they cautioned. Standardized
oral reading tests were cited by these authors as being
more reliable estimates of general reading level and word
recognition needs than are silent reading tests.
The special functions of standardized tests in
reading have been misinterpreted, according to Aronow and
Wrightstone (231:5-6). They summarized the special uses
of these tests as follows:
1. In the aspects of reading that they measure,
standardized tests serve to estimate the
relative standing of a group with respect to
the general population of the same grade or
age.
2. They serve to approximate the standing of
an individual child in comparison with the
general population and with the rest of
his group.
159
3. Results from subtests within a standardized
test, or from a group of tests measuring
various aspects of reading, help to point
out areas of strengths and weaknesses for
the group, and approximately so for the
individual.
4. Study of the items failed in the child's
completed test booklet yields valuable clues
to specific difficulties which require
remedial attention.
5. Standardized tests help to measure growth
over a period of time in certain aspects
of reading. Parallel forms, constructed
in a series of increasing difficulty, make
standardized tests especially useful for
this purpose.
Integration of Informal Appraisal and
Standardized Test Scores
The continuous and comprehensive process of evalu
ating reading achievement was emphasized by Harris (45:
153), who stated:
Evaluation means arriving at judgments about
the degree to which the objectives of the reading
program are being achieved. Evaluation can make
use of data from many sources: standardized test
scores, observation of pupil performance during
reading lessons, workbook exercises, evidence of
reading interests derived from discussion periods
or written comprehensions, reports on independent
reading, success in using subject-matter textbooks,
and so on. The data used in evaluation do not have
to be quantitatively exact. The important thing is
to have some usable evidence concerning the degree
to which each important objective is being reached.
160
Aronow and Wrightstone (231:1-45) reminded teachers of New
York that norms were not established for individuals , but
were statistical averages of the general population. The
teacher should expect that about 50 per cent of the pupils
will score above and 50 per cent below the norm. Appraisal
of reading should not be regarded as an end in itself, but
as a means for action in providing for individual differ
ences. Brueckner and Bond (7:124) suggested that standard
ized tests, informal tests and general observations be
integrated in making a general diagnosis of reading
achievement. Tinker (91:283-296) emphasized that compre
hensive appraisal of reading skills is necessary for the
most efficient teaching of individuals and of the class
room group as a whole.
Summary of Studies and Opinions
Most studies have indicated that thorough evaluation
of reading levels must include both informal and standard
ized measures. Several varieties of informal reading
inventories were reviewed, including word check lists of
vocabulary, informal objective comprehension checks, and
oral reading from basal reader selections. Teachers'
informal tests of the pencil and paper type were shown to
161
emphasize memory and details. The Betts criteria for
determining four levels of reading achievement were
described, but no quantitative experiment was found to
substantiate the judgment of the number of errors allowed
on each level. Some investigators found that pupils test
one to four grades above graded texts which they can suc
cessfully read. A number of educators proposed that
teachers should assess personality traits , patterns of
behavior, home environment, and interest inventories, as
well as informal and standardized reading tests when
diagnosing reading level.
More than eighty-four different reading tests have
been standardized and are now available. These tests have
demonstrated that the range in reading achievement
increases progressively through the grades. Investigators
have learned that retarded readers with low IQ scores have
the same reading problems as retarded readers with higher
abilities. Several studies cast doubt upon the use of
reading readiness tests as predictors of later achievement
in reading, but have found that teacher judgment is also
variable. A number of investigators demonstrated that
scores on standardized group-type silent reading tests do
not correlate with successful reading of materials graded
on the same level as that scored by the individual on the
tests. Successful reading was variously defined. It was
stated that fourth grade pupils cannot read fourth grade
books. Parents and reading specialists have suggested
that the best way to find a pupil's reading level is to
hear him read aloud. Standardized oral reading tests are
cited by some investigators as more reliable at the elemen
tary level than silent reading tests, perhaps because they
are necessarily administered on an individual basis.
IV. ORGANIZATION FOR INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
While the conviction is widespread that provision
for individual differences is essential in modern reading
instruction, the search goes on for efficient and practical
ways of solving the problem. Smith (78:73-83) observed
that these problems have been troublesome since the advent
of free schools. Reading instruction was originally
organized on a completely individualized basis. In the
Dame Schools in early New England, for example, a group
of children would gather in the Dame's kitchen and each
would recite to her in turn as she went about her household
163
duties. When more and more children appealed for educa
tion, the Monitorial System was adopted from English
schools. In this plan, one teacher was assigned as many
as one hundred pupils and was assisted by monitors who were
responsible for small groups of about nine pupils. As
grouping by grade became more common and groups became
smaller, McGuffey produced his graded readers to meet
developing needs.
A number of plans designed to meet pupil needs in
reading was reported by Betts (2:52-65). These plans
included those of DeLong, Wheat, Worlton, Broom, Kvaraceus ,
and such plans as the Winnetka and Dalton experiments.
Betts described the war against the lock step which treated
all members of a class alike, as a significant advancement
toward a goal of differentiated guidance for all children.
In a recent study of the evolution of patterns of
instructional organization, Gray pointed out criticisms
made by Superintendent Harris of St. Louis in 1872:
The tendency of all classification is to unite
pupils of widely-different attainments. . . . The
consequence is that the lesson is too short for
some and too long for others. The best pupils in
the class are not tried to the full extent of
their ability. . . . The poorest pupils of the
164
class are strained to the utmost. They are dragged,
as it were, over the ground without having time to
digest it as they should. (256:17)
By 1910, wrote Gray, it was concluded as a result of exper
iments with various plans of grouping, that an ideal
system of grouping would bring together pupils of about
the same chronological age, with equivalent learning
capacities, and achievement levels approximately equal.
It was already known that grouping which was truly homo
geneous was almost impossible because of individual
differences.
While a number of different patterns or systems of
organization are based, directly or indirectly, upon read
ing ability, the following discussion of organization for
individual differences centers upon three different
patterns: (1) inter-classroom organization, (2) intra
classroom organization, and (3) de-emphasis of grouping.
Inter-classroom Organization
In recent years plans have been reported which
attempted to solve problems related to wide individual
differences in reading achievement by grouping pupils of
different classes or grade levels.
165
The nongraded plan begun in Milwaukee, in 1942, is
the oldest organization now in operation, according to
Goodlad (255:20-25). This plan attempts to eliminate
grade labels and standards in order to arrange the curric
ulum and materials according to pupil ability. Goodlad
also describes the Lexington, Massachusetts, plan of team
teaching; and the Flint, Michigan, plan of cooperating
teachers in teams.
Carlson and Northrup (245:53-62) reported an exper
iment in grouping in which 127 pupils were placed in class
rooms on a heterogeneous basis, but were further divided
into reading groups which might or might not meet in the
child's homeroom. Pupils reading five or more months
above the norm were considered superior readers and kept
as a group; pupils testing on the Gates Reading Survey
from 3.6 through 4.5 were considered average readers; those
testing from 3.1 through 3.5 were rated low average read
ers; and those testing 3.0 and below were considered
retarded readers. The authors approved of this program,
even though data were not complete enough to show statis
tical significance.
166
In a review of methods of grouping pupils for
optimum growth, Goodlad (419:253-256) reported an exper
iment of a nongraded plan in which reading levels replaced
grades. Eight levels of proficiency were differentiated
for primary grades , from Level R where readiness was
developed, to Level 7 where pupils read well above primary
school materials with fluency and understanding.
Russell (479:462-470) described a system of grouping
called "circling1’ as developed in San Francisco. Pupils in
the upper elementary grades changed rooms if their reading
achievement, as determined by standardized tests and
teacher judgment, was considerably above or below their
own grade norm. Almost 300 pupils included in the program
were compared with 300 who did not change rooms, and their
principals answered a lengthy questionnaire. Russell
found that standardized test results indicated no signif
icant difference between the two groups in reading achieve
ment at the end of sixth grade. However, thirty-two of
forty-seven principals felt that children's reading achieve
ment was improved under the circling system. Russell
concluded that this was an administrative procedure whose
success or failure must depend upon the way it is used in
a school.
A plan which had been tried more than four years in
Joplin, Missouri, has been described by Tunley (515:41-44).
Pupils in fourth, fifth and sixth grades were assigned to
reading groups in rooms where it appeared they would best
fit with other pupils of like reading ability, regardless
of chronological or mental age. Joplin schools would not
publicize the actual test results of standardized tests
used to measure the success of the plan, but respondents
reported enthusiastic endorsement of the plan by parents ,
teachers and pupils. Sheldon (488:175-183) surveyed
grouping plans in more than one thousand elementary schools
in New York State, reporting on one which was similar to
the San Francisco and Joplin plans. In one elementary
school pupils from all fourth, fifth and sixth grades who
were reading second grade materials met in one room for
reading instruction. Other pupils were assigned in a
similar fashion according to achievement in reading.
Sheldon learned through interviews with teachers that they
had been enthusiastic about the plan when it was first
begun, but later found that many new problems developed to
take the place of previous problems in classroom grouping.
168
The teachers felt that they lacked the understanding and
insight which was present when they taught reading to
their own pupils; and that they could not find time in the
crowded schedule to confer with others as had been planned.
An experiment by fourth grade teachers was reported
by Aaron, Goodwin and Kent (356:305-307). Termed a
’’cross-class" plan, more than 100 pupils were grouped on
the basis of silent reading test scores and teacher
judgments. Each teacher taught two groups of readers
instead of the four groups which would have been necessary
had the pupils remained heterogeneously grouped during the
reading period. These teachers reported median growth in
reading in each group ranging from .9 to 1.2 years during
a six-month period of instruction.
A serai-departmental type of elementary school
organization has been employed in Tulsa, Oklahoma, since
1926, according to Broadhead (377:385-390). At least four
other school systems use a similar system in which pupils
attend classes under several teachers during the day. In
this type of organization it is possible to group pupils
according to strengths and weaknesses in various subject
areas.
169
More than 130 fifth and sixth grade pupils were
included in an experiment reported by Raabe (285:32-56).
Groups were assigned to teachers so that the range in
achievement was less wide than in most self-contained
classrooms. The four teachers worked as a team in choosing
materials and methods. The average pupil gain on standard
ized tests was approximately two grade levels.
The Sandusky, Ohio, experimental plan for providing
for individual differences in reading ability was described
by Starkey (296:61-69). Mental age and reading level were
the criteria used in assigning pupils to groups. Individ
ual needs of all pupils who read below grade level were
assessed, pupils being assigned to appropriate remedial
classes. Remedial groups comprised almost a third of all
pupils; of the remedial groups, more than 42 per cent
improved enough to reach the grade norm.
A recent investigation compared pupil progress under
grade level grouping as opposed to grouping which included
three grades and a chronological age range of at least
three years. Hamilton and Rehwoldt (339:317-319) reported
that the multigrade grouping appeared to produce more
favorable results for most pupils. It was also reported
170
that better personal adjustment and social adjustment was
found in pupils of the multigrade classes. Pupil and
parent attitudes toward school were more favorable in the
mixed classes, and both teachers and administrators ex
pressed preference for this type of grouping.
An administrative grouping policy providing for
individual differences was described by Jenkins (438:1,
6), in which a modified grouping plan was adopted in one
school system to eliminate the wide range of differences
in mental age and achievement typical of heterogeneous
classrooms of some urban schools.
In an investigation of primary reading programs in
England and Scotland, Russell (481:446-431) reported his
observations of strong, weak and doubtful practices in
adapting reading to the individual differences of pupils.
He noted widespread efforts to teach on an individual
basis, and saw pupils working alone on materials which had
been composed in the classroom.
Approximately fifty communities, involving several
hundred elementary schools , now operate nongraded classes,
according to Goodlad (255:22). His studies indicated that
many other communities plan to change to this pattern in
171
the 1960's in order to make better provision for individual
differences.
Intra-classroom Organization
A number of studies have demonstrated that when
pupils are assigned to classes on an unselected basis,
most teachers form groupings to provide for the range of
ability. Purcell (473:449-453) reported a study of teach
ers in 210 counties of Ohio, Pennsylvania and West
Virginia. Only 2 per cent of the teachers contacted did
not form groups in teaching reading. Most of the teachers
used three groups; only 2 per cent reported using more
than four groups. Belden (334:1567) reported results of a
study of 1,000 primary teachers, 95 per cent of whom worked
with pupils in two, three or four groups.
Flexible grouping in fourth grade classes was
described by Blanchard (228:32-35), who listed four types
of groups in which children participated during the read
ing hour: (1) interest groups, (2) research groups,
(3) special skills groups designed to care for particular
needs, and (4) practice groups to meet individual and
group needs.
172
In implementing his proposals concerning independ
ent, instructional, frustration, and capacity levels of
pupils in reading, Betts (368:4-12) suggested that pupils
be grouped by instructional reading levels. No pupil
should be included in a group assigned to a given text if
he needs help with more than one in twenty running words.
The highest achiever in a group, Betts concluded, should
need help with one word in about eighty running words.
Parent opinion in Berkeley, California, concerning
grouping of children in reading was investigated by
Pressnall (470:29-33). More than three fourths of the
parents contacted wanted pupils grouped with other pupils
of like reading ability, but felt that the children should
be kept with pupils of the same grade level.
Recent proposals included "grouping by invitation,"
as described by Hester (432:105-108), in which any stigma
or "caste of reading achievement" is removed. "Flexible
grouping" was described by Dawson and Bamman (20:71).
Russell and Wulfing (290:1-4), in an analysis of
problems related to grouping, stated that rigidity of
groups was deplorable. Dolch (396:477-484) noted that a
variety of different methods of grouping have been used
173
with success , and warned of the danger of comparing a good
way of handling one method of grouping with a poor way of
handling another method. Commenting upon trends in group
ing for reading instruction, Harris wrote (261:72):
We have learned much when we have learned that
there is no magic cure-all, and that every
administrative device and every teaching pro
cedure that is contending for favor has both
strong points and inherent possible weaknesses.
Gray (428:3-8) reminded teachers that for years
questions about reading instruction were generally related
to methods of teaching word recognition, but that at the
present time the most persistent questions relate to
grouping pupils for differentiated instruction. In 195 7
Gray remarked (425:104):
Many types of reading materials and activities
are essential in developing self-reliant independ
ent readers with well-balanced diversified inter
ests. This goal cannot be achieved through the
advocacy and use of any one type of instruction
either group or individual. The types of materials
and procedures used daily and throughout the school
life of the child should be selected in the light
of the varied needs to be served.
It appears that, in spite of high interest in the
differentiation of instruction, there is as yet little
quantitative evidence regarding the most efficient means
of providing the desired goal. Most school systems are
174
using the three-group basal reading system, according to
Gates (415:84), who gathered data from all parts of the
country during 1956 and 195 7 in the process of re-standard
izing some of his reading tests. He found that the average
teacher has a class of twenty-seven or twenty-eight pupils ,
and that these pupils are younger than during the previous
period of standardization. Basal reading systems are being
used in about 99 per cent of the classrooms sampled
throughout the nation, although a number of variations in
procedure are followed.
It may therefore, be said that the use of one
or two sets of basal reading books and materials
and a teaching procedure embodying the main
features outlined in basal manuals is the pre
vailing form of reading instruction in today's
schools.
Gates described some of the problems involved in individ
ualizing instruction. He concluded that most teachers
found it difficult to individualize instruction when the
class size was larger than fifteen pupils. Gates sum
marized his findings about grouping in these words(415:86):
An open-minded survey of research and of the
experience of teachers who have used basal reading
programs and the better types of "individualized
reading" procedures will enable one to see that
the best teaching will combine the good features
of both methods. The best work with basal books
embodies individualized teaching and the best
175
"individualized teaching" includes whole class and
subgroup activities and the use of materials taken
from, or identical in principle with, basal readers
and workbooks. We should nip in the bud the idea,
now beginning to emerge, that one must accept one
or the other of two antagonistic systems. We must
undertake to discern the good features of each and
attempt to embody them into what should be a better
system than either.
De-emphasis of Grouping
As a result of a thirteen-year experiment in the
New Castle, Pennsylvania, primary grades, McCracken (59:
55-68) concluded that grouping was not necessary. He cited
such disadvantages as (1) the "stigma" attached to the
lower groups , (2) the frustration of pupils , (3) poor
public relations, and (4) the re-use of materials in the
same room with different children as reasons for promoting
a text-film method of reading instruction which claimed to
eliminate reading failures. According to his published
data, during a thirteen-year period, no pupil failed to
attain the national norm at the end of first grade. He
promised to improve reading achievement in the primary
grades in any district now using the usual basal program
from 30 to 50 per cent by means of the text-film method
devised, which placed strong emphasis on phonics. Pupils
were not grouped during a 45-minute text-film period, but
176
were grouped for a half hour in the afternoon during a
supplementary period of instruction. Lichtenstein (455:
27-29) reported similar success with this method in
Cleveland Heights, Ohio.
The method of "self-selection" adapts materials and
methods to the individual, and includes an incidental
approach to the development of skills. Harris (262:12-17)
recently referred to pupil selection of reading books as
one of the central issues of current elementary school
instruction. It appears that a complete circle has been
described from the individualized recitation of the Dame
Schools through monitorial instruction, whole classroom
lock step, experimental plans such as the Dalton and
Joplin, two- and three-group instruction as recommended by
authors of basal reading series , and back again to indi
vidualized recitation and instruction. In a 1959 resume
of the self-selection method, Witty (531:401-412) empha
sized the contributions of Preston Search, Frederic Burk
and Carleton Washburne in developing provisions for indi
vidual differences in reading. More than thirty years ago
Gates, Batchelder and Betzner (316:94-102) designed an
experiment to test a basal reading approach to beginning
177
reading with a less structured and more incidental
approach. Matched pairs of first grade pupils were sub
jected to a "modem systematic" or "opportunistic" reading
program. It was concluded that the systematic program
resulted in higher achievement in reading. A 1921 study
of second grade reading by Zirbes was reported by Gray
(425:99-104). This investigation measured the results of
informal reading as compared to carefully planned formal
instruction. It was concluded that reading informally
without close supervision fostered bad reading habits and
attitudes.
Harris (262:12-17) also emphasized that this
approach is not new, but was reported in the 1920's by
La Brant, and in the 1930's by Washbume, Cole and Witty.
Olson (327:89-98), in 1940 and again in 1952, described
the concepts of seeking behavior, self-selection and pacing
as basic principles, and suggested that children should be
provided with appropriate experiences and materials to
insure successful achievement. According to Harris, these
proposals stimulated a re-examination of an incidental
reading program based on pupil selection.
178
A number of reading specialists have cautioned that
there are dangers inherent in an unstructured reading
method for today's large classes. Bond repeated the
cautions of a number of other reading specialists (240:56):
I thoroughly believe that a reading program must be
based on a core of systematic materials for basic
instruction in reading. But that does not mean
that I do not believe in individualizing around
that basic material so that each child may read a
different selection related to the topics intro
duced in the basic readers.
A few recent studies have favored the individualized
organization as described by Lazar (452:75-83), Veatch (93)
and others. Lazar reported visiting seventy classes which
used this method; he studied half of them and offered the
opinion that the individualized program was highly suc
cessful in these classrooms. Jenkins (43 7:84-90) compared
achievement of 140 pupils in classes taught by self
selection with pupils in classes taught by basal reader
programs , and found no significant difference between the
two. Bohnhorst and Sellars (374:185-190) reported an
exploratory study in Atlanta which was in the nature of
action research. An attempt was made to measure the
efficiency of basal text instruction as opposed to self
selection. Only the most able readers in several primary
179
classes were included in Che study, and all pupils received
basal instruction during part of the school years included.
The investigators concluded that a cautious suggestion
might be inferred that self-selection may be the better
program for more able readers. Gray (425:99-104) cited a
study by Anderson, Hughes and Dixon in which progress of
pupils taught systematically through a basal reading pro
gram was compared with that of pupils taught with a program
of self-selection. While the average intelligence score of
the second group was ten points above that of the first,
the first group showed better progress in reading.
Although carefully controlled studies of the
method of self-selection are rare, evidence of its increas
ing popularity is offered by Veatch (93), who reviewed
eighteen separate articles praising the method. These
descriptions of self-selection appeared in professional
journals within the 1950's. Among them was "Teaching
Reading the Individualized Way," by Mackintosh and Mahar
(93:217-228) of the United States Office of Education.
Harris (262:12-17) reported that most accounts of
programs based on pupil selection in reading have been used
with relatively bright groups of children. He found little
180
objective evidence of the success of these programs,
although many favorable opinions have been published, most
of them subjective evaluations by teachers who have
employed this pattern of organization. Dawson and Bamman
(20:15) advised that no single reading program should be
rigidly followed, but that grouping for basal instruction
and the individualized type of instruction should be
balanced and adjusted to individual and group needs and
interests. After an extensive review of a limited number
of research studies and a wealth of opinion, Witty
concluded (531:410):
It seems that a defensible program in reading
will combine the best features of both individ
ualized and group instruction in reading. The
basal text will be used and adapted so as to
offer a dependable guide and an efficient plan
for insuring the acquisition of basic skills.
In a recent defense of self-selection which chal
lenged Witty1s above-quoted conclusion, Veatch (516:234)
wrote that this practice of reading instruction has been
improperly judged as (1) unimportant, or (2) a "fad," or
(3) something good teachers have always done.
Individualized reading is but the beginning of a
renaissance in which teaching is returned to the
teacher. It is what Alexander Frazier calls "open
learning"--in which all children progress at their
own speed regardless of that of their peers.
181
Commenting that the controversy between basal reader
and self-selection instruction has kindled more heat than
light, Robinson (476:411-428) reported results of a study
conducted in St. Paul, Minnesota, in which these two pat
terns of reading instruction were compared. Ten classrooms
were involved in a controlled study of second grade pupils.
The conclusion was that the basal plan was superior. In
her review of research, Robinson criticized the extreme
proposals of self-selection as a pattern of reading
instruction "willing to discard all the experience of the
last decade in providing a broad and effective program of
reading instruction" (476:420).
Summary of Studies and Opinions
A number and variety of attempts to organize class
room instruction to meet the needs of differentiated
guidance were reviewed here, the over-all observation being
that each plan has a pattern of peculiar strengths and
weaknesses. Little quantitative research was found to sub
stantiate proponents' claims of superiority. It was found
in a nation-wide survey that basal reading programs are
being used in 99 per cent of American schools , usually
following the plan of grouping recommended in the accom
panying teachers' manuals. Recent proposals that grouping
182
be de-emphasized and that all beginning readers be taught
as a group through the use of text-films , or that, at the
other extreme, each pupil be taught individually using the
materials he has selected, have yet to be evaluated.
V. DIFFERENCES AMONG INFERIOR, AVERAGE
AND SUPERIOR READERS
As a result of various plans of grouping now being
tried in various parts of the country, a number of studies
of gifted, average and inferior readers have appeared.
Hatch and Sheldon (430:254-260) described an investigation
of good and poor readers carried on in elementary schools
of eight systems in New York State. They found that a
difference in means significant at the one per cent level
existed between the intelligence quotients and mental ages
of good and poor readers , although no significant differ
ence was found in their chronological ages.
Langlord (340:617-618) studied superior and average
readers with reference to organismic growth, and found that
superior readers learned to read eight months earlier,
exhibiting a rate of reading growth more than twice that
of the average children. While their mental growth was
183
1.67 times as rapid as that of average children, and growth
in spelling was also significantly higher, there was no
particular difference in arithmetic growth between average
and superior readers.
Visokovicz (354:1959-1960) found in a study of
instruction of gifted children in elementary schools where
there was no segregation and little acceleration but where
the administration desired enrichment of the curriculum,
that teachers had adapted for the gifted pupils the same
methods and materials used for average and inferior pupils.
The grades given to these pupils did not agree with the
progress indicated by standardized tests.
Barbe (362:276-278) described causes of reading
disability in a gifted child who entered the reading
clinic at the University of Chattanooga. The child had
been an excellent reader through first and part of second
grades, but began to fail in third grade, despite a high
mental age. Barbe found that this boy memorized so readily
that he had not learned to distinguish reading from memory.
Barbe concluded that because of this problem, and others
commonly experienced by bright children, many pupils in
the upper intelligence levels find themselves in the
184
lowest reading group.
Forty pupils with IQ scores above 130 were inter
viewed at intervals from early elementary through college
grades. Strang (306:204-208) found that more than half
believed they had learned to read their first words one to
three years before entering first grade. These pupils had
learned by different methods and most were satisfied with
their reading skills. A second study into the insights of
gifted students about their own reading development was
reported by Strang (307:35-39), who analyzed four specific
reading tendencies of this group. Almost without exception
the gifted children were superior readers who (1) learned
to read at an early age, (2) had exceptional interest in
reading, (3) were precocious in reading adult books, and
(4) read intensively in particular fields of interest.
The assumption that the primary difference between
good and poor readers is one of developmental level was
proposed by Morse, Ballantine and Dixon (65:1-7). They
described a poor reader as inadequate only in the sense
that he does not meet standards expected, declaring that
when he reads material-dn his own level he may perform
like a good reader.
185
The reading habits of 370 fourth grade pupils were
investigated by Hatch and Sheldon (430:254-260). Teachers
were asked to choose pupils of average or higher intel
ligence from the lowest and highest 5 per cent of their
classes in reading. After studying the reading skills of
these pupils , it was found that the poor readers suffered
from poor phonetic attack, low sight vocabulary, word-by-
word reading and habits of guessing words. Both good and
poor readers read more rapidly silently than orally at the
fourth grade level. A major investigation of reading
habits of good and poor readers in grades one through
twelve was also reported by Sheldon and Hatch (491:86-93),
who studied thirty good and thirty poor readers selected
from eight school systems. The investigators found that
both good and poor readers used lip movements to some
extent and that both groups had a higher rate on silent
reading than on oral. The poor readers averaged about two
reading grade levels below their grade placements.
Schubert (485:161-162) used questionnaire responses
of eighty experienced teachers in a comparative study of
superior and inferior readers. Questions referred to qual
ities apparent in the best and poorest readers in their
186
classrooms. It was found that 22 per cent of the best
readers were boys, while 70 per cent of the poorest readers
were boys. None of the best readers had repeated a grade,
while 26 per cent of the poorest had had this experience.
Teachers reported that 7 per cent of the best readers were
discipline problems and that 47 per cent of the inferior
readers were so judged. Within the group of good readers,
5 per cent appeared to their teachers to be emotionally
immature , while 50 per cent of the poor readers were so
judged. Schubert concluded that a multiplicity of factors
entered into the success or failure of a given child's
success or failure in reading.
An effort to establish criteria for grouping was
described by Hicks (264:208-212). One school staff
studied 90 pupils from a population of 355, in grades two
through six. The first problem was to agree upon criteria
for classification of pupils as slow readers, for this
term did not mean the same to all teachers. Eventually,
each teacher decided for himself whether to use achieve
ment tests, whether to compare the child with his group,
or whether to use a combination of criteria in identifying
slow readers. All pupils were given achievement tests,
18 7
and the results were compared with teacher ratings. It
was found that the reading tests identified more pupils as
slow readers than did teacher judgments , but that the
pupils were not always the same individuals.
Preston (472:225-227) reported a study of the read
ing achievement of eighty-two elementary school pupils
whose teachers classified them as retarded readers. It
was found that many children were classified as retarded
who were normal readers In terms of their capacities.
Mental grades were computed from non-language portions of
group intelligence tests in making this judgment. Preston
also found that some teachers regarded certain retarded
readers as normal readers.
A study of superior readers at the University of
Connecticut was described by McCullough (463:96-106) in
an investigation of the problem of whether superior fifth
grade readers were interested in fifth grade basal reader
content. Individuals varied in the amount of interest,
but the majority expressed interest in the content of
readers at their own grade level.
Odland (349:2515) reinforced the findings of other
studies of abilities of good and poor readers in a study
188
of achievement and diagnostic test scores of almost 500
pupils. She concluded that successful readers differed
from less successful readers in all areas of word
recognition.
A number of studies of differences between good and
poor readers have agreed that superior readers learn
earlier and progress faster. Many gifted pupils are able
to read before entrance into school, usually without
planned instruction. Occasionally a gifted pupil may be
penalized by some of his superior abilities and fail to
learn to read. Good readers tend to read extensively.
Letter grades given by teachers in appraising
reading do not agree with results of standardized tests.
Teachers find it difficult to agree upon definitions of
good and poor readers , and often do not concur with results
of standardized tests.
Poor readers are apparently characterized by inade
quate word attack skills, low sight vocabulary and
persistent habits of guessing.
189
VI. SUMMARY OF CHAPTER
The review of related research and opinion in this
chapter has been confined to investigations and recommenda
tions regarding the use and difficulty of texts, evaluation
of reading skills , plans for differentiating guidance so
that text and pupil reading level can be suitably matched,
and differences between good and poor readers.
Studies of the relation of reading achievement to
personal and environmental factors unique to each pupil,
and analyses of the component factors of generalized
reading skill, have combined to increase understanding of
developmental growth in the reading process. However, the
complex constellation of forces functioning within each
individual creates a challenge to teachers , each of whom
is faced with the problem of appraisal of some thirty
elementary-level pupils.
Research contributions related to vocabulary dif
ficulty and readability of children's reading texts have
encouraged further studies of the suitability of selected
reading materials for the needs of individual pupils; but
the effect of the degree of difficulty of reading materials
190
on reading achievement has not been established quantita
tively .
Classroom efforts to adjust the difficulty level of
instructional materials to the reading ability of the pupil
have included a number of plans for grouping pupils or for
individualizing teaching; but conflicting evidence was
found regarding the success of various proposals for
accomplishing the desired goal.
Specific differences among good and poor readers
have been identified by many studies; but teachers and
specialists find it difficult to agree upon definitions of
these groups and upon the criteria for assigning individ
uals to groups in reading.
CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES AND SOURCES OF DATA
In Chapter I the problem undertaken in this study
was defined and explained. Materials used in teaching
reading to elementary school pupils, the complex process
of reading development, and appraisals of both reading
skills and texts were examined in Chapter II as they have
been reflected in research and in the views of educational
authorities.
This chapter explains (1) the community and school
population from which the sample was selected, (2) the
measures taken to obtain a random sample, (3) standardized
and informal measures used in appraising reading levels of
selected pupils, (4) pupil, administrator and teacher
interviews , (5) the computation of readability formulas on
assigned books , and (6) the methods used in handling the
data and testing the hypotheses.
191
192
I. THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AND ITS READING PROGRAM
The school system chosen for this study is located
in a California foothill community with a population of
more than 100,000 persons, and an elementary school enroll
ment of almost 15,000 pupils. The school system is among
the ten largest in the state and is located in a long
established community.
In contrast to neighboring areas, the school popula
tion used in this investigation grew less than 2 per cent
during the school year of 1958-1959. In the schools are
included pupils from an unincorporated suburb with roughly
half the population of the central community. The 2 per
cent growth was centered in the schools serving the
suburb.
A recent housing survey showed that more than 70
per cent of residences are home-owned, although this figure
is rapidly being altered by the addition of elaborate
apartment buildings. It was recently estimated that the
community population includes between 10 and 12 per cent
nonwhite residents.
The school system uses a 6-3-3-2 plan of organiza
tion. Included in the system are twenty-six regular
193
elementary schools and one school which cares for the
physically handicapped and mentally retarded. The eighty
pupils in the latter school were not included in the school
population from which the sample was drawn, since the focus
of this study was upon the normal school population. In
certain schools, classes for mentally retarded pupils are
established. Neither these pupils nor the ten pupils
receiving home teaching were included in the population
from which the sample was drawn.
In the larger elementary schools the classroom
enrollment is not entirely heterogeneous. Principals have
been encouraged to group pupils whose learning capacity
falls within a given range. In practice, this means that
in the smaller schools where there are only one or two
classes in each grade, the classes are heterogeneous. In
the larger schools it is likely that one classroom will
contain pupils of average intellectual ability through high
average, superior and gifted, while other classrooms will
contain pupils whose learning abilities are estimated to
be dull normal, through average and high average. Since
achievement scores and social-emotional adjustment are
considered to be highly important educational goals ,
194
individual principals are given wide latitude in modifying
these general suggestions for placement of pupils.
In helping each child to achieve his highest level
of self-realization for effective living, those who planned
the reading program in the school system studied considered
the teaching of reading to be one of the basic goals of
education. The whole child--his physical, mental, emo
tional and social characteristics, as well as his experi
ences , purposes and interests--were taken into consideration
by teachers in planning the reading program.
While it is recognized that reading is interwoven
into the entire curriculum, a time is set aside at each
elementary grade level for a program of basic reading
instruction. Teachers have been told that effective
progress in reading can be made only if instruction is
differentiated to meet individual needs. It is recom
mended that pupils be grouped for reading instruction so
that each individual will be enabled to progress most
efficiently and so that books of appropriate difficulty
may be assigned.
Like more than 90 per cent of school systems
throughout the nation, the reading program in this school
195
system is organized according to a three-group plan of
reading instruction in which basal readers and accompanying
manuals are used. Teachers have been instructed that
grouping has little value unless materials are suited to
the reading levels of the individuals within the groups.
It is recognized that the lowest group in a fourth grade
may be using second grade materials, while the highest
group may be reading miscellaneous sixth-grade-level
materials. It is also emphasized that reading in the
content fields should be adapted to the pupil's reading
ability.
Four specific ways of providing for individual
differences in reading ability have been recommended to
teachers in this school system: (1) provision of reading
materials on appropriate levels of difficulty, (2) group
ing within the classroom, (3) independent and supplementary
reading periods , and (4) individual teacher-pupil coaching.
It was estimated that during the year of this study less
than 3 per cent of the teachers were experimenting with a
modified program of self-selection in reading, and that
these were generally teachers assigned co the accelerated
classes.
196
In this school system, as in all schools in
California, basic texts in reading, writing, arithmetic,
spelling, language, science, health, history and geography
(social studies) and music have been furnished by the
state. Most of these books were furnished on a basis of
one book for each pupil in the grade. Basic state text
offerings have been supplemented in this community from
local funds. According to the California Education Code
(243:435-444, 536, 629), the State Board of Education is
required to enforce the "uniform use of textbooks in the
grades of the public elementary schools for which they are
adopted" (243:443). Governing boards of local districts,
county boards of education, superintendents of schools,
principals and teachers are also required to enforce use
of these prescribed texts. Superintendents and prin
cipals who refuse or neglect to require the use of these
texts may be guilty of misdemeanor.
One of the problems of appraisal considered in the
present study was that of evaluation of reading achieve
ment by means of letter grades on report cards sent to
parents. While pupil progress is also reported in this
system by means of conferences , formal report cards are
197
sent home three times each year. Pupil achievement is
graded in relation to established grade norms , according
to explanations to parents. Pupils in first and second
grades receive the symbols 0 (outstanding) , S I (satis
factory) and N (needs improvement). In grades three
through six the customary symbols of A through F are used.
A indicates exceptional work for the grade; B shows that
the pupil's work exceeds grade level requirements; C indi
cates work which meets grade level requirements; D means
that performance is below grade level; and F indicates
failure to meet minimum requirements. The achievement
mark indicates the position of a pupil in comparison with
others of his age and grade, and not necessarily his
position in comparison with pupils in his particular
classroom. It is expected that achievement test data will
supplement teacher judgment. Grades are to be based on
oral and written work, standardized and informal tests,
special interests and abilities , performance and work
habits.
II. THE SAMPLE
It was desired to secure a random sample of the
population of the elementary school pupils upon which the
198
hypotheses were to be tested. It was decided that second,
fourth and sixth grade pupils should be included in a
random sample to be chosen from the population of 5 ,905
pupils enrolled in these three grades in the community
studied.
According to Garrett (32:202-209), when every indi
vidual in the population has the same chance of being
chosen in the sample, and when the selection of one indi
vidual does not influence the selection of another, the
principal criteria for randomness have been met. If
samples are drawn at random, no consistent bias should
appear, and the sample should be representative, on the
average. In making this type of random selection, it is
necessary that all members of the population be listed or
catalogued , that the population can be assumed to be
normal, and that the general characteristics of the popula
tion be known in general terms.
The above conditions were all met in the sample
chosen. It was possible to obtain listings of all pupils;
the population was relatively normal; and the character
istics were known in general terms. The method of
selection gave every individual in the population the
199
same chance of being included in the sample in such a way
that the selection of one pupil did not influence the
selection of another.
Selection of the Random Sample
In order to secure a spread of reading levels
representative of the elementary grades , boys and girls
in grades two, four and six were selected. In each of
the three grade levels , seventy pupils were chosen at
random by means of the following selection procedures:
1. From the research department in the central
office of the school system, the most recent
compilation of enrollment data were obtained.
This information included the number of pupils
in each grade level in each of the elementary
schools in the community.
2. In alphabetical order, numbers were assigned to
each of the twenty-six schools according to
enrollment. Beginning with the school first in
the alphabetical listing, second graders were
given numbers from 1001 to 1043; fourth graders
were given numbers from 1044 to 1103; sixth
grade pupils at that school were given numbers
from 1104 to 1149. In like manner, every
second, fourth and sixth grade pupil was given
a number until almost 6,000 pupils had been
numbered.
Using a table of random numbers, all numbers
falling between 1001 and 6905 were fitted into
the proper school and grade level until seventy
numbers at each grade level had been listed.
In each school, teachers were listed alphabet
ically in each of the three grade levels. The
class roll of the teacher whose name came first
in the alphabetical listing received the lowest
numbers assigned to that grade in that particu
lar school. The class roll as listed in the
state register was used as the basis for count
ing numbers until one of the random numbers
previously selected appeared opposite a pupil's
name. This pupil was automatically chosen for
inclusion in the study.
According to an agreement with the central
office of the school system, the list of pupils
chosen by using the procedure above was
discussed with the school principal. If the
principal or the child's teacher objected
strongly to having the pupil included, the name
of the pupil of the same sex appearing next on
the roll was chosen. However, this change was
necessary with only one of the 210 pupils
included in the random sample.
6. In this way, every regular elementary school
pupil in second, fourth and sixth grades had an
equal chance of being included in the study.
Numbers selected from each school varied from
three to twelve, as is shown in Table 4.
7. Teachers of the pupils selected at random were
automatically included in the study. Principals
of all twenty-six schools were also interviewed
before and after the period of testing.
Distribution of the Random Sample
In order to describe the characteristics of the
sample and to clarify the distribution of individuals
selected for study, several tables have been prepared.
Examination of Table 4 reveals that the elementary school
population studied totaled 14,667, and that the total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
TABLE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF THE RANDOM SAMPLE ACCORDING TO INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS
,pota^ Second Grade Fourth Grade Sixth Grade
Enrollment Total Sample Total Sample Total Sample
378 43 2 60 0 46 2
834 108 3 114 4 113 3
190 27 1 27 2 20 1
401 59 2 51 2 36 2
527 70 3 82 5 82 3
405 62 2 65 2 29 0
773 106 0 96 3 75 4
487 72 2 65 2 75 5
746 95 3 107 4 102 3
426 65 2 55 3 47 2
381 60 1 44 4 26 2
565 63 3 81 4 85 4
588 86 3 86 3 74 4
693 126 5 95 4 77 3
739 98 2 96 1 102 3
202
TABLE 4--Continued
School
Total
Enrollment
Second Grade Fourth Grade Sixth Grade
Total Sample Total Sample Total Sample
16 996 148 5 131 3 116 3
17 280 42 0 34 3 32 0
18 455 73 5 65 3 63 3
19 801 97 5 115 3 118 3
20 694 88 3 85 4 98 2
21 193 21 2 19 2 32 1
22 327 54 3 46 2 39 3
23 434 60 2 71 2 62 3
24 795 119 4 89 2 90 3
25 742 100 4 103 2 109 4
26 817 117 3 114 1 102 4
Totals 14,667 2,059 70 1,996 70 1,850 70
ro
o
u>
204
enrollment in the three grade levels selected was 5 ,905
pupils. Seventy pupils were chosen for study at each
grade level as described above. Seventy were selected
from the second grade population of 2,059, seventy from
the fourth grade total of 1 ,996, and seventy from the
sixth grade total of 1,850 pupils.
It is noted in Table 4 that no second grade pupils
happened to be chosen in two of the twenty-six schools , no
fourth grade pupils were included in one school, and no
sixth grade pupils were chosen from two schools. In the
smallest school in the community only three pupils were
studied in the three grades, while twelve were selected in
one of the largest schools.
The sexes were almost evenly distributed in the
sample; 108 boys and 102 girls made the total of 210
pupils studied, as shown in Table 5. Table 6 demonstrates
that the chronological age of second grade pupils was from
seven years to ten years. The ages of fourth graders
ranged from eight years through eleven years , and ages of
sixth graders ranged from eleven to fourteen years. Thus
it can be observed that there was overlapping of chrono
logical ages between second and fourth grade pupils , and
TABLE 5
DISTRIBUTION OF THE RANDOM SAMPLE ACCORDING TO SEX
Boys Girls Total
Grade Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent
2 37 52.8 33 47.2 70 100
4 37 52.8 33 47.2 70 100
6 34 48.6 36 51.4 70 100
Total
Sample 108 102 210
Per Cent
Total
of
51.4 48.6 100
N)
O
Ln
TABLE 6
DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ACCORDING TO CHRONOLOGICAL AGE
Chronological Age
Grade 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total Number
2 26 40 4 70
4 1 27 41 1 70
6 45 24 1 70
Totals 26 41 31 41 46 24 1 21.0
N)
O
O'
207
between £ourth and sixth graders , but no overlapping
between second and sixth grade pupils. The median age for
second graders was eight years , that for fourth graders
was ten, and that for sixth graders was eleven years.
While intelligence scores were not a factor in
selecting pupils nor in testing the hypotheses , these
scores were noted for all pupils included in the sample.
No intelligence tests had been administered to second
grade pupils, but scores were available for 128 of the 140
pupils in fourth and sixth grades. It will be noted in
Table 7 that the scores ranged from 80 to 159, the medians
and modes at fourth and sixth grade levels falling near the
high limits of average intelligence. It has been reported
that the median intelligence score for the elementary
grades of the district is also near the high average
point of 110.
III. SOURCES OF DATA, AND PROCEDURES USED
Preliminary Arrangements
Precautions were taken at every step to secure the
cooperation of the central office of the school system,
and to establish good relationships with each individual
208
TABLE 7
DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ACCORDING TO
INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS*
Intelligence Number of_Pupils_______
Quotient________ Fourth Grade Sixth Grade Total
Below 80 0 0 0
80-89 7 4 11
90-99 8 7 15
100-109 24** 14 38
110-119 12
15** 27
120-129 6 18 24
130-139 4 2 6
140-149 2 3 5
150-159 1 1 2
Above 159 0 0 0
No record 6 6 12
Totals 70 70 140
* The district did not administer intelligence tests to
second grade pupils. Fourth and sixth grade pupils
were given the California Test of Mental Maturity.
** Median score.
209
principal, teacher and pupil included in the study. It was
necessary to visit each school to make arrangements with
the principal for later testing, interviewing and use of
school records. At this time the nature of the study and
the process of random selection were explained in detail.
After the initial visit, some principals explained
to the entire staff the nature of the study, while In other
cases only the teachers of selected pupils were given a
detailed explanation by the investigator. Each teacher
was contacted before pupils were taken from the classroom.
At that time, the method of pupil selection was reviewed,
measures of appraisal discussed, purposes of the study
outlined, and an appointment made for a later interview.
All tests were administered and all interviews were
conducted by the investigator. In most cases a group
silent reading test preceded the individual testing and
conference period. At the time of the first pupil contact
it was explained that teachers want to learn more about
ways to help boys and girls improve in reading. Pupils
were told that their names had been chosen at random,
"like picking names from a hat." They were assured that
the test scores would not be used for the purpose of
210
determining promotion or retention and that it was hoped
that excellent, average and slow readers would be included
in the group. Pupils were asked to do their best on the
tests and were told that the time lost from class need not
be made up later.
Appraisal of Reading Proficiency
The evaluation of pupil reading level included the
use of a standardized oral reading test, a standardized
silent reading test, an informal reading inventory, an
informal phonics test, an objective measure of performance
on the assigned basic reading text, and teacher and pupil
judgment of the suitability of the assigned reading text
with regard to the pupil's reading performance level.
References are made repeatedly to grade level rat
ings in test scores and textbook readability for purposes
of comparison. These figures refer to the ten-month school
year. A book which was rated 3.6, for example, describes
the difficulty level presumably suited to the average third
grade pupil in the sixth month of the school year. It
should also be noted that tests involved in this study were
administered during the seventh month of the school year
when the national norms for the three grade levels were
211
2.7, 4.7 and 6.7, respectively.
Standardized silent reading test. When possible,
all of the selected second grade pupils in a given school
took the California Reading Test, Lower Primary, Fora W
(228) , at one sitting. Since fourth and sixth grade
pupils used the same test fora, the California Reading
Test, Elementary Fora Y (229) was administered to all
selected fourth and sixth grade pupils at one time when
this was possible. When the test was administered on an
individual basis, directions designed for classroom admin
istration were followed, but pupils marked their answers
in the test booklets rather than on answer sheets.
Both the Lower Primary and Elementary forms of the
California Reading Test yield sub-scores for Reading
Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension which may be trans
lated into grade placement scores. The average of the
two scores indicates the pupil's "reading grade placement."
In the Primary Form (228) which was used with the
second grade sample, the test sections are divided as
follows:
Reading Vocabulary
Word Form
Word Recognition
212
Meaning of Opposites
Reading Comprehension
Following Directions
Directly Stated Facts
Interpretations
Total Reading
The total time allowed for administration of the reading
tests is twenty-nine minutes. However, this is conceived
as a "power test," since it was found that about 90 per
cent of pupils can complete the items in that time and the
remaining pupils do no better with additional time. Raw
scores are readily converted to grade placement scores by
using a table provided with the tests.
Reliability coefficients for the separate sections
and the total reading test were compiled by the publisher
(228) for second grade by using Ruder-Richardson formula
21. The reliability coefficient of the total reading test
was .93. The standard error of measurement, which esti
mates how closely an individual score approximates a true
score, was 0.2 months for the total test when the grade
placement table was used. The standard deviation of the
total reading test was 0.8 with a mean of 2.0. During
four editions from 1937 through 1957, studies were made to
213
insure content validity (228:5-9).
In fourth and sixth grades the Elementary Form (229)
was used. The reading test has been divided into sections
as follows:
Reading Vocabulary
Word Fora
Word Recognition
Meaning of Opposites
Meaning of Similarities
Reading Comprehension
Following Directions
Reference Skills
Interpretations
Total Reading
The total time permitted for administration of this reading
test is thirty-five minutes. This form is also conceived
as a power rather than a speed test. Raw scores may be
interpreted as percentile scores or grade placement scores,
but percentile scores were not used here in treating the
data.
Reliability coefficients for the separate sections
and the total reading test were compiled by using Kuder-
Richardson formula 21. The reliability coefficient of the
total reading test on this form was .95. The standard
error of measurement was 0.3 months with a mean of 5.1.
214
The standard deviation was 1.4 with the same mean. Con
struct and content validity have been studied through five
editions (229:5-14).
In the following chapters which report the data,
the full name of the silent reading test has frequently
been shortened to the "California" test.
Standardized oral reading test. The Gilmore Oral
Reading Test, Form A (225) was administered to each child
during the individual interview. This test provides a
measure of accuracy of oral reading, rate of oral reading,
and comprehension of the material read. Raw scores may be
translated into grade placement scores in accuracy and
comprehension. The pupil reads from a booklet containing
ten paragraphs of increasing difficulty which form a con
tinuous story. The first paragraph contains 26 words,
while the last contains 252 words. The mean number of
words in each sentence increases from less than five to
more than twenty-eight. Errors in accuracy of oral reading
include (1) substitutions , (2) words pronounced by the
examiner, (3) mispronunciations, (4) disregard of punctua
tion, (5) insertions, (6) hesitations, (7) repetitions,
and (8) omissions. Grade placement scores for each of the
215
sections range from 1.0 through 9.8. It is not recommended
that these scores in accuracy and comprehension be averaged
for a total grade placement. A score may also be computed
for rate of reading. Neither the score for rate nor for
comprehension were used in testing the hypotheses. In
later sections which describe the findings , references to
the Gilmore Oral Reading Test include only the score
derived in the accuracy section.
Reliability coefficients for the separate sections
were compiled by using Kuder-Richard formula 21. The
reliability coefficient for the accuracy section for grade
two was .88, and for the comprehension section it was .82.
Statistical evidences of validity are also reported in the
test manual (225:5, 6).
In the following chapters which report the data,
the full name of the oral reading test has been frequently
shortened to the "Gilmore" test.
Informal Reading Inventory. Betts developed pro
posals for a teacher inventory of reading skills into a
full-scale Informal Reading Inventory which he has
described in his text (2:438-485), in his Handbook on
Corrective Reading (5:8-45), and in other publications.
216
In administering the test, the pupil is presented with a
series of selections from any basal reading series, and is
asked to read orally from selected levels while the exam
iner notes problems of repetition, word pronunciation,
speed, interpretation of punctuation, rhythm, hesitations
and tension movements. Silent reading and oral re-reading
are the next steps, and the examiner notes speed, lip move
ment, head movement and other possible signs of tension.
A record is kept of comprehension on questions asked,
words not known, and other helpful information.
Betts suggested that four levels of reading perform
ance be determined by the use of an Informal Reading
Inventory. The lowest, or "independent reading level,"
was described as that where the pupil was free from tension
during reading, accurately pronounced more than 99 per cent
of the words , and had a minimum comprehension score of at
least 90 per cent. The "instructional level" was described
as requiring a minimum comprehension score of at least
75 per cent, accurate pronunciation of at least 95 per cent
of the words in the selection read orally, and freedom from
symptoms of tension. The "frustration level" was defined
as that where the pupil was unable to pronounce 10 per cent
217
or more of the words , where his comprehension score was
less than 50 per cent, and where he exhibited evidence of
tension. A fourth level, called "capacity level," was
described as the comprehension level when material was read
to the pupil.
The administration and appraisal of the Informal
Reading Inventory was described in detail by Betts, as
follows:
. . . Tommy was told that this first informal test
was to find out how well he could read. We were
going to find out what he could do well, rather
than what he could not do. He would begin with an
easy book and continue with succeeding books of
the series until they got to be hard. . . .
The easiest book in the series--a pre-primer--was
used as a starting point. This book was read both
silently and orally without difficulty, and with
good understanding. There was no lip movement,
finger pointing, frowning, or other signs of
trouble.
The second book--a primer--caused Tommy quite a
struggle. He could not pronounce the words pretty
or funny. He said daddy for father and cats for
kittens. At this reader level, then, he had two
kinds of word trouble. First, his phonic and other
word-analysis skills were not good enough to pro
nounce common words such as pretty and funny.
Second , he had the bad habit of substituting one
word for another, such as daddy for father. While
the substituted words had similar meanings , they
were more proof of his inaccurate observation of word
forms....
218
We explained to Tommy that we almost never read
orally without first reading the selection silently.
Therefore, he could try to read the next page
silently.
The thread of the story was picked up, and Tommy
read the next page to himself. He asked for help
on the pronunciation of three words. During his
silent reading, he tended to move his lips when he
tried to pronounce difficult words. After he fin
ished reading the page, he looked up and said,
"Now I think I can tell you what happened in the
story." And he proved it!
To check on Tommy's oral reading we had him re-read
parts of the story that answered certain questions.
This oral re-reading was accurate and rhythmical.
When asked if he would like to try the next book--
a first reader--Tommy was willing but not enthus
iastic. He explained, "I had about all I could do
to read the last book. They are getting much harder
now!" Tommy was right because he was blocked by his
inability to pronounce three out of four words in
the first reader.
This informal test told us many things about Tommy.
In the first place, he could read at a beginning
level. Secondly, he could become a better reader.
In short, Tommy could learn to read i^f these steps
could be taken:
1. Begin with a pre-primer in order to give him
a running start. He needed to be relaxed in
a reading situation and to get the feel of
reading with success rather than defeat.
2. Give him the opportunity to do his first
reading silently in order to get the gist
of the material and to solve his word
pronunciation problems.
219
3. Help him with his phonics and other word-
pronouncing skills.
4. Use carefully graded books so that he could
gradually learn to read more difficult
material.
Tommy's par in reading at the time of the test was
pre-primer level, but he could read. (367:45, 15)
Betts continued by describing the procedure in
estimating Tommy's capacity level (which happened to be
sixth grade material) and declared that his listening com
prehension was as high as that of most fifth and sixth
graders. Betts stated that, since Tommy's instructional
level was preprimer, he was six years retarded in reading
although he was just entering fourth grade after having
repeated third.
This detailed description of the administration of
Betts' informal reading inventory illustrates that in a
practical situation the performance in oral reading at
sight was used to determine instructional level. During
the silent reading attempt on primer level, for example,
the pupil exhibited lip movements, but needed help on only
three words in one hundred, and his comprehension was
excellent„ On oral re-reading of the primer material, he
read smoothly without error. It must be concluded, then,
220
that it is the oral reading without silent pre-reading on
which Betts based the conclusion that Tommy's instructional
level was preprimer.
In a further effort to clarify the administration
and scoring of the Informal Reading Inventory, questions
were mailed to the Betts Clinic at Temple University. The
reply signed by Dr. Betts' assistant, Dr. Linda Smith,
made it evident that substitutions, insertions, omissions,
hesitations, and disregard of punctuation, as well as words
pronounced by the examiner, were included in the 5 per cent
error count allowed on the instructional level.
A testing booklet was fashioned from pages cut from
basal readers. In the Row-Peterson reading series, the
last preprimer (196:3), the primer (193:125), the basic
first (199:141), second (195:230), third (197:330),
fourth (198:279), fifth (194:247), and sixth (124:265)
readers were selected; this series is not widely used in
the district. In addition, a seventh grade selection was
included from Paths and Pathfinders (152:373), an eighth
grade selection from Wonders and Workers (155:286), and a
high school selection from Literature and Life, Book 2
(130:51).
221
In this study, data which refer to the Informal
Reading Inventory are concerned with the instructional
level only. In order to obtain data concerning instruc
tional levels which could be compared with test scores and
readability formulas, the middle month of the school year
or part of the school year for which the book was recom
mended by the publishers was used in computing the means
and in reporting the ranges. The preprimer was therefore
assigned a grade level of 1.3, the primer was assigned 1.5,
and the first grade book was assigned 1.7. Since the Row-
Peterson series has a single basal book for each grade
above first, this book was labeled at the mid-month of the
school year. In this way the second grade book was
assigned the placement of 2.5, the third grade book was
assigned the placement of 3.5, and so on.
Pupil interview and oral reading. As each individ
ual appeared for the interview, a few moments were spent in
establishing rapport. The following steps were then taken:
1. The pupil was asked to locate the story cur
rently assigned in his basic reader. In the
second story beyond this assignment, a passage
of approximately 100 words was selected. The
pupil was asked to read this selection at sight.
The sentence or paragraph containing the 100th
word was completed by the pupil, but errors were
noted only in the 100-word selection. Errors
in accuracy made in the oral reading were
recorded on a form prepared for this purpose,
and included those described in the oral reading
test and/or as described earlier in the Betts
proposals. When the pupil had finished reading
the selection, he was asked four questions about
it, and the percentage of correct answers was
recorded. In this way, scores for the oral
reading in the assigned basic reader were given
in percentages of accuracy and comprehension,
which were later compared to the Betts criteria
for the instructional level.
The pupil was then asked to judge whether this
assigned reader was easy for him to read, dif
ficult for him, or 1 1 just about right." He was
further asked, if the choice were his, whether
he would choose an easier, an equally difficult,
or a more difficult book.
Because the standardized and informal tests
gave little indication of specific ability to
use structural and phonetic analysis, the pupil
was asked to pronounce fifty nonsense syllables
which had been constructed with graduated dif
ficulty. Any reasonable pronunciation was
accepted. These syllables will be found in
Appendix A. Results of this informal test were
used in testing the seventh hypothesis.
The Informal Reading Inventory as proposed by
Betts (367:13-19) was then administered. This
procedure has been described in detail in a
previous section. Since Betts has declared that
a pupil should receive instruction on a level
where his accuracy is 98 to 93 per cent, and
where his comprehension is at least 75 per cent,
the pupil was asked to begin reading selections
graded at least several years below the grade
level of the assigned text. The errors listed
by Betts agree with those on the Gilmore Oral
Reading Test (225) and were recorded on prepared
record sheets. Comprehension questions were
224
predetermined for each selection so that all
pupils were asked identical questions. As a
precaution, the pupil was asked to read the
selection at the next level above his instruc
tional level.
5. The Gilmore Oral Reading Test (225:1-26) was
administered as a standardized measure of oral
reading and comprehension. After the test pro
cedure was explained according to directions in
the manual, the pupil was asked to begin reading
several paragraphs below the grade level of his
assigned book. In this test it was necessary to
determine a basal level at which the pupil made
two or less errors in accuracy and a ceiling
paragraph at which the pupil made ten or more
errors. Five questions were listed to be asked
after each paragraph read, so that a score could
be computed for both accuracy and comprehension.
Provisions are included in the test to record
rate of reading, but this factor was not meas
ured. The accuracy section was chosen to report
225
in this study since no total or composite score
can be computed for this test.
Interviews with Teachers and Principals
Teachers and principals were both interviewed on two
occasions. The first contact with the principal was
designed to introduce the study and to arrange for the
visit to the school. In the final interview the principal
was informed of the test results and was asked for his
opinion of the appraisal procedure.
At the time of the initial teacher contact, the
procedure and purpose of the study were briefly explained.
Emphasis was given to all facts which would reassure the
teacher that no individual was being evaluated during this
study. The teacher was asked at this interview to identify
the reading, arithmetic, spelling, social studies, science
and language texts assigned to the selected pupils. The
teacher was also asked to estimate the pupil's ability in
reading. For example, this question would be asked of a
sixth grade teacher: "What is Johnny's reading ability in
terms of reading texts he can successfully read?" Often
the teacher asked for clarification or protested that he
would need to consult test records. The question was
226
re-stated: "Just as a general judgment, would you say that
his reading is average for his grade?" Further questions
probed for more precise teacher evaluation. If a sixth
grade pupil's reading had been estimated above grade level,
for example, this question might follow: "Would you judge
that he should be reading a book which was published for
the average seventh grader, or better than that? Would
you say that he could successfully read in a ninth or
tenth grade book?"
After the test and informal data had been analyzed,
the teacher was interviewed for a second time. This inter
view was more lengthy, and usually involved a detailed
discussion of the individual pupil. The teacher was
reminded of his original estimate of suitable difficulty
level for the reading text for the pupil under discussion.
When differences were apparent between the teacher's
estimate of suitable grade level and the reading text
which he had been assigned, reasons for the assignment of
that particular book were noted. Another question which
was included in each interview was related to the measures
used by the teacher in forming his judgment of desirable
difficulty level of the reading text which should be
227
assigned to the pupil, if circumstances permitted. A third
question probed teacher opinion of the criteria used by
Betts for determining instructional level on the Informal
Reading Inventory. Each teacher was also asked whether he
felt the need for objective measures of oral reading
achievement which could be used for periodic evaluation of
individual pupils and which were unrelated to the district
testing program.
Description of Distribution and
Experience of Teachers
In the twenty-six elementary schools, a total of 76
second grade teachers were employed. Of this number, 46
teachers were interviewed because pupils in the study were
under their direction. Of the 71 fourth grade teachers,
46 were included in the study. At the sixth grade level,
68 teachers were employed, and 47 were included in the
study. These data are shown in Table 8. Thus, of a total
of 215 teachers employed in teaching the three grade levels
in the school system, 139, or 65 per cent, were included
in the s tudy.
A total of 13 teachers included in the study were
in their first year of teaching, 15 were in their second
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
TABLE 8
DISTRIBUTION OF TEACHERS INCLUDED IN STUDY
Second Grade Fourth
Total Number Included in Total Number
Employed This Study Employed
2 1 2
3 3 4
1 1 1
2 1 2
2 2 3
2 1 2
4 0 3
3 1 3
4 2 3
2 2 2
2 1 2
3 2 3
3 2 3
4 4 3
4 1 3
Grade Sixth Grade
Included in Total Number Included in
This Study Employed This Study
0 2 1
3 4 2
1 1 1
1 2 1
3 3 2
2 1 0
2 3 2
1 3 3
2 3 2
2 2 2
2 1 1
2 3 3
2 3 3
2 3 3
N>
00
TABLE 8--Continued
School
Second Grade Fourth Grade Sixth Grade
Total Number
Employed
Included in
This Study
Total Number
Employed
Included in
This Study
Total Number
Employed
Included in
This Study
16 5 3 5
2 4 3
17 2 0 2 2 1 0
18 3 3 2 2 3 2
19 4 3 4 3 5 3
20 3 2 3 3 3 2
21 1 1 2 1 1 1
22 2 2 2 1 2 1
23 2 2 2 1 2 1
24 5 2 3 2 3 2
25 4 2 3 2 4 2
26 4 2 4 1 3 2
Totals 76 46 71 46 68 47
M
ro
V O
230
or third year of teaching, and 111 had had more than three
years of teaching experience. Approximately 80 per cent
of the teachers who were interviewed had had more than
three years of experience in the teaching field, as is
exhibited in Table 9.
Use of Cumulative Records
In the school system chosen for this study a cumula
tive folder is kept for each pupil. Such pertinent infor
mation as registration data, parent conference forms, and
related items are filed in this folder. In addition, a
cumulative record sheet contains pertinent data from the
date of the child's entrance in kindergarten, or later,
through sixth grade. On the cumulative record sheet are
listed birthdate, health information, test scores, grades,
teacher comments and certain other data.
Data gathered for this study from the cumulative
record sheet included date of birth, intelligence test
scores , reading test scores , most recent report card grade
in reading, and teacher comments written during the
current year.
231
TABLE 9
YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE OF TEACHERS
INCLUDED IN STUDY
___________Years of Teaching____________
One Two Three More than
Grade Year Years Years Three Total
2 4 3 1 38 46
4 4 4 3 35 46
6 5 3 1 38 47
Totals 13 10 5 111 139
232
Computation of Readability of Textbooks
All of the texts listed by teachers as assigned to
pupils were analyzed through the use of readability for
mulas .
The Dale-Chall formula (249:1-29) was chosen for all
texts which were recommended by the publisher for pupils
in grades four and above. The Spache formula (331:177-184)
was used for all texts which had been recommended by the
publisher for pupils in grades one, two and three. In a
few cases, no grade recommendation was found in the text
or publisher’s material. In these cases the school dis
trict had recommended the books for certain grade levels ,
and these placements were used in applying either the
Dale-Chall or Spache formulas.
The two formulas are similar since the Spache
formula was designed to take the Dale-Chall computations
downward into books recommended for primary grades. Spache
used the criteria of difficult words and average sentence
length used by Dale and Chall for determining readability.
Forms for the two formulas are identical except for certain
constants.
233
In computing a readability score using either the
Dale-Chall or Spache formulas it was necessary to count
samples in the early pages , middle pages and end pages of
each book being analyzed. At least 100 words were used in
each sample, varying in number to a high of 124 words.
This variation was necessary because directions required
that all words in the sentence in which the one-hundredth
word falls be included. The number of words in the sample
and the number of sentences in the sample are counted for
both the Dale-Chall and the Spache formulas.
From this point on, the formulas differ slightly.
In the Dale-Chall formula, a count must be made of words
not included in the Dale list of 3 ,000 words , while the
Spache formula uses the Dale list of 769 words as "easy
words." The average sentence length is then computed.
The Dale score for each of the formulas is the number of
words not on the particular Dale list used, divided by the
number of words in the sample, and then multiplied by 100.
Certain constants are then used in the computation,
as shown in Tables 10 and 13.
The raw score for both computations is the figure
calculated by adding the last two steps in the procedure,
234
plus the constant. The three samples are combined and
averaged in order to find the average raw score. Tables 10
and 11 further explain the steps in computing these for
mulas . In the Spache formula this average score is the
grade placement of the book, but in the Dale-Chall formula
a further step is necessary, since a table must be con
sulted to find the average corrected grade level, as shown
in Table 11. For the purposes of this study, the correc
tion for the Dale-Chall formula has been further refined,
as shown in Table 12, so that grade levels of books can be
more accurately compared to diagnosed reading levels of
pupils.
In order to make this procedure more understandable,
a sample work sheet for both the Dale-Chall and Spache
formulas , as well as the Dale-Chall table for correcting
grade level and the refined correction table have been
included in the following pages. Tables 10, 11 and 12
explain the Dale-Chall formula and Table 13 explains the
Spache formula.
Readability formula placements as well as published
grade placements for all texts analyzed are exhibited in
Appendix B.
TABLE 10
SAMPLE WORK SHEET FOR THE DALE-CHALL FORMULA
Article: Page No. 2 Page No. 7 Page No. 12
Author: From: "A happy From: "diphtheria From: "The germs
Publisher: To: prevented." To: often given" To: or boiled"
1. Number of words in sample 132 131 111
2. Number of sentences 7 9 6
3. Number of words not on
Dale list 6 20 17
4. Average sentence length
(divide 1 by 2) 19 15 19
5. Dale score (divide 3 by
1, multiply by 100) 5 15 15
235
TABLE 10— Continued
6. Multiply average sentence
length by .0496 (4) .9424 .7740 .9424
7. Multiply Dale score (5)
by .1579 .7895 2.3685 2.3685
8. Constant 3.6365 3.6365 3.6365
9. Formula raw score
(add 6, 7, and 8) 5.3684 6.7490 6.9474
Average raw score of 3 samples 6.35
Average corrected grade-level 7-8
Source: Edgar Dale and Jeanne S. Chall, A Formula for Predicting Readability
(Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1948), p. 17.
N>
OJ
O'
237
TABLE 11
DALE-CHALL FORMULA: CORRECTION TABLE
Formula Raw Score Corrected Grade Levels
4.9 and below
5.0 to 5.9
6.0 to 6.9
7.0 to 7.9
8.0 to 8.9
9.0 to 9.9
10.0 and above
4th grade and below
5th to 6th grade
7th to 8th grade
9th to 10th grade
11th to 12th grade
13th to 14th grade
(college)
16 + (college graduate)
Source: Edgar Dale and Jeanne S. Chall, A Formula for
Predicting Readability (Columbus: Ohio State
University Press, 1948), p. 16.
238
TABLE 12
DALE-CHALL FORMULA: REFINED CORRECTION TABLE
Formula Corrected Formula Corrected
Raw Score Grade Level Raw Score Grade Level
4.0 4.0 6.0 7.1
4.1 4.1 6.1 7.3
4.2 4.2 6.2 7.5
4.3 4.3 6.3 7.7
4.4 4.4 6.4 7.9
4.5 4.5 6.5 8.1
4.6 4.6 6.6 8.3
4.7 4.7 6.7 8.5
4.8 4.8 6.8 8.7
4.9 4.9 6.9 8.9
5.0 5.1 7.0 9.1
5.1 5.3 7.1 9.3
5.2
5.5 7.2 9.5
5.3 5.7 7.3 9.7
5.4 5.9 7.4 9.9
5.5 6.1
7.5 10.0
5.6 6.3 7.6 10.3
5.7 6.5 7.7 10.5
5.8
6.7 7.8 10.7
5.9 6.9 7.9 10.9
8.0 + Above
11th
grade
239
TABLE 13
SAMPLE WORK SHEET FOR THE SPACHE READABILITY FORMULA
Title________________________________ Date__
Author Publisher
1. Number of words_____________ _______ _______ _____
2. Number sentences____________ _______ _______ _____
3. Number words not on
Dale 769 Easy Words
List _______ _______ _____
4. Average Sentence
Length (Divide 1 by 2) _______ _______ _____
5. Dale score (Divide 3
by 1, multiply by 100) _______ _______ _____
6. Multiply (4) by .141 _______ _______ _____
7. Multiply Dale score
(5) by .086_________________________ _______ _____
8. Constant .839 .839 .839
9. Estimated grade placement
(Add 6, 7 and 8)____________ _______ _______ _____
Average grade placement of samples_________
Analyzed by
Date
Source: George Spache, "A Readability Formula for Primary
Reading Materials," Research in the Three R's,
ed. C. W. Hunnicutt and William J. Iverson (New
York: Harper & Bros., 1958), p. 180.
240
IV. DESCRIPTION OF INFERIOR, AVERAGE
AND SUPERIOR READERS
Since the hypotheses relate to inferior, average
and/or superior readers, it was necessary to draw specific
distinctions between these groups so that each pupil could
be included in one of the three categories. But results
obtained from various measures of appraisal were not
identical in most cases. For this reason the Accuracy
Section of the individually administered Gilmore Oral
Reading Test was chosen as the criterion for categorizing
pupils according to over-all reading skill.
The middle month of the three-month period of pupil
appraisal was arbitrarily called the month of the study.
On this basis , the study was conducted during the seventh
month of the 1958-59 school year. Table 14 lists scores
which separated the three ability groups.
The bases used in categorizing pupils as inferior,
average or superior readers were as follows:
1. The expected grade placement of all second grade
pupils at the time of the study was 2.7. Pupils
in this grade who actually scored below 2.0 were
241
TABLE 14
READING SCORES WHICH CHARACTERIZED PUPILS AS INFERIOR,
AVERAGE AND SUPERIOR READERS IN THIS INVESTIGATION
Reading Grade Levels
Grade Inferior Average Superior
2 Below 2.0 2.0 - 3.4 Above 3.4
4 Below 3.3 3.5 - 5.9 Above 5.9
6 Below 5.0 5.0 - 8.4 Above 8.4
retarded in reading by seven months, or one
fourth of their actual grade placement, and were
considered to be "inferior readers.” Pupils
who scored above 3.4 were accelerated in reading
by seven months , or one fourth of their grade
placement, and were considered to be "superior
readers.” Second grade pupils who scored from
2.0 through 3.4 were termed "average readers”
for that grade.
The school grade placement of all fourth grade
pupils at the time of the study was 4.7. Pupils
in this grade who scored below 3.5 were retarded
in reading by one school year and two months
(1.2 years or 12 school months), or one fourth
of their actual grade placement, and were con
sidered to be "inferior readers.” Pupils who
scored above 5.9 were accelerated in reading by
one school year and two months (1.2 years or
12 school months), or one fourth of their actual
grade placement, and were considered to be
"superior readers.” Fourth grade pupils who
scored from 3.5 through 5.9 were considered to
243
be "average readers" for their grade.
3. The expected grade placement of all sixth grade
pupils at the time of the study was 6.7. Pupils
in this grade who scored below 5.0 were retarded
in reading by one school year and seven months
(1.7 years or 17 school months), or one fourth
of their actual grade placement, and were con
sidered to be "inferior readers." Pupils who
scored above 8.4 were accelerated in reading by
one school year and seven months (1.7 years or
17 school months), or one fourth of their actual
grade placement, and were considered to be
"superior readers." Sixth grade pupils who
scored from 5.0 through 8.4 on the Gilmore Oral
Reading Test, Accuracy Section, were considered
to be "average readers" for their grade.
When the pupils chosen at random had been given the
tests described above, they were grouped into Inferior,
Average and Superior categories as shown in Table 15.
Approximately 21 per cent of the pupils fell within the
group of inferior readers, 48.5 per cent into the average
group and 30.5 per cent into the superior group, as shown
TABLE 15
PERCENTAGES OF INFERIOR, AVERAGE AND SUPERIOR READERS AT EACH GRADE LEVEL
Inferior Average Superior Total
Grade Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent
2 19 27.2 31 44.3 20 28.5 70 100
4 10 14.4 43 61.4 17 24.2 70 100
6 15 21.5 28 40.0 27 38.5 70 100
Total
Readers 44 102 64 210
Per Cent
Total
of
21.0 48.5 30.5 100
■ P -
in Table 16.
Table 16 reports the distribution and percentage of
each of these groups of readers within their own grade
level and in relation to the total group. Approximately
27 per cent of the second grade readers were rated as
inferior, 44 per cent as average and 28 per cent as
superior. In the fourth grade group, 14 per cent were
inferior, 61 per cent average and 24 per cent superior.
In the sixth grade group, 21 per cent were inferior, 40 per
cent average, and 38 per cent superior.
Table 17 Illustrates the age groupings of the pupils
according to grade and reading group in this investigation.
It is shown that the seven-year-old group included only
second graders. In the eight-year-old group, 40 of the
total of 41 pupils were second graders. In the nine-year-
old group, 27 of the total of 31 pupils were fourth
graders. No second or sixth graders were included in the
ten-year-old group. One fourth grade inferior reader was
included in the group of 46 pupils who were eleven years
old. The pupils who were twelve years of age, and the one
pupil who was thirteen, were sixth graders.
TABLE 16
DISTRIBUTION AND PERCENTAGE OF INFERIOR, AVERAGE, AND SUPERIOR READERS
AT EACH GRADE LEVEL*
Grade N
Group Number
Percentage of
Total Sample
Percentage
within Grade
2 70 Inferior 19 9.0 27.2
Average 31 14.7 44.3
Superior 20 9.4 28.5
4 70 Inferior 10 4.7 14.4
Average 43 20.5 61.4
Superior 17 8.1 24.2
6 70 Inferior 15 7.1 21.5
Average 28 13.7 40.0
Superior 27 12.8 38.5
Totals 210 100.0
* According to scores on the accuracy section of the Gilmore Oral Reading Test.
N5
O'
TABLE 17
DISTRIBUTION OF INFERIOR, AVERAGE AND SUPERIOR READERS
ACCORDING TO CHRONOLOGICAL AGE AND GRADE
Grade Group
Number of Pupils at Each Age
Total 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
2 Inferior 7 11 1 19
Average 12 18 1 31
Superior 7 11 2 20
26 40 4 70
4 Inferior 3 6 1 10
Average 20 23 43
Superior 1 4 12 17
1 27 41 1 70
6 Inferior 6 8 1 15
Average 20 8 28
Superior 19 8 27
45 24 1 70
Totals 26 41 31 41 46 24
I I
210 £
248
The sexes were almost evenly distributed in this
study. Approximately 51 per cent of the pupils in the
sample were boys and about 49 per cent were girls , as shown
in Table 18. The number and percentages of boys and girls
at each grade level classified as inferior, average and
superior readers are reported in the same table.
As explained earlier, intelligence scores were noted
for the purpose of describing the sample, but were not used
in selection nor directly involved in the hypotheses. The
district did not administer intelligence tests to second
graders, but the distribution by intelligence scores of
pupils classified as inferior, average and superior readers
in fourth and sixth grades is shown in Tables 19 and 20.
It can be observed that six of the ten fourth grade pupils
in the inferior group had IQ scores below 90 , while none
in that group had scores above 110. In the group of
average readers, scores on intelligence tests ranged from
80 through 159. None of the pupils in the group of
superior readers had a score below 100, and the range was
from 100 through 149. For the entire sample, 10 per cent
of scores were below 90, and 10.1 per cent were above 130.
In the sixth grade group, 5.7 per cent of the scores were
TABLE 18
DISTRIBUTION OF INFERIOR, AVERAGE AND SUPERIOR READERS ACCORDING TO SEX
Boys Girls Total
Grade Group Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent
2 Inferior Readers 10 14.3 9 12.9 19 9.0
Average Readers 21 30.0 10 14.3 31 14.7
Superior Readers 6 8.5 14 20.0 20 9.4
4 Inferior Readers 8 11.5 2 2.9 10 4.7
Average Readers 18 25.7 25 35.7 43 20.5
Superior Readers 11 15.7 6 8.5 17 8.1
6 Inferior Readers 8 11.5 7 10.0 15 7.1
Average Readers 15 21.4 13 18.6 28 13.7
Superior Readers 11 15.7 16 22.8 27 12.8
Total Readers 108 102 210
Per Cent of Total 51.4 48.6 100.0
N J
V O
TABLE 19
DISTRIBUTION OF FOURTH GRADE INFERIOR, AVERAGE
AND SUPERIOR READERS ACCORDING TO IQ SCORE
IQ Score
Inferior Average Superior Total
Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent
Below 80 0 0 0 0
80-89 6 8.6 1 1.4 0 7 10.0
90-99 0 8 11.4 0 8 11.4
100-109 2 2.9 18 25.7 4 5.7 24 34.3
110-119 2 2.9 8 11.4 2 2.9 12 17.2
120-129 0 1 1.4 5 7.1 6 8.5
130-139 0 1 1.4 3 4.4 4 5.8
140-149 0 0 2 2.9 2 2.9
150-159 0 1 1.4 0 1 1.4
No record 0 5 7.1 1 1.4 6 8.5
Totals 10 14.4 43 61.2 17 24.4 70 100.0
250
TABLE 20
DISTRIBUTION OF SIXTH GRADE INFERIOR, AVERAGE
AND SUPERIOR READERS ACCORDING TO IQ SCORE
IQ Score
Inferior Average Superior Total
Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent
Below 80 0 0 0 0
80-89 4 5.7 0 0 4 5.7
90-99 3 4.3 4 5.7 0 7 10.0
100-109 6 8.6 7 10.0 1 1.4 14 20.0
110-119 1 1.4 9 12.9 5 7.1 15 21.4
120-129 1 1.4 4 5.7 13 18.6 18 25.7
130-139 0 0 2 2.9 2 2.9
140-149 0 0 3 4.3 3 4.3
150-139 0 0 1 1.4 1 1.4
No record 0 4 5.7 2 2.9 6 8.6
Totals 15 21.4 28 40.0 27 38.6 70 100.0
252
below 90, while 8.6 per cent were above 130. The range of
intelligence scores in the sixth grade sample was from 80
through 159.
V. TREATMENT OF DATA
After data were gathered for each of the 210 pupils
in the sample, tabulations were prepared for different
sortings of the data--inferior, average and superior read
ers in each of the three grade levels , all inferior, all
average and all superior readers. Computed readability
levels of textbooks and the pupil data were transferred to
IBM cards.
The IBM 709 computer at Western Data Processing
Center at the University of California at Los Angeles was
employed to obtain the means, standard deviations and
intercorrelations for the variables under investigation in
each of the nine primary-grade pupil groups , separately for
each of the grades and for each ability group.
Correlations among the variables were determined by
the machine. While most of the hypotheses employed the
use of the t test, as described below, certain correlations
were also reported.
253
When it is suspected that a relationship between
two factors exists or fails to exist, Guilford cautioned
that "it requires a crucial test to enable us to accept or
reject the hypothesis" (44:203). Most of the hypotheses
tested in this study required analysis of differences
between means. The _t test for correlated means requires
knowledge of the correlation between these variables, and
since an intercorrelation program for the IBM 709 existed,
the use of the _t test between correlated pairs of means was
greatly facilitated.
The J: test ordinarily requires that the variables
be normally distributed in the population from which the
sample is drawn. However, this is not the case when only
part of the distribution is considered. Such a sample is
said to be truncated, and is usually assumed to preclude
the use of the _t test. Recently, Boneau (375:49-64) deter
mined empirically that the effect of violation of various
assumptions produces a minimal effect on the distribution
of t. In similar conclusions, Srivastava stated, "For
practical purposes , the power of the t test is not seri
ously invalidated even if the samples are from considerably
non-normal populations" (502:429).
254
In discussing small-sample statistics based upon t
tests , Guilford wrote:
. . . t is the ratio of a deviation from the mean
or other parameter, in a distribution of sample
statistics, to the standard error of that distribu
tion. . . . Statistic t applies regardless of the
size of the sample. (44:218)
The following formula was therefore used in computing the
t tests in order to test the hypotheses:
For certain of the tests , chi squares as described
in Guilford (44:236) were used. The formula was:
N(ad - bc)^
(a + b) (a + c) (b + d) (c + d)
In certain of the nine groups, samples were small.
In order that the computed mean should be unbiased, degrees
of freedom for each group were considered in determining
the level of significance of the tests of the hypotheses.
Guilford's table, "Coefficients of Correlation and t Ratios
255
Significant at the .05 Level and at the .01 Level for
Varying Degrees of Freedom" (44:539), was used to determine
significance levels.
As is usually the case in educational investiga
tions , it was not possible to study all members of the
population of second, fourth and sixth grades. In meas
uring the evidence which may be inferred from the random
sample obtained, the degree of accuracy or trustworthiness
of the sample was reported as significant if falling at or
beyond the .05 confidence level, and very significant if
falling at or beyond the .01 level of confidence.
VI. SUMMARY OF CHAPTER
The random sample and the school population from
which it was drawn were described in this chapter. Details
were included regarding arrangements made with the central
office of the school system and with the principals of each
of the twenty-six elementary schools. The steps taken in
appraising pupil reading level, recording errors and com
prehension on assigned texts , and conducting pupil inter
views were reviewed. Data taken from the cumulative
records for each pupil were mentioned. The criteria used
256
to distinguish inferior, average and superior readers for
the purpose of this study were discussed. Procedures used
in interviews with teachers were explained. The method of
computing readability formulas on assigned books was out
lined. Statistical computations used in processing the
data were briefly summarized.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA CONCERNING PUPILS
OF INFERIOR READING ABILITY
Many recommendations for differentiated guidance
in elementary reading instruction were described in
Chapter I, as were some of the problems involved in match
ing reading materials to the individual needs of pupils.
Studies in reading were shown to have made contributions
to this problem and caused revisions in materials and
methods; nevertheless, the review of literature revealed a
dearth of objective research in the area of classroom
implementation of research and expert opinion.
The present chapter contains an analysis of the
relationships found between appraised reading levels of
44 pupils who were here classified as Inferior Readers and
the readability levels of texts which were assigned for
their instruction. As explained in Chapter III, the
criterion for inclusion in the Inferior Reader group was
257
258
retardation in readability by as much as one fourth of the
pupil's actual grade placement. In this sample of 44
pupils, 19 were in second grade, 10 in fourth grade and
15 in sixth grade. The 19 second grade pupils who scored
below 2.0 on the accuracy section of the Gilmore were
retarded in reading at the time of testing by seven months ,
or one fourth of their actual grade placement. The 10
fourth grade pupils who scored on the same test below 3.5
were retarded in reading by twelve school months , again
one fourth of their actual grade placement. The 15 sixth
grade pupils who scored below 5.0 on this test were re
tarded by one school year and seven months, also one fourth
of their actual grade placement. All were therefore termed
Inferior Readers.
The first section of this chapter analyzes the dif
ficulty levels of assigned texts according to readability
formulas and published recommendations, and includes data
describing pupil performance in reading these texts. The
second section reports relationships between placement of
pupils according to certain standardized and informal
appraisal instruments and according to readability levels
of assigned textbooks. A third major section compares
259
scores on standardized and informal tests. A summary
includes major findings in the chapter.
I. DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF TEXTS ASSIGNED TO PUPILS
OF INFERIOR READING ABILITY
The difficulty levels of assigned reading texts and
the accuracy and comprehension with which pupils read these
texts were pertinent in testing a number of the hypotheses.
It was considered necessary to compare difficulty levels
of all assigned texts according to readability formula
placement with published recommendations for placement.
In this section these findings are analyzed as they relate
to the group of Inferior Readers.
Assigned Reading Textbooks
Difficulty levels of textbooks according to read
ability formulas may differ from recommended grade place
ments of publishers. This section reports the analysis of
difficulty levels of reading textbooks assigned to the
44 Inferior Readers in the sample.
Readability formula placements of reading texts.
Before examining relationships among variables pertinent
260
to this investigation, it was necessary to establish a
common basis of comparison for textbooks. As explained in
Chapter III, assigned texts were analyzed by means of the
Spache Readability Formula for textbooks recommended for
the primary grades, and by means of the Dale-Chall Read
ability Formula for textbooks recommended by the publishers
for placement in fourth grade and above. Ratings of
individual textbooks are listed in Appendix B.
The range, mean and standard deviation of read
ability levels of reading textbooks assigned to pupils of
inferior reading ability in each of the three grades
studied are presented in Table 21. This table refers only
to the difficulty levels of assigned reading texts as com
puted by readability formulas. The t ratios reported
later in the chapter were based on these readability scores
when difficulty levels of assigned texts were appraised.
The 19 second grade pupils who were rated as
Inferior Readers had been assigned reading texts ranging
from a difficulty level of 1.7 through 2.8, with a mean
placement of 2.2 and a standard deviation of .33 years.
Table 22 shows that approximately 26 per cent of these
second grade pupils had been assigned reading texts at the
261
TABLE 21
RANGE, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF DIFFICULTY LEVELS
OF READING TEXTS ASSIGNED TO INFERIOR READERS
Standard
Grade Number Range Mean Deviation
2 19 1.7-2.8 2.2 .33
4 10 1.5-3.5 3.6 1.15
6 15 2.3-7.5 5.2 1.50
262
TABLE 22
PERCENTAGES OF INFERIOR READERS ASSIGNED READING TEXTS
AT VARIOUS LEVELS OF READABILITY
Readability
Levels of
Texts
Percentage of Inferior Readers
Second Grade Fourth Grade Sixth Grade
- 1.9
2.0 - 2.9
3.0 - 3.9
4.0 - 4.9
5.0 - 5.9
6.0 - 6.9
7.0 - 7.9
26
74
10
20
30
20
20
Totals 100 100
20
20
27
27
6
100
263
first grade level of difficulty, while 74 per cent had
been assigned reading texts which were at the second grade
level of difficulty.
Fourth grade pupils of inferior reading ability had
been assigned reading texts at difficulty levels ranging
from 1.5 through 5.5, with a mean grade placement of 3.6.
The standard deviation was 1.15 years. Table 22 demon
strates that 10 per cent of these pupils had been assigned
texts rated at first grade level, 20 per cent had been
assigned texts rated as of second grade difficulty, 30 per
cent had been assigned books rated as of third grade dif
ficulty, 20 per cent had been assigned fourth grade books,
and 20 per cent of the fourth grade Inferior Readers had
been assigned reading textbooks rated at the fifth grade
level of difficulty.
Examination of the data in Table 21 also reveals
that sixth grade Inferior Readers had been assigned read
ing textbooks ranging from a difficulty level of 2.3
through 7.5, with a mean placement of 5.2 and a standard
deviation of 1.5 years. It is apparent from the data
exhibited in Table 22 that approximately 20 per cent of
these sixth grade pupils were assigned texts rated at
264
second grade level, 20 per cent were studying texts rated
as of fourth grade difficulty, 27 per cent were using fifth
grade books , 27 per cent were expected to read sixth grade
books, and 6 per cent were assigned reading texts at the
seventh grade difficulty level.
Comparison of difficulty levels of reading texts
according to readability formulas and publishers' recom
mendations . Because readability formula grade placements
of texts are not generally available to most teachers , a
comparison between recommendations of publishers for grade
placement and the difficulty levels according to readabil
ity formulas seemed desirable.
Table 23 indicates that the published recommenda
tions for placement of textbooks assigned to second grade
pupils of inferior reading ability ranged from primer
through low second grade. The mean for the published
placement was the same as the readability formula mean
level of 2.2.
The published grade placements of texts assigned to
fourth grade pupils in this group ranged from primer level
through fourth grade, while readability formula placements
had a grade range of from 1.5 through 5.5. The mean
265
TABLE 23
A COMPARISON OF THE RANGE AND MEAN DIFFICULTY LEVEL
RATINGS BY PUBLISHERS AND BY READABILITY FORMULAS
FOR READING TEXTS ASSIGNED TO PUPILS
OF INFERIOR ABILITY
Grade
Range Mean
Publisher's
Recommenda
tion
Readability
Formula
Publisher's
Recommenda- Readability
tion Formula
2 P. - 22 1.7 - 2.8 21 2.2
4 P. - 4 1.5 - 5.5
2
3Z 3.6
6 22 - 6 2.3 - 7.5 5 5.2
2
Note: 2 refers to a second grade book recommended for
the last half of the year; 2l refers to a book
recommended for the first half of the year. The
second figure does not appear for fourth, fifth, and
sixth grade books because such breakdowns are seldom
made by publishers.
266
placement for the published recommendations was high third
grade, and the readability formula mean placement was sim
ilar at 3.6.
The publishers' recommendations for reading texts
assigned to sixth grade Inferior Readers ranged from high
second through sixth grade, while, according to readability
formulas, the texts ranged from grades 2.3 through 7.5.
The mean placements according to both measures were essen
tially the same.
In the case of these reading textbooks , it is
apparent that the mean placements derived from readability
formulas differed only slightly from the published grade
placements when the means of the two ratings were con
sidered. However, the range of the texts assigned to
Inferior Readers in fourth and sixth grades was consider
ably greater when the readability formula placement was
studied. As shown in Table 22, 6 per cent of pupils of
inferior reading ability had been assigned sixth grade
reading texts and were therefore attempting to read books
suitable for pupils of average reading ability in middle
seventh grade, according to the readability formula
placement of difficulty.
267
Pupil Performance in Assigned Reading Texts
In order to objectify the assessment of the perform
ance of pupils in reading assigned textbooks, a record was
kept of errors in oral reading and comprehension of ques
tions related to the oral reading, as was described in
Chapter III. As reported in Chapter II, most reading
specialists agreed with the Betts (2:448) criterion for
determining a pupil's instructional level, using the
Informal Reading Inventory, that the pupil should make
five errors in 100 words (including unknown words) , with
at least 75 per cent comprehension.
Accuracy. Examination of the data shown in Table 24
reveals that no second grade Inferior Reader made fewer
than 10 errors in oral reading of the assigned reading
text, and that the errors reached a high count of 45 for
one pupil. The average number of oral reading errors made
by this group was 17 , more than three times the allowable
number.
Fourth grade Inferior Readers read assigned texts
and made from 6 to 29 errors in accuracy of oral reading,
as shown in the same table. The average number of errors
268
TABLE 24
PERCENTAGE OF ACCURACY OF ORAL READING
IN ASSIGNED READING TEXTS BY PUPILS
OF INFERIOR READING ABILITY
Errors in Percentages of Pupils Percentage of
100 words Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 6 Accuracy
5
6 13 94
7 10 13 93
8 20 92
9 91
10 5 10 90
11 13 10 89
12 5 20* 13 88
13 5 10 87
14 13* 86**
15 7 85
16 19 84
17 5* 83
18 5 82
19 5 20
81
20 10 80
21 79
22 78
23 10 7 77
24 76
25 7 75
26 5 74
29 7 71
30 70
31 5 69
37 5
63
39 13
61
269
TABLE 24— Continued
Errors in Percentages of Pupils Percentage of
100 words Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 6 Accuracy
43 5 57
45 ___5 _ ______ 55
Totals 100 100 100
* Median
** Median for total group
270
made by these inadequate readers was 14, almost three times
the allowable maximum.
Sixth grade Inferior Readers read assigned texts
orally with approximately the same degree of accuracy as
the fourth grade Inferior Readers. On the average, this
group made 13 errors.
Comprehension. Table 25 indicates that 70 per cent
of second grade Inferior Readers made perfect scores when
questioned about the content of their oral reading, and
that no pupil's comprehension fell below 50 per cent. It
will be noted that 88 per cent of Inferior Readers met the
IRI criteria for comprehension, while no member of this
group met the criterion for accuracy.
Among the fourth grade Inferior Readers not one
pupil failed to respond to questions with less than perfect
comprehension. While each pupil in this group met the IRI
criteria for comprehension, not one pupil met the criterion
for accuracy.
Among sixth grade Inferior Readers, 7 per cent
failed to meet the IRI criteria for comprehension, while
no pupil in this group met the criterion for accuracy.
271
TABLE 25
COMPREHENSION OF ORAL READING OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTS
BY PUPILS OF INFERIOR READING ABILITY
Percentage of ________ Percentage of Pupils_______
Comprehension Grade 2 Grade A Grade 6
100 70 100 93
75 18
50 12 7
25
Totals 100 100 100
272
It is apparent that errors and unknown words in
oral reading of assigned texts constituted a far greater
problem than comprehension of material read for this group
of Inferior Readers. On the average, these pupils made 14
errors in accuracy, or three times as many as were recom
mended as suitable for the instructional level, while
comprehension scores were well within the recommended
limits.
Difficulty Levels of Texts in Content Fields
Difficulty levels of various textbooks assigned to
poor readers in other curriculum areas are examined in
this section. In a number of cases there was no variation
in texts assigned to all pupils of a given grade; therefore
the _t could not be computed. Mean scores are compared so
that differences in grade placements of texts may be
examined.
The comparisons reported in Table 26 indicate that
the readability level of the only text assigned in content
areas to second grade Inferior Readers was almost identical
in difficulty to that of the assigned reading textbook.
This means that if these poor readers could read their
assigned basal reader successfully, it is likely that they
TABLE 26
COMPARISON OF MEAN GRADE PLACEMENTS OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTBOOKS
WITH THOSE OF OTHER TEXTS ASSIGNED TO INFERIOR READERS
Mean Grade Placements
Grade Reader Social Studies Science Spelling Arithmetic Language
2 2,2
-- --
2.1
4 3.6 5.1 6.9 4.2 5.1 6.3
6 5.2 7.5 8.1 6.9 5.9 8.1
Note: There was no text assigned for second grade pupils in these subjects.
N 3
^1
U>
274
would find the same success in reading the sections of the
arithmetic book which required reading words and sentences.
However, it was shown earlier (Table 24) that the average
pupil in this group read with only 83 per cent accuracy in
his basal reader.
Fourth grade Inferior Readers whose assigned reading
texts had a mean grade placement of middle third grade were
assigned texts in other areas of the curriculum with dif
ficulty levels ranging from one half a school year to more
than three years higher than the reading placement. The
spelling text was six months more difficult than the
assigned reading text, the arithmetic text was 15 months
harder, the social studies texts averaged the same dif
ficulty level as arithmetic texts, the language textbook
was three years and three months more difficult than the
assigned basal reader, according to the readability for
mula.
The mean of the five texts assigned in the content
areas was 5.5, or 19 school months above the mean of the
assigned readers. Obviously, for those pupils whose texts
were below the mean of the readers , the discrepancy was
even greater.
275
Among textbooks assigned to sixth grade pupils who
were classified as Inferior Readers, the range of diffi
culty according to the readability formula was from 5.9
for the arithmetic text to 8.1 for the science and language
texts. The arithmetic text, as shown in Table 26, was
about a half year more difficult than the mean score of
assigned readers. It will be recalled that the grade
range of these basal readers was from 2.3 through 7.5.
The spelling text was one year and seven months more dif
ficult than the mean of the basal readers. The mean dif
ficulty level of social studies texts assigned to these
pupils was 7.5, or two years and three months more dif
ficult than the mean of the assigned basal readers.
Science texts and language texts rated a readability score
of 8.1, two years and nine months above the mean of 5.2
for basal reading texts. If the five texts in the content
fields are averaged, the mean placement is 7.3, or two
years and one month above the mean readability level of
the assigned reading textbooks for these Inferior Readers
in sixth grade.
The data in Table 26 show that fourth and sixth
grade pupils of inferior reading ability were assigned
276
textbooks in the content fields having readability levels
about two years above those of the assigned basal reading
texts.
II. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF
ASSIGNED READING TEXTS AND PUPIL PERFORMANCE
AS MEASURED BY APPRAISAL INSTRUMENTS
This section of Chapter IV presents an analysis of
the relationships between readability levels of reading
texts assigned to Inferior Readers in second, fourth and
sixth grades and the scores received by these pupils on
two standardized tests and one informal appraisal
instrument.
Gilmore Oral Reading Test Scores and
Difficulty Levels of Texts
Examination of Table 27 reveals that grade place
ment scores for Inferior Readers in second grade on the
accuracy section of the Gilmore test ranged from a score
of zero through 1.9, with a mean of 0.8 and a standard
deviation of 0.76 years. Fourth grade pupils in this
group scored from zero through 3.3 on the Gilmore, with a
mean of 2.6 and a standard deviation of 0.97 years. Pupils
TABLE 27
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTS
AND GILMORE ORAL READING TEST SCORES FOR INFERIOR READERS
Grade
Range of Scores Mean Scores Standard Deviation
t ratio Text Gilmore Text Gilmore Text Gilmore
2 1.7-2.8 0-1.9 2.2 0.8 0.33 0.76 7.85**
4 1.5-5.5 0-3.3 3.6 2.6 1.15 0.97 3.77**
6 2.3-7.5 0-4.9 5.2 3.7 1.50 1.40 3.23**
** Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
277
278
in sixth grade who were classed as Inferior Readers
received scores which ranged from zero through 4.9, with a
mean score of 3.7 and a standard deviation of 1.40. It is
obvious that the range of reading scores for Inferior
Readers on this test increased through the grades, but that
certain poor readers failed to make any measurable progress
in reading skills, since zero scores were found at all
three grade levels.
Data reported in Table 27 also show that, while no
second grade pupil in this group received a score on the
Gilmore higher than 1.9, these pupils had been assigned
reading texts with difficulty levels ranging from 1.7
through 2.8, according to readability formula analysis.
While no fourth grade pupil in this group received a score
higher than 3.3 on the Gilmore, these pupils were assigned
reading texts with difficulty levels as high as middle
fifth grade. Among sixth grade pupils, those who failed
to score within first grade level on the Gilmore Oral
Reading Test had been assigned no texts easier than second
grade difficulty. At least one sixth grade pupil who
scored below fifth grade level on the Gilmore was assigned
a reading text rated at middle seventh grade difficulty.
279
The same table demonstrates that the mean difficulty
level of assigned reading textbooks for second grade pupils
who were judged to be Inferior Readers was 2.2, while the
mean score on the Gilmore Oral Reading Test was 0.8 for
this group. It can be seen that pupils who scored below
first grade reading ability on the standardized test were
being asked to read texts which were of second grade dif
ficulty. The _t ratio computed for the difference between
means of these variables was 7.85, significant beyond the
one per cent level of confidence.
Fourth grade pupils of inferior reading ability had
been assigned reading texts which averaged middle third
grade in reading difficulty, while their accuracy mean
score on the Gilmore Oral Reading Test was middle second
grade. The _t ratio of 3.77 indicates that the difference
between the means of these variables is very significant.
Sixth grade pupils of inferior reading ability were
assigned reading texts which averaged low fifth grade dif
ficulty, while the mean score on the Gilmore was 3.7, a
difference of 15 school months. When the t was applied
to this difference, the difference was found to be very
significant.
280
The high significance of the t ratios for inadequate
readers in the three grades clearly suggests that assigned
reading texts do not match reading ability as measured by
the oral reading test.
California Reading Test Scores and
Difficulty Levels of Texts
An analysis was made of the relationships between
difficulty levels of reading texts which had been assigned
to pupils of inferior reading ability in second, fourth
and sixth grades , and grade placement scores earned by
these pupils on the total score of the California Reading
Test. Table 28 reports these relationships.
Second grade Inferior Readers had been assigned
reading textbooks with difficulty levels ranging from 1.7
through 2.8, while their scores on the California ranged
from 1.4 through 3.2. The mean placements of the two
variables were 2.2 and 2.1, respectively. The standard
deviations of 0.33 years and 0.47 years were similar. The
t ratio was .20 and not significant.
The fourth grade pupils classed as Inferior Readers
scored from 2.7 through 6.2 on the California test, but had
been assigned reading textbooks which ranged from 1.5
TABLE 28
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTS
AND CALIFORNIA READING TEST SCORES FOR INFERIOR READERS
Grade
Range of Scores Mean Scores Standard Deviation
jt ratio Text California Text California Text California
2 1.7-2.8 1.4-3.2 2.2 2.1 0.33 0.47 0.20
4 1.5-5.5 2.7-6.2 3.6 4.0 1.15 1.05 1.15
6 2.3-7.5 2.5-7.7 5.2 5.4 1.50 1.31 0.62
hJ
00
282
through 5.5. The mean score of 4.0 on the California test
was four months higher than the 3.6 mean placement of the
text. The standard deviation of the California scores was
1.05 and of the texts, 1.15 years. The _t ratio computed
from these differences was 1.15 and not significant.
When the variables were compared for sixth grade
Inferior Readers, the range of scores and the mean place
ments were almost identical. In both cases the range was
from mid-second grade through seventh and the mean place
ment was in fifth grade. The standard deviation of the
difficulty levels of the texts was 1.50 years and of the
California scores, 1.31 years. The Jt ratio failed to
demonstrate any significant difference between the
variables.
No significant differences were found between read
ability levels of assigned reading texts and scores on the
California test for second, fourth or sixth grade Inferior
Readers.
Informal Reading Inventory Placements
and Difficulty Levels of Texts
An analysis was made of the relationships between
instructional levels on the Informal Reading Inventory
283
(here referred to as IRI) earned by second, fourth and
sixth grade Inferior Readers, and readability placements
of their assigned basal reading texts. These relationships
are reported in Table 29.
As explained in Chapter III, the Betts (2:438-485)
criteria of 95 to 98 per cent accuracy in oral reading,
with at least 75 per cent comprehension, determined the
instructional level of the IRI in this study. Pupils were
asked to read selections in a booklet containing selections
from successive difficulty levels of the Row, Peterson
Company basal series , and at higher levels of difficulty
from other sources as described in Chapter III. It should
be noted that, according to Betts' directions, placements
on the IRI are assigned using the published grade recom
mendations of the texts, not according to readability
formula scores. However, as shown in the first section of
this chapter, a difference of less than four school months
separated the mean difficulty levels of reading texts
according to readability formulas and those given in pub
lishers' recommendations for texts assigned to Inferior
Readers at any of the three grade levels.
TABLE 29
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTS AND INFORMAL
READING INVENTORY INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEL FOR INFERIOR READERS
Grade
Range of Scores Mean Scores Standard Deviation
t ratio Text IRI Text IRI Text IRI
2 1.7-2.8 1.3 2.2 1.3 0.33
--
4 1.5-5.5 1.3-2.5 3.6 1.5 1.15 0.67 5.19**
6 2.3-7.5 1.3-4.5 5.2 3.5 1.50 1.65 5.13**
Note: t cannot be computed when scores of one variable have no range.
** Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
N1
00
-o
285
Second grade Inferior Readers had been assigned
reading texts with readability levels from 1.7 through 2.8,
while all pupils in this group rated 1.3 according to the
IRI instructional level. The standard deviation for the
texts was 0.33. The mean placement for texts was 2.2,
almost a year above the IRI recommended level. The t ratio
could not be computed because no range existed in the IRI
scores. It is apparent, however, that an important differ
ence existed between these variables.
Fourth grade Inferior Readers had been assigned
textbooks ranging in difficulty level from 1.5 through 5.5.
Their instructional level on the IRI ranged from 1.3
through 2.5. The standard deviation was 1.15 years for the
texts and 0.67 years for the IRI placements. The mean
placement of the texts was 3.6, more than two years above
that of the IRI instructional level. The t ratio was 5.19,
significant beyond the one per cent level of difficulty.
Sixth grade Inferior Readers had been assigned
reading texts with readability levels from 2.3 through 7.5,
while their IRI placements ranged from 1.3 through 4.5.
The standard deviation for the texts was 1.50 years and for
the IRI, 1.65 years. The mean readability placement for
286
the texts was 5.2, while the IRI mean instructional level
was 3.5, or 17 months lower. The t ratio of 5.13 was very
significant.
The t ratios for these data were very significant
at both fourth and sixth grades; an examination of the mean
scores of second grade pupils suggests that the difference
was also significant here, although it was not possible to
compute the _t ratio.
III. COMPARISON OF PUPIL PERFORMANCE ON
VARIOUS APPRAISAL INSTRUMENTS
Comparisons were made between scores obtained by
Inferior Readers on the Gilmore and California tests. In
addition, relationships between these scores and instruc
tional level placements in basal readers as determined by
the IRI were studied.
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and
California Reading Test
When the range of scores on these two tests was
compared for Inferior Readers, as shown in Table 30, it
was apparent that at each grade level minimum and maximum
scores were higher on the California test.
287
TABLE 30
RANGE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCORES
OBTAINED BY INFERIOR READERS ON THE GILMORE ORAL
READING TEST AND THE CALIFORNIA READING TEST
Grade
Range of Scores Mean Scores
jt ratio Gilmore California Gilmore California
2 0-1.9 1.4-3.2 0.8 2.1 9.52**
4 0-3.3 2.7-6.2 2.6 4.0 3.98**
6 0-4.9 2.5-7.7 3.7 5.4 5.78**
Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
288
While the mean score for second grade Inferior
Readers was 0.8, these pupils earned a mean score on the
California of 2.1. The t ratio of 9.52 was significant
beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
A very significant difference in mean scores was
also found for the fourth grade Inferior Readers. The
California mean score was 14 school months higher than
that for the Gilmore test. The t ratio of 3.98 was very
significant.
The California mean score of 5.4 for sixth grade
Inferior Readers was 17 months higher than the Gilmore mean
score. This difference, as shown by a t ratio of 5.78,
was significant beyond the one per cent level of
confidence.
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and
Informal Reading Inventory
Data comparing the mean grade placement scores
obtained on the Gilmore test with the instructional levels
obtained from the IRI, as they pertain to Inferior Readers ,
are reported in Table 31.
While the lower end of the range of scores for the
Inferior Readers at each grade level is zero , the IRI
289
TABLE 31
RANGE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCORES
OBTAINED ON THE GILMORE ORAL READING TEST AND PLACE
MENT ACCORDING TO THE INFORMAL READING INVENTORY
Grade
Range of Scores Mean Scores
jt ratio Gilmore IRI Gilmore IRI
2 0-1.9 1.3 0.8 1.3 --
4 0-3.3 1.3-2.5 2.6
1.5 2.98**
6 0-4.9 1.3-4.5 3.7 3.5 .95
Note: ^ ratio cannot be computed when scores of one
variable have no range.
** Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
290
places pupils who are the poorest readers in preprimers.
The upper range of scores for this group is higher accord
ing to Gilmore scores than in the IRI placement. Second
grade pupils of inferior reading ability were placed in
preprimers according to IRI criteria, while their Gilmore
scores ranged from zero through 1.9. Fourth grade pupils
in this group scored from zero through 3.3 on the Gilmore
and earned IRI placements from preprimer through 2.5.
Sixth grade pupils scored from zero through 4.9 and earned
IRI placements from preprimer through 4.5. It will be
noted that certain pupils at each grade made zero scores
on the Gilmore and preprimer instructional level on the
IRI.
The IRI mean placement of preprimer for second
grade Inferior Readers is similar to the Gilmore mean
score of 0.8, but the t ratio could not be computed because
there was no range among scores on the IRI.
While the mean score on the Gilmore test of fourth
grade Inferior Readers was 2.6, these pupils placed at the
1.5 level according to IRI criteria. The _t ratio of 2.98
was significant beyond the one per cent level of
confidence.
291
Only two school months separated the mean placements
of these variables for sixth grade Inferior Readers. This
difference was not significant. It is apparent that scores
on the Gilmore and placement on the IRI are likely to be
similar at this level for poor readers , and that pupils
will rate approximately middle third grade placement
according to results of both variables.
California Reading Test and
Informal Reading Inventory
Table 32 presents the data obtained from comparing
results of the administration of the California and the
IRI to second, fourth and sixth grade Inferior Readers.
The IRI instructional placement is lower than the
California scores for each grade at the maximum and minimum
ends of the range. While second grade pupils in this
group scored from 1.4 through 3.2 on the California test,
these pupils all placed in preprimers according to the
criteria of the IRI. Fourth grade Inferior Readers
scored from 2.7 through 6.2 on the California, but were
placed from preprimer through second grade texts according
to the IRI. Sixth grade Inferior Readers earned scores on
the California ranging from 2.5 through 7.7, but placed
292
TABLE 32
RANGE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCORES
OBTAINED ON THE CALIFORNIA READING TEST AND PLACEMENT
ACCORDING TO THE INFORMAL READING INVENTORY
Grade
Range of Scores Mean Scores
jt ratio California IRI California IRI
2 1.4-3.2 1.3 2.1 1.3
4 2.7-6.2 1.3-2.5 4.0 1.5 11.11**
6 2.5-7.7 1.3-4.5 5.4 3.5 4.55**
Note: t . ratio cannot be computed when scores of one
variable have no range.
** Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
293
from preprimer through fourth grade books according to the
IRI criteria.
The mean score on the California for second grade
Inferior Readers was 2.1, eight months above the mean
placement on the IRI. The t could not be computed since
there was no range according to placement on the IRI.
While fourth grade Inferior Readers earned a mean
score of 4.0 on the California, their placement in basal
readers, according to the IRI, was only 1.5. The impor
tance of this difference of 25 school months was upheld by
a _t ratio of 11.11, significant beyond the one per cent
level of confidence.
The mean score on the California test, for sixth
grade Inferior Readers, was 5.4, while this group earned a
mean placement of 3.5 on the IRI. This difference of 19
school months was upheld by a t ratio of 4.55, significant
beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
IV. SUMMARY
In this section a brief summary of findings related
to Inferior Readers in second, fourth and sixth grades is
presented. Analysis of the data produced the following
294
major facts:
1. Second, fourth and sixth grade pupils judged to
be Inferior Readers had been assigned reading texts which
averaged second grade difficulty for second grade pupils ,
third grade difficulty for fourth graders, and fifth grade
difficulty for sixth grade pupils on the basis of read
ability formula scores. The range of readability levels
for these assigned books was wide--approximately one year
at second grade, four years at fourth grade, and more than
five years at sixth grade.
2. The mean readability level of reading texts as
measured by formulas was within a half school year of
published grade recommendations, although the range of
levels was considerably wider for scores obtained by use
of readability formulas.
3. While it has been frequently recommended that
at proper instructional level a pupil should read orally
by making no more than five errors in reading 100 words ,
these Inferior Readers made from 6 to 45 errors in 100-word
selections while reading texts designed to improve reading
skills.
295
4. Comprehension of assigned texts appeared to be
no problem for the majority of these pupils , 70 per cent
of second graders, 100 per cent of fourth graders , and
93 per cent of sixth graders making perfect comprehension
scores.
5. Second grade pupils judged to be poor readers
had been assigned texts only in reading arithmetic. These
books differed only one school month in mean readability
level. Fourth grade Inferior Readers had been assigned
certain texts in the content fields having mean difficulty
levels 19 months above that of the basal readers. Sixth
grade Inferior Readers had been assigned certain texts in
content areas with mean readability placements more than
two years above that of the assigned reading textbooks.
6. Very significant differences were found between
the mean scores of the Gilmore and difficulty levels of
assigned textbooks at each of the three grade levels
studied. The mean grade placement of scores on the Gilmore
was significantly lower than the mean readability level of
assigned reading texts.
7. In general, scores on the California test were
higher than the difficulty levels of reading texts, but
296
both the mean and the range were closely similar. No sig
nificant differences were found between scores on the
California and readability levels of reading texts for
Inferior Readers in second, fourth and sixth grades.
8. All second grade Inferior Readers earned place
ments of 1.3 on the IRI, while the mean readability level
for their assigned texts was 2.2. Fourth and sixth grade
Inferior Readers had been assigned reading textbooks with
readability levels significantly higher than those indi
cated by IRI criteria.
9. Very significant differences were found between
the mean scores on the Gilmore and California tests for
Inferior Readers at all three grade levels. The mean score
of the California was from 12 to 17 months higher than that
of the Gilmore.
10. No significant differences were found between
mean scores on the Gilmore and mean placement according to
the IRI for second and sixth grade Inferior Readers.
Fourth grade Inferior Readers scored significantly higher
placements on the Gilmore.
11. When mean scores on the California were compared
with IRI placement, it was found that scores on the
California were significantly higher for fourth and sixth
grade Inferior Readers. The mean score on the California
was 25 months higher at fourth grade, and 19 months higher
at sixth grade. The California mean score was eight months
higher than the IRI placement for second grade Inferior
Readers, but a t ratio could not be computed.
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA CONCERNING PUPILS
OF AVERAGE READING ABILITY
Relationships among readability levels of textbooks
assigned to Average Readers and the comparative results of
applying various diagnostic measures of reading level are
presented in this chapter. In general, the format of the
previous chapter is followed. However, in the interests
of brevity, certain explanations are not duplicated in
this chapter.
In the group of 102 Average Readers are included
second grade pupils who scored between 2.0 and 3.4 on the
accuracy section of the Gilmore, fourth grade pupils who
scored between 3.5 and 5.9, and sixth grade pupils who
scored between 5.0 and 8.4 on this test.
The first section of this chapter presents data
pertaining to difficulty levels of assigned texts accord
ing to readability formulas and published recommendations,
298
299
and an analysis of pupil performance in reading these
texts. The second section of the chapter describes rela
tionships between placement of pupils according to certain
standardized and informal appraisal instruments and read
ability levels of assigned textbooks. The third major
section compares scores on standardized and informal tests.
A final section contains a summary of the major findings.
I. DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF TEXTS ASSIGNED
TO PUPILS OF AVERAGE READING ABILITY
Analyses of difficulty levels of assigned reading
textbooks according to readability formula placement and
publishers’ recommendation, pupil performance in reading
these texts , and comparable difficulty levels of texts
assigned in the content fields are presented in this
section.
Assigned Reading Textbooks
Since the difficulty levels of assigned textbooks
according to readability formulas may differ from these
levels as designated by publishers, both were analyzed.
300
Readability formula placements of readers. As pre
viously explained, the Spache and Dale-Chall Readability
formulas were used in establishing a common scale of com
parison for textbooks.
The range, mean and standard deviation for read
ability levels of reading texts assigned to pupils of
average reading ability in each of the three grades are
presented in Table 33. This table refers only to the
difficulty level of texts in reading as computed by read
ability formulas.
Examination of the data in Table 33 reveals that
the range of grade placement scores for second grade
Average Readers was from 2.1 through 3.0, with a mean
score of 2.6 and a standard deviation of .22 years.
Fourth grade pupils included in this group had been
assigned reading textbooks ranging in difficulty from 3.1
through 6.7, with a mean score of 5.0 and a standard
deviation of .81 years. Average Readers in sixth grade
had been assigned textbooks in reading with a grade place
ment of 4.4 through 8.5, with a mean score of 6.3 and a
standard deviation of .99 years. It will be noted that
there was no overlapping of difficulty in texts between
301
TABLE 33
RANGE, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF READABILITY
LEVELS OF READING TEXTS ASSIGNED
TO AVERAGE READERS
Grade N Range Mean
Standard
Deviation
2 31 2.1-3.0 2.6 .22
4 43 3.1-6.7 5.0 .81
6 28 4.4-8.5 6.3 .99
302
second and fourth graders, but that a considerable amount
of overlapping occurred between fourth and sixth graders.
Only 13 school months rather than the 20 school months to
be expected separated the fourth and sixth grade groups,
while 24 school months rather than the 20 expected were
found to separate second and fourth grade mean scores for
these Average Readers.
Table 34 indicates that 90 per cent of second grade
Average Readers were assigned reading textbooks which
received a difficulty placement within second grade limits;
no pupils in this group had been assigned texts below the
second grade level; 10 per cent had been assigned texts
which were rated at the third grade difficulty level.
It is obvious , as the table shows, that more than
half of the fourth grade Average Readers were studying
reading textbooks which rated fifth grade difficulty and
that 13 per cent had been assigned texts of sixth grade
difficulty. Among these fourth grade Average Readers,
only 26 per cent had been assigned reading texts rated at
fourth grade level, while 7 per cent were reading books
of third grade difficulty.
303
TABLE 34
PERCENTAGES OF AVERAGE READERS ASSIGNED READING TEXTS
AT VARIOUS LEVELS OF READABILITY
Readability
Levels of
Texts
Percentage of Average Readers
Second Grade Fourth Grade Sixth Grade
- 1.9
2.0 - 2.9 90*
3.0 - 3.9 10 7
4.0 - 4.9 26 4
5.0 - 5.9 54* 39
6.0 - 6.9 13 39*
7.0 - 7.9 7
8.0 - 8.9
Totals 100 100
11
100
* Median
304
Sixth grade Average Readers had been assigned text
books on sixth grade difficulty level in only 39 per cent
of the cases. An equal number had been assigned texts of
fifth grade difficulty, while 4 per cent were studying
texts of fourth grade difficulty. About 7 per cent of
these sixth graders were reading books rated at seventh
grade difficulty, and 11 per cent had been assigned reading
texts rated at eighth grade difficulty.
Comparison of reading formula placements and
publishers1 recommendations. A comparison was made
between difficulty levels of reading textbooks , as computed
by readability formulas , and the recommended placement by
publishers. This was considered necessary since teachers
seldom have access to results of readability formula
computations. Table 35 reports the data for this
comparison.
It is apparent that second grade reading texts
assigned to Average Readers received similar placements
according to published recommendations and readability
formulas , since the mean score differed by less than half
of one school year. The range for this second grade group,
according to publishers1 recommendations, was high first
305
TABLE 35
A COMPARISON OF THE RANGE AND MEAN DIFFICULTY LEVEL
RATINGS BY PUBLISHERS AND BY READABILITY FORMULAS
FOR READING TEXTS ASSIGNED TO PUPILS
OF AVERAGE ABILITY
__________Range___________ Mean___________
Publisher’s Publisher’s
Reconmenda- Readability Recommenda- Readability
Grade tion Formula tion Formula
2 2 1
2 1 - 2 2.1 - 3.0 2
4 31 - 4 3.1 - 6.7 4
6 5 - 6 4.4 - 8.5 6
2.6
5.0
6.3
306
grade to high second, while the readability formula range
also covered a school year, from 2.1 through 3.0.
Reading texts assigned to fourth grade Average
Readers were no less difficult than for the first half of
third grade, according to both measures; while the pub
lishers' recommendations were no higher than fourth grade,
the texts measured as high as 6.7 according to readability
formulas. The mean readability formula placement of texts
assigned to these fourth graders was 3.0, while the mean
publishers' recommendations was within fourth grade.
Sixth grade pupils in this group had been assigned
reading textbooks which were recommended by the publishers
for pupils in fifth and sixth grades. Readability formula
scores ranged from 4.4 through 8.5, a difference of more
than four school years. However, the mean scores for the
two measures were the same.
Pupil Performance in Assigned Reading Texts
Pupils were asked to read orally at sight in the
basal reader which was currently being used during the
reading period. In the story or chapter beyond the
present assignment, a 100-word sample was chosen at random.
307
As described in Chapter III, accuracy and comprehension of
this material was recorded for each pupil.
Accuracy. Table 36 records the number of errors
and the percentage of accuracy for the group of Average
Readers. The median number of errors for the second
graders was 7, for fourth graders it was 3, and for sixth
graders it was A. Apparently, most Average Readers in
fourth and sixth grades can read assigned reading texts
at an instructional level recommended by the Betts criteria
with accuracy of from 95 to 98 per cent. Some fourth and
sixth grade pupils made as many as 12 errors in the selec
tion, but other pupils made no errors. Second grade
Average Readers made a median score above the recommended
95 per cent accuracy, and included a range from zero
errors (100 per cent accuracy) to 15 errors (85 per cent
accuracy).
Comprehension. The median score for comprehension
of oral reading in assigned texts for the three groups of
Average Readers was 100 per cent, as is shown in Table 37.
It will be noted that 81 per cent of second and fourth
grade pupils made perfect scores, while 61 per cent of the
308
TABLE 36
PERCENTAGE OF ACCURACY OF ORAL READING
IN ASSIGNED READING TEXTS BY PUPILS
OF AVERAGE READING ABILITY
Errors in
100 words
Percentages of Pupils
Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 6
Percentage of
Accuracy
0 3 7 6 100
1 0 12 11 99
2 10 21 4 98
3 3 12* 21 97
4 7 12 21* 96
5 23 16 6 95
6 3 19 94
7 7* 10 4 93
8 11 4 92
9 11 4 4 91
10 3 90
11 7 2 89
12 3 4 88
13 3 87
14 3 86
13 3 85
Totals 100 100 100
* Median
309
TABLE 37
COMPREHENSION OF ORAL READING OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTS
BY PUPILS OF AVERAGE READING ABILITY
Percentage of ________ Percentage of Pupils_______
Comprehension Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 6
100 81* 81* 61
75 19 13 35
50 4 4
25 2
Totals 100 100 100
Median
310
sixth grade pupils made perfect scores. No second grade
pupil in this group made a score of less than 75 per cent
in comprehension, while fourth and sixth grade pupils
reflected the presence of more difficult vocabulary and
concepts by earning more low scores. Four per cent in
each group answered only half of the comprehension ques
tions correctly, and 2 per cent of fourth grade pupils
answered comprehension questions correctly only 25 per cent
of the time.
It is apparent from the data shown in Tables 36 and
37 that the criteria for the instructional level were met
for most of these Average Readers , since the mean per
centage of accuracy for the three groups was 95 per cent,
as recommended, and since the average pupil at all three
grade levels answered all questions perfectly.
Difficulty Levels of Texts in Content Fields
In this section the difficulty levels of various
textbooks in content areas which were assigned to Average
Readers are compared with those of the assigned reading
texts. Since there was no variation in texts in a large
number of cases , a range of scores was absent and the t
could not be computed. Mean scores are compared in order
311
that similarities and differences among levels of dif
ficulty of various texts may be examined. The various
mean scores discussed below are presented in Table 38.
The readability level of the only text in the con
tent areas assigned to second grade Average Readers was
below that of the mean grade placement of the basal
readers. The arithmetic text rated 2.1, while the basic
reader rated five months higher. It is likely that Average
Readers in second grade had few problems in reading the
arithmetic text. The low point of the difficulty range of
the basal readers was identical to the grade placement of
this arithmetic text.
Fourth grade Average Readers whose assigned reading
texts had a mean score of 5.0 were assigned texts in other
areas of the curriculum ranging from eight months below
that difficulty level to 19 months above it. The text
which ranked lowest in reading difficulty was the spelling
text (rated at 4.2). The arithmetic and social studies
texts rated a readability placement of 5.1, only one month
above the mean score for the basal readers. Texts used
for science and language Instruction were rated at sixth
grade difficulty. The language text was 13 months more
TABLE 38
COMPARISON OF MEAN GRADE PLACEMENTS OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTBOOKS
WITH THOSE OF OTHER TEXTS ASSIGNED TO AVERAGE READERS
Grade
Mean Grade Placements
Reader
Social
Studies Science Spelling Arithmetic Language
All-Content
Texts
2 2.6
- -
2.1
— —
4 5.0 5.1 6.9 4.2
5.1 6.3 5.4
6 6.3 7.5 8.1 6.9 5.9 8.1 7.3
Note: There was no text assigned for second grade pupils in these subjects.
313
difficult than the average basal reader, and the science
text rating of 6.9 was almost two school years above the
5.0 mean difficulty level of basal readers.
Among textbooks in the content fields assigned to
sixth grade Average Readers , the range of difficulty as
measured by the readability formula was from 5.9, for the
arithmetic text, to 8.1, for the science and language
texts. The mean score for the basal readers was 6.3 and
the range was 4.4 through 8.5. For the average pupil in
this group the arithmetic text was easier than the basal
reader, but for the pupils who had been assigned readers
at the low point of the difficulty range, the arithmetic
text was 15 months more difficult. The spelling text was
only six months more difficult than the average basal
reader, but 25 months more difficult than the easiest basal
reader for this group and a year and a half easier than the
most difficult basal reader which had been assigned. The
mean for social studies texts was 12 months higher than
the mean for basal readers , but it was 31 months above the
easiest assigned reader and more than a year below the
most difficult reader. Language and science books received
identical ratings of 8.1, 18 months above the mean score
314
for the basal readers. It is apparent that some pupils
were assigned language and science texts almost four school
years more difficult than their basal readers, while others
in this group would find the texts in these content areas
more than a half year less difficult than the assigned
reading text.
II. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF
ASSIGNED READING TEXTS AND PUPIL PERFORMANCE
AS MEASURED BY APPRAISAL INSTRUMENTS
Analyses were made of the relationships between
scores received by Average Readers in second, fourth and
sixth grades on several appraisal instruments and the
difficulty levels of assigned reading textbooks according
to readability formulas.
Gilmore Oral Reading Test Scores
and Difficulty Levels of Texts
Data reported in Table 39 indicate that the Gilmore
test grade placement scores earned by Average Readers in
fourth and sixth grades were similar to difficulty levels
of texts according to readability formulas. In the case
of fourth grade pupils, scores earned on the Gilmore test
TABLE 39
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTS
AND GILMORE ORAL READING TEST SCORES FOR AVERAGE READERS
Grade
Range of Scores Mean Scores Standard Deviation
t ratio Text Gilmore Text Gilmore Text Gilmore
2 2.1-3.0 2.0-3.4 2.6 2.9 .22 .43 3.11**
4 3.1-6.7 3.5-5.9 5.0 4.7 .81 .69 1.56
6 4.4-8.5 5.0-8.3 6.3 6.6 .99 1.00 1.38
** Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
316
ranged from 3.5 through 5.9 with a mean score of 4.7,
while difficulty levels of texts ranged from 3.1 through
6.7 with a mean score only three months above the Gilmore
score of 4.7. The standard deviation of the text for these
fourth grade pupils was .81 years, while that of the
Gilmore scores was .69 years. The t of 1.56 showed no
significant difference.
When the variables were compared for sixth grade
Average Readers, even less difference was found. The texts
ranged from 4.4 through 8.5, while the Gilmore scores
ranged from 5.0 through 8.3. The mean readability level
bf the texts was only three months below the Gilmore mean
score of 6.6 for this group of Average Readers in sixth
grade. The standard deviation for the assigned sixth
grade reading texts was .99 years, while that for the
Gilmore was 1.00 years. Again the t : ratio revealed no
significant difference between these two variables for
Average Readers in fourth and sixth grades.
The Gilmore mean score of 2.9 was three months
higher than the mean difficulty level of reading texts for
second grade pupils , and this difference was accepted as
significant since the t was 3.11.
317
California Reading Test Scores and
Difficulty Levels of Texts
Data concerning relationships between difficulty
levels of reading texts assigned to pupils of average
reading ability in second, fourth and sixth grades and
grade placement scores on the California Reading Test are
analyzed in this section.
Data reported in Table 40 indicate that the range
and mean of scores on the California Reading Test are
higher than comparable difficulty levels of assigned texts
for the three groups of Average Readers. The range of
scores on texts for second grade pupils in this group is
from 2.1 through 3.0, while the scores on the California
Reading Test range from 2.3 through 4.0, a full year
higher. Fourth grade Average Readers were assigned texts
ranging in difficulty from 3.1 through 6.7, while Califor
nia Reading Test scores for this group ranged from 3.1
through 8.8--more than two years above the difficulty level
of the highest assigned text. In the sixth grade, the
texts ranged in difficulty from 4.4 through 8.5, while the
California minimum score was 6.8, or almost two and a half
years above the simplest text. The maximum California
TABLE 40
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTS
AND CALIFORNIA READING TEST SCORES FOR AVERAGE READERS
Grade
Range of Scores Mean. Scores Standard Deviation
t ratio Text California Text California Text California
2 2.1-3.0 2.3-4.0 2.6 3.3 .22 .46 7.50**
4 3.1-6.7 3.1-8.8 5.0 5.5 .81 1.23 2.57*
6 4.4-8.5 6.8-9.1 6.3 7.8 .99 .68 6.70**
* Significant beyond the five per cent level of confidence.
** Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
319
score for the sixth grade group was 9.1, about six school
months above the most difficult text.
Mean scores at each of the three grade levels are
also higher for the California Reading Test, as indicated
in the same table. For second grade Average Readers, the
California mean of 3.3 is seven months above the mean
readability level for assigned texts. Fourth grade pupils
in the group were assigned texts with a mean readability
level of 5.0, while their mean California Reading Test
score was five months higher. A difference of 15 school
months separated the mean scores of these variables for
the sixth grade Average Readers, the mean scores being 6.3
for the texts and 7.8 for the California test.
Texts assigned to second grade pupils in this group
had a standard deviation of .22, while that for the
California test was .46, as is seen in Table 40. Fourth
grade Average Readers had been assigned texts having a
standard deviation of .81, while that of their test scores
was 1.23. For the sixth grade group the texts had a
standard deviation of .99, while that of the California
test was .68.
320
California Reading Test scores were significantly
higher than grade placements of assigned texts at each
grade level studied. It should be noted that the differ
ence was significant beyond the one per cent level of
confidence for second grade and sixth grade Average
Readers, and beyond the five per cent level of confidence
for the fourth grade group.
Informal Reading Inventory Placements
and Difficulty Levels of Texts
As explained earlier, the Betts (2:438-485) criteria
of 95 to 98 per cent accuracy with at least 75 per cent
comprehension determined the instructional level for the
Informal Reading Inventory (referred to here as IRI). It
should be noted again that, according to Betts , scores
on the Informal Reading Inventory are reported for pub
lished grade levels of texts and not according to read
ability formula scores. As explained in Chapter III,
texts were assigned grade placements at the mid-month of
the grade level for which they were recommended by the
publisher. It will be recalled that differences between
mean grade levels of publishers' recommendations and those
of readability formulas were slight, as illustrated earlier
321
in Table 35. Table 41 reports the data for these
variables.
For pupils of average reading ability, differences
were significant only for the second grade pupils. At this
level, the IRI instructional level was significantly below
the grade placement of the assigned text. While the texts
ranged from 2.1 through 3.0, recommended levels of texts
according to the IRI ranged from preprimer (1.3) through
2.5. The mean score of the text was more than a year above
that of the IRI for these second grade Average Readers.
The standard deviation of .61 for the IRI was almost three
times that of the assigned texts. The t ratio of 9.67 was
significant well beyond the one per cent level of
confidence.
Only half a school year separated the means of these
variables for the fourth grade Average Readers, although
the ranges differed considerably. Texts assigned to these
fourth grade pupils ranged in difficulty from 3.1 through
6.7, while the IRI scores ranged from 1.7 through 7.5.
Standard deviation for the texts was .81 and for the IRI
it was 1.41. The t of 2.01 was not significant. These
fourth grade pupils had been assigned texts which met the
TABLE 41
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTS AND INFORMAL
READING INVENTORY INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEL FOR AVERAGE READERS
Grade
Range of Scores Mean Scores Standard Deviation
t ratio Text IRI Text IRI Text IRI
2 2.1-3.0 1.3-2.5 2.6 1.5 .22 .61 9.67**
4 3.1-6.7 1.7-7.5 5.0 4.5 .81 1.41 2.01
6 4.4-8.5 4.5-8.5 6.3 6.5 .99 1.36 .87
** Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
322
323
difficulty criteria of the Informal Reading Inventory.
At sixth grade, the range and mean of assigned texts
and the IRI instructional level were almost identical.
The standard deviations were .99 for the text and 1.36 for
the Informal Reading Inventory, but the range of 4.4
through 8.3 for the text was only one month lower at the
low point than that of the other variable. The mean for
the texts was 6.3 and for the IRI the mean was 6.5, pro
ducing a t of .87, which lacked significance.
III. COMPARISON OF PUPIL PERFORMANCE ON
VARIOUS APPRAISAL INSTRUMENTS
Similarities and differences between scores obtained
by Average Readers on the Gilmore and California tests are
described in this section. In addition, relationships
between scores obtained on these standardized tests and
instructional grade placement as determined by the Informal
Reading Inventory are discussed.
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and
California Reading Test
When the range of scores for these Average Readers
on the two standardized tests were compared, it was found
324
that minimum scores on the Gilmore were lower at the second
and sixth grades but four months higher at the fourth (see
Table 42). For the second graders , maximum scores on the
Gilmore test were six months lower than those on the
California, 29 months lower for fourth graders, and eight
months lower for sixth graders.
When the mean scores of the Gilmore and California
tests were compared, Table 42 demonstrates, the California
mean scores were higher for all three grades. For the
second grade, the California mean score was four school
months higher, and the J: ratio was a very significant 6.33.
The mean score for the California is seven months higher
than that of the Gilmore for the fourth grade group, and
the Jt is 4.51, again a very significant difference. The
sixth grade Average Readers scored a mean of 6.6 on the
Gilmore and 7.8 on the California, producing a very sig
nificant t of 7.02. Since these ratios are significant
beyond the one per cent level of confidence, it is
apparent that the Gilmore and the California tests produced
scores which differed significantly for Average Readers at
all three grades studied.
325
TABLE 42
RANGE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCORES
OBTAINED BY AVERAGE READERS ON THE GILMORE ORAL
READING TEST AND THE CALIFORNIA READING TEST
Range of Scores Mean Scores
Grade Gilmore California Gilmore California ratio
2 2.0-3.4 2.3-4.0 2.9 3.3 6.33**
4 3.5-5.9 3.1-8.8 4.7 5.5 4.51**
6 5.0-8.3 6.8-9.1 6.6 7.8 7.02**
** Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
326
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and
Informal Reading Inventory
Table 43 presents data comparing mean placements
obtained on the Gilmore and on the IRI for Average Readers.
At all three grade levels the IRI mean was lower than the
Gilmore mean. Minimum placements of the Gilmore were
higher than those of IRI for each grade. Maximum scores
for the Gilmore were higher at second grade, but lower at
fourth and sixth grade levels.
The mean score of 2.9 for second grade Average
Readers was 19 months higher than that of the IRI for
these pupils, and the t : of 14.49 was significant at the
one per cent level of confidence. No significance was
found between the Gilmore and the IRI for fourth and sixth
grade Average Readers.
California Reading Test and
Informal Reading Inventory
Data comparing the California and the IRI are
presented in Table 44. It is evident that minimum and
maximum placements of Average Readers for all three grades
were lower on the IRI than on the California scores.
327
TABLE 43
RANGE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCORES
OBTAINED ON THE GILMORE ORAL READING TEST AND PLACE
MENT ACCORDING TO THE INFORMAL READING INVENTORY
Range of Scores Mean Scores
Grade Gilmore IRI Gilmore IRI t ratio
2 2.0-3.4 1.3-2.5 2.9 1.5 14.491
4 3.5-5.9 1.7-7.5 4.7 4.5 .22
6 5.0-8.3 4.5-8.5 6.6 6.5 . 70
Significant at the one per cent level of confidence.
328
TABLE 44
RANGE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCORES
OBTAINED ON THE CALIFORNIA READING TEST AND PLACEMENT
ACCORDING TO THE INFORMAL READING INVENTORY
:ade
Range of Scores Mean Scores
t : ratio California IRI California IRI
2 2.3-4.0 1.3-2.5 3.3 1.5 12.98**
4 3.1-8.8 1.7-7.5 5.5 4.5 4.93**
6 6.8-9.1 4.5-8.5 7.8 6.5 5.88**
.».. ■.
Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
329
Mean scores on the California were 18 months higher
for the second grade Average Readers , 10 months higher for
fourth graders, and 13 months higher for sixth graders.
The J: ratios of 12.98, 4.93 and 5.88, respectively, indi
cate that these differences were significant beyond the
one per cent level of confidence.
IV. SUMMARY
This chapter has presented a brief summary of find
ings pertaining to Average Readers in second, fourth and
sixth grades. The results of this analysis follow:
1. Pupils classified as Average Readers in second,
fourth and sixth grades had been assigned reading texts
which averaged a grade placement of 2.6 for the second
graders, 5.0 for fourth graders, and 6.3 for sixth graders.
The range of difficulty levels for the reading texts was
approximately one school year at second grade, three and
a half years at fourth grade, and more than four years at
sixth grade.
2. Mean placements of reading texts, according to
readability formulas and published recommendations were
similar, but the range was considerably greater in the
330
case of readability formulas.
3. Most Average Readers in fourth and sixth grades
had been assigned basal reading texts which they could read
at sight with accuracy between 95 and 98 per cent, as
recommended by Betts. Second grade pupils in this study
made an average of seven errors instead of the maximum of
five errors allowable for the IRI.
4. Comprehension of oral reading in assigned basal
readers was excellent for all three groups; most pupils
answered all questions correctly. Sixth grade Average
Readers made more errors in comprehension than the other
two groups.
5. Fourth and sixth grade pupils in the Average
group had been assigned certain texts in the content
fields which were considerably more difficult and certain
texts which were easier than the basal reading text, but
the only other assigned text for second grade Average
Readers was easier than the basal reading text.
6. No significant difference was found between the
means of scores on the Gilmore and readability levels of
reading texts for Average Readers in fourth and sixth
grades. Only three months' difference was found between
331
these variables for second grade pupils in this group, but
in this case the difference was significant.
7. Mean scores for the California test were seven
months higher than mean placements of assigned texts for
second graders , five months higher for fourth graders and
fourteen months higher for sixth graders. Differences were
significant for all three groups.
8. Second grade Average Readers had been assigned
reading texts whose mean placement was more than a school
year higher than that indicated by the IRI, a difference
which was very significant. No significant difference was
found between these variables for fourth and sixth graders.
9. Very significant differences were found between
the mean grade placement scores of the Gilmore and the
California tests. The California mean score was four
months higher at the second grade level, eight months
higher at the fourth, and twelve months higher at the sixth
grade level.
10. The mean IRI instructional level of 1.7 for
second graders was twelve months lower than that of the
Gilmore and represented a very significant difference.
However, differences between mean scores of the Gilmore
332
and mean placement according to the IRI for fourth and
sixth grade Average Readers were not significant.
11. Significant differences were found between
mean scores on the California and mean placements according
to the IRI at each grade level. At each grade tested, the
California mean score was at least a school year higher
than that of the IRI.
CHAPTER VI
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA CONCERNING PUPILS
OF SUPERIOR READING ABILITY
Comparisons were made between readability levels of
textbooks assigned to Superior Readers and various stand
ardized and informal measures of reading ability. In
reporting these comparisons with respect to Superior
Readers, the format of the fourth chapter is followed, but
certain explanations are not duplicated.
In the group of 64 Superior Readers there were 20
second grade pupils, 17 fourth graders and 27 sixth
graders. As a group, the second graders scored above 3.4
on the accuracy section of the Gilmore, the fourth graders
scored above 5.9 on that test, and the sixth graders
scored above 8.4 on the standardized oral reading test.
The first section of this chapter contains an
analysis of the difficulty levels of assigned texts
according to readability formulas and published
333
334
recommendations , and data concerning pupil performance in
reading these texts. The second major section describes
relationships between placement of pupils according to cer
tain standardized and informal appraisal instruments and
according to readability levels of assigned textbooks. A
third major section compares scores on standardized and
informal tests. A final section summarizes the major
findings reported in the chapter.
I. DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF TEXTS ASSIGNED
TO PUPILS OF SUPERIOR READING ABILITY
Difficulty levels of assigned reading textbooks
according to readability formula placement and publishers'
recommendations , pupil performance in reading these texts,
and comparable difficulty levels of texts assigned in the
content fields are described in this section.
Assigned Reading Textbooks
Difficulty levels of textbooks according to read
ability formulas may differ from recommended grade place
ments of publishers. This section reports the findings
when difficulty levels of textbooks assigned to Superior
Readers were compared.
335
Readability formula placements of reading texts.
The Spache and Dale-Chall Readability Formulas were used in
establishing a common scale of comparison for textbooks , as
explained in Chapter III. Individual ratings of texts are
to be found in the Appendix B.
Table 45 reports the range, mean and standard
deviation of the difficulty levels of reading texts
assigned to Superior Readers.
Second grade Superior Readers had been assigned
reading texts ranging in difficulty from 2.2 through 5.L--
a difference of almost three school years. The mean grade
placement for these texts was 2.7 and the standard devi
ation was .59. It is apparent from Table 46 that 95 per
cent of second grade Superior Readers had been assigned
textbooks rated as second grade in difficulty level, and
that 5 per cent had been assigned basal reading texts which
were rated as of fifth grade difficulty.
Basal readers ranging in difficulty from 4.4
through 7.3 had been assigned to fourth grade pupils of
superior reading ability, as shown in Table 45. The mean
grade placement for these reading textbooks was 5.1 with
a standard deviation of .76. However, as indicated in
336
TABLE 45
RANGE, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF READABILITY
LEVELS OF READING TEXTS ASSIGNED
TO AVERAGE READERS
Standard
Grade N Range Mean Deviation
2 20 2.2-5.1 2.7 .59
4 17 4.4-7.3 5.1 .76
6 27 5.3-9.3 6.4 .85
337
TABLE 46
PERCENTAGES OF SUPERIOR READERS ASSIGNED READING TEXTS
AT VARIOUS LEVELS OF READABILITY
Readability Percentage of Superior Readers
Levels of -------------- ------------------------------
Texts Second Grade Fourth Grade Sixth Grade
- 1.9
2.0 - 2.9 95*
3.0 - 3.9
4.0 - 4.9 53*
5.0 - 5.9 5 35 41
6.0 - 6.9 6 41*
7.0 - 7.9 6 14
8.0 - 8.9
9.0 - 9.9 4
Totals 100 100 100
* Median
338
Table 46, 53 per cent of this superior fourth grade group
were reading textbooks which rated no higher than fourth
grade in difficulty, 35 per cent were reading textbooks of
fifth grade difficulty, and the remaining 12 per cent were
equally divided between sixth and seventh grade textbooks.
Sixth grade pupils of superior reading ability had
been assigned basal readers ranging in difficulty from
5.3 through 9.3. However, the mean placement was 6.4 and
the standard deviation was .85, as shown in Table 45. The
fact that most of these superior sixth grade readers were
being instructed in fifth and sixth grade textbooks is
reported in Table 46. Fourteen per cent of this sixth
grade group had been assigned reading texts rated as
seventh grade in difficulty, and 4 per cent had been
assigned texts rated at the ninth grade level of
difficulty.
It can be observed in Table 45 that, while the
difference in means between the second and fourth grade
texts was two full school years, only 13 months separated
the fourth and sixth grade mean placements.
As shown in Table 46, 95 per cent of second grade
Superior Readers had been assigned basal readers which
339
rated second grade difficulty, 53 per cent of the fourth
grade group had been assigned reading texts which rated
fourth grade difficulty, and 82 per cent of sixth grade
Superior Readers had been assigned reading textbooks which
rated sixth grade level or below.
Comparison of difficulty levels of readers according
to readability formulas and publishers' recommendations.
Because teachers seldom have access to results of read
ability computations, the range and mean grade placements
of texts assigned for reading instruction to Superior
Readers at the three grade levels studied are exhibited in
Table 47.
It will be seen that second grade Superior Readers
had been assigned texts ranging from upper first through
upper second grade difficulty (according to publishers'
recommendations), while readability formulas rated these
texts from grades 2.2 through 5.1. The mean score for the
published grade recommendation was upper second grade, and
the readability mean was the same (2.7). It will be
recalled that, as reported in Table 46, 95 per cent of the
second grade Superior Readers had been assigned texts for
reading instruction that were rated as of second grade
340
TABLE 47
A COMPARISON OF THE RANGE AND MEAN DIFFICULTY LEVEL
RATINGS BY PUBLISHERS AND BY READABILITY FORMULAS
FOR READING TEXTS ASSIGNED TO PUPILS
OF SUPERIOR ABILITY
Range
Publisher's
Recommenda- Readability
Grade tion Formula
Mean
Publisher's
Recommenda- Readability
tion Formula
2 2
1 - 2 2.2 - 5.1 2.7
4
6
4 - 5
5 - 7
4.4 - 7.3
5.3 - 9.3
4
6
5.1
6.4
341
difficulty according to readability formulas.
Superior Readers in fourth grade had been assigned
reading textbooks on only fourth and fifth grade difficulty
levels, according to publishers' recommendations. However,
the readability formula range for these books was from
4.4 through 7.4. The mean score for publishers' recom
mendations was fourth grade, but the readability formula
gave a higher score (5.1).
Sixth grade Superior Readers were being instructed
in reading texts ranging from fifth through seventh grades ,
according to publishers' grade placements, but these books
were given readability scores which ranged from 5.3 through
9.3. The means for the two variables were within sixth
grade level of difficulty.
It would appear that no consistent difference
existed between the means of the reading textbooks assigned
to Superior Readers in second, fourth and sixth grades
when readability formula grade placements were compared
with publishers' recommendations for use.
Pupil Performance in Assigned Reading Texts
The performance of Superior Readers while reading
assigned textbooks orally was appraised by means of a
342
record of errors in accuracy and comprehension as described
in Chapter III.
Accuracy. Examination of the data presented in
Table 48 reveals that 90 per cent of second grade Superior
Readers and 100 per cent of fourth and sixth grade pupils
in this category read the assigned reading text at sight
with no more than five errors. However, 30 per cent of
second grade pupils, 70 per cent of fourth graders , and 63
per cent of sixth graders made either one error or none in
oral reading, and were therefore being instructed at the
independent reading level rather than the instructional
level as defined by the IRI. In other words, 60 per cent
of the second graders, 30 per cent of the fourth graders ,
and 37 per cent of the sixth grade Superior Readers had
been assigned textbooks which they could read at sight on
the instructional level. It will be noted that no pupil
of superior reading ability in fourth or sixth grades made
more than five errors in oral reading, and that the
average fourth and sixth grade excellent reader made only
one error, while the average second grade Superior Reader
made only two errors in accuracy. The median accuracy
percentage for the three groups was 99 per cent, which has
343
TABLE 48
PERCENTAGE OF ACCURACY OF ORAL READING
IN ASSIGNED READING TEXTS BY PUPILS
OF SUPERIOR READING ABILITY
Errors in Perc* ^ el.°f . . . Percentage of
100 words Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 6 Accuracy
0 5 19 30 100
1 25 41* 33* 99
2 25* 12 15 97
3 10 6 7 96
4 15 12 11 95
3 10 4 94
6 5 93
12 5 88
Totals 100 100 100
edian
344
been designated by Betts as the independent reading level.
Comprehension. As indicated in Table 49, the median
comprehension score for pupils in the three grades was 100
per cent. No second or fourth grade pupil made a compre
hension score of less than 75 per cent , but 4 per cent of
sixth grade Superior Readers scored 50 per cent in compre
hension based upon oral reading at sight. Eighty per cent
of second grade Superior Readers received perfect compre
hension scores , while 82 per cent of fourth grade and 61
per cent of sixth grade Superior Readers read with perfect
comprehens ion.
Neither accuracy of oral reading nor comprehension
based upon the oral reading were problems for these
Superior Readers. Most of these pupils read their assigned
texts with 98 or 99 per cent accuracy , and with 100 per
cent comprehension.
Difficulty Levels of Texts in Content Fields
Textbooks in content fields assigned to Superior
Readers were compared as to readability placement. It was
not possible to compute t ratios since in certain content
fields no variation existed in assigned texts. However,
345
TABLE 49
COMPREHENSION OF ORAL READING OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTS
BY PUPILS OF SUPERIOR READING ABILITY
Percentage of
Comprehens ion
Percentage of Pupils
Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 6
100 80 82 61
75
50
25
20 18 35
4
Totals 100 100 100
* Median
346
mean levels are compared so that differences can be
reported. Table 50 presents these data.
The only textbook assigned to second grade Superior
Readers was an arithmetic book which was rated at the 2.1
level according to the Spache readability formula. This
was six months below the 2.7 mean readability level of
basal readers for this group of pupils. It will be recalled
that the average pupil among these excellent second grade
readers made only two errors in accuracy when reading his
basal reader at sight, and exhibited perfect comprehension.
It is likely, therefore, that the reading material in the
arithmetic text was very easy for this group.
The spelling textbook which had been assigned to
fourth grade Superior Readers received a readability
placement of 4.2--almost a school year below the mean
placement of 5.1 for the basal readers in which these
pupils were being instructed. The mean difficulty levels
for social studies texts and for the arithmetic textbook
were both 5.l--identical to the placement of the basal
readers. The placement for the language text was 6.3,
which was 12 months above the mean for the basal readers.
The science textbook used by this group was the most
TABLE 50
COMPARISON OF MEAN GRADE PLACEMENTS OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTBOOKS
WITH THOSE OF OTHER TEXTS ASSIGNED TO SUPERIOR READERS
Grade
Mean Grade Placements
Reader
Social
Studies Science Spelling Arithmetic Language
All-Content
Texts
2 2.7
- - - - - - 2.1
- -
2.1
4 5.1 5.1 6.9 4.2 5.1 6.3 5.4
6 6.4 7.5 8.1 6.9 5.9 8.1 7.3
Note: There was no text assigned for second grade pupils in these subjects.
348
difficult assigned text, scoring 6.9, or 18 months above
the mean placement of assigned reading texts. Textbooks
in the content areas , thus , were rated from nine months
below the basal reader to 18 months above--a range of
almost three years.
Sixth grade Superior Readers, whose assigned reading
texts received a mean readability placement of 6.4, had
been assigned arithmetic texts which were one half year
easier. Spelling texts were appraised as one half year
more difficult. The mean readability level for social
studies texts was 11 months above the mean placement for
the basal readers; while science and language texts scored
8.1, approximately 17 months higher in difficulty level
than the assigned reading text.
II. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF
ASSIGNED READING TEXTS AND PUPIL PERFORMANCE
AS MEASURED BY APPRAISAL INSTRUMENTS
In this section are analyzed the relationships
between scores received by Superior Readers in second,
fourth and sixth grades on several appraisal instruments
and the difficulty levels of assigned reading textbooks
349
according to readability formulas.
Gilmore Oral Reading Test Scores
and Difficulty Levels of Texts
Data reported in Table 51 indicate that mean scores
on the Gilmore test show grade placements significantly
higher than the mean readability level of the assigned
reading textbooks for each of the three grades studied.
Textbooks assigned to second grade Superior Readers
ranged in difficulty level from 2.2 through 5.1, while the
scores of these pupils on the Gilmore ranged from 3.5
through 6.8. The mean for the texts was 2.7 with a stand
ard deviation of .59 years, while the mean for the oral
reading test was 4.3 with a standard deviation of .73
years. The t ratio of 6.76 was significant beyond the one
per cent level of confidence.
The same table reveals that there was almost three
years' difference between the mean ratings of the texts
and the mean score on the Gilmore for fourth grade
Superior Readers. The range of readability scores for the
texts was from 4.4 through 7.3 for this group, while for
the Gilmore test these pupils' scores ranged from 6.0
through 9.8. The standard deviation for the text was .76
TABLE 51
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTS
AND GILMORE ORAL READING TEST SCORES FOR SUPERIOR READERS
Grade
Range of Scores Mean Scores Standard Deviation
_t ratio Text Gilmore Text Gilmore Text Gilmore
2 2.2-5.1 3.5-6.8 2.7 4.3 .59 .73 6.76**
4 4.4-7.3 6.0-9.8 5.1 8.0 .76 1.25 8.36**
6 5.3-9.3 9.0-9.8 6.4 9.8 .85 .17 20.42**
** Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
U3
Ln
O
351
years and for the Gilmore, 1.25 years. The t of 8.36 was
significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
It is evident that a significant difference exists between
these variables for the fourth grade Superior Readers.
Sixth grade Superior Readers were being instructed
in reading textbooks which received readability scores
ranging from 5.3 through 9.3, but no pupil in this group
scored below 9.0 on the Gilmore. The mean readability
level for the texts was 6.4, while the mean grade placement
on the Gilmore was the maximum level of 9.8. The standard
deviation for the texts was .85 years, but for the Gilmore
it was only .17 years. The t ratio of 20.42 between these
means was significant beyond the one per cent level of
confidence.
It should be noted that the Gilmore mean score was
16 months higher than the text placement at second grade ,
29 months higher at fourth grade, and 34 months higher at
sixth grade for these Superior Readers.
California Reading Test Scores and
Difficulty Levels of Texts
Table 52 presents data resulting from a comparison
of pupil placement according to California scores and
TABLE 52
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTS
AND CALIFORNIA READING TEST SCORES FOR SUPERIOR READERS
Grade
Range of Scores Mean Scores Standard Deviation
t ratio Text California Text California Text California
2 2.2-5.1 3.2-5.0 2.7 4.1 .59 . 46
7.59**
4 4.4-7.3 6.3-9.5 5.1 7.4 .76 .78 7.21**
6 5.3-9.3 6.0-10.4 6.4 S.7 .85 .88 12.10**
** Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
353
readability levels of assigned reading textbooks.
Second grade pupils who were judged to be excellent
readers scored from 3.2 through 5.0 on the California test,
but had been assigned reading textbooks which ranged from
2.2 through 5.1. The mean score of 4.1 for the second
graders on the California was 14 months above the mean
readability level of 2.7 for the basal readers. The stand
ard deviation for the text was .59 years and for the test,
.46 years. The t of 7.59 was significant beyond the one
per cent level of confidence.
When the variables were compared for fourth grade
Superior Readers , it was found that the mean grade place
ment of 7.4 for the California was more than two years
above the mean readability level of 5.1 for the assigned
reading text. The range of readability levels for the
texts was also consistently lower than the range of scores
for the California test. The maximum and minimum place
ments for the texts were 4.4 and 7.3, respectively, while
the upper and lower scores on the California were 6.3 and
9.5, respectively. The standard deviation for the texts
was .76 years, and for the California test, .78 years.
The t ratio of 7.21 was significant beyond the one per cent
354
level of confidence- It is evident that scores on the
California indicated a maturity in reading which was not
matched by the difficulty levels of textbooks assigned.
Pupils of superior reading ability in sixth grade
had been assigned reading textbooks ranging from a dif
ficulty level of 5.3 through 9.3, while their scores on
the California ranged from 6.0 through 10.4. The differ
ence in the means for these variables was 23 months. The
mean score for the California was 8.7, while the mean
readability level for the textbooks was 6.4. The standard
deviation for the texts was .85 years and for the
California, .88 years. A t ratio of 12.10 was significant
beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
Informal Reading Inventory Placements
and Difficulty Levels of Texts
In this study the instructional level was defined
according to the Betts (2:438-485) criteria of 95 to 98
per cent accuracy and at least 75 per cent comprehension.
Analyses were here made of the relationships between the
instructional level on the Informal Reading Inventory and
readability grade levels of assigned reading texts for
Superior Readers in second, fourth and sixth grades. The
355
data are presented in Table 53. As explained earlier,
texts were assigned grade placements at the mid-month of
the grade level for which they were recommended by the
publisher. Differences between means according to pub
lishers' recommendations of grade placement and according
to readability formulas were shown to be slight.
Second grade Superior Readers earned instructional
levels ranging from 1.5 through 6.5 on the IRI, while their
texts had a narrower range of difficulty, from 2.2 through
5.1. The mean readability level for the texts was 2.7,
while the mean instructional level was middle third grade,
as shown in Table 53. The standard deviation for the text
was .59 years and for the Informal Reading Inventory this
figure was 1.39 years. The t ratio of 6.13 was significant
beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
Fourth grade Superior Readers whose textbooks
ranged from 4.4 through 7.3 in grade placement earned
instructional placements ranging from 5.5 through 8.5 on
the IRI. The mean difficulty level for the texts was 5.1,
while the instructional level indicated by the IRI was more
than two school years higher (7.5). The standard deviation
for the texts was .76 years and .28 for the IRI. The
TABLE 53
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTS AND INFORMAL
READING INVENTORY INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEL FOR SUPERIOR READERS
Grade
Range of Scores Mean Scores Standard Deviation
t ratio Text IRI Text IRI Text IRI
2 2.2-5.1 1.5-6.5 2.7 3.5 .59 1.39 6.13**
4 4.4-7.3 5.5-8.5 5.1 7.5 .76 .28 7.13**
6 5.3-9.3 8.5-10.5 6.4 8.5 .85 .82 10.28**
** Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
u>
ON
357
t ratio was 7.13, significant beyond the one per cent level
of confidence.
For Superior Readers in the sixth grade, more than
two school years separated the mean readability levels of
assigned texts and instructional level placements on the
IRI. The range of difficulty levels for the texts was from
5.3 through 9.3, with a mean level of 6.4; while the range
for the IRI was from 8.5 through 10.5, with a mean place
ment of 8.5. The standard deviation for the texts was .85
years, and for the IRI it was .82 years. The t ratio of
10.28 was significant beyond the one per cent level of
confidence.
The mean placement on the IRI was thus eight months
higher than that of the text for second graders in this
group, 24 months higher for fourth graders and 21 months
higher for sixth grade Superior Readers.
III. COMPARISON OF PUPIL PERFORMANCE ON
VARIOUS APPRAISAL INSTRUMENTS
In this section similarities and differences between
scores obtained by Superior Readers on the Gilmore and the
California tests are described. Relationships between
358
scores obtained on these standardized tests and instruc
tional level placement in texts as determined by the IRI
are also discussed.
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and
California Reading Test
When the range of scores on these tests is compared,
as shown on Table 54, it is evident that no consistent
differences exist. At second grade level, both minimum
and maximum scores on the California are lower than on the
Gilmore. At fourth grade level, the minimum score of the
California is higher than that of the Gilmore, while the
maximum score of the California is slightly lower. The
minimum California score is considerably lower at sixth
grade level, while the maximum score is higher.
When mean scores for second graders were compared
on these standardized tests , it was evident that mean grade
placements for both tests were similar, since both were
placed in low fourth grade. The t of 1.32 was not
significant.
The mean score on the Gilmore for fourth grade
pupils in this group was six school months higher than that
on the California, but the t of 1.99 was not significant.
359
TABLE 54
RANGE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCORES
OBTAINED BY SUPERIOR READERS ON THE GILMORE ORAL
READING TEST AND THE CALIFORNIA READING TEST
Range of Scores Mean Scores
Grade Gilmore California Gilmore California t ratio
2
4
3.5-6.8
6.0-9.8
9.0-9.8
3.2-5.0
6.3-9.5
6.0-10.4
4.3
8.0
9.8
4.1
7.4
8.7
1.32
1.99
5 .85
★*
Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence
360
For the sixth grade Superior Readers, a significant
difference in mean placement scores was found between the
two standardized tests. The Gilmore mean score was 9.8,
while the California was 8.7. The 11 months separating
those scores was significant beyond the one per cent level
of confidence.
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and
Informal Reading Inventory
Table 55 presents data concerning Superior Readers
when the mean grade placement scores obtained on the
Gilmore were compared with instructional levels obtained
on the IRI.
It will be noted that placement on the IRI is below
that on the Gilmore at both the lower and higher ends of
the distribution for all three grades , with the single
exception of the maximum score in sixth grade.
The IRI mean placement is eight school months lower
than the mean score on the Gilmore for second graders , and
this difference is very significant. The IRI mean place
ment is one half year lower than the mean score on the
Gilmore for fourth graders and this difference is also
very significant. The Gilmore mean grade placement score
361
TABLE 55
RANGE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCORES
OBTAINED ON THE GILMORE ORAL READING TEST AND PLACE
MENT ACCORDING TO THE INFORMAL READING INVENTORY
Range of Scores Mean Scores
Grade Gilmore IRI Gilmore IRI t ratio
2 3.5-6.8 1.5-6.5 4.3 3.5 3.47**
4 6.0-9.8 5.5-8.5 8.0 7.5 2.30**
6 9.0-9.8 8.5-10.5 9.8 8.5 7.86**
Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
362
was 13 months higher than the IRI mean instructional level
and this difference was very significant.
California Reading Test and
Informal Reading Inventory
When data concerning the California and the IRI were
compared, as shown in Table 56, it was apparent that dif
ferences in the range of scores were not consistent through
the three grades. The California minimum score is higher
than that of the IRI placement for second and fourth
grades, but lower for the sixth grade. The California
maximum score is lower at the second grade level, a year
higher at the fourth grade level, and only a month lower
at the sixth grade level.
Mean scores on the California are six school months
higher than the mean placement on the IRI for second grade
Superior Readers, and this difference is significant.
However, differences between these variables for fourth
and sixth grade Superior Readers are not significant.
Fourth grade Superior Readers rated seventh grade level on
both measures , and sixth grade pupils In this group rated
eighth grade level on both measures.
363
TABLE 56
RANGE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCORES
OBTAINED ON THE CALIFORNIA READING TEST AND PLACEMENT
ACCORDING TO THE INFORMAL READING INVENTORY
Range of Scores Mean Scores
Grade California IRI California IRI t ratio
2 3.2-5.0 1.5-6.5 4.1 3.5 2.20*
4 6.3-9.5 5.5-8.5 7.4 7.5 .37
6 6.0-10.4 8.5-10.5 8.7 8.5 1.08
Significant beyond the five per cent level of confidence.
364
IV. SUMMARY
Briefly summarized, findings concerning Superior
Readers in second, fourth and sixth grades were as follows:
1. Second grade Superior Readers had been assigned
basal reading texts which had a mean readability level of
2.7; fourth grade pupils in this group were reading text
books which had a mean difficulty level of 5.1; and for
sixth grade pupils the mean difficulty level of assigned
basal texts was 6.4 years. A range of difficulty of about
three years was found for books assigned to second and
fourth graders, and a four-year range was found among
texts assigned to sixth grade pupils of superior reading
ability. Most sixth grade Superior Readers had been
assigned textbooks which ranked approximately sixth grade
difficulty. No second or fourth grade pupil in this group
had been assigned a basal reader below his actual grade,
but 41 per cent of the sixth grade Superior Readers were
being instructed in texts which rated fifth grade dif
ficulty level according to readability formulas.
2. The mean difficulty level of reading texts
assigned to Superior Readers as measured by readability
365
formulas was within a few school months of publishers'
grade recommendations, although the range was greater for
placements obtained through use of readability formulas.
3. More than 80 per cent of Superior Readers in
sixth grade had been assigned reading texts on or below
sixth grade difficulty, and 66 per cent of these pupils
read the texts with 99 or 100 per cent accuracy in oral
reading at sight. The average second grader in this group
read with 98 per cent accuracy, and the average fourth and
sixth grade pupil read with 99 per cent accuracy in oral
reading.
4. Eighty per cent of second grade Superior
Readers, 82 per cent of fourth graders , and 61 per cent of
sixth graders in this group read assigned reading texts
with perfect comprehension of questions asked. Except for
4 per cent of sixth grade Superior Readers, no pupil in
this group read with less than 75 per cent comprehension.
5. Fourth and sixth grade pupils in the superior
group had been assigned certain texts which were more
difficult and certain texts which were easier than the
assigned basal reader. The only other assigned text for
second grade pupils in this group was six school months
366
easier than the assigned reading text.
6. The Gilmore mean grade placements were, respec
tively, 16 months, 29 months and 34 months above the
readability levels of assigned texts for second, fourth and
sixth grade pupils of superior reading ability. Differ
ences were very significant at each grade level.
7. Pupils judged to be Superior Readers had not
been assigned reading textbooks which matched in readabil
ity level their scores on the California Reading Test.
The mean score of 4.1 on the California for second graders
in this group was 14 months above the difficulty level of
the assigned text. More than two school years separated
the mean placements between these variables for fourth and
sixth grade pupils. All differences were very significant.
8. Mean readability levels for assigned reading
texts were eight months lower than placements indicated by
the IRI at second grade, and more than two school years
lower at fourth and sixth grades for these Superior
Readers. These differences were very significant.
9. The Gilmore mean scores were higher than those
of the California for second and fourth grade Superior
Readers, but this difference was not significant. The
367
Gilmore mean score was 11 months higher than the California
mean score for Superior Readers in sixth grade, a differ
ence which was very significant.
10. Very significant differences were found between
mean scores on the Gilmore and mean instructional place
ment on the IRI at each grade level for Superior Readers.
The Gilmore mean score was eight months higher for second
graders, five months higher for fourth graders, and 13
months higher for sixth graders.
11. Mean scores on the California test were a month
or two lower than instructional placement for fourth and
sixth grade Superior Readers, but these differences were
not significant. The mean score on the California for
second grade Superior Readers was six months higher than
the IRI instructional placement, a difference which was
significant.
CHAPTER VII
ADDITIONAL DATA GATHERED FROM PUPILS AND TEACHERS
Analyses were made of the differences among the
three reading ability groups with respect to various
measures, i.e., accuracy and comprehension of oral reading
in assigned texts , letter grades on report cards and
phonics ability, and pupil judgments of the suitability of
assigned reading texts. These comparisons are reported in
the first section of this chapter. The second section
describes data pertaining to teachers' appraisals of pupil
reading ability. The final section contains a summary of
the major findings reported in the chapter.
I. FURTHER DATA RELATED TO PUPILS
Pupil Performance in Assigned Reading Texts
In the preceding chapters , pupil performance in
reading assigned basal reading textbooks was described.
On the following pages , differences among the three ability
368
369
groups are analyzed.
Accuracy. Table 57 reports the percentage of
accuracy in oral reading of the three ability groups ,
regardless of grade level. It will be seen that the median
number of errors made by Inferior Readers in 100-word
selections from assigned basal texts was 14, the median
number of errors made by Average Readers was 4, and the
median number of errors by Superior Readers was one.
The assurance that these differences are dependable
is offered in Table 58 , where differences are reported as
significant beyond the one per cent level between Inferior
and Average Readers, between Average and Superior Readers
and between Inferior and Superior Readers.
Comprehension. It was reported earlier that level
of comprehension met the criterion of the IRI for each
ability group of readers. Table 59 reports that 87 per
cent of Inferior Readers, and 74 per cent of Average and
Superior Readers received perfect comprehension scores.
Table 58 demonstrates that Inferior Readers scored
significantly higher than either of the other two ability
groups , and that no difference existed between Average and
370
TABLE 5 7
COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE OF ACCURACY OF ORAL
READING IN ASSIGNED READING TEXTS
Errors in Perc^tages of PupU.s Percentage of
100 words Inferior Average Superior Accuracy
0 5 21 100
1 8 33* 99
2 12 17 98
3 12 8 97
4 13* 12 96
5 15 5 95
6 4 7 1 94
7 8 7 1 93
8 7 5 92
9 5 7 91
10 6 1 90
11 12 3 89
12 5 2 2 88
13 2 1 87
14 2* 1 86
15 6 1 85
16 4 84
17 4 83
18 8 82
19 3 81
20 80
21
22 6
23
24 2
25 2
29 2 71
31 2 69
371
TABLE 5 7--Continued
Errors in
100 words
37
39
43
46
Totals
Percentages of Pupils
Inferior Average Superior
4
2
2
100
Percentage of
Accuracy
63
61
57
54
100 100
Median
372
TABLE 58
CHI SQUARES AMONG THE THREE GROUPS FOR ACCURACY
AND COMPREHENSION OF ORAL READING
______ Group_________________ Accuracy___________Comprehens ion
Inferior-Average 52.87** 4.83*
Average-Superior 29.38** .15
Inferior-Superior --a 5.14*
Significant beyond the five per cent level.
** Significant beyond the one per cent level.
a Since Superior exceeded Average and Average exceeded
Inferior, therefore the chi square is also significant
beyond the one per cent level between these groups.
373
TABLE 59
COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE OF COMPREHENSION OF ORAL
READING IN ASSIGNED READING TEXTS
Percentage of Percentages of Pupils________
Comprehension Inferior Average Superior
100 87* 74* 74
75 6 22 25
50 7 3 1
25 1
0
Totals 100 100 100
* Median
374
Superior Readers when this variable was considered.
Comparisons of Report Card Grades
in Reading
Among the facts recorded concerning each pupil was
the most recent letter grade in reading which had been sent
home to parents and copied on his cumulative record.
As shown in Table 60 , second grade pupils could not
be directly compared with fourth and sixth graders because
of the difference in grading. Among Inferior Readers in
second grade, the majority received the grade of N, which
meant "Needs Improvement." Only 4 7 per cent of this group
received the grade of S, which signified satisfactory
reading. Only 7 per cent of Average Readers in second
grade received N on the report card; no grades had been
recorded for 3 per cent of the group. All Superior Readers
in second grade received grades of S. Chi squares reported
in Table 61 demonstrate that these differences among groups
were significant. At second grade level, Inferior Readers
received significantly lower grades than Average and
Superior Readers. Differences between Average and Superior
Readers were slight but did exist.
TABLE 60
LETTER GRADES IN READING ON REPORT CARDS
Percentage of Letter Grades
Second Grade Fourth and Sixth Grades
Letter Grades Inferior Average Superior Inferior Average Superior
S 47 90* 100*
N 53* 7 0
No Grade 3 2
A 0
/
t 39
B 4 34 52*
C 48* 48* 7
D 44 11 0
F 4 0 0
* Median
u>
375
376
TABLE 61
CHI SQUARES AMONG THE THREE GROUPS OF PUPILS
FOR LETTER GRADES IN READING
______________ Chi Square_______________
Group Fourth and Sixth Grades Second Grade
Inferior-Average 45.4**
Average-Superior 14.9**
Inferior-Superior --a
Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
Q
Logically significant beyond the one per cent level of
confidence since Superior exceeded Average and Average
exceeded Inferior in number of higher letter grades.
27.84**
8.74**
_ a
377
Fourth and sixth grade pupils could be combined
because the same grading system was used at both levels.
As is reported in Table 60, 4 per cent of Inferior Readers
received failing grades and 44 per cent were graded D,
which is interpreted as "below average." While 48 per cent
of these poor readers received unsatisfactory grades , only
11 per cent were graded D in the Average group, and no
unsatisfactory grades were given to pupils in the Superior
group. The median grade for both Inferior and Average
pupils was C (average) , while the median for Superior
Readers was B (above average). No Inferior Readers were
graded A (outstanding) , 7 per cent of Average Readers
received this grade, and more than one third of Superior
Readers were so graded. Differences for comparisons among
the groups were upheld by chi squares beyond the one per
cent level of confidence.
Comparisons Between the Ability to
Pronounce Nonsense Syllables and
Other Measures of Reading Ability
Since the ability to use phonetic and structural
analysis was not specifically measured in any of the tests
used, a list of 50 nonsense words was constructed, as was
3 78
described in Chapter III. These words are listed in
Appendix A. Each pupil was asked to attempt to pronounce
these words after practicing on three, one-syllable
nonsense words. Table 62 lists the range of scores, mean
scores and chi squares for these data.
Second grade Inferior Readers failed to pronounce
one of the syllables correctly. However, the range of
scores for Average Readers in second grade was from zero
through 17, and for Superior Readers, from zero through
42. When Inferior and Average groups were compared at
second grade level, no significant difference was found.
However, a chi square of 8.6, significant beyond the one
per cent level of confidence, was obtained when comparison
was made between Average and Superior second graders. The
difference between Inferior Readers and Superior Readers
at second grade level in the ability to pronounce nonsense
words correctly was even more marked.
Scores of fourth and sixth grade pupils were
combined and chi squares computed. It was found that the
mean scores were significantly different between the
Inferior and Superior groups and between the Inferior and
Superior groups.
379
TABLE 62
NONSENSE WORDS PRONOUNCED CORRECTLY
Scores
Groups Range Mean Chi Square
Grade 2
Inferior
Average
Superior
Grade 4
Inferior
Average
Superior
Grade 6
Inferior
Average
Superior
All in Grade Two
All in Grade Four
All in Grade Six
0
0-17
0-42
0-22
1-42
37-47
0-42
14-48
40-50
0
3
14
5
23
43
18
35
46
6
24
33
Second Grade
Inferior-Average 3.1
Average-Superior 8.6**
Inferior-Superior 16.2**
Fourth and Sixth Grades
Inferior-Average 11.5**
Average-Superior 13.2**
Inferior-Superior --a
Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
£
Logically significant beyond the one per cent level of
confidence, since Average exceeds Inferior, and Superior
exceeds Average.
380
It may therefore be expected that at second, fourth
and sixth grades Average Readers are significantly less
skilled at using phonetic and structural analysis, as
measured by ability to pronounce these nonsense syllables ,
than are Superior Readers. In fourth and sixth grades,
Average Readers are significantly more skilled at pronounc
ing these meaningless words than are Inferior Readers, but
less difference was found in this skill between Inferior
and Average Readers at the second grade level.
When correlations were computed between the numbers
of nonsense words pronounced correctly and scores on the
Gilmore Oral Reading and the California Reading Tests , it
was found that scores of all Inferior Readers had a sub
stantial relationship to the number of nonsense words
pronounced correctly, as is illustrated in Table 63.
Scores of Average Readers on the Gilmore and on the
California both produced high correlations with the number
of nonsense words pronounced correctly. The same correla
tions for Superior Readers produced the same computations ,
an .86 correlation, or a marked relationship, with the
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and a correlation of .90, which
is highly dependable, with the California test. Moderate
381
TABLE 63
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ABILITY TO PRONOUNCE NONSENSE
SYLLABLES AND OTHER MEASURES OF READING ABILITY
Group
Correlation with
Gilmore
Correlation with
California
All Inferior .69* . 74**
All Average .84** .80**
All Superior .86** .90***
All Grade Two .60* .61*
All Grade Four .80** . 73**
All Grade Six .81** . 72**
* Moderate correlation; substantial relationship.
** High correlation; marked relationship.
*** Very high correlation; very dependable relationship.
382
and high correlations were also produced when mean scores
were compared within grade levels , regardless of reading
ability.
Ability to attack new words as measured by the
ability to pronounce nonsense words was closely related to
general reading skill except for Inferior Readers in second
grade, who failed to score on the Gilmore Oral Reading
Test, and who rated an instructional level no higher than
preprimer on the Informal Reading Inventory.
Pupil Judgment of the Suitability
of Assigned Reading Texts
One of the questions which was asked each pupil
during the individual interview probed for an appraisal of
his judgment of the suitability of his assigned reading
textbook, as explained in Chapter III.
It was evident that the average pupil in each group
and in the total sample felt that the basal reader was
suited to his reading ability, as is seen In the data
reported in Table 64. However, there were significant
differences between Inferior Readers and Average Readers,
16 per cent of the poor readers believing the text was
too difficult, and only 4 per cent of the Average Readers
383
TABLE 64
PUPIL JUDGMENTS OF THE SUITABILITY
OF ASSIGNED READING TEXTBOOKS
Percentage Reporting
Book was too Book was Book was
Group Difficult Right too Easy Chi Square
All Inferior 16 43 41
All Average 4 60 36
All Superior 0 60 40
Total Pupils
Inferior-Average
Average-Superior
Inferior-Superior
9 56 35
13.3**
4.2*
16.4**
* Significant beyond the five per cent level of confidence.
** Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
384
being of this opinion. No Superior Reader felt that the
text was too difficult. Approximately the same percentage
of pupils in each reading group felt that the text was too
easy. Sixty per cent of Average and Superior Readers and
43 per cent of Inferior Readers approved of the reading
level of the assigned text. The differences in percentage
were upheld by chi squares significant beyond the one per
cent level of confidence when Inferior Readers were com
pared with Average and Superior groups. The chi square was
significant at the 5 per cent level of confidence when
Average and Superior Readers were compared.
Generally, pupils judged that assigned texts were
suited to individual reading ability, although about one
third of the group considered the books too easy and 9 per
cent felt that they were too difficult.
II. APPRAISAL OF READING ABILITY BY TEACHERS
Each of the 139 teachers of the second, fourth and
sixth grade pupils who had been selected for the sample
was interviewed on two occasions , as described in Chapter
III. After teachers had listed textbooks assigned to
selected pupils, several questions were asked. Their
385
answers concerning suitable grade placements of reading
texts assigned to these pupils were compared with other
measures of reading ability.
Teacher Judgment Compared with Other
Measures of Reading Ability
As described in detail in Chapter III, each teacher
interviewed was asked to estimate the reading level of
each pupil in his class who had been included in the
sample. This question was asked before tests were admin
istered and was related directly to the teacher's opinion
of the grade placement of texts which could be read suc
cessfully by the pupil on the instructional level as
determined by IRI.
Table 65 lists data which permit comparison of this
cumulative teacher appraisal with other diagnostic measures
and with the assigned reading textbook.
Teachers judged that pupils should be assigned
easier texts than they were actually assigned in the case
of second, fourth and sixth grade Inferior Readers, and
second and fourth grade Average Readers.
Mean placement scores of teacher judgment were
higher than those of the IRI for Inferior Readers, lower
386
Grade
2
4
6
2
4
6
2
4
6
TABLE 65
COMPARISON OF MEANS OF TEACHER JUDGMENT
WITH OTHER MEASURES OF READING ABILITY
Mean Placements
Teacher Assigned Informal
Judgment Text Inventory Gilmore California
Inferior Readers
l2 2.2 1.3 .8 2.1
31 3.6 1.7 2.6 4.0
4 5.2 3.5 3.7 5.4
Average Readers
21 2.6 1.5 2.9 3.3
4 5.0 4.5 4.7 5.5
6 6.4 6.5 6.6 7.8
Superior Readers
22 2.7 3.5 4.3 4.1
5 5.1 7.5 8.0 7.4
7 6.4 8.5 9.8 8.7
387
for Superior Readers, and were similar for Average Readers
at fourth and sixth grades.
The comparisons for the Gilmore and teacher judgment
were identical to those of the IRI, except for second grade
Average Readers when teachers judged higher scores than
the IRI and lower scores than the Gilmore mean placement.
The California yielded consistently higher mean
grade placements than judgment of teachers for each group
at each grade.
Table 66 lists the number of cases when the judg
ment of teachers was within the same grade level as the
variable being compared. It is apparent that among the
210 pupils , teacher judgment differed from Gilmore Oral
Reading grade placements in 152 cases. The grade placement
scores of the California differed by a grade from teacher
judgment in 148 of the 210 cases. The IRI was different
in 156 of the 210 cases. However, the variables were much
closer when the assigned text was compared with teacher
judgment since differences occurred in only about 40 per
cent of the cases, 86 in 210.
Chi squares between the total number of cases in
which teacher judgment agreed with the variable as
TABLE 66
NUMBER OF CASES WHEN TEACHER JUDGMENT WAS ON THE SAME
GRADE LEVEL AS VARIOUS MEASURES
Gilmore California IRI Basal Reader
Group Diff. Same Diff. Same Diff. Same Diff. Same
Grade 2
Inferior 15 4 8 11 8 11 4 15
Average 25 6 18 13 29 2 7 24
Superior 18 2 15 5 15 5 8 12
Grade 4
Inferior 5 5 5 5 9 1 2 8
Average 19 24 29 14 25 18 16 27
Superior 16 1 17 0 17 0 10 7
Grade 6
Inferior 14 1 6 9 14 1 6 9
Average 14 14 25 3 16 12 9 19
Superior 26 1 25 2 23 4 24 3
Totals 152 58 148 62 156 54 86 124
u>
00
00
389
described above are listed on Table 67. Chi squares above
35.00 were found between each pair of variables except
teacher judgment and assigned textbooks. Therefore, it
may be confidently stated that significant differences
exist between teacher judgment of reading placement and
Gilmore scores , California scores and IRI instructional
levels.
Reasons for Differences Between Difficulty
Levels of Texts Assigned and Judgments
of Suitable Reading Levels
Among the 139 teachers interviewed, 69 stated that
the actual difficulty level of the assigned reading text
was not the same as that which they would recommend as
most desirable.
Reasons given for these differences were recorded.
Table 68 lists the reasons given by teachers for the
assignment of reading textbooks which did not, in their
judgments, best suit the reading grade level of the indi
vidual pupil.
Table 68 should be read as follows: The total
number of reasons reported by all teachers was seventy-
five. Six more reasons than teachers are listed because
390
TABLE 67
CHI SQUARES OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TEACHER
JUDGMENTS AND VARIOUS MEASURES
OF READING GRADE PLACEMENT
Measure of Reading Grade Chi Square
Published Level of Assigned Text
and Teacher Judgment 6.87
Gilmore Oral and Teacher Judgment 42.06**
California and Teacher Judgment 35.22**
IRI and Teacher Judgment 49.52**
** Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
391
TABLE 68
TEACHERS' REASONS FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RECOMMENDED
GRADE PLACEMENTS FOR READING TEXTS
AND LEVELS OF TEXTS ASSIGNED
Reasons
Number of
Teachers Percentage
Reporting of Reasons
Required to use state texts;
district policy
Difference unimportant; book
suitable for pupil
Text suitable for group
Text builds specific skills
such as fluency, comprehension,
critical thinking, basic sight
words
Pupil selected text
Miscellaneous: pupil needs to be
challenged; builds confidence;
public relations; pupil needs
easy books; former teacher used
text; so pupil will not feel
superior; because of emotional
instability; parents insist upon
easy book
Totals
26
17
10
9
5
_8
75*
35
24
14
12
6
11
100
* While sixty-nine teachers judged that assigned texts
were unsuitable, six teachers gave more than one reason.
392
some teachers mentioned more than one reason. The second
column states the relative importance of each reason among
the total group of reasons.
It will be noted that more than one third of the
teachers stated that the difference existed because
teachers were required to assign state texts or because
district policy dictated that pupils should not be
instructed in textbooks recommended for school grades
above their own. A number of teachers modified this state
ment by saying that, while it was possible to obtain
textbooks on a higher level, it was not easy to do so ,
and they felt safer when texts were assigned on grade
level.
About one fourth of the teachers felt that the book
suited the pupil well enough in spite of the difference in
grade placement, or that this difference was unimportant.
Ten individuals felt that, while the text was unsuitable
for the individual, it was suited to the group as a whole.
Nine teachers had assigned texts not suited to the individ
ual, but felt that specific skills were being built, such
as fluency of oral reading, comprehension, critical think
ing or drill on basic sight words. In five cases the
393
pupil had selected the text which the teacher felt was not
suited to his reading ability. One mention was made of
each of the following reasons for the difference between
recommended difficulty levels of texts and the actual
texts assigned: pupil needs to be challenged, text was
needed to build confidence, text assigned because of public
relations, pupil needs simple books, continuing in text
assigned by former teacher, text necessary so pupil will
not feel superior, text helps emotional instability,
parents insist upon an easy reading text.
Measures Used by Teachers in
Appraising Reading Ability
Each teacher was asked to describe measures used in
forming judgment of suitable grade placement of a basal
reader. Tables 69 and 70 list the measures mentioned by
teachers , along with the number and percentage of teachers
who included this means of appraisal. It will be noted
that 29 per cent of the teachers mentioned that only one
measure was used in appraising reading. More than 70 per
cent, almost 100 members of the group, mentioned more than
one measure used in combination when appraising reading
level.
394
TABLE 69
MEASURES OF APPRAISAL USED IN ISOLATION
Number of Percentage of
Measures Teachers Total Teachers
Oral reading 26 19
Records and past teacher
opinion 8 6
Informal Reading Inventory 3 2
Ability to attack new words,
general achievement, social
adjustment 3 2
Totals 40 29
395
TABLE 70
COMBINED MEASURES USED BY TEACHERS IN APPRAISING
SUITABLE DIFFICULTY LEVEL OF READING TEXTS
Number of Percentage of
Measures Used Teachers Total Teachers
Oral reading 103 73
Records and past teacher opinion 68 49
Comprehension 28 20
Standardized reading tests 19 14
Informal Reading Inventory 10 7
Word lists 7 5
Independent written assignments 7 5
Weekly Reader tests 6 4
Ability to attack new words 5 4
Teacher-made tests 4 3
IQ scores 3 2
Social adjustment 2 1
Experience, games, daily progress
social study achievement, self
selection , reading readiness
score, oral expression,
interests, ability to follow
directions, general achievement 10 7
396
It can be observed that 103 teachers used oral
reading combined with other measures. In addition, 26
teachers used oral reading as the only means of appraising
reading grade level. It is apparent that individual oral
reading was the most commonly used measure of reading
ability. Other measures used alone were records and past
teacher opinion, Informal Reading Inventory, and miscel
laneous methods of judging.
Reading records , cumulative record sheets and past
teacher opinion accounted for 49 per cent of measures used
in combination. Six per cent of the teachers reported
that these reports from former teachers constituted their
only means of reading appraisal.
About 20 per cent of teachers mentioned the use of
various measures of comprehension as important when used
in combination with other means of appraisal , but no
teacher mentioned comprehension as the only measure used.
Standardized tests were not mentioned as an isolated
measure of appraisal, but were used in combination by 14
per cent of the group. The Informal Reading Inventory was
mentioned by ten teachers as important when used with
other measures , and three of that number mentioned this
397
appraisal as the only measure used. Five per cent of the
group mentioned use of word lists to appraise reading when
other measures were used in addition. One teacher stated
that the ability to attack new words was the only criterion
she used in appraising grade placement, one said that gen
eral achievement was all-important, and another one consid
ered the child's social adjustment to be the only measure
necessary.
Written assignments were used in combination with
other measures by 5 per cent of the group; Weekly Reader
informal tests by another 4 per cent. Four teachers used
teacher-made tests , three considered IQ scores important,
and two teachers mentioned social adjustment as important
in combination with other measures. Measures mentioned by
only one teacher included pupil experience, games, daily
progress, social study achievement, self-selection, reading
readiness score, oral expression, interests, ability to
follow directions, and general achievement.
In summary, oral reading achievement was mentioned
as an important measure of reading grade placement by 129
of the 139 teachers interviewed, past records were used by
398
almost half of the group, and other measures were mentioned
by less than 20 per cent of the teachers.
Teacher Opinion of Informal Reading
Inventory Criteria for the
Instructional Level
For several years preceding this study, the Informal
Reading Inventory proposals had been explained to local
teachers in workshops. These facts were briefly reviewed
in the conference period and teachers were asked whether
they agreed with the Betts criteria for the Informal
Reading Inventory determination of instructional level.
It was apparent, as is shown in Table 71, that two
thirds of the 139 teachers interviewed disagreed with the
criteria of the Informal Reading Inventory. This differ
ence was very significant.
Among the 93 teachers who disagreed with the
criteria, 61 teachers, or 44 per cent of the total number,
stated that no specific percentage of accuracy and compre
hension and/or symptoms of tension could be used as a
criteria for the Instructional level. It was the view of
this large group of teachers that difficulty of reading
materials should be varied according to individual or
399
TABLE 71
TEACHER OPINION OF INFORMAL READING INVENTORY CRITERIA
FOR DETERMINING INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEL
Number of Percentage
________ Opinion__________ Teachers of Teachers Chi Square
Agree with criteria 46 33
Disagree with criteria 93 6^7 15.78**
Reasons for disagreement:
Difficulty should be
varied for individuals,
groups and purposes of
lessons 61 44
Texts should be more
challenging and/or
more difficult 13 10
Texts should be easier
because of needs for
building confidence
and fluency and
because of emotional
problems of pupils 12 8
Interest of pupil
should determine choice
of material 4 3
Impossible to meet
criteria with all
members of groups 2 1+
Comprehension should
determine choice of
material 1 1-
** Significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence.
400
group needs and/or for purposes of instruction.
Thirteen teachers felt that texts should be more
challenging than indicated by the criteria. An almost
equal number felt that texts should be easier than the
criteria indicated because of needs for building confi
dence, fluency of oral reading and certain emotional needs
of pupils. Four teachers believed that pupil interest was
far more important than any other criteria in assigning
textbooks. Two teachers felt that it was physically
impossible to meet the criteria with all members of a
group, and one teacher stated that comprehension alone
should determine choice of assigned reading materials.
Teacher Opinion Regarding Need for
Standardized Oral Reading Tests
It will be recalled that individual oral reading
was used in appraising reading level by more than three
fourths of the teachers interviewed. No standardized test
of oral reading has been recommended generally for teachers
in this district. Teachers were asked whether they would
use a standardized oral reading test for diagnosis if one
were made available.
401
With the exception of two teachers , all replied
that they desired such a diagnostic instrument provided
that it was simple and easy to use. The two teachers who
replied in the negative stated that they had confidence in
their own judgment and that their past experience was such
that they needed no further aid. In the case of one of
the latter two teachers , one of her pupils whose Gilmore
Oral Reading score was 9.0 and whose Informal Reading
Inventory instructional level was eighth grade was judged
by the teacher to fit best in an average fifth grade basal
reader.
Comments from the 137 teachers who desired a
diagnostic oral reading test included the following:
"It is needed at the beginning of the year especially";
"Needed for parent conferences"; "This would be a help in
grouping"; "It would help pupils to measure their growth";
"Inexperienced teachers especially need this"; "It would
help me check my own judgment"; "It would help in judging
new pupils"; and "Hallelujah, that's for me'."
III. SUMMARY
Analysis of the data presented in this chapter
produced the following major findings:
402
1. Significant differences were found between
Inferior and Average Readers, between Average and Superior
Readers and between Inferior and Superior Readers when
accuracy of reading in assigned basal texts was analyzed.
Superior Readers made fewer errors than Average Readers.
Average Readers made fewer errors than Inferior Readers.
2. Inferior Readers scored significantly higher
than Average or Superior Readers on comprehension of oral
reading. No difference existed between Average and
Superior Readers when comprehension scores were analyzed.
3. Inferior Readers received significantly more
low report card grades than Average or Superior Readers.
Superior Readers received significantly more high grades
than either of the other groups.
4. Significant differences were found between
Average and Superior Readers and between Inferior and
Superior Readers, at all three grade levels , in ability to
pronounce nonsense syllables. No significant difference
was found in this ability between Inferior and Average
second grade readers. High correlation was found between
the ability to pronounce nonsense syllables and scores on
the California test for Inferior, Average and Superior
403
Readers and on the Gilmore test for all groups except
second grade Inferior Readers , where a moderate correlation
was found.
5. Most Average and Superior Readers stated that
the assigned reading texts were suited to their reading
ability, but less than half of the Inferior Readers felt
that the text was suited to them. Significantly more
Inferior Readers stated that the assigned reading textbook
was too difficult. Differences were also found between
Average and Superior Readers in judgments of the suitabil
ity of the basal reading text, since no Superior Readers
felt that the book was too difficult and some felt that it
was too easy.
6. Significant differences were found between
teacher judgment of suitable difficulty level for assigned
reading texts and Gilmore scores, California scores and
IRI instructional levels.
7. Half of the 139 teachers interviewed stated
that the difficulty level of the assigned basal reader was
not the same as that which they would recommend as most
desirable. A number of reasons were given for these
differences.
404
8. Among measures used by teachers in appraising
reading level, oral reading was mentioned by 129 of the
139 teachers interviewed. Other measures mentioned fre
quently were records and past teacher opinion, comprehen
sion, standardized reading tests and informal inventories.
9. Two thirds of the 139 teachers interviewed
disagreed with the criteria of the Informal Reading
Inventory. Almost half of the group disagreed because
they believed that text difficulty should be varied to
meet individual needs and purposes of lessons.
10. Among the group of 139 teachers, all but two
expressed a desire for a simple standardized oral reading
test.
CHAPTER VIII
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study was made to determine whether the recom
mendations of reading specialists regarding the adjustment
of the difficulty of reading materials to the individual
pupil's reading level were being implemented in elementary
classrooms. The final chapter summarizes procedures of the
investigation and presents the findings, conclusions,
educational implications and recommendations.
I. SUMMARY OF THE STUDY
The Problem
In order to ascertain the relationship between a
pupil's reading ability and the difficulty of texts assigned
to him, the following data were secured: (1) difficulty
levels of assigned texts according to readability formulas
and publishers' recommendations, (2) the degree of accuracy
and comprehension with which pupils could read assigned
basal reading texts, (3) grade placement scores of indi
vidual pupils on a standardized oral reading test, a
405
406
standardized silent reading test and the Informal Reading
Inventory, (4) pupils* ability to attack new words as
demonstrated by pronunciation of a list of nonsense words,
(5) teacher judgments of pupil reading ability and related
problems, and (6) pupil judgments of the suitability of
assigned reading textbooks. Answers were sought to the
following specific questions:
1. What were the difficulty levels of basal reading
texts assigned to pupils of poor reading ability,
those of average ability, and those of superior
ability, as determined by readability formulas
and publishers' recommendations?
2. At what levels of accuracy and comprehension
did pupils read these texts?
3. How did assigned textbooks in the content areas
compare in readability with the basal reading
texts?
4. How closely did grade placements, as indicated
by certain standardized tests, by the Informal
Reading Inventory, and by teacher judgments
match those of the reading texts?
5. Did teachers assign textbooks at the level
which they judged to be suitable for individual
pupils? If not, why? Did teachers agree with
proposals of the Informal Reading Inventory?
407
What means were used by teachers in appraising
reading levels and deciding upon difficulty
levels of texts?
6. Is the ability to use phonetic and structural
analysis closely related to general reading
achievement, as measured by standardized read
ing tests?
7. Did pupils approve of the difficulty levels of
reading texts which had been assigned to them?
The Sample
The sample used in this investigation included 210
pupils drawn at random from a population of approximately
6,000 second, fourth and sixth grade pupils in a school
district in Southern California, and their teachers. Pupils
were selected by being assigned numbers between 1001 and
5905. In a table of random numbers, the numbers between
1000 and 5906 were taken in order and matched to individual
numbers of pupils until 70 individuals in each grade had
been selected for study.
The teachers of all pupils chosen for the sample
were also included in the investigation. In all, 139
teachers constituted the teacher sample.
408
Method of Gathering Data
Each of the 210 pupils included in the sample (70
at each grade level studied) was administered the appro
priate form of the Gilmore Oral Reading Test, the California
Reading Test, and the Informal Reading Inventory. All
tests were administered, scored and checked by the investi
gator. Each pupil was also asked to read at sight in the
section of his basal reader immediately beyond his current
assignment, and a record was made of reading accuracy and
comprehension. In addition, each pupil was interviewed
individually, and cumulative records were searched for
pertinent data.
Each of the 139 teachers was interviewed upon two
occasions, specific questions being asked and responses
recorded at the time of interview.
Statistical Treatment of the Data
Tabulations were prepared according to nine group
ings of pupils. Test scores on the accuracy section of
the Gilmore Oral Reading Test were the basis for dividing
pupils into three groups according to reading ability at
each grade level--inferior, average and superior readers.
The IBM 709 computer was employed to obtain the
means, standard deviations, standard errors of the means,
409
and intercorrelations for the variables. The significance
of the differences between means for certain of the vari
ables was determined by calculating the t_ ratio based
upon the standard error of the mean of the differences.
While most of the hypotheses were tested with the t.,
chi squares were computed for some comparisons, and, in
certain cases, correlations only were reported.
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The findings pertaining to various facets of the
general problem are summarized below.
Difficulty Levels of Texts
1. Second grade pupils selected for their inferior
reading ability had been assigned reading textbooks which
averaged second grade level of readability. Fourth grade
pupils judged to be inferior readers had been assigned
reading textbooks which averaged third grade level of
readability. Sixth grade pupils classed as inferior
readers had been assigned reading textbooks which averaged
fifth grade level of readability.
2. Second grade pupils of average reading ability
had been assigned reading textbooks which averaged second
grade level of readability. Fourth grade pupils of average
reading ability had been assigned reading textbooks which
410
averaged fifth grade level of readability. Sixth graders
of average reading ability had been assigned reading text
books which averaged sixth grade level of readability.
3. Pupils of superior reading ability in each of
the three grades had been assigned reading textbooks of
the same difficulty levels as those assigned to pupils of
average reading ability.
Pupil Accuracy in Reading Assigned Textbooks
1. Inferior Readers made from 6 to 45 errors in
each 100-word selection in oral reading of texts designed
to improve reading skills. The median number of errors
for this group was 14--almost three times the maximum
number allowed according to IRI criteria.
2. Average Readers made from none to 15 errors in
each 100-word selection while reading texts assigned to
improve reading skills. The median number of errors for
this group was four. Since the IRI criterion allows from
two to five errors, the average pupil in this group met
this criterion for accuracy of oral reading.
3. Superior Readers made from none to 12 errors
in each 100-word oral reading selection from texts assigned
to improve reading skills. The median number of errors
for this group was two, a number well within the IRI
criterion.
411
4. These differences in accuracy of oral reading
were found to be significant between Average and Inferior
Readers, between Average and Superior Readers, and between
Inferior and Superior Readers.
Comprehension of Oral Reading
1. Inferior Readers' scores on questions related
to the oral reading described above ranged from 50 to 100
per cent correct. Among the groups of Inferior Readers,
87 per cent answered all questions without error.
2. Average Readers' scores on questions related
to oral reading ranged from 25 to 100 per cent correct.
Among the groups of Average Readers, 74 per cent answered
all questions without error.
3. Superior Readers' scores on questions related
to oral reading ranged from 50 to 100 per cent correct.
Among the groups of Superior Readers, 74 per cent answered
all questions without error.
4. Differences significant beyond the five per
cent level were found between Inferior and Average groups,
and between Inferior and Superior groups. Inferior Read
ers scored significantly higher than either of the other
groups, but no differences were found in comprehension
levels between Average and Superior groups.
412
Comparison of Difficulty Levels of Reading
Texts According to Readability Formulas
and Publishers* Recommendations
1. Basal reading textbooks assigned to pupils of
inferior, average and superior reading ability, when mean
readability levels were measured by formulas, were rated
within a half school year of mean published grade recommen
dations. The range of difficulty levels, however, was
considerably wider when readability formulas were used.
Difficulty Levels of Texts in
Content Fields
1. Readability levels of all textbooks assigned
in the content areas were from one to three years above
the mean difficulty levels of assigned basal reading texts
for Inferior Readers in fourth and sixth grades. The
difficulty level of the second grade arithmetic text,
the only second grade text assigned in the content areas,
was similar to that of the reading text.
2. Readability levels of textbooks in the content
areas which had been assigned to average readers in the
fourth grade ranged from one year below to almost two years
above the mean difficulty level of basal reading texts,
but the mean placement for the two variables was similar.
Average Readers in the sixth grade had been assigned texts
413
in Che content areas having readability levels from four
months below to eighteen months above the mean difficulty
levels of basal reading texts, and the mean placement
for the texts was one year below. Average Readers in
the second grade had been assigned arithmetic texts with
difficulty levels similar to the mean placement of basal
reading texts.
3. Superior Readers in second grade had been as
signed arithmetic texts with difficulty levels six months
below that of the mean placement of reading texts.
Superior Readers in the fourth grade had been assigned
texts in the content areas with readability levels from
nine months below to eighteen months above the mean place
ment of reading texts, but the mean levels for the two
variables were similar. Superior Readers in the six grade
had been assigned texts in the content areas with reada
bility levels from five months below to seventeen months
above the mean placement of basal reading texts, and Lhe
mean placement of the latter was nine months below that
of the total group of texts in the content areas.
Gilmore Oral Reading Test Scores and
Difficulty Levels of Texts
1. The mean grade placement of scores on the
Gilmore test was significantly lower than the mean
414
readability level of assigned reading texts for Inferior
Readers at all three grade levels.
2. No significant differences were found between
the means of scores on the Gilmore and the readability
levels of reading texts for Average Readers in fourth and
sixth grades. Only three months' difference was found
between these variables for second grade Average Readers.
3. The Gilmore mean grade placements were, respec
tively, 16 months, 29 months, and 34 months above the
readability levels of assigned texts for second, fourth and
sixth grade Superior Readers. Differences were very
significant at each of these grade levels.
California Reading Test Scores and
Difficulty Levels of Texts
1. No significant differences were found between
scores on the California and readability levels of reading
texts for second, fourth or sixth grade Inferior Readers.
2. Significant differences were found between
scores on the California and readability levels of reading
texts for Average Readers at all three grade levels. Mean
scores on the California were seven months higher than
readability levels of texts for second graders, five months
higher for fourth graders, and fifteen months higher for
sixth graders.
415
3. Significant differences were found between
scores on the California and readability levels of reading
texts for Superior Readers at all three grade levels.
Mean scores on the California were 14 months higher than
readability levels of texts for second graders, and 23
months higher for fourth and sixth grade Average Readers.
Informal Reading Inventory Placements
and Difficulty Levels of Texts
1. Inferior Readers had been assigned reading texts
with difficulty levels significantly higher than those in
dicated by IRI criteria for the instructional level.
2. Average Readers in fourth and sixth grades had
been assigned reading texts with difficulty levels not
significantly different from those indicated by IRI cri
teria for the instructional level. However, second grade
Average Readers had been assigned reading texts the mean
difficulty level of which was more than ten months higher
than that indicated by the IRI, and this difference was
significant at the 5 per cent level.
3. Superior Readers had been assigned reading
texts with difficulty levels significantly lower than
those indicated by IRI criteria for the instructional
level, the difference being significant at the 5 per cent
leve1.
416
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and
California Reading Test
1. Very significant differences were found between
the mean scores on the Gilmore and the California tests
for Inferior Readers at all three grade levels. The mean
score of the California was thirteen months higher in the
second grade, fourteen months higher in the fourth grade,
and seventeen months higher in the sixth grade than that
of the Gilmore among these groups.
2. Very significant differences were found between
mean scores on the Gilmore and the California for Average
Readers at all three grade levels. The mean score of the
California was four months higher in the second grade,
eight months higher in the fourth grade, and twelve months
higher in the sixth grade for these Average Readers.
3. No significant differences were found between
mean scores on the Gilmore and California for second and
fourth grade Superior Readers. The Gilmore mean score was
eleven months higher than the California mean score for
Superior Readers in the sixth grade, and this difference
was significant at the 5 per cent level.
Gilmore Oral Reading Test and
Informal Reading Inventory
1. No significant differences were found between
mean scores on the Gilmore and mean placements according
417
to IRI criteria for second and sixth grade Inferior Readers.
Mean placements of fourth grade Inferior Readers were
significantly higher on the Gilmore than on the IRI.
2. No significant differences were found between
mean scores on the Gilmore and the mean IRI instructional
level for fourth and sixth grade Average Readers. The mean
IRI instructional level was significantly lower than the
mean Gilmore score for second grade Average Readers.
3. Very significant differences were found between
mean scores on the Gilmore and mean instructional place
ments on the IRI for Superior Readers at all three grade
levels. The Gilmore was eight months higher for second
grade Superior Readers, five months higher for fourth grade
Superior Readers, and thirteen months higher for sixth
grade Superior Readers.
California Reading Test and Informal
Reading Inventory »
1. Very significant differences were found between
mean scores on the California and mean instructional levels
on the IRI for Inferior Readers. The mean California score
was eight months higher for second grade Inferior Readers,
twenty-five months higher for fourth graders, and nineteen
months higher for sixth graders.
2. Very significant differences were found between
mean scores on the California and mean instructional levels
418
on the IRI for each group of Average Readers. The mean
California score was eighteen months higher for second
grade Average Readers, ten months higher for fourth grade
Average Readers, and thirteen months higher for sixth
grade Average Readers.
3. No significant differences were found between
mean scores on the California and mean instructional levels
of the IRI for fourth and sixth grade Superior Readers.
The mean score on the California was six months higher
than the mean instructional level of the IRI for second
grade Superior Readers, and this difference was signifi
cant beyond the five per cent level.
Comparisons of Letter Grades in
Reading on Report Cards
1. Inferior Readers received significantly more
low report card grades than Average or Superior Readers.
2. Superior Readers received significantly more
high grades than either of the other groups.
Phonics Ability as Measured by
Pronunciation of Nonsense Words
1. With respect to phonics ability as demonstrated by
the pronunciation of nonsense syllables, significant differ
ences were found between Average and Superior Readers and
between Inferior and Superior Readers at each grade level.
419
2. While no significant difference was found in
this ability between Inferior and Average Readers in the
second grade, significant differences existed between
Inferior and Average Readers in fourth and sixth grades.
3. For Superior Readers, very high correlation was
found between this ability and scores on the California
test. High correlation was found between this ability and
scores on the Gilmore for Superior and Average Readers
and on the California for Inferior and Average Readers.
For Inferior Readers, moderate correlation was found be
tween this ability and scores on the Gilmore.
1 Judgment of the Suitability
of Assigned Reading Texts
1. Sixty per cent of both Average and Superior
Readers agreed that the assigned reading text was suited
to their reading ability. Only 43 per cent of Inferior
Readers agreed that the text was suitable.
2. Very significant differences were found among
groups in their judgments of the suitability of assigned
reading texts. Significantly more Inferior than Average
or Superior Readers stated that the assigned reading text
was too difficult.
3. Significantly fewer Superior than Average or
Inferior Readers felt that the assigned reading text was
too difficult.
420
Teacher Judgment of Reading Grade
Placement and Other Measures
1. Significant differences were found between mean
reading levels according to teacher judgments and mean
levels according to the Gilmore, the California, the IRI
and the assigned reading textbook.
2. Suitable difficulty levels according to teacher
judgments were below those of assigned reading textbooks
for each group of Inferior Readers. Suitable difficulty
levels according to teacher judgments were above the as
signed reading textbooks for each group of Superior
Readers. Suitable difficulty levels according to teacher
judgments were the same as those of assigned reading text
books for each group of Average Readers.
3. Suitable difficulty levels according to teacher
judgments were higher than those according to the Gilmore
mean placement for all groups of Inferior Readers, lower
than those according to Gilmore placement for all groups
of Superior Readers, and slightly lower than those accord
ing to Gilmore placement for Average Readers at each
grade level.
4. Suitable difficulty levels according to teacher
judgments were significantly lower than those according to
the California mean placement for Inferior, Average and
Superior Readers at all three grade levels.
_ *21
5. Suitable difficulty levels according to teacher
judgments were significantly higher than those according
to the instructional levels of the IRI for Inferior Read
ers in each grade, significantly lower for Superior Read
ers in each grade, but similar for Average Readers in each
grade.
Reasons for Differences Between Difficulty Levels
of Reading Texts and Teacher Judgments
of Suitable Reading Level
1. Half of the 139 teachers interviewed stated
that the difficulty levels of assigned reading texts were
not the same as those which they would recommend as most
desirable.
2. One third of the teachers who disagreed with
the suitability of the level at which they had assigned
textbooks stated that the difference existed because they
were required to use state texts or because district
policy dictated that pupils should not be instructed in
texts recommended by publishers for school grades above
their own.
3. One fourth of the teachers felt that this dif
ference in difficulty level was relatively unimportant.
Another large group of teachers stated that the book fitted
the reading group and could not fit each individual child
precisely. Another group stated that the text was being
422
used to build specific skills. Other reasons were offered
but with less frequency.
Measures Used by Teachers in Appraising
Reading Grade Placement
1. Among measures used by teachers in appraising
«
reading grade placement of individual pupils, 129 of the
total number of 139 mentioned oral reading skill.
2. Other measures mentioned frequently were pupil
records, past teacher opinion, comprehension, standardized
reading tests and informal inventories.
Teacher Opinions of Informal Reading Inventory
Criteria for the Instructional Level
1. Two thirds of the 139 teachers interviewed
disagreed with the instructional level criteria of the
Informal Reading Inventory. This difference was very
signi ficant.
2. Approximately 44 per cent of the teachers
stated that no specific percentage of accuracy and compre
hension and/or symptoms of tension could be used as
criteria for establishing instructional levels. They
believed that difficulty of reading materials should be
varied according to individual or group needs.
423
3. Some teachers stated that the criteria allowed
too few errors , but an equal number stated that the cri
teria allowed too many errors. Pupil interest and pupil
comprehension were also mentioned as important criteria.
Teacher Opinions Regarding the Need
for Standardized Oral Reading Tests
1. Among the 139 teachers interviewed, 13 7 ex
pressed a desire for a simple standardized oral reading
test which could be used to reinforce teacher judgments
of pupil reading levels.
III. CONCLUSIONS
In the first portion of this section, the hypotheses
proposed in the initial chapter are examined in terms of
the findings of the study. Each hypothesis is re-stated
and discussed with respect to its final acceptance or
rejection. Some general conclusions developed from the
findings are reported in the second portion of this sec
tion.
424
Examination of the Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1. The number of errors in accuracy of
oral reading in assigned reading textbooks made
by pupils of inferior, average and superior reading
ability differs significantly. Comprehension of
assigned reading texts does not differ significantly
among these groups.
If pupils were assigned reading texts according to
specific criteria of accuracy and comprehension of oral
reading, it might be assumed that the levels of accuracy
and comprehension would be similar for all pupils, since
the reading material would have been selected to match the
reading ability of the pupil.
However, the data supported the hypothesis that
significantly different numbers of errors in accuracy in
oral sight reading in assigned reading texts were made by
pupils of differing reading abilities. Inferior Readers
made roughly four times as many errors in accuracy as did
Average Readers, and roughly fourteen times as many errors
as Superior Readers.
The related hypothesis that comprehension of oral
reading of assigned texts did not differ among the groups
was also supported when Average and Superior Readers were
compared. However, chi squares demonstrated that Inferior
425
Readers made significancly more perfect scores in comprehen
sion than either of the other groups.
Hypothesis 2. Pupils are assigned textbooks in
content subjects having readability levels signifi
cantly different from those of assigned reading
texts.
When readability formulas were used, the hypothesis
was upheld for all books assigned to Inferior Readers in
fourth and sixth grades, and for Superior and Average
Readers in these grades with respect to science and lan
guage textbooks. Social studies textbooks were about a
half-year in difficulty above the basal reading texts for
Average Readers in the two upper grades, a difference
which was not significant. Other texts differed even
less.
The hypothesis was rejected for the three ability
groups in the second grade, since the only assigned text
was about a half-year lower in difficulty for Average and
Superior Readers and one month lower for Inferior Readers
in this grade.
Hypothesis 3. Pupils are assigned reading text
books with readability levels which differ signifi
cantly from scores earned on a standardized oral
reading test.
426
The data clearly supported the hypothesis for
Inferior and Superior Readers, but no difference was
found between the mean placements on these variables for
Average Readers at any grade level. It was found that
mean placements on the oral reading test were lower for
Inferior Readers and higher for Superior Readers than
those of the assigned reading textbooks.
Hypothesis 4. Pupils are assigned reading text
books with readability levels which differ sig
nificantly from scores earned on a standardized
silent reading test.
This hypothesis was supported for Average and
Superior Readers, mean placements on the California
Reading Test being significantly higher than on assigned
reading textbooks. However, the hypothesis was rejected
for Inferior Readers, since no difference was found be
tween the means of these variables at any of the three
grade levels.
Hypothesis 5. Pupils are assigned reading text
books with readability levels which differ sig
nificantly from the instructional levels of the
Informal Reading Inventory.
The findings indicate that this hypothesis couLd
be accepted for Inferior and Superior Readers at all
427
levels and for Average Readers in fourth and sixth
grades. The mean placement of the IRI was significantly
below that of the assigned reading texts for Inferior
Readers at each grade level, and for Average Readers at
the second grade level. It was significantly above that
of the assigned text for Superior Readers at all three
grade levels.
Hypothesis 6. The grade placement scores earned
on a silent reading test and an oral reading test
differ significantly. The scores earned on the
standardized tests differ significantly from the
instructional level as determined by the Informal
Reading Inventory.
The data supported this hypothesis concerning the
two standardized tests for Inferior and Average Readers
at each grade level, since the mean grade placement of the
Gilmore was significantly below that of the California.
The hypothesis was upheld for Superior Readers in sixth
grade, since the mean grade placement of the Gilmore was
significantly above that of the California. The hypothesis
was rejected for Superior Readers in second and fourth
grades.
The hypothesis was upheld when mean scores on the
Gilmore were compared with mean placement according to the
428
IRI instructional level for all Superior Readers and for
fourth grade Inferior Readers and second grade Average
Readers. Comparisons between the California and the IRI
upheld the hypothesis for all groups except Superior
Readers in fourth and sixth grades.
Hypothesis 7. Phonics skills as determined by the
number of nonsense words pronounced correctly are
positively correlated with grade placement scores
on a standardized reading test.
The data supported the acceptance of this hypothe
sis , since high and very high correlations were found
between the ability to pronounce nonsense syllables cor
rectly and grade placement scores on both the Gilmore
Oral Reading Test and the California Reading Test for
Average and Superior Readers. Correlations between the
Gilmore and this factor were moderate for Inferior Read
ers , but were marked between the California and phonics
ability for Inferior Readers.
Hypothesis 8. Most pupils agree that difficulty
levels of assigned reading textbooks are suited
to their individual reading abilities.
The data upheld this hypothesis for Average and
Superior Readers; more than half of each group agreed
that the difficulty of the assigned reading text was
suited to their individual reading abilities. However,
429
the hypothesis was rejected for Inferior Readers, less
than half of whom stated that the text was suited to
their abilities. Significantly more pupils in the Inferior
Reader category stated that the text was too difficult.
Hypothesis 9. Teachers assign reading textbooks
having published grade recommendations which differ
significantly from those they recommend as desir
able for individual pupils.
The findings supported this hypothesis. About
half of the teachers had assigned reading texts which were
not within the same difficulty level they had judged to be
most suitable for individual pupils. Differences of at
least one grade between these variables were found for
Inferior and Superior Readers, but little difference was
found for Average Readers. It should be noted that much
greater differences were reported between teacher judgments
and certain other measures of evaluation.
Hypothesis 10. Teachers do not agree with the
criteria for determining instructional levels
contained in the Informal Reading Inventory.
This hypothesis was upheld by the data. More than
two thirds of the teachers disagreed with the criteria,
as was stated in Chapter III.
430
General Conclusions
1. Recommendations of reading specialists regarding
the matching of reading materials to the indi
vidual pupil's reading level are not being con
sistently implemented in the elementary class
room because of the problems involved in
appraisal of the difficulty of texts and of
pupil achievement. Relationships between
assigned reading texts and appraised reading
levels were found to be complex because place
ments varied according to standardized and
informal measurement, as follows:
a. For Inferior Readers, mean readability
levels of assigned reading texts were more
difficult than those of the standardized
oral or informal test, but similar to those
of the standardized silent reading test.
b. For Average Readers, mean readability levels
of assigned reading texts were not different
from those of the standardized oral or the
informal test, but were significantly lower
than those of the standardized silent test.
c. For Superior Readers, mean readability
leveLs of assigned reading texts were lower
than those of any of the other measurements
In each of the three reading ability groups,
reading textbooks had been assigned at or very
near actual school grade placement. No differ
ence was found between mean difficulty levels
of texts assigned to Average and Superior head
ers at any of the three grade levels. Grade
placement scores of these groups on the stan
dardized oral reading test differed by more
than two years and on the silent reading test
by more than one year.
This investigation demonstrated the difficultie
involved (a) in attempting to assess reading
ability according to a specific grade placement
score, and (b) in attempting to provide common
reading materials for pupils within grades.
Accuracy and comprehension of oral reading are
such specific factors that they are difficult
to equate in a single composite reading score.
At the elementary level, accuracy of oral
reading appears to be more diagnostic than
comprehension, since with respect to this factor
(a) more significant differences were found
among groups and (b) it was more widely used by
teachers in appraising reading achievement.
Significant differences among groups were found
in letter grades recorded on report cards.
Inferior Readers received significantly more
unsatisfactory grades, and Superior Readers
received significantly more high grades.
The data indicated that, while teacher judgment
of desirable difficulty levels for individual
pupils did not match any of the variables,
agreement was closest with the placement of
assigned texts. However, most teachers believed
that reading texts were too easy for sixth
grade Superior Readers. Among the variables,
teacher judgments were consistently different
when compared with grade placement according to
the silent reading test. This test produced
relatively high scores.
Most teachers used oral reading from textbooks
433
as a measure of reading ability, but little
agreement in interpretation of standards for
oral reading was found, accuracy varying from
100 per cent to a low of 53 per cent for indi
vidual pupils.
8. Since teachers use oral reading frequently as a
diagnostic measure when appraising reading
levels, they should have access to a simple
standardized oral reading test.
9. While mean difficulty levels of reading texts
according to reading formula placements and
according to published recommendations were
not significantly different, certain individual
texts differed by as much as two years with
these levels.
10. According to readability formula placements,
science texts were two years more difficult
than published grade recommendations. Reada
bility formulas also placed language texts two
years higher than published recommendations.
Arithmetic texts were of similar difficulty
according to both estimates. Among nine social
434
studies texts, five placed more than one year
above the publishers' recommended grade levels
and one placed a year below the publisher's
recommendation.
11. Because students achieved significantly higher
scores on the California Reading Test than on
the Gilmore Oral Reading Test and the Informal
Reading Inventory, considerable doubt can be
cast upon classifying students for instruction
on the basis of the silent reading test.
IV. EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A review of related research has demonstrated that
more than 90 per cent of reading instruction in elementary
classrooms of the nation takes place through the use of
basal readers and associated materials. Basal reading
instruction stresses adjustment of the difficulty of
reading materials to the reading ability of the individual
pupil. Teachers are faced with the problem of using vari
ous standardized and informal tests as a basis of judging
pupil placement in reading so that difficulty levels of
textbooks can be matched to the pupil's reading ability.
435
The conclusions based on Che findings of this study
are that these measures of reading ability are not con
sistent for pupils with differing degrees of proficiency
in reading, and that difficulty levels of textbooks design
ed for a given grade differ widely. If these conclusions
are accepted, the following implications and recommenda
tions for the teaching of reading in the elementary
grades appear to follow logically:
1. Elementary school classrooms throughout the
nation generally contain at least thirty pupils.
Reading specialists have recommended that pupils
should be combined into three separate groups
for best results in a basal reading program.
Within these groups, it has been recommended on
the one hand that all pupils in the group use
the same text and on the other that materials
be varied to meet the needs of each individual
pupil. The wide spread of reading achievement
within groups, the complexity of the task of
measuring reading achievement, and the differ
ences in difficulty levels of textbooks within
school grades made it difficult to match the
reading achievement and reading texts for each
pupil in a basal reading group if all use the
same textbook. Reading specialists and authors
of basal series should accept this limitation
and propose methods which will enable teachers
efficiently to instruct pupils with varying
reading abilities who are using the same basal
reading textbook.
While this investigation has suggested that
difficulty levels of texts do not match grade
placement scores according to various standard
ized and informal measures, no findings in this
study suggest that the method of se1f-selection
would improve upon this situation. It was
found that most pupils approved of the teacher'
choice of reading texts. In certain cases when
reading texts did not match teacher judgment,
the reason given was pupil selection.
Poor readers made fourteen times as many errors
in accuracy on oral reading as were made by
excellent readers. It is not known at what
levels of accuracy and comprehension pupils
make maximum progress in reading.
Apparently, teachers are not satisfied to accept
present Informal Reading Inventory criteria of
accuracy and comprehension when selecting read
ing texts for pupils. It was stated repeatedly
by teachers that difficulty levels should be
varied according to needs of individuals and
groups and according to purposes of lessons.
Neither the Betts criteria nor the Smith cri
teria nor any other was accepted by these
teachers. It should be noted that Informal
Reading Inventory placements and difficulty
levels of assigned texts were similar for
Average Readers but not for the other two
ability groups. Reading specialists should
take into consideration this rejection of
existing criteria for accuracy and comprehension
in oral reading, and should examine the reasons
for it before attempting to formulate more
satisfactory criteria. Their specific sugges
tions to teachers should take into account the
teachers' objections to the present criteria.
438
In other words, agreement should be reached
upon standards of accuracy and comprehension
of oral reading at the instructional level.
5. The ability to attack new words as shown by
the correct pronunciation of nonsense syllables
is useful in predicting reading ability, since
correlations were high with both oral and silent
reading tests. Tests measuring this ability
should be standardized and made available to
classroom teachers.
6. At present, silent reading tests are widely
used as a means of comparison of pupil growth
and of achievement between individuals and
between groups. The silent reading test used
in this study indicated a maturity in reading
which was not matched by the assigned text or
by teacher judgments. Confusion inevitably
results in teacher interpretation and in the
understanding of pupils and parents when grade
placement scores in silent reading tests are
notably higher than the published placements
of assigned textbooks. Scores on the silent
reading test did not predict with any degree
of accuracy scores for the same individual on
the standardized oral reading test or on the
informal inventory.
According to the results of tests used in this
investigation, prediction of expected accuracy
and comprehension of oral reading for individual
pupils would vary for different ability groups.
There is evidence that the typical Inferior
Reader would read orally in most texts having
the same placement as the silent reading test
by making 14 errors in 100 words but with excel
lent comprehension. The evidence suggests that
an Average Reader would read texts with place
ments matching scores on the oral reading test
and the informal inventory by making only four
errors in 100 words and with excellent compre
hension. None of the measures used in the study
matched placements of assigned reading texts
for Superior Readers, and it must be assumed
that these texts were too easy for the pupils.
Teachers did not mention comprehension as an
440
important measure in determining suitable grade
placements of texts. The probable reason for
this is that they were aware of the fact shown
in this study that comprehension is not a seri
ous problem for most elementary school pupils
when they read orally and are given help on
unknown words. Therefore, it would appear that
comprehension is a problem in silent reading
because unknown words cannot be attacked or
because concepts are difficult in upper grades,
as in the case of some texts in the content
areas having difficulty levels well above those
of assigned reading texts.
9. Provisions in the California Education Code
which enforce uniform use of state textbooks
in grades for which they are adopted appear to
be well known to teachers. Teachers should be
better informed regarding provisions which per
mit additional use of supplementary books.
A state committee should study the effect on
pupils of state requirements regarding use of
textbooks.
441
10. Since teachers use individual oral reading from
textbooks more often than any other measure in
deciding upon texts suitable for reading instruc
tion, a simple standardized oral reading test
should be provided for use in the classroom.
11. Among existing widely-used readability formulas,
the Dale-Chall formula uses comprehension as the
significant measure of readability, the Spache
formula using existing primary textbooks. The
readability of books designed for elementary
pupils should be determined by taking into ac
count the reading ability of pupils in terms
of accuracy of oral reading as well as compre
hension of silent reading.
12. Results of reading formulas should be made more
available to teachers. Teachers should be
better informed regarding the use of these
formulas, their limitations, and their relation
to published grade placements.
13. The readability of texts should be assessed
more carefully by publishers and by state com
mittees which recommend their adoption.
442
14. Having demonstrated the extreme variability
of reading maturity within school grades, the
findings of this study cast doubt upon the use
of published grade markings as an important
predictor of proper difficulty levels of texts
for individual pupils.
15. The evidence suggests that because both standard
ized tests and reading textbooks make reference
to grade placements, an erroneous conclusion
is frequently drawn that a close relationship
exists between the two. It seems reasonable
to conclude from the findings of this study
that the assignment of texts according to scores
on tests is not a valid procedure.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Certain of the recommendations made in the preced
ing section suggest a need for additional research,
particularly in the following areas:
1. Experimental studies using matched groups are
needed to determine the degree of accuracy and
comprehension with which elementary school
pupils make maximum progress in reading.
Research is needed in methods of teaching read
ing which would permit differentiation of
instruction within reading groups when each
member of the group has been assigned the same
textbook.
Research is needed to establish a basis for
using standardized silent and oral reading
tests in grouping pupils and in making suitable
assignments of texts.
More research is needed concerning the ability
to pronounce nonsense syllables as a predictor
of reading ability.
Reasons for comprehension difficulties should
be further established by research.
Research is needed in devising readability
formulas which employ the criterion of accuracy
of oral reading as well as that of comprehen
sion in silent reading.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Anderson, Irving H., and Dearborn, Walter F. The
Psychology of Teaching Reading. New York:
Ronald Press Co., 1952.
Betts, Emmett A. Foundations of Reading Instruction.
New York: American Book Co., 1946.
________ . Foundations of Reading Instruction. New
York: American Book Co., 1957.
________. The Prevention and Correction of Reading
Difficulties. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson
& Co., 1936.
________ . Handbook on Corrective Reading for the
American Adventure Series. Chicago: Wheeler
Publishing Co., 1956.
Bond, Guy L., and Tinker, Miles A. Reading Diffi
culties: Their Diagnosis and Correction. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957.
Brueckner, Leo J., and Bond, Guy L. The Diagnosis
and Treatment of Learning Difficulties. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1955.
Buckingham, B. R., and Dolch, E. W. A Combined Word
List. Boston: Ginn and Co., 1936.
Burros, Oscar K. The Fifth Mental Measurements
Yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: The
Gryphon Press, 1929.
Burton, William H., Baker, Clara B., and Kemp,
Grace A. Reading in Child Development. New
York: Bobbs-Merri11 Co., 1956.
445
446
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
2 2 .
Chall, Jeanne S. Readability: An Appraisal of
Research and Application. Columbus: Ohio State
University Press, 1958.
Clark, Harold F., and McKillop, Anne S. An Introduc
tion to Education. New York: Chartwell House,
Inc. , 1951.
Clark, S. H. How to Teach Reading in the Public
SchooIs. Chicago: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1898.
Cole, Luella. The Improvement of Reading. New York:
Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., 1938.
Cooper, Nellie. How to Teach the Primary Grades.
Chicago: A. Flanagan Co., 1926.
Cubberley, Ellwood P. The History of Education.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1919.
________ . Public Education in the United States.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1919.
________ . Readings in the History of Education.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1924.
Dahl, Lorraine A. Public School Audiometry.
Danville, 111.: Interstate Publishers, 1949.
Dawson, Mildred A., and Bamman, Henry A. FundamenL-
als of Basic Reading Instruction. New York:
Longmans, Green & Co., 1959.
DeBoer, John J., and Dallmann, Martha. The Teaching
of Reading. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1960.
Delcato, Carl H. The Treatment and Prevention of
Reading Problems. Stringfield, 111.: Charles
C. Thomas Co., 1959.
23. Dolch, Edward W. A Manual for Remedial Reading.
Champaign, 111.: The Garrard Press, 1945.
447
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Dolch, Edward W. Psychology and Teaching of Reading.
Champaign, 111.: The Garrard Press, 1951.
________ . Teaching Primary Reading. Champaign, 111.:
The Garrard Press, 1950.
Durrell, Donald D. Improvement of Basic Reading
Abilities. New York: World Book Co., 1940.
________ . Improving Reading Instruction. New York:
World Book Co., 1956.
Femald, Grace M. Remedial Techniques in Basic
School Subjects. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co., 1943.
Field, E. M. The Child and His Book. New York:
Gardner Press, 1895.
Flesch, Rudolf. Why Johnny Can't Read. New York:
Harper & Bros., 1955.
Ford, Frank R. Diseases of the Nervous System in
Infancy, Childhood and Adolescence. Springfield,
111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1944.
Garrett, Henry E. Statistics in Psychology and
Education. New York: Longmans, Green & Co.,
1958.
Gates, Arthur I. The Improvement of Reading. New
York: Macmillan Co., 1947.
Gesell, Arnold, and Amatruda, Catherine. Develop-
mental Diagnosis. New York: Paul B. Hoeber,
Inc., 1941.
Gesell, Arnold, and Gesell, Beatrice C. The Normal
Child and Primary Education. Boston: Ginn and
Co. , 1912.
Gillingham, Anna, and Stillman, Bessie W. Remedia 1
Training in Reading, Spelling and Penmanship.
New York: Sackett and Wilhemos, 1956.
448
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
Gist, Arthur S., and King, William A. The Teaching
and Supervision of Reading. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1927.
Graves, Frank P. Great Educators in Three Centuries.
New York: Macmillan Co., 1912.
Gray, Lillian, and Reese, Dora. Teaching Children
to Read. New York: Ronald Press, 1957.
Gray, William S. On Their Own in Reading. Chicago:
Scott, Foresman & Co., 1948.
________ . The Teaching of Reading and Writing.
Chicago: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1958.
Gray, William S., and Leary, Bernice E. What Makes
a Book Readable? Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1935.
Greene, Harry A., Jorgensen, Albert N., and Gerberich,
J. Raymond. Measurement and Evaluation in the
Elementary School. New York: Longmans, Green
& Co., 1953.
Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology
and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
1956.
Harris, Albert J. How to Increase Reading Ability.
New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1956.
Hester, Kathleen B. Teaching Every Child to Read.
New York: Harper & Bros., 1955.
Hildreth, Gertrude. Teaching Reading. New York:
Henry Holt & Co., 1958.
________ . Learning the Three R's. Minneapolis:
Educational Publishers, Inc., 1947.
Hilgard, Ernest R. Introduction to Psychology.
New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1957.
449
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
Horn, John L., and Chapman, Thomas W. The Education
of Children in Primary Grades. New York:
Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., 1935.
Hunnicutt, C. W., and Iverson, William J. Research
in the Three R's. New York: Harper & Bros.,
1958.
Irwin, Keith G. The Romance of Writing. New York:
Viking Press, 1956.
James, Philip. Children's Books of Yesterday. New
York: Macmillan Co., 1912.
Kerfoot, J. B. How to Read. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Co., 1916.
Kirk, Samuel A. Teaching Reading to Slow-Learning
Children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1940.
Klapper, Paul. Teaching Children to Read. New York:
D. Appleton & Co., 1915.
Kottmeyer, William. Handbook for Remedial Reading.
St. Louis: Webster Publishing Co., 1947.
Lamoreaux, Lillian A., and Lee, Dorris M. Learning
to Read Through Experience. New York: D.
Appleton-Century Co., 1943.
McCracken, Glenn. The Right to Leam. Chicago:
Henry Regnery Co., 1959.
McKee, Paul. The Teaching of Reading in the Ele
mentary School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1948.
McKim, Margaret. Guiding Growth in Reading. New
York: Macmillan Co., 1955.
Monroe, Marion. Children Who Cannot Read. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1932.
450
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
Monroe, Marion, and Backus, Bertie. Remedia 1
Reading. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1937.
Moore, Annie E. The Primary School. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1925.
Morse, William C., Ballantine, Frances A., and
Dixon, W. Robert. Studies in the Psychology of
Reading. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1951.
Noble, Stuart G. A History of American Education.
New York: Rinehart Co., 1954.
O'Brien, John A. Silent Reading. New York:
Macmillan Co., 1921.
Olson, Willard C. Child Development. Boston: D. C.
Heath & Co. , 1949.
Orton, Samuel I. Reading, Writing and Speech
Problems in Children. New York: W. W. Norton
& Co., 1937.
Plimpton, George A. The Education of Chaucer. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1935.
Reed, Lorna C., and Klopp, Donald S. Phonics for
Thought. New York: Comet Press Books, 1957.
Reeder, Ward G. A First Course in Education. New
York: Macmillan Co., 1950.
Rinsland, Henry D. A Basic Vocabulary of Elementary
School Children. New York: Macmillan Co.,
1945.
Robinson, Helen M. Why Pupils Fail in Reading.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946.
Russell, David H. Children Learn to Read. New
York: Ginn and Co., 1949.
451
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
Sheldon, William D. Teacher's Manual for Arrivals
and Departures. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
1957.
Smith, Donald E. P., and Carrigan, Patricia M.
The Nature of Reading Disability. New York:
Harcourt , Brace 6c Co., 1959.
Smith, Nila B. American Heading Instruction. New
York: Silver, Burdett 6c Co., 1934.
________ . Graded Selections for Informal Reading
Diagnosis. New York: New York University
Press, 1959.
Spache, George D. Good Reading for Poor Readers.
Champaign, 111.: The Garrard Press, 1958.
Spaulding, Frank E., and Bryce, Catherine T.
Learning to Read. New York: Newson 6c Co. ,
1918.
Spalding, Roma Ida B., and Spalding, Walter T.
The Writing Road to Reading. New York:
Whiteside, Inc., and William Morrow 6c Co.,
1957.
Stone, Clarence R. Better Advanced Reading. St.
Louis: Webster Publishing Co., 1937.
________ . Progress in Primary Reading. St. Louis:
Webster Publishing Co., 1950.
Storm, Grace E., and Smith, Nila B. Reading
Activities in the Primary Grades. Boston:
Ginn and Co., 1930.
Strang, Ruth, and Bracken, Dorothy K. Making Better
Readers. Boston: D. C. Heath 6c Co. , 1957.
87. Strauss, Alfred, and Lehtinen, Laura. Psychopatho1-
ogy and Education of the Brain Injured Child.
New York: Green and Stratton, 1947.
452
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
Thompson, George C. Child Psychology. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1952.
Thorndike, Edward L., and Lorge, Irving. The
Teachers Word Book of 30,000 Words. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1944.
Thorndike, Robert L., and Hagen, Elizabeth. Measure
ment and Evaluation in Psychology and Education.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955.
linker, Miles A. Teaching Elementary Reading,
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.,
1952.
Tuer, A. W. History of the Horn Book. London:
Leadenhall Press, 1897.
Veatch, Jeanette. Individualizing Your Reading
Program. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1959.
Vernon, M. D. Backwardness in Reading. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1957.
Wechsler, David. The Measurement of Adult Intelli
gence . Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co.,
1952.
Wheat, Harry G. The Teaching of Reading. Boston:
Ginn and Co., 1923.
Wheeler, Arville. The Teaching of Reading. New
London, Conn.: Arthur C. Croft Publications,
1959.
Wilson, H. B., and Wilson, G. M. The Motivation
of School Work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1916.
99. Witty, Paul. Reading in Modem Education. Boston:
D. C. Heath & Co., 1949.
453
100. Witty, Paul, Kelly, Kate, and Bristol, Ruth.
Reading Together. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co.,
1942.
Children's Textbooks
101. Bauer, Helen. California Rancho Days. Garden City:
Doubleday and Co., 1953.
102. Beals, Frank L. Story of Treasure Island. Chicago:
B. H. Sanborn & Co., 1947.
103. Bennett, Elizabeth H., Dowse, Mable B., and Edmonds,
Mary D. High Road to Glory. Sacramento:
California State Department of Education, 1951.
104. Betts, Emmett A. Adventures Now and Then. New York:
American Book Co., 1950.
105. _________. American Adventures. New York: American
Book Co., 1950.
106. Bond, Guy L. , and Cuddy, Marie C. Days of Adventure,
Chicago: Lyons and Carnahan, 1953.
107. . Down Our Way. Sacramento: California
State Department of Education, 1954.
108. _________. Happy Times. Chicago: Lyons and Carnahan
1949.
109 . _________. Just for Fun. Sacramento: California
State Department of Education, 1954.
110. . Many Surprises. Sacramento: California
State Department of Education, 1954.
111. . Meeting New Friends. Sacramento:
California State Department of Education, 1954.
454
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
Bond, Guy L., and Cuddy, Marie C. Once Upon a
Storytime. Chicago: Lyons and Carnahan, 1950.
________ . Stories from Everywhere. Sacramento:
California State Department of Education, 1954.
Brueckner, Leo J., Merton, Elda L., and Grossnickle,
Foster E. The New Learning Numbers, Grade Four.
Sacramento: California State Department of
Education, 1957.
________ . Understanding Numbers, Grade Six.
Sacramento: California State Department of
Education, 1957.
________ . Discovering Numbers, Grade Two. Sacra
mento: California State Department of Education,
1957.
Burton, William G., Baker, Clara B., and Kemp,
Grace E. Our Good Neighbors. Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merril1 Co., 1951.
Carols, Norman, Sorenson, Frank E., and Howarth,
Margery D. Neighbors in Latin America and
Canada. Sacramento: California State Depart
ment of Education, 1956.
Chandler, Edna W. Cowboy Sam and Miss Lily. Chicago:
Beckley-Cardy Co., 1958.
________ . Cowboy Sam and the Fair. Chicago: Beckley-
Cardy Co. , 1953.
________ . Cowboy Sam and the Rustlers. Chicago:
Beckley-Cardy Co., 1952.
Clarke, James Mitchell. Adventures of Nicholas.
Sacramento: California State Department of
Education, 1955.
________. Luis of Guadalajara. Sacramento:
California State Department of Education, 1956.
455
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
Coatsworth, Elizabeth. The New Runaway Home.
Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson & Co., 1955.
Coggins, Jack, and Fletcher, Pratt. Rockets. Jets.
Guided Missiles and Space Ships. New York:
Random House, 1951.
Crabtree, Eunice K. , Walker, LuVeme C. , and
Canfield, Dorothy. In the City and on the
Farm. Sacramento: California State Department
of Education, 1946.
_______ . Under the Roof. Lincoln, Neb.: Univer
sity Publishing Co., 1941.
Dawson, Mildred, and Miller, Jonie M. Language for
Daily Use. Book Four. Sacramento: California
State Department of Education, 1952.
_______ . Language for Daily Use, Book Six.
Sacramento: California State Department of
Education, 1952.
Dudley, Miles, Stratton, Clarence, and Pooley,
Robert C. Literature and Life, Book Two.
Chicago: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1936.
Fatio, Louise. The Happy Lion Roars. New York:
Whittlesey House, 1954.
Flack, Marjorie, and O'Donnell, Mabel. Neighbors
on the Hill. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson
& Co., 1957.
Gates, Arthur, and Bartlett, Mary M. All Around Me.
New York: Macmillan Co., 1952.
Gates, Arthur, and Ayer, Jean. Let's Go Ahead.
New York: Macmillan Co., 1940.
_______ . Let's Look Around. New York: Macmillan
Co., 1948.
456
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
Gates, Arthur, and Ayer, Jean. Let's Travel On.
New York: Macmillan Co., 1940.
Gates, Arthur, Huber, Miriam B., and Salisbury,
Frank S. New Friends and New Places. New York:
Macmillan Co., 1951.
_______ . On Four Feet. New York: Macmillan Co.,
1957.
Gates, Arthur, and Clark, Mae K. Sharing Adventures.
New York: Macmillan Co., 1951.
________. Sharing More Adventures. New York:
Macmillan Co., 1953.
Gates, Arthur, Huber, Miriam B., and Salisbury,
Frank S. Toby. New York: Macmillan Co.,
1951.
________. Tommy Little. New York: Macmillan Co.,
1951.
________. Wide Wings. New York: Macmillan Co.,
1945.
Gates, Arthur, and Peardon, Celeste C. The World
I Know. New York: Macmillan Co., 1957.
Gray, William S., and others. Days and Deeds.
Chicago: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1955.
________. Exploring American Neighbors. Sacramento:
California State Department of Education, 1.956.
______. Friends and Neighbors. Chicago: Scott,
Foresman & Co., 1952.
________. Fun with Dick and Jane. Chicago: Scott,
Foresman & Co., 1951.
________. Just Imagine. Chicago: Scott, Foresman
& Co., 1953.
457
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
Gray, William S., and others. More Friends and
Neighbors. Chicago: Scott, Foresman & Co.,
1953.
_________. Know Our New Friends. Chicago: Scott,
Foresman & Co., 1955.
. Paths and Pathfinders. Chicago: Scott,
Foresman & Co., 1946.
. People and Progress. Chicago: Scott,
Foresman and Co., 1955.
. Times and Places. Chicago: Scott,
Foresman & Co., 1942.
________ . Wonders and Workers. Chicago: Scott,
Foresman & Co., 1946.
Hanna, Paul R., and Kohn, Clyde F, Cross Country.
Chicago: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1950.
Heffernan, Helen, Harper, Wilhelmina, and Wolfing,
Gretchen. All Aboard for Storyland. Sacramento:
California State Department of Education, 1947.
Heffernan, Helen, Richards, Irmagarde, and Salisbury,
Alice. Desert Treasure. San Francisco: Harr
Wagner Publishing Co., 1955.
Henderson, Barbara, Garretson, Marion T., and Weber,
Frederick H. Firelight Book. Sacramento:
California State Department of Education, 1951.
________ . Sunshine Book. Syracuse, N.Y.: L. W.
Singer Co., 1946.
Hildreth, Gertrude, and others. Looking Forward.
Chicago: John C. Winston Co., 1949.
162. . Moving Ahead. Sacramento: California
State Department of Education, 1949.
458
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
Hildreth, Gertrude, and others. Today and Tomorrow.
Sacramento: California State Department of
Education, 1949.
Horn, Ernest, and others. We Live on a Farm.
Boston: Ginn and Co., 1940.
Huber, Miriam B., Salisbury, Frank S., and O'Donnell
Mabel. I Know a Story. Evanston, 111.: Row,
Peterson & Co., 1953.
_________. It Must Be Magic. Evanston, 111.: Row,
Peterson & Co., 1953.
Huber, Miriam B., Salisbury, Frank S., and Gates,
Arthur I. Planes for Bob and Andy. New York:
Macmillan Co., 1943.
Johnson, Eleanor M., and Jacobs, Leland B.
Adventure Lands. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E.
Merrill Co., 1954.
_________. Magic Carpet. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E,
Merrill Co., 1954.
Knox, Warren, and others. Wonderworld of Science,
Book Four. Sacramento: California State
Department of Education, 1952.
_______ . Wonderworld of Science, Book Six.
Sacramento: California .tate Department ol
Education, 1952.
Leary, Bernice E., Reichert, Edwin C., and Reely.
Mary K. Moving Forward. Chicago: J. B.
Lippincott Co., 1954.
Leavell, Ullin W. Frontiers to Explore. New York:
American Book Co., 1957.
_________. Open Doors. New York: American Book Co.,
1957.
459
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
Leavell, Ullin W. Open Roads. New York: American
Book Co. , 195 7.
. Open Windows. New York: American Book
Co. , 1957.
Paths to Follow. New York: American Book
Co. , 195 7
Widening Horizons. New York: American
Book Co., 195 7.
Lent, Henry B. Straight Down. New York: Macmillan
Co. , 1944.
Mackey, Margaret G., Wilson, Amber M., and Estes,
Genevieve d. Modern California. Sacramento:
California State Department of education, 1950.
McKee, Paul, and others. Bright Peaks. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1957.
________. Come Along. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1957
High Roads. Boston: HoughLon Mifflin Co.,
1957
Looking Ahead. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Co. , 195 7.
. On We Go. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1957.
. Sky Lines. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1957.
. Up and Away. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Co. , 1957.
188. Merton, Elda L., and Brueckner, Leo J. Using
Numbers, Book Two. Sacramento: California
State Department of Education, 1955.
460
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
Meyer, J. G., Gray, William H., and Hancock, Ralph.
Our American Neighbors. Sacramento: California
State Department of Education, 1948.
Nolen, Barbara. Luck and Pluck. Boston: D. C.
Heath & Co., 1942.
________ . Merry Hearts and Bold. Sacramento:
California State Department of Education, 1954.
Nystrom, J. Warren, Jones, Emlyn D., and Harter,
Helen. Beyond Our Borders. Chicago: Rand,
McNally & Co., 1954.
O'Donnell, Mabel, Hooper, Florence J., and Hooper,
Margaret C. Day in and Day out. Evanston, 111.:
Row, Peterson & Co., 1948.
O'Donnell, Mabel. Engine Whistles. Evanston, 111.:
Row, Peterson & Co., 1942.
O ’Donnell, Mabel, and Carey, Alice. Friendly
Vi 1lage. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson & Co.,
1936.
________ . High on a Hill. Evanston, 111.: Row,
Peterson & Co., 1941.
________ . If I Were Going. Evanston, 111.: Row,
Peterson & Co., 1936.
________ . New Singing Wheels. Evanston, 111.: Row,
Peterson & Co., 1954.
________ . Round About. Evanston, 111.: Row,
Peterson & Co., 1936.
Orr, Ethel M., Reed, Edna M., and Franseth, Jane.
Stories from Near and Far. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1951.
Ousley, Odille, and Russell, David H. Around the
Corner. Boston: Ginn and Co., 1953.
461
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
Ousley, Odille, and Russell, David H. On Cherry
Street. Boston: Ginn and Co., 1953.
_______. We Are Neighbors. Boston: Ginn and Co.,
1953.
Parrish, Anne. Floating Island. New York: Harper
& Bros., 1930.
Patton, David H. Word Mastery Spellers. Book Four.
Sacramento: California State Department of
Education, 1951.
_______ . Word Mastery Spellers, Book Six.
Sacramento: California State Department of
Education, 1951.
_______ . Word Mastery Spellers. Book Two.
Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Co., 1950.
Powers, Leversia, and Bowen, Genevieve. Living in
Latin America. Sacramento: California State
Department of Education, 1956.
Pratt, Marjorie, and Meighen, Mary. Long, Long Ago.
Chicago: H. S. Sanborn & Co., 1956.
Richards, Irmagarde. California Yesterdays.
Sacramento: California State Department of
Education, 1957.
_______. Our California Today. Sacramento:
California State Department of Education, 195 7.
Russell, David H., Gates, Doris, and McCullough,
Constance M. Roads to Everywhere. Boston:
Ginn and Co., 1953.
_______. Trails to Treasure. Boston: Ginn and
Co., 1953.
Russell, David H., Gates, Doris, and Snedaker,
Mabel. Wings to Adventure. Boston: Ginn and
Co., 1953.
462
215.
216.
217.
218.
219.
220.
221.
222.
223.
224.
Sharp, Adda Mai, and Young, Epsie. Chichi1s Magic.
Austin, Texas: The Steck Co., 1954.
_______ . Heart of the Wild. Austin, Texas: The
Steck Co., 1955.
Smith, Marie Elizabeth. Bob*s Story of the Retail
Food Market. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1951.
Smith, Nila B. Down the Road. New York: Silver
Burdett Co., 1945.
_______ . In New Places. New York: Silver Burdett
Co., 1945.
_______ . Near and Far. New York: Silver Burdett
Co., 1945.
Smith, Nila B., and others. On the Long Road.
New York: Silver Burdett Co., 1940.
_______ . Through the Gate. New York: Silver
Burdett Co., 1945.
Stuart, Homer 0., and others. Exploring Our
Country. Sacramento: California State Depart
ment of Education, 1956.
Test Manuals
Gates, Arthur I. Manual of Directions for Gates
Primary Reading Tests. New York: Bureau of
Publications, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1943.
225. Gilmore, John V. Manual of Directions, Gilmore
Oral Reading Test. Yonkers-on-Hudson, N.Y.:
World Book Co., 1952.
463
226.
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
McCullough, Constance M. , and Russell, David H.
The Testing Program of the Ginn Basic Readers.
Boston: Ginn and Co., n.d.
Tiegs, Ernest W. Educational Diagnosis. Los
Angeles: California Test Bureau, 1948.
Tiegs, Ernest W., and Clark, Willis W. Manual for
the California Achievement Tests, Lower Primary.
Los Angeles: California Test Bureau, 1937.
________. Manual for the California Reading Test,
Elementary Forms. Los Angeles: California
Test Bureau, 1950.
Publications of Professional and
Government Organizations
American Educational Publications. Ways to Improve
Reading. Columbus, Ohio: American Educational
Publications , 1953.
Aronow, Miriam S., and Wrightstone, J. Wayne. The
Informal Appraisal of Reading Abilities. New
York: New York City Board of Education, 1949.
Art ley, A. Sterl. 'Some Musts Ahead in Teaching
Reading,1' Reading for Today's Children. Thirty-
fourth Yearbook, Department of Elementary
Principals. Washington, D.C.: National Educa
tion Association, September, 1955, pp. 2-6.
_________. "'The Place of Oral Reading in a Modem
Reading Program," Oral Aspects of the Language
Arts. Proceedings, University of Pittsburgh
Thirteenth Annual Reading Conference. Pittsburgh:
University Press, 1957, pp. 105-107.
Ballou, Frank W., and others. Report of the National
Committee on Reading. Twenty-fourth Yearbook,
National Society for the Study of Education.
464
235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.
Bloomington, 111.: Public School Publishing
Company, 1925.
Betts, Emmett A. "Adjusting Instruction to Individ
ual Needs," Reading in the Elementary School.
Forty-eighth Yearbook, National Society for the
Study of Education. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1949, pp. 266-283.
________ . "Phonics: Practical Considerations Based
on Research." A Presentation to the Joint
Session of the American Education Research
Association and the National Education Associa
tion Department of Classroom Teachers, February
22, 1956.
Birkett, Geraldine. "Remedial Measures for Teachers
Based on a Study of Teacher-made Tests and What
They Disclosed," Reading in a Changing Society.
Conference Proceedings, International Reading
Association, Vol. 4, 1959, pp. 178-181.
Blanchard, Marjorie. "Adjusting Instruction to
Individual Differences in Grades Four to Six,"
Improving Reading in All Curriculum Areas.
Proceedings, Annual Conference on Reading,
University of Chicago, 1952. Chicago: Univer
sity of Chicago Press, November, 1952, pp. 32-35.
Bond, Guy L. The Auditory and Speech Characteristics
of Poor Readers. Contributions to Education.
New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1935.
________ . "Procedures Used in Directing Individual
ized Reading Instruction," Individualized
Reading Instruction. Proceedings, Thirty-ninth
Annual Education Conference, University of
Delaware. Wilmington: University of Delaware
Press, 1957, pp. 42-56.
465
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
Brown, Charles M. "Implications of a Changing
Society for Future Practices in Reading Instruc
tion in Senior High School Methods and Materials,"
Reading in a Changing Society. Conference Pro
ceedings, International Reading Association,
Vol. 4, 1959, pp. 109-112.
Burrows, Alvina Trent. What About Phonics. Washing
ton, D.C.: Associations for Childhood Education
International, 1951.
California Education Code. St. Paul, Minn.: West
Publishing Co., 1959.
California State Department of Public Health and
California State Department of Education.
A Guide for the Testing of School Children.
Sacramento: State Printing Office, 1954.
Carlson, Esther S., and Northrup, Joyce. "An
Experiment in Grouping Pupils for Instruction
in Reading," Reading for Today’s Children.
Thirty-fourth Yearbook, Department of Elementary
Principals. Washington, D.C.: National Educa
tion Association, 1955, pp. 53-62.
Chall, Jeanne S. 'What About Controlled Vocabulary?1'
Reading for Effective Living. Conference Pro
ceedings, International Reading Association,
Vol. 3, 1958, pp. 177-180.
Clark, John R. "The Problem of Reading Instruction
in Mathematics," Improving Reading in the Junior
High School. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, 1957, pp.
77-84.
Clymer, Theodore. "A Study of the Sampling Relia
bility of the Spache Readability Formula,"
Reading in a Changing Society. Conference Pro
ceedings, International Reading Association,
Vol. 4, 1959, pp. 245-250.
466
249.
250.
251.
252.
253.
254.
255.
256.
Dale, Edgar, and Chall, Jeanne S. A Formula for
Predicting Readability. Columbus: Ohio State
University Press, 1948.
Dearborn, Walter F. "The Nature and Treatment of
Reading Disability,1 1 Recent Trends in Reading.
Proceedings, Annual Conference on Reading,
University of Chicago, 1939. Chicago: Univer
sity of Chicago Press, 1939, pp. 103-118.
Educational Development Laboratories. The Evolution
and Growth of Controlled Reading. Huntington,
N.Y.: The Laboratories, 1958.
Gates, Arthur I. ‘‘ Character and Purposes of the
Yearbook," Reading in the Elementary School.
Forty-eighth Yearbook, National Society for
the Study of Education. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1949.
________ . “Reading Abilities Involved in the Content
Subjects," A Presentation to the New England
Reading Association, October 2, 1952. New York:
Macmillan Co., 1952.
________ . A Reading Vocabulary for the Primary Grades.
Contributions to Education. New York: Bureau of
Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Univer
sity, 1935.
Goodlad, John I. "Appraising New Patterns of Organi
zation for Reading Instruction," Reading Instruc
tion in Various Patterns of Grouping. University
of Chicago, Supplementary Monograph No. 89.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959, pp.
14-19.
Gray, William S. "Evolution of Patterns of Instruc
tional Organization," Reading Instruction in
Various Patterns of Grouping. Proceedings,
Annual Conference on Reading, University of
Chicago, 1959. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1959, pp. 14-19.
467
257.
258.
259.
260.
261.
262.
263.
264.
Gray, William S. “Laying Che Foundation for Word
Perception," Reading in Action. Conference Pro
ceedings, International Reading Association,
Vol. 2, 1957, pp. 83-85.
________. Studies of Elementary School Reading
Through Standardized Tests. Private Edition of
Doctor's thesis. Chicago: University of Chicago
Libraries, 1917.
________. “Summary of the Conference, 1 Improving
Reading in All Curriculum Areas. Proceedings,
Annual Conference on Reading, University of
Chicago, 1952. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1952, pp. 252-258.
Gray, William S., and others. “Summary of Confer
ence," Recent Trends in Reading. Proceedings,
Annual Conference on Reading, University of
Chicago, 1939. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1939, pp. 349-358.
Harris, Albert J. “Grouping and Promotion in
Relation to Progress in Reading,1 1 Better Readers
for Our Time. Conference Proceedings, Inter
national Reading Association, 1956, pp. 69-73.
________. “What is Individualized Reading?1'
Individualized Reading Instruction. Proceedings,
Thirty-ninth Annual Education Conference, Uni
versity of Delaware. Wilmington: University
of Delaware Press, 1957, pp. 12-17.
Henderson, Margaret G. Progress Report of Keading
Study, 1952-1955. Champaign, 111.: Champaign
Board of Education, 1956.
Hicks, Vernon. “A School Staff Surveys Its Reading
Problems," Reading for Today's Children. Thirty-
fourth Yearbook, Department of Elementary Prin
cipals. Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association, 1955, pp. 208-212.
468
265.
266.
267.
263.
269.
270.
271.
272.
Hildreth, Gertrude. "Reading Programs in the early
Primary Grades," Reading in the Elementary
Schoo1. Forty-eighth Yearbook, National Society
for the Study of Education. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1959, pp. 54-93.
Horn, Ernest. “Current Issues Relating to Reading
in the Various Curriculum Fields,'1 Recent Trends
in Reading. Proceedings, Annual Conference on
Reading, University of Chicago, 1939. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1939, pp. 40-46.
Horn, Ernest, and Curtis, James F. "Improvement of
Oral Reading," Reading in the Elementary School.
Forty-eighth Yearbook, National Society for the
Study of Education. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1949, pp. 254-265.
Lamport, Harold B. A History of the Teaching of
Beginning Reading. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1937.
Lazar, May. "Individualized Reading," Reading in
Action. Conference Proceedings, International
Reading Association, Vol. 2, 1957, pp. 141-144.
Leary, Bernice E. "Meeting Specific Reading Problems
in the Content Fields," Reading in the High
School and College. Forty-seventh Yearbook,
National Society for the Study of Education.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948,
pp. 136-179.
Los Angeles City School District. “The Vocabulary
Grade Placement Formula for Difficulty and
Diversity and Rating for Vocabulary Interest."
Los Angeles: The School District, n.d.
Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, Divi
sion of Research and Guidance. “A Study Compar
ing the California Achievement Test with the
Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Science Research
Associates Achievement Series and the Sequential
Tests of Educational Progress." Los Angeles:
469
273.
274.
275 .
276.
277.
278.
2 79.
280.
County Superintendent of Schools, 1958.
Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools.
Guiding Growth in Spelling. Los Angeles:
County Board of Education, 1957.
Mallinson, George G., and Lockwood, J. Bryce.
"Reading Skills for Effective Learning in Science,1'
Reading for Effective Living. Conference Pro
ceedings, International Reading Association,
Vol. 3, 1958, pp. 172-174.
Malmquist, Eve. Factors Related to Reading Dis
ability in the First Grades of the Elementary
School. Uppala: Almquist and Wiksells Bok-
tryckere, 1958.
McKee, Paul. "Reading Programs in Grades IV Through
VIII," Reading in the Elementary School. Forty-
eighth Yearbook, National Society for the Study
of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1949, pp. 127-146.
McKillop, Anne S. The Relationship Between the
Reader’s Attitude and Certain Types of Reading
Responses. Contributions to Education. New
York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University. 1952.
National Commission for the Defense of Democracy
Through Education. The Pasadena Story.
Washington, D.C.: National Education Associa
tion, 1951.
National Education Association. Will Your Child Get
a Quality Education? Washington, D.C.: The
Association, January, i960.
Pasadena City Schools. Curriculum Guide for the
Elementary Schools. Pasadena, Cal.: The City
Schools, 1953.
470
281.
282.
283.
284.
285.
286.
287.
288.
289.
Pasadena City Schools. Reading Bulletin Number One.
Pasadena, Cal.: The City Schools, 1947.
________ . Reporting Pupil Progress. Pasadena, Cal.:
The City Schools, 1959.
Patterson, Charlotte E. “Choosing a Reading Series,1'
Reading for Today's Children. Thirty-fourth
Yearbook, Department of Elementary Principals.
Washington, D.C.: National Education Association,
1955, pp. 164-167.
Piekarz , Josephine A. ’'Methods for Diagnosing
Sp ecific Reading Problems," Corrective Reading
in Classroom and Clinic. Proceedings, Annual
Conference on Reading, University of Chicago,
1953. Chicago: UniversiLy of Chicago Press,
1953, pp. 88-101.
Raabe , Billy K. “New Patterns of Grouping for
Reading Instruction in Grades Four Through Six,1 1
Reading Instruction in Various Patterns of
Grouping. Proceedings, Annual Conference on
Reading, University of Chicago, 1959. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1959, pp. 52-56.
Reavis, George H., and others. An Educational
Platform for the Public Schools. Gary, Ind.:
Board of Education, 1957.
Rossignol, Lois J. The Relationships among Hearing
Acuity, Speech Production and Reading Performance
in Grades 1A, IB and 2A. Contributions to Educa
tion. New York: Bureau of Pub 1ications,
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1948.
Russell, David H. The Basic Reading Program in the
Modem School. Ginn and Company Contributions
in Reading, No. 1. New York: Ginn and Co., n.d.
________ . “Reading and Child Development," Reading
in the Elementary School. Forty-eighth Yearbook,
National Society for the Study of Education.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949,
Pp. 10-32.
471
290.
291.
292.
293.
294.
293 .
296.
Russell, David H., and Wulfing, Gretchen. Eight
Controversial Issues in the Teaching of Reading.
Ginn and Company Contributions in Reading, No. 7.
New York: Ginn and Co., n.d.
Sheldon, William D. '"The Place of the Classroom
Teacher in Handling Individual Differences in
Reading," Providing for Individual Reading Needs
of Children. Proceedings, University of
Pittsburgh Ninth Annual Reading Conference.
Pittsburgh: University Press, 1953, pp. 25-33.
Smith, Ruth S. "Readability of Social Studies Books
and Materials," Problems of Readability. Pro
ceedings, University of Pittsburgh Eleventh
Annual Reading Conference. Pittsburgh: Univer
sity Press, 1954, pp. 18-26.
Spache, George D. "Factors Which Produce Defective
Reading," Corrective Reading in Classroom and
Clinic. Proceedings, Annual Conference on
Reading, University of Chicago, 1953. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1953, pp. 49-57.
________. "Integrating Diagnosis with Remediation in
Reading," Selected Papers of Conference Proceed
ings , International Reading Association, 1954,
pp. 18-26.
_______ . "A Rationale for Controlled Reading,"
Reading for Effective Living. Conference Pro
ceedings, International Reading Association,
Vol. 3, 1958, pp. 190-194.
Starkey, Mary L. "Organizing Basic Instruction in
Reading According to Levels of Achievement of
Pupils," Recent Trends in Reading. Proceedings,
Annual Conference in Reading, University of
Chicago, 1949. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1949, pp. 61-69.
472
297 .
298.
299.
300.
301.
302.
303.
304.
303.
Swarts, Mary. "Relative Emphasis of Oral leading
Through the Grades," Some Oral Aspects of the
Language Arts Program. Thirteenth Annual Reading
Conference. Pittsburgh: The University Press,
1957, pp. 113-123.
'l'raxler, Arthur E. 'Values and Limitation of
Standardized Reading Tests," Evaluation of
Reading. University of Chicago Supplementary
Educational Monographs, No. 88, December, 1958,
pp. 111-117.
________ . “What Does Research Suggest about Ways to
Improve Reading Instruction?1 1 Improving Reading
in the Junior High School. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
1957, pp. 5-14.
l'raxler, Arthur E. , and Townsend, Agatha. Eight
More Years of Research in Reading. New York:
Educational Records Bureau, 1955.
Tryon, Caroline, and Henry, William E. "How Children
Learn Personal and Social Adjustment," Learning
and Instruction. Forty-ninth Yearbook, National
Society for the Study of Education. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1950, pp. 156-182.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization. World Illiteracy at Mid-Century.
Geneva, Switzerland: The Organization, 1957.
United States Department of Health, Education and
Welfare. Health Statistics. Washington, D.C.:
The Department, October, 1959.
Walchak, Frank. "Trends in the Readability of School
Readers," Readability. Proceedings, Eleventh
Annual Reading Conference. Pittsburgh: The
University Press, 1954, pp. 138-149.
Westover, Frederick L. "An Evaluation of the
Research on Controlled Reading,"’ Reading for
Effective Living. Proceedings, International
473
306.
307.
308.
309.
3 10.
3 L1.
312.
leading Association, Vol. 3, 1958, pp. 186-190.
Worthington, Louise W. Oral Reading? Certainly.
Ginn and Company Contributions in Heading, No.
16. New York: Ginn and Co., n.d.
Wulfing, Gretchen. Helping the Superior Header.
Ginn and Company Contributions in Heading, No. 14.
New York: Ginn and Co., n.d.
Yoakam, Gerald. ‘'Problems Involved in Differentiat
ing Materials to Provide for the Individual
Heading Needs of Children,'1 Providing for
Individual Needs of Children. Proceedings, Ninth
Annual Heading Conference. Pittsburgh: fhe
University Press, 1952, pp. 97-104.
________ . "The Pros and Cons of Basal Heading
Instruction, 1 Basal Instruction in Reading.
Proceedings, Sixth Annual Heading Conference.
Pittsburgh: The University Press, 1949, pp.
12- 20 .
Articles in Collections
Agnew, Donald C. "How Useful Are Phonics in Heading?"
Research in the Three ids. edited by C. W.
Hunnicutt and William J. Iverson. New York:
Harper 6c Bros., 1958, pp. 70-80.
Bond, Lva. ''heading and Achievement in the Content
Fields," Research in the Three R fs. edited by
C. W. Hunnicutt and William J. Iverson. New
York: Harper 6c Bros., 1958, pp. 104-107.
Buswell, Guy. "Developmental Stages in Lye Move
ments," Research in the Three k 's . Ldited by
C. W. Hunnicutt and William J. Iverson. New
York: Harper 6c Bros. , 1958, pp. 19-26.
474
313.
314.
31. 5.
316.
317.
318.
319.
320.
Cordts , Anne D., and McBroom, Maude M. "Phonics,"
The Classroom Teacher, Vol. II. Chicago: i'he
Classroom Teacher, Inc., 1927, pp. 389-434.
Femald, Grace M. , and Keller, Helen. "Kinaesthetic
Methods for Helping Nonreaders," Research in
the Three R's. Edited by C. W. Hunnicutt and
William J. Iverson. New York: Harper & Bros.,
1958, pp. 241-247.
Gates, Arthur I. "The Necessary Age for Beginning
heading,'1 Research in the Three r’s. edited by
C. W. HunnicutL and William J. Iverson. New
York: Harper & Bros., 1958. pp. 57-62.
Gates, Arthur I., Batchelder, Mildred 1., and
Betzner, Jean. "Systematic Versus Opportunistic
Methods in Leaching Reading," Research in the
Three R 's. edited by C. W. Hunnicutt and William
J. Iverson. New York: Harper <5 Bros. , 1958,
pp. 94-102.
Gray, William S., and Eirbes , Laura. "Primary
Reading," The Classroom Teacher, Vol. II.
Chicago: The Classroom Teacher, Inc. , 1927,
pp. 39-388.
Gray, William S., and Holmes, Eleanor. "Should
Vocabulary Be Taught Directly or Indirectly?"
Research in the Three k's. edited by C. W.
Hunnicutt and William J. Iverson. New York:
Harper & Bros. , 1958, pp. 147-153.
Gray, William S. "The scole of Word Perception,"
Toward Better Reading Skill. Edited by Aussell
Cosper and E. Glenn Griffin. New York:
Applet on-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1959, pp. 132-134.
Judd, Charles H., and Buswell, Guy T. "The Effects
of Changes in Purpose and Difficulty on Eye
Movements," Research in the Three R's. Edited
by C. W. Hunnicutt and William J. Iverson.
New York: Harper & Bros., 1958, pp. 27-32.
475
321.
322.
323.
324.
325.
326.
327.
La Brant, Lou. “An Evaluation of Free Reading,"
Research in the Three R's. Edited by C. W.
Hunnicutt and William J. Iverson. New York:
Harper & Bros., 1958, pp. 27-32.
Lazar, May. “The Reading Interests of Bright,
Average and Dull Children," Research in the
Three R ’s. Edited by C. W. Hunnicutt and
William J. Iverson. New York: Harper & Bros.,
1958, pp. 119-124.
Leave 11; U. W. , and Sterling, Helen. "Reading and
Intelligence," Research in the Three r's.
Edited by C. W. Hunnicutt and William J.
Iverson. New York: Harper & Bros., 1958,
pp. 43-46.
Lorge , Irving. "Predicting Readability," Research
in the Three R's. Edited by C. W. Hunnicutt and
William J. Iverson. New York: Harper & Bros.,
1958, pp. 184-194.
Morphett, Mabel V., and Washbume, Carleton. "When
Should Children Begin to Read?" Research in the
Three R's. Edited by C. W. Hunnicutt and William
J. Iverson. New York: Harper & Bros., 1958,
pp. 53-56.
Morse, William C. "The Individuality of Eye Move
ments," Research in the Three r1s. Edited by
C. W. Hunnicutt and William J. Iverson. New
York: Harper & Bros., 1958, pp. 33-38.
Olson, Willard C. "Seeking, Se 1 f-selection and
Pacing in the Use of Books by Children,"
Individualizing Your Reading Program. Edited
by Jeanette Veatch. New York: G. P. Putnam's
Sons, 1959, pp. 89-98.
_________. "Reading and Child Growth and Development, '
Research in the Three R's. Edited by C. W.
Hunnicutt and William J. Iverson. New York:
Harper 6c Bros., 1958, pp. 39-42.
476
329. Robinson, Helen. "Emotional Problems Exhibited by
Poor Readers," Clinical Studies in Reading.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949,
pp. 60-85.
330. _______ . "Visual Efficiency and Reading," Clinical
Studies in Reading. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1949, pp. 90-113.
331. Spache, George. "A Readability Formula for Primary
Reading Materials," Research in the Three R's.
Edited by C. W. Hunnicutt and William J.
Iverson. New York: Harper & Bros., 1958,
pp. 177-184.
Encyclopedia Articles
332. Gray, William S. ‘’ Reading," Encyclopedia of
Educational Research. Edited by Walter S.
Monroe. New York: Macmillan Co., 1952, pp.
987-1005.
333. _______ . "Reading," Encyclopedia of Educational
Research. Edited by Chester W. Harris. New
York: Macmillan Co., 1960, pp. 1086-1095.
Unpublished Materials and
Dissertation Abstracts
334. Belden, Bernard R. "A Study of Selected Practices
Reported in the Kindergarten and Primary Grades
in New York State." Unpublished Doctor's Dis
sertation, Syracuse University, 1955
(Dissertation Abstracts. XV, 1567).
335. Bodwin, Raymond F. "The Relationship Between
Immature Self-Concept and Certain Educational
Disabilities." Unpublished Doctor's Disserta
tion, Michigan State University, 1957
(Dissertation Abstracts. XIX, 1645-6).
477
336.
337.
338.
339.
340.
341.
342.
343.
Brown, Charles M. “Acculturation and School
Achievement." Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1956.
Burks, Harold F. "A Study of the Organic Bases for
Behavioral Deviations in School Children."
Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, University
of Southern California, 1955.
Fry, Edward B. "Oral Reading Paragraphs. ' Univer
sity of Loyola Reading Clinic (mimeographed
report), Los Angeles, 1958.
Hamilton, Warren W., and Rehwoldt, Walter. "An
Analysis of Some of the Effects of Interage and
Intergrade Grouping in the Elementary School."
Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1957.
Langlord, Jane A. "The Physical, Mental and Social
Growth of Superior Readers." Unpublished
Doctor's Dissertation, University of Michigan,
1954 (Dissertation Abstracts. XIX, 617-618).
Long, Donna J. "An Analysis of the Reading Diffi
culties of Retarded Readers in Second, Fourth
and Sixth Grades." Unpublished Doctor's Dis
sertation, University of Iowa, 1958 (Pissertat ion
Abstracts, a X , 924-925).
Marksheffel, Ned D. "The Relationship of Auditory
Discrimination to Spelling Achievement at the
College Freshman Level." Unpublished Doctor's
Dissertation, Stanford University, 1959 (Disser
tation Abstracts, a IX, 2550).
McCristy, Antoinette. "A Comparative Study to
Determine Whether Self-Selection Reading Can Be
Successfully Used at Second Grade Level."
Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of
Southern California, 1957.
478
344.
345.
346.
347.
348.
349.
350.
Mills, Robert E. "An Evaluation of Techniques for
the Teaching of Word Recognition.1' Unpublished
Doctor's Dissertation, University of Florida,
1955 (Dissertation Abstracts, XV, 2471).
Morrone, Victor E. "A Critical Analysis of Scien
tific Research in Phonics." Unpublished Doctor's
Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1958
(Dissertation Abstracts, XIX, 2030).
Moe, Iver L. "Auditing as a Predictive Measure of
Reading Performance in the Primary Grades."
Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, University of
Florida, 1958 (Dissertation Abstracts, aVIII,
2130).
Mumpower, Daniel L. "Some Factors Contributing to
the Academic Success of Education Majors Who
Achieve Beyond Expectancy." Unpublished Doctor's
Dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1957
(Dissertation Abstracts , a V111 , 152).
Niess, Sister M. V. "A Critical Study of Certain
Psychological, Emotional and Motivating Factors
as Determining Elements in a Remedial Reading
Program." Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1941.
OdLand, Ruby N. "A Comparative Study of the Word
Recognition Abilities of Good and Poor leaders
in the Third Grade." Unpublished Doctor's
Dissertation, University of Minnesota, L959
(Dissertation Abstracts, ^1X, 2515).
Rivkind, Harold C. "The Development of a Group
Technique in Teaching Word Recognition to
Determine Which of Four Methods Is Most Effec
tive with Individual Children." Unpublished
Doctor's Dissertation, University of Florida,
1958 (Dissertation Abstracts, XIX, 1620).
479
351. Sekerak, Robert M. ''A Study to Attempt to Determine
Some Interrelationships Among Mass Communication
Media, Reading Comprehension and Intelligence."
Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1956.
352. Sloan, Fred A. "Readability of Social Studies Text
books for Grades Four, Five and Six as Measured
by the Dale-Chall Formula." Unpublished Doctor's
Dissertation, George Peabody University, 1958
(Dissertation Abstracts, X.X, 928-929).
35 3. Trotter, Gwendolyn, and others. Comparison of
Vocabulary in Several Basal Series. Unpublished
Report, The Reading Center, University of South
ern California, 1957.
354. Visokovicz , Jennie V. ' An Analysis of a Survey of
the Instruction of Gifted children in Grades
Four Through Six." Unpublished Doctor's Disser
tation, University of Pittsburgh, 1958 (Disser
tation Abstracts, XIX, 1959-1960).
355. Woestehoff, Ellsworth S. "The Specific Reading
Proficiencies of Pupils Having Normal and
Accelerated Reading Growth." Unpublished
Doctor's Dissertation, University of Minnesota,
1958 (Dissertation Abstracts, XIX, 2553).
Periodical Articles
356. Aaron, I. E. , Goodwin, Frances, and Kent, Vada.
"Fourth Grade Teachers experiment with Cross-
Class Grouping for Reading Instruction,"
Elementary English, XXXVI (May, 1959), 305-307.
357. Alexander, A. M. "Teacher Judgment of Pupil Intelli
gence and Achievement is Not Enough, Elementary
School Journal, LIII (March, 1953), 396-401.
480
358.
359.
360.
361.
362.
363.
364.
365 .
366.
36 7 .
368.
Anderson, Irving H., and others. "Age of Learning
to Read and Its Relationship to Sex, Intelli
gence and Reading Achievement," Journal of
Educational Research, XLIX (February, 1956),
447-453.
Artley, A. Sterl. '‘ Critical Reading m the Content
Areas," Elementary English, XXXVI (February,
1959), 122-129.
Baker, Emily V. "Reading Problems Are Caused,'1
Elementary English, XXV (October, 1948),
359-369.
Barbe, Walter B. "High Interest, Low Ability Level
Reading Materials," Elementary English, XXX
(May, 1953), 281-284.
________. "Problems in Reading Encountered by
Gifted Children," Elementary English, xXXlll
(May, 1956), 274-278.
Barlow, Alice Townsend. "Find Pupils Read Better
Under New Method," Champaign News Gazette,
September 13, 1955 (Reprint).
Bear, David E. "Phonics for First Grade: Comparison
of Two Methods," Elementary School Journal, LIX
(April, 1959), 394-403.
Beauchamp, Wilbur L. "Editorial News and Editorial
Comment," Elementary School Journal, LV (January,
1955), 251-263.
Bergin, Richard. "Your Child Must See Well to Grow
Well," Visual Digest Magazine (Fall, 1949), pp.
30-38.
Betts, Emmett A. "How a Retarded Reader Feels, 1
Elementary English, XXXVI (January, 195 7), 13-19.
________ . "Meeting the Needs of Individual Children,
The Reading Teacher, VI (September, 1952), 4-12.
481
369.
370.
371.
372 .
373.
374.
3 75 .
3 7b.
3 77.
3 78.
379.
Betts, Emmett A. "Readability: Its Application to
the Elementary School,'' Journal of Educational
Research, XLII (February, 1949), 438-459.
________ . ’ Reading--Unfinished Business," The Reading
Teacher, X (February, 1957), 131-136.
________ . "Unsolved Problems in Reading: A Sym
posium," Elementary Englxsh, aXA1 (October, 1954),
325-329.
Blakely, Paul. "They Still Read Comic Books,
Elementary English, XaXV (April, 1938),
250-251.
Bliesraer, Emery P. A Comparison of Results of
Various Capacity Tests Used with Retarded
Readers," Elementary School Journal, LVI (May,
1956), 400-402.
Bohnhorst, Ben A., and Sellars, Sophia N. 'Individ
ualized Reading Versus Textbook Instruction,"'
Elementary English, XXXV1 (March, 1959), 185-190.
Boneau, C. A. "The Effects of Violations of Assump
tions Underlying the _t Test," Psychologies 1
Bulletin, LVII (January, i960), 49-64.
Bremer, Neville. Do Reading Tests Predict Success
in Reading?" Elementary School Journal, LIa
(January, 1959), 222-224.
Broadhead, Fred C. "Pupil Adjustment in the Semi-
Departmental Elementary School , " Elemen tary
School Journal, LX (April, 1960), 385-390.
Brownell, William A. "Current Practices with Respect
to Phonetic Analysis in the Primary Grades,"
Elementary School Journal, a LII (November, 1941),
195-206.
Buswell, Guy T. "The Process of Reading," The
Reading Teacher, XIII (December, 1959), 108-120.
482
380.
381.
382.
383.
384.
385.
386.
387.
388.
389.
Buswell, Guy T. :'The Relationship Between Perceptual
and Intellectual Processes in Reading," California
Journal of Educational Research, VIII (May, 1957),
99-102.
California Teachers Association Journal. "School
Statistics! l (Editorial), L1V (March, 1958), 12.
Garner, Richard L., and Sheldon, William D.
"Problems in the Development of Concepts Through
Reading," Elementary School Journal, LV (December,
1954), 226-229.
Carr, John W., and Michaels, Matilda 0. "Reading
Readiness Tests and Grouping of First Grade
Entrants," Elementary English Review, XVII1
(April, 1941), 133-138.
Carroll, Marjorie W . "Sex Difierences in Reading
Readiness at the First Grade Level," tlementary
English, XXV (October, 1948), 370-375.
Garwood, Vrctor P., and Goodhill, Victor. 'Why
Johnny Can't Hear," Educat ion, La aIX (March,
1959), 423-428.
Catterall, Calvin D., and Weise, Phillip. "A Percep
tual Approach to Early Reading Difficulties,"
California Journal of Educational Research, a
"(November, 1959), 212-219, 225.
Chall, Jeanne S. "The Roswe11-Chall Diagnostic
Reading Test of Word Analysis Skills," The
Reading Teacher, XI (February, 1958), 179-184.
Clark, Willis W. "Beys and Girls--Are There Signifi
cant Ability and Achievement Differences?"
Phi Delta Kappan, aLI (November, 1959), 7 3-76.
Clymer, Theodore. "The Real Frontier in Reading
Research," The Reading Teacher, XII (December,
1958), 92-97.
483
390.
391.
392.
393.
394.
395 .
396.
397.
398.
399.
400.
401.
402.
Cordts, Anne D. "The Phonetics of Phonics," The
Reading Teacher, IX (December, 1955), 81-84.
Dale, Edgar, and Chall, Jeanne S. ‘The Concept of
Readability," Elementary English, XVI (May, 1949),
I-35.
Dolch, E. W. "Am I Teaching Phonics Right?"
Elementary English, XXXIV (April, 1959), 227-234.
________ . "Climbing the Word Ladder in Reading,"
Elementary English, XXIX (March, 1952), 139-1X2.
________ . "Complete Reading versus Partial Reading,"
Elementary English, XXX11I (January, 1956),
II-13.
_______ . "Do Reading Tests Test Reading?" Elementary
English, aXXI (April, 1954), 200-203.
_______ . "Groups in Reading," Elementary English,
XXXI (December, 1954), 477-484.
________ . "Make a Reading-Grade Table," Elementary
School Journal, LII1 (December, 1952), 211-217.
_______ . "Phonics in the First Grade," Elementary
Eng lish, XX^vIl (December, 1955), 5 14-518.
________ . "School Research in Reading," Elementary
English, XXXIII (February, 1956), 7 6-80.
________ . "T’ esting Reading with a Book," Elementary
English, XXVIII (March, 1951), 124- 125."“’
. "The Use of Vocabulary Lists in Predicting
Readability and in Developing Reading Materials,"
Elementary English, XXVI (March, 1949), 142-149.
Dunlap, Carolyn C. "Readability of Newspaper Items
and of Basic Reading Material," Elementary
School Journal, LI (May, 1951), 499-501.
484
403.
404.
405.
406.
407.
408.
409.
410.
411.
412.
413.
Durrell, Donald D. 'First Grade Reading Success
Study: A Summary," Journal of Education, CXL
(February, 1958), 2-6.
________. "Learning Difficulties Among Children of
Normal Intelligence," Elementary School Journal,
LV (December, 1954), 201-208.
________. "The Search for Better Schools, ' Educa-
tional Horizons, XXXVI (Winter, 195 7), 104-115.
Eames, Thomas H. "The Effect of Correction of
Refractive Errors on the Distant and Near Vision
of School Children," Journal of Educational
Research, aXXVII (September, 1943), 37-42.
________. "The Effect of Endocrine Disorders on
Reading, The Reading Teacher, XII (April, 1959),
263-265.
Edgerton, Ronald B. "How Difficult Are Children's
Encyclopedias?" Elementary School Journal, LV
(December, 1954), 219-225.
Edwards, Thomas J. Oral Reading in the Total
Reading Process," Elementary School Journal,
LVI1I (October, 1957), 36-41.
Finch, F. H., and Gillenwater, V. W. "Reading
Achievement Then and Now, ' Elementary School
Journa1, a LIX (April, 1959), 444-446.
Fitzgerald, James. "Ihe One Hundred Most Frequently
Misspelled Words in Grades Two and Six,"
Elementary School Journal, LI I (De c emb e r , 19 5 2),
224.
Flesch, Rudolph. "A Readability Formula in Practice,'
Elementary English, XaV (October, 1948), 344-35 1.
Fry, cdward. "Developing a Word List for Remedial
Reading," Elementary English, XXa IV (November,
1957), 456-458.
485
414.
415.
416.
417 .
418.
419.
420 .
421 .
422.
425.
424.
Furness, Edna L. 'A Remedial and Developmental
Speech Program,' Elementary English, AlCv 11
(May, 1955), 289-295.
Gates , Arthur 1. “Improvements in Reading Possible
in the Near Future, ' The Reading Teacher, All
(December, 1958), 83-88.
________ . i Tne Role of Personality Maladjustment m
Reading Disability,' Journal o£ Genetic Psy
cho logy, L1a (September, 1941), 77-83.
_______. 'Unsolved Problems in Reading: a Symposium,
Elementary English, AAAl (October, 19s4), 331-
334.
Goins, Jean T. "Visual and Auditory Perception m
Reading, 1 lhe_Reading leacher, A1II (October,
1959), 9- 13 r
Goodlad, John 1., and others. 'Reading Levels
Replace Grades m the Non-Graded Plan,
Elementary School Journal, LV 11 (February, 195 7),
253-256.'
Grant, John L. Justice in Grading, ' Journal ol
Legal Information, I a. (Reprint, 1912), 186-212.
Gray, William S. "Current Reading, Problems: A
World View, El.ementary Schoo1_ 3ourna 1 , LV 1
(September, 1955), 11-17.
___. "Educational News and editorial Comment,"
Elementary School Journal, LaVI (May, 1946),
480-482T
________ . ,rNeeded Research in Reading,," Elementary
En g 1 i s h , aXIa (February, 1952), 100-108.
________ . Research in Reading Marches On,1 1 The
Reading Teacher, a II (December, 1958), 74-82.
486
425.
426.
427.
428.
429.
480.
431.
432.
4 o 3.
434.
435.
Gray, William S. Hole of Group and Individualized
Teaching in a Sound Reading Program," The
Reading Teacher, XI (December, 1957), 99-104.
________. ''Summary of Reading Investigations, July 1,
1957 to June 30, 1958,'' Journal of Educational
Research, LI1 (February, 1959), 203-221.
________. 'What Should Be tne Profession's Attitude
Toward Lay Criticism of the Schools?' Elementary
School Journal, LI11 (September, 1952), 1-35.
_______. "What's Happening in Reading? The Reading
Teacher, XI (October, 195 7), 3-8.
Harrington, Sister M. J., and Durrell, Donald D.
"Mental Maturity Versus Perception Abilities
in Primary Reading," Journal of Educational.
Psycliology , LXV1 (October, 1955), 375-880.
Hatch, Shirley, and Sheldon, William L. 'Strengths
and Weaknesses in Reading of a Group of Fourth
Grade Children," Elementary English, XXVII
(April, 1950), 254-260.'
Hester, Kathleen B. "Classroom Problems in the
Teaching of Reading," Elementary School Journal,
L1V (October, 1953), 84-87.
________. "Grouping by Invitation, The Reading,
Teacher, XI (December, 1957), 105- 108.
Hildreth, Gertrude. "New Methods for Old in Teaching
Phonics," Elementary School Journal, LV11 (May,
1957) , 436-441. '
________. "Noah Webster: Crusader for American
Literacy," Elementary School Journal, L1X
(April, 1959) , 375-379.
________. 'Some Misconceptions Concerning Phonics,"
Elementary English, XXX IV (January, 1957), 26-29.
487
436.
437.
438.
439.
440.
441.
442.
443.
444.
443.
446.
Horn, Ernest. 'Phonetics and Spelling, : : Klementary
School Journal, LVII (May, 1957), 424-432.
Jenkins, Marian. "Self-Selection in Reading," The
Reading Teacher, 41 (December, 1957), 84-90.
Jenkins, Robert E. ‘Grouping--An Aid to Learning
Not a Label,'1 Pasadena Schools in Action, II
(October, 1959), 1, 6.
Jenkins, William A. The Educational Scene,1
Elementary English, XXXIII (May, 1956), 309.
Johnson, G. Orville. "A Critical Evaluation o£ the
Problem of Remedial Reading,1' Elementary School
Journal, LVII (January, 1957), 217-220.
Johnson, Mary E. '’ The Vocabulary Difficulty of
Content Subjects in Grade Five," Elementary
English, XXIX (May, 1952), 277-280.
Kaar, Harold. ‘‘ An Experiment with an Individualized
Method of Teaching Reading,' The Reading Teacher,
VIII (February, 1954), 174-177.
Karlin, Robert. ‘'Some Reactions to Individualized
Reading,'1 The Reading Teacher, .vl (December,
1957), 95-98.
________. 'The Prediction of Reading Success and
Reading Readiness Tests," Elementary English,
XXXIV (May, 1957), 22-32.
Kelly, Barbara C. 'The Economy Method Versus the
Scott Foresman Method in leaching Second-Grade
Reading in the Murphysboro Public Schools,"
Journal of Educational Research, LI (February,
1958), 465-471.
Kent, Tennessee, and Williams, Morris. What's
Happening in Reading in San Francisco," The
Reading Teacher, XI (April, 1958), 217-224.
488
447.
448.
449.
450.
451.
452.
455.
454.
455.
456.
457.
King, Inez B. : E£fect of Age of Entrance into
Grade One upon Achievement in Elementary School,1’
Elementary School Journal, LV (February, 1955),
331-336.
Kirk, Samuel A., and Kirk, Winifred D. "How Johnny
Learns to Read,1 1 Elementary English, XXXIII
(May, 1956), 266-269.
Knott, Thomas A. "Observations on Vocabulary
Problems, 1 1 Elementary English Review, XV11
(February, 1940), 63-67.
Krise, E. Morley. 'Reversals in Reading: A Problem
in Space Perception?" Elementary School Journal,
XLIX (January, 1949), 278-284.
Larrick, Nancy. "How Many Words Does a Child Know?
The Reading Teacher, VII (December, 195 3),
100-104.
Lazar, May. Individualized Reading,: A Dynamic
Approach, 1 The Reading Teacher, a 1 (December,
1957), 75-83.
Leary, Bernice E. What Does Research Say about
Reading?[' Journal of Educational Research,
XXXIX (February, 1946), 434-444.
Lewerenz, Alfred S. "Development oi achievement
Test Norms Differentiated for 7vge and Intelli
gence," California Jouma 1 1 Educational
Research, VII (January, 19 ), 25-38.
Lichtenstein, Jack. The New Castle Reading Experi
ment in Cleveland Heights," Elementary English,
XXXVII (January, 1960), 27-29.
Madden, Mabel, and Pratt, Marjorie. An Oral Reading,
Survey as a Teaching Aid," Elementary English
Review, XVIII (April, 1941), 122-126.
Malmquist, Eve. What's Happening in Readin,, in
Sweden?" The Reading Teacher, XII (October,
1958), 33-39.
489
458.
459.
460.
461.
462.
463.
464.
4 6 5.
466.
467.
Martin, Kenneth L. ’'A Review of the Literature on
the History and Development of Lateral Prefer
ence," Journal of Educational Research, XLV
(March, 1952), 113-126.
Marvel, John A. Acquisition and Retention of
Reading Performance on Two Response Dimensions
as Related to 'Set' and Tachistoscopic Training,'
Journal of Educational Research, LI1 (February,
1959), 232-237.
McCracken, Glenn. "The New Castle Reading, Experi
ment ,'' Elementary School Journal, L1V (March,
1954), 385-390.
. ''The New Castle Reading Experiment, ' The
Reading Teacher, IX (April, 1956), 241-246.
________. "fhe Value of the Correlated Visual Image,’
The Reading Teacher, XIII (October, 1959),
29-33.
McCullough, Constance M. 'Reading, ' Review of
Educational Research, XXVII (April, 1958),
96-106.
Melnitsky, Benjamin. "He Has Eyes to See with, 1
Kverywoman1s (November, 1953), pp. 12-18.
Miller, Vera V. 'Academic and Jocial Adjustment of
Children Young for Their Grade Placement, '
Elementary School Journal, LVII (February, 195 7),
257-263.
Miller, Vera V., and Lanton, Wendell C. "Reading
Achievement of School Children--Then and Now,
Elementary English, XXa III (February, 1956),
91-97.
Mills, Robert E. An Evaluation of Techniques for
Teaching Word Recognition, Elementary School
Journa1, LV1 (January, 1956), 221-226.
490
468.
469.
4 70.
4 71.
472.
473.
474.
475 .
476.
477.
478.
Missildine, W. H. ‘'The Emotiona 1 Background of
Thirty Children with Reading Disability with
Emphasis on Its Coercive Elements, The Nervous
Child, V (July, 1946), 263-272.
Mooney, Rose L. 'The Perceptive Process in Reading,
The Reading Teacher, 4341111 (October, 1959),
34-39.
Pressnall, Hugo E. 'Parents' Opinions of Reading,
Instruction," Elementary English, .441111
(January, 1956), 29-33.
Preston, Ralph C. "Reversals in Reading and Writing
Among German and Among American Children,"
Elementary School Journal, LVII (March, 1957),
330-334.
_______ . "The Reading status of Children Classified
by Teachers as Retarded Readers," Elementary
English, a. 1 a (April, 1 95 3), 225-22 7.
Purcell, Barbara A. ‘'Methods of Teaching; Reading,:
A Report on a Tri-State Survey, 1 Elementary
School Journal, LV1II (May, 1958), 449-453.
Reeve, Olive R. ‘ The Vocabulary of Seven Primary
Reading Series," Elementary English, XXAV
(April', 1958), 237-239.
Robinson, Helen M. "Factors W7hieh Affect Success in
Reading," Elementary School Journal, LV
(January, 1955), 263-270.
_______ . "News and Comment, Elementary School
Journa1, LX (May, 1960), 411-428.
Roswell, Florence G. , and Cha 1 1 , Jeanne S. Helping;
Poor Readers with Word Recognition Skills, ‘
The Reading Teacher, X (April, 1957), 200-204.
Rudisill, Mabel. Interrelations of Functional
Phonic Knowledge, Reading, Spelling and Mental
Age," Elementary School Journal, LVII (February,
1957) , 254-267. ~
491
479.
480.
481.
482.
483.
4 84.
485.
486.
487.
488.
Russell, David H. 1 Inter-Class Grouping for reading
Instruction in the Intermediate Grades," Journa1
of Educational Research IX (June , 1945 ) ,
462-470.
________. "Personal Values in Reading," The Reading
Teacher, XII (October, 1958), 3-9.
. "Primary Reading Programs in England and
Scotland," Elementary School Journal, LVII
(May, 1957), 446-451.
_______ . "Teachers' Views on Phonics, ' ElemenLary
Education , aXX.II (October, 1955), 371-375.
Russell, David H., and Fea, Henry R. Validity of
Six Readability Formulas as Measures of Juvenile
Fiction, 1 Elementary School Journal, LI I
(November, 1951), 136-145.
Schubert, Delwyn G. "A Comparative Study of toe
Hearing and Reading Vocabularies of Retarded
College Readers," Journal of Educational
Research, LXVI (March, 1953), 555-558.
___. "Comparison Between Best and Poorest
Classroom Readers," Elementary English, /^X.vlll
(March, 1956), 161-162.
Serra , March C. Influence of Reading, and Experience
Writing on Spelling: A Case Study,' Elemen tary
School Journal, L1V (April, 1954), 456-463.
Sheer, Daniel. "Is There a Common Factor in Leam in.;
for Brain Injured Children?" Except iona1
Children, II (October, 1954), 10-13.
Sheldon, William D. 'Curriculum Problems Presented
by Poor Readers," The Reading Teacher,
(February, 1958), 175- 183“ '“
492
489.
490.
4 9 1..
4 9 2 .
4 9 3.
994 .
495 .
h 9(i .
49 7.
498.
Sheldon, William D., and Carrillo, Lawrence.
"Relation of Parents, Home and Certain Develop
mental Characteristics to Children’s Reading
Abi 1 ity , 1 1 elementary School Journal, LI 1
(January, 1952), 265-269.
Sheldon, William D., and Cutts, Warren C. "Relation
of Parents, Home and Cer ain Developmental Char
acteristics to Children's Reading Abilitv,"
Elementary Schoo1 Journa1, LI11 (May, 195 3),
517-521.
Sheldon, William D. , and Hatch , Sh irley . SLren..-,t i : . s
and Weaknesses m Reading of a Croup of Sixth
Orade Children," Elementary English, aaVII
(February, 1951), 86-93.
Snibl.es, Burleigh H. How Many Words Does a First
Grade Child Know? E lemen L a rv Eni, 1i s h , . . . . . . A 1
(January, 1959), a2-47.
Stiver , Wynne. "The Case for Grouping , ca 1 i lorn i.a
E lemen tary Ajdmin is t ra tor , / . . . I 11 (Ma r c ii, I960), / .
Smith, Nila B. 'Classroom Organization: An a , c-
Old Problem with New slants , " The Read my i’ eacher,
a ! (December, 195 7), 7 3-75.
________. Research on iieadm.., and the Emotions , "
School and Society, La a/.I (January, 19 55), 5-10.
______, "What Research fells Us about Word
Recognition,1' a 1emen ta ry Sc hop 1 Journa 1 LV
(April, 1955), 440-446.
Sochor , E. Elora. "The Nature of critical keadm,,
Elementary English, aaaV1 (January, 1959),
47-58.
Spache, George. A New Readability Formula lor
Primary Grade Materia1s," Elementary School
Journa1, LIII (March, 1953), 410-413.
493
499.
500.
501.
30 2 .
503.
504.
305 .
506.
50 7.
008.
509.
5 10.
Spache, George. "Intearating Dia0nosis with .^media
tion in Reading," Llemen tary School Journal,
LVI (September, 1955), 18-26.
________. 'Problems in Primary Book .selection,
elementary English Review, /A 111 (April, 1.94 L) ,
139-148.
Sparks, Paul E., and Fay, Leo l. "An evaluation ol
Iwo Methods ol reaching Reading," Elementary
Schoo1 Journa1, LVII (April, 1957), 386-390.
Srivastava, A. B. L. "eifect oi Non -norma 11tv on
the Power Function ol the L lest, Biometrika,
aLV (April, 1958), 4 21-429.
Stainer, Ralph C. How Are Basal Readers Used!"
h lementary English, aaaV (January, 1958), so-48.
Stauiler, Russell 0. "Old Be lie Is Need Ex.ani in in,;, "
Ine Reading Teacher , a 111 (October, 1959), 1 .
Stendler, Celia. "The RiLual ol Primary ilea din.-;, "
Elementary English , aaV (March , 1948) , 15 1- 156.
Strang, RuCii, insights oi Jilted Students about
Reading, " The Reading Teacher, 1a (April, 1956),
2 U 4 - 2 U 8 .
. "Reading Development ol Ciited Children,"
elementary English, aA a ! (January, 19 54), j5-j9.
‘ Unsolved Problems in Reading," piemen La_ry
English, ULvl (November, 1954) , 4 1 8-421.
Stone, Clarence R. ''Measuring Dillicultv oi Primary
Reading Material: A Constructive Criticism oi
Spache 1 s Measure , Elementary Schoo 1 Journa 1 ,
LVII (October, 1956), 36-41.
Tauber, Abraham. "Phonetic Spelling lor Better
Reading, " The Reading Teacher, a I (Apri1, 1 958),
249-252.
494
511.
512.
515.
514.
515.
516.
517.
5 18.
5 19.
520.
521.
Thorndike, Edward L. "Heading as Reasoning; A
Study of Mistakes in Paragraph Reading, 1 Journa1
of Educational Psychology, Vlll (June, 1917),
5 2 5-552.
_____ ___. "The Value of Word Counts,1' Elemen tary
English Review, aVII (February, 1940), 60-65, 67.
Tiffin, Joseph, and McKinnis, Mary. 'Phonic
a.bility: Its Measurement and Relation to
Reading Ability," School and Society, LI
(February, 1940), 190-192~
Traxler, Arthur L. "Recent Findings and Trends m
Research in Reading," The Reading Teacher, a' 111
(December, 1959), 90-99.
Tun ley, Rou 1 . Johnny Can ^ead in Joplin,
Reader's Digest, LaA.I1 (January, 1956), 41- 44 .
Veatch, Jeanette. "In Defense of Individualized
Reading, ' ' Elementary English , a. vaVII (April,
1960), 227-254.
Vernon, M. D. The Development of Visual Perception
in Children," Educa t ion, LaaVIII (May, 1958),
54 7-549.
_ _____. "The Perceptual Process in Reading,"
The jle a ding l'e a c he r , a 111 (October, 1959),
2- 15~
Vollbrecht, Dorothy M. "Vocabulary Analysis of
Thirteen Second Crade Readers," Elemen tary
En g1i s h, aAaL (April, 1954), 2U6-209.
Walton, Howard N. "Vision and .vapid Reading,"
American Journal of Optometry, aXa IV (February,
195 7) , 75-82.
Washburne , Carleton, and Morphett, Mabel V. "Oracle
Placement of Children's Books, Elementary
School Journal, aaaVII (January, 1958), 555-5c>4.
495
522.
523.
524.
525 .
526.
5 2 7 .
528.
5 29.
5 30.
531.
5 32.
Weils, Elmer. "Text. Book Law Stirs Argument ,
Pasadena Star News (January 30, 1960), p. 2.
Wepman, Joseph M. 'Auditory Discrimination, Speech
and Reading, ; Elementary School Journal, La.
(March, 1960), 325-333.
Wheeler, Lester 2., and Smith, Edwin H. "A Modifi
cation of the Informal Reading Inventory,"
Elementary English, AAa IV (April, 1957), 224-
22 7 .
________. "A Practical Readability Formula for the
Classroom Teacher in the Primary Grades,
Elementary English, a_Aa.I (November, 1954) ,
397-399.
Wheeler, Lester R., and Wheeler, Viola D.
"Dyslexaphoria Symptoms and Remedial .Suggestions,
Elementary English , Aa.a'1 I (May , 193 3) , 3u5- 3 L1.
________. "Educational Writings," Elementary School
Journa1, LI11 (November, 1952), 17 8-179.
_______ . "Selecting Appropriate Reading Materials,
Elementary English, XAV (December, 1948), 4/8-
489.
'Williams, Gertrude. "Provisions lor Critical
Reading in Basic leaders, ' Elementary English,
aAEvVI (May, 1959), 305-307, 323- 331.
Winter, Clotilda. Interrelationships among
Language Variables in Children oi the First and
Second Grades," Elementary English, aaa. 1V
(February, 1957), 108-113.
Witty, Paul. "Individualized keading--A Summary
and Evaluation, Elementary English, aaEV1
(October, 1959), 401-412.
________. "Materials and Experiences in ;;eadin,, to
Meet Varied Needs," The Reading Teacher, VI
(September, 1952), 21-26.
496
533.
5 34.
535.
3 3b.
5 3 7 .
538.
3 3 9.
Witty, Paul. •'Reading Success and Emotional
Adjustment,11 Elementary English, XXV11 (May,
1950), 281-296.
Witty, Paul, and Coomer, Ann. 'How Successful Is
Reading Instruction?" Elementary English, . vaVIII
(December, 1951), 451-458.
Witty, Paul, and Kinsella, Paul. "Children and TV:
A Ninth Report," Elementary English, x.vXV
(November, 1958), 450-456.
Witty, Paul, and Sizemore, Robert A. Phonics in
the Reading Program: A Review and an Evalua
tion, 1 Elementary English, Aidi.ll (October, 195 3),
355-371.
________. "Reading the Comics: A Summary of Studies
and an Evaluation," Elementary English, <^a 1
(Dec embe r, 19 54), 301-506.
Wood, LeRoy N. "Readability of Certain textbooks,*'
Elementary English, Advl (April, 1954), 2 14-
216. ^
Yoakam, Gerald. "Unsolved Problems in Reading,,1 ,
Elementary English, AXa I (November, 1934),
427-430.
A P P E N D 1 C E S
APPENDIa a
NONSENSE WOEDS USED IN TESTING PUPILS
('sin-'1 )
( "red11)
NONSENSE WORDS
ling*
fing*
veci*
cay
kell
dec
baw
big
, . ' O W
bon
doy
L ir
b u x
j eP
kain
qun
im
lax
wis
fy
dook
wape
ta in
1 earn
iole
n ised
sbar
1 i.,s
] • ; u p e
shrol1
;rake
Lhride
m sun
be do
un ior
rera i1
kot ion
Larlv
fans ion
bee s Con
c hoben
L r jep
leainca in
s i s1en
en Cope
d i s 1 a i d
n un p r l 1 e
murbashin;.;
karnlaxC ion
uns JLscainedLy
recharsoidnes
e x n o u g b n e £ f e r
joi
*PracCice raaCerial noc counCed in 50 nonsense words.
APPENDIa b
DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED READING TEaTS
501
DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED TEXTBOOKS
Author Textbook
Readability
Formula
Placement
Publ i shed
Grade
Placement
Number of
pupiIs
using text
Beals
Texts Assigned as Readers
Story of Treasure Island 4.7 3-4
Grade
2 4 6
*
Benne 11 High Road to Glory 5.6 6 11
Betts Adventures Now and Then 6.9 6 3
Betts American Adventures 5.5 4
*
Bond Days of Adventure 5.3 s *
Bond Down Our Way 2 . 7 2 10
Bond Happy Times 2.0 1 2
Bond Just for Fun 2.7 2 9
Bond Many Surprises 1 . 7 P 2
Bond Meeting New Friends 5.0 4 20
Bond Once Upon a Storytime 3.3 3
A
Bond Stories from Everywhere 2.9 3 4 2
Burton Meet Our Friends 2 . 5 2 7
Burton Our Good Neighbors 3.4 3 1
Chandler Cowboy Sam and Miss Lily 2.1 P 1
Chandler Cowboy Sam and the Fair 2.6 2
*
Chandle r Cowboy Sam and the Rustlers 3.0 3 1
♦Assigned as Supplementary Reader
502
DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED TEXTBOOKS (continued)
Readability Published Number of
Formula Grade pupils
Author Textbook Placement Placement using text
Grade
(continued) Texts Assigned as Readers
2 4 6
Clarke Adventures oi Nicholas 5.1 6
*
Clarke Luis of Guadalajara 5.3 b
*
Coatsworth New Runaway Home b . 9 6
2
Coggins Rockets, Jets, etc. 9 . 3 4-6 1
Crabt ree In the City, on the Farm 2.1 1
*
Crabtree Under the Roof 2.4 2 1
Dudley Literature and Lite 7 .0 See . +
Fat io The Happy Lion Roars 5.3 3-4 1
Flack Neighbors on the Hill 2.9 2 1
Gates Ail Around Me 6 . 5 b 3
Gates Let's Go Ahead 5 . 7 b 2
Gates Let's Look Around 5.0 4 3
Gates Let's Travel On 4.9 5 1
Gates New Friends and New Places 2.a 2
*
Gates On Four Feet 1.9 1
★
Gates Sharing Adventures 4.3
4 2
Gates Sharing More Adventures 4. 7 4 1
Gates Toby 1 .« 1
*
Gates Tommy Little 1.9 P
*
* Assigned as Supplementary Reader.
+ Used in Informal Reading Inventory; not assigned to pupils in study.
503
DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED TEXTBOOKS (continued)
Author Textbook
Readability
Formula
Placement
Published
Grade
Placement
Number of
pupiIs
using text
Texts Assigned as Readers (continued)
Grade
2 4 6
Gates Wide Wings 3.4 3 1
Gates World I Know 7.5 5 1 2
Gray Days and Deeds 4. b 5 1
Gray Friends and Neighbors 2.3 2 y
Gray Fun with Dick and Jane 1.6 P 1
Gray Just Imagine 3.3 3-4 3
Gray More Friends and Neighbore 2 . b 2 3
Gray Our New Friends 2.4 1 3
Gray Paths and Pathfinders 6 . 6 7 +
Gray People and Progress ti . 6 6 5
Gray Times and Places 6 . 1 4 6
Gray Wonders and Workers 1 .0 +
Hanna Cross Country 4.6 4
*
Hef fernan All Aboard for Story land 4.9 4 1
He f fernan Desert Treasure 5.3 4 4
Hende rson Firelight Book 6.3 6 5
Henderson Sunshine Book 6.7 5
*
Henderson Looking Forward 6.3 5 1
Hildreth Moving Ahead 5.5 6 5
* Assigned as Supplementary Reader.
+ Used in Informal Reading Inventory; not assigned to pupils in study.
504
DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED TEXTBOOKS (continued)
Readability Published Number oi
Formula Grade pupils
Author Textbook Placement Placement using text
Grade
Texts Assigned as Readers (continued) 2__4___6
Hildreth Today and Tomorrow 5.5 4 1
Horn We Live on a Farm 1.9 P
*
Huber I Know a Story 2.3 1 1
Huber It Must Be Magic 4. 8 4 1
Huber Planes for Bob and Andy 3.1 3
*
Johnson Adventure Lands o .9 6 1
Johnson Magic Carpet 5 . 3 4 2
Leary Moving Forward b .9 b 1
Leave11 Frontiers to Explore 5.5 3 3
Leavell Open Doors 2 . 9 2 1
Leave 11 Open Roads 3.0 3
*
Leave 11 Open Windows 2 . 1 L
*
Leave 11 Paths to Follow 4.4 4 4 2
Leave 11 Widening Horizons 5.5 b 4
Lent Straight Down 2.3 2 1
Me Kee Bright Peaks b . 3 b 3
McKee Come Along 2.5 2 1
Me Kee High Roads 4.8 M 5
McKee Looking Ahead 3.1 3 2
McKee On We Go
2.7 2 1
* Assigned as Supplementary Reader.
505
DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED TEXTBOOKS (continued)
Author Textbook
Readability
Formula
Placement
Published
Grade
Placement
Number of
pup iIs
using text
Texts Assigned as Readers (continued)
Grade
2 A 6
McKee Sky Lines 6.5 5 1
McKee Up and Away 2 .2 1 2
Nolen Luck and Pluck A . b A 5
Nolen Merry Hearts and Bold 5.3 5
★
0'Donne 11 Day In and Day Out 1.9 P 2+
0'Donne 11 Engine Whistles A.9 5 +
0 1 Donne 11 Friendly Village 2.9 2 +
0'Donne 11 High on a Hill 1.6 P- P +
0'Donne 11 If I Were Going 3.6 3 +
0'Donne 11 New Singing Wheels A.6 A +
0 1 Donne 11 Round About 2 . 1 1 1+
Or r Stories from Far and Near 5.3 A 1
Ousley Around the Corner 2.6 2 3
Ousley On Cherry Street 2.1 1 2
Ousley We Are Neighbors 2.2 2 1
Parrish Floating Island 6 . 7 3-A 1
Pratt Long, Long Ago 2 .1 2
*
Russe11 Roads to Everywhere A.9 A 3
Russe11 Trails to Treasure 6.9 5 1
* Assigned as Supplementary Reader.
+ Used in Informal Reading Inventory; not assigned to pupils in study.
506
DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED TEXTBOOKS (continued)
Readability Published Number of
Formula Grade pupils
Author Textbook Placement Placement using text
Texts Assigned as Readers (continued)
Grade
2 4 6
Russel 1 Wings to Adventure 6.3 6 5
Sharp Chichi's Magic 6.7 5 1
Sharp Heart of the Wild 6.5 6 1
Smith, M. Bob's Story of Food Market 3.0 2
*
Smith, N. Down the Road 2.3 1 2
Smith, N. In New Places 3.0
2
2
Smith, N. Near and Far 2.7 3
*
Smith, N. On the Long Road 5.3 b 1 1
Smith, N. Through the Gate 1.5 P 1
Stuart Exploring Our Country 5.0 5
*
Texts Assigned for Social Studies Reading
Bauer California Rancho Days 4. b 4 1
Carls Neighbors in Latin America 6 . 5 5-6 2 7
Gray Exploring American Neighbors 7 . 5 6 21
Mackey Modern California 5.5 4 2
Meyer Our Good Neighbors in S.A. 8.5 6 5
Nystroin Beyond Our Borders 4.9 6 3
Powers Living in Latin America 6.9 6 14
Richards California Yesterdays 5.3 4 22
* Assigned
+ Used in
as Supplementary Reader.
Informal Reading Inventory; not assigned to pupils in study.
507
DIFFICULTY LEVELS OF ASSIGNED TEXTBOOKS (continued)
Author Textbook
Readability
Formula
Placement
Pub 1ished
Grade
Piacement
Number of
pup iIs
using text
Texts Assigned for Social Studies Reading (cont.)
Grade
2 4 6
Richards Our California Today 5.0 9 4 5
Arithmet ic Texts Assigned
Brueckner New Learning Numbers 5.0 4 70
Brueckner Understanding Numbers 5.9 b 7 0
Merton Using Numbers 2 .1 2 70
Language Textbooks
Dawson Language for Daily Use (4) 6.3 4 70
Dawson Language for Daily Use (6) 8.1 6 70
Spelling Textbooks
Pat ton Word Mastery Spellers (4) 4.2 4 70
Pat ton Word Mastery Spellers (6) 6 . 9 6 70
Science Textbooks
Knox Wonderworld of Science (4) 6.9 4 70
Knox Wonderworld of Science (6) b . 1 6 70
APPENDIa (J
F1FIT WIDELY USED READING TESTS
509
FIFTY WIDELY USED READING TESTS*
American School .leading Readiness Test, Revised
American School Achievement Tests, Revised
California Reading Tests
Chaptnan-Cook Speed of Readme,: lest
Chic a. 40 Reading Tests
Cooperative English Tests, Test C, Reading, Comprehension
Cooperative VocabuLary Test
Detroit Rea din,.' Tests
Detroit W: ord Recognition Test
Developmental steading Tests
Diagnostic Reading Tests
Dolch Basic Sight Word Test
Durrell Analysis of Reading, Difficulty
Durre11-Su11ivan Reading Capacity and Achievement Tests
Gates Reading Diagnosis Tests
Gates Reading Readiness Tests
Gates Reading Survey
Gates Silent Reading Tests, Revised
Gilmore Oral Reading Test
"*Cited by ALbert J. Harris, in How to Increase Steading,
Abi 1 ity (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1956), pp.
577-591.
510
Gray Standardized Oral Reading Check Test
Gray Standardized Oral Reading Paragraphs Test
Haggarty Reading Examination
Iowa Every-Pupil Test of Basic Skills
Iowa Silent Reading Tests
Ke1ley-Greene Reading Comprehension Test
Leave 11 Analytical Oral Reading Test
Lee-Clark Reading ..eadiness Test
Me Guffey Diagnostic Reading Tests
Metropolitan Achievement Tests
Metropolitan Readiness Tests
Michigan Vocabulary Profile Test
Monroe Diagnostic Reading Examination
Monroe Reading Aptitude Tests
Monroe Revised Silent Reading Tests
Monroe-Sherman Group Diagnostic Tests
Murphy-Durre11 Diagnostic Reading Readiness Test
Nelson-Denny Reading Test
Nelson Silent Reading, Test
Roswe11-Cha11 Diagnostic Reading Test
San..,ren-Woody Reading Test
Schramme 1-Gray High Gciiool and College Readme Test
Silent Reading Diagnostic Tests
Spache Binocular Reading Test
Spitzer Study Ski Lis Test
SKA Achievement Tests: Reading
SRA Reading Analysis
SKA Reading Record
Stanford Achievement Tests
Traxler High School Reading Test
Traxler Silent Reading Test
Von Wagenen Reading Readiness TesL
Wide Range Achievement Test
Williams Primary Reading Tests, Revised

Asset Metadata

Creator Truher, Helen Burke (author)

Core Title Relationships Between Difficulty Levels Of Assigned Texts And Reading Ability Of Elementary School Pupils

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, general,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Naslund, Robert A. (committee chair), Brown, Charles M. (committee member), Meyers, Charles Edward (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-97903

Unique identifier UC11358157

Identifier 6102540.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-97903 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6102540.pdf

Dmrecord 97903

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Truher, Helen Burke

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses