Report Resumes

REPORT RESUMES ED 015 190 TE 000 130 THE EFFECT OF SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONON THE ABILITY OF SEVENTH- AND EIGHTH -GRADE PUPILS TOWRITE COMPOSITION AND UNDERSTAND POETRY AND SHORT FICTION.FINAL REPORT. BY- BLAKE, ROBERT W. STATE UNIV. OF N.Y., BROCKPORT,COLL. AT BROCKPORT REPORT NUMBER CRP -S -312 PUB DATE JUN 66 REPORT NUMBER BR -5 -8047 GRANT 0E0-.5-.10...437 EDRS PRICE MF...$0.75 HC -$7.88 195P. DESCRIPTORS- *COMPOSITION (LITERARY),*ENGLISH INSTRUCTIONS *STRUCTURAL GRAMMAR, *TRADITIONALGRAMMAR, *TRANSFORMATION GENERATIVE GRAMMAR, GRADE 7,GRAMMAR, SENTENCE STRUCTURE, LINGUISTICS, BECAUSE OF LIMITATIONS DURINGTHE ACTUAL STUDY, THIS PROJECT WAS DELIMITED TOTHE STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESSOF USING MATERIALS ADAPTED FROMSTRUCTURAL AND GENERATIVE GRAMMARS UPON THE ABILITY OFSEVENTH -GRADE STUDENTS TO WRITE MORE MATURE COMPOSITIONS.FORTY -THREE STUDENTS WERE GIVEN EXPERIMENTAL LINGUISTICALLY-ORIENTED MATERIALS DESIGNEDTO TEACH THEM TO ANALYZEENGLISH SENTENCES BY A STRUCTURAL GRAMMAR APPROACH AND TO CRETE AND COMBINE NEW SENTENCESBY A GENERATIVE- TRANSFORMATIONALAPPROACH. FIFTY STUDENTS INTHE CONTROL GROUP WERE GIVENTRADITIONAL ENGLISH GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION. AS PRE- AND POST-TESTS OF WRITING MATURITY,ALL STUDENTS TOOK THE SEQUENTIALTESTS OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS (STEP) WRITING TEST ANDWROTE SAMPLE COMPOSITIONSWHICH WERE APPRAISED BY EMPLOYING THE T...UNITLENGTH. THE RESULTS INDICATED THAT BOTH GROUPSMADE SIGNIFICANT GAINS IN ACHIEVEMENT DURING THE STUDYAND THAT, ALTHOUGH THE LINGUISTIC GROUP MADESIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER SCORESON THE POST -TEST, THE DIFFERENCESIN THE GAIN BETWEEN THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPSWAS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. THEREFORE, NOSIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE INSTUDENT ABILITY TO WRITE COMPOSITIONSWAS SEEN BETWEEN STUDENTSWHO HAD MATERIALS BASED UPONSTRUCTURAL AND GENERATIVEGRAMMARS AND STUDENTS WHO HADTRADITIONAL LATINATE GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION. IT IS FELT, HOWEVER,THAT ANOTHER STUDY,WITH THE SAME THEORETICAL BASISAND WITH MORE CAREFULCONTROL OF SOME FACTORS, WOULD SHOWA SIGNIFICANT POSITIVECORRELATION. (AN APPENDIX CONTAINSTHE INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALAND EXERCISES GIVEN TO STUDENTSIN THE EXPERIMENTAL LINGUISTICALLY- ORIENTED GROUP.)(AUTHOR/DL) w.c..q..m,rrizoosninmmuer-ilitossrsvmwrJettnVv..Z-"2te,=r:1==f.ni U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE le7OFFICE OF EDUCATION ()171/ (:) THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVEDFROM THE CN PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS: e -,'-/ 1-4 STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION LIN POSITION OR POLICY. ri-4 FINAL REPORT CI Project No.5-312 CZ1 Grant No.OE 5-10-437 iii THE IzlitCT OF SPECIAL INSTRUCTION ON TRABILITY OF SEVENTH- AND EIGHTH-GRADE PUPILS TO WRITECaMPOSITION AND UNDERSTAND POETRY AND SHORT FICTION June 1966 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Office of Education Bureau of Research U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIKIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY. TBEFFECT OF SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONON THE ABILITY CF SEVENTH- AND EIGHTH-GRADE PUPILSTO WRITE COMPOSITION AND 'UNDERSTAND POETRY ANDSHORT FICTION Project No. S-312 Grant No. OE 5-10-437 Robert W. Blake June1966 The research reported hereinwas performed pursuant to a Grant No.OE 5-10-437 withthe Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education,and Welfare. Contractors undertaking such projects underGovernment sponsorship are encouraged to express freely theirprofessional judgment in the conduct of theproject. Points of view or opinions stated do not, therefore,necessarily represent official Office of Education positionor policy. State University College Brockport, New York 14420 1. INTRODUCTION Background The Problem Related Research Summary 2. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 7 Selection and Preparation of Materials Sources of Data Field - Testing the Materials Assigning the Students Administration of the Study Ti.eatment of the Data Summary 22 4. DISCUSSION 32 5. CONCLUSIONS, IITLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 35 Conclusions Implications Recommendations 6. REFERENCES 37 7. APPENDV A 39 Junior High School Linguistics Materials TABLES TABLE I Treatment of Data 20 TABLE II A Comparison of the Means and Standard Deviations of the Linguistic Group and the Control Group of the Scores of the STEP Writing Test, 3A 22 TABLE III A Comparison of the Means and Standard Deviations of the Linguistic Group on the Pre- and Post-Test Scores of the STEP Writing Tests, 3A and 3B 22 TABLE IV A Comparison of the Means and Standard Deviations of the Control Group on the Pre- and Post-Test Scores of the STEP Writing Tests, 3A and 3B 23 TABLE V A Comparison of the Pre- to Post-Gain Scores of the Means and Standard Deviations of the Linguistic Group and the Control Group of the Scores of the STEP Writing Test 23 TABLE VI A Comparison of the Means and Standard Deviations of the Linguistic Group and the Control Group of the Mean Length of the T-units of the Pre-Writing Sbmples... 24 TABLE VII A Comparison of the Means and Standard Deviations of the Linguistic Group of the Mean Length of the T-units of the Pre- and Post-Writing Samples TABLE VIII A Comparison of the Means and Standard Deviations of the Control Group of the Mean Length of the T-units of the Pre- and Post-Writing Samples 25 TABLE IX A Comparison of the Means and Standard Deviations of the Linguistic Group and the Control Group of the Mean Length of the T-units of the Post-Writing Samples.. 25 I 0 TABLES-Continued Page TABLE X A Comparison of the Pre- to Post-Gain Scores of the Means and Standard Deviations of the Linguistic Group and the Control Group of the Mean Length of the T-units of the Writing Samples... 26 TABLE XI A Comparison of the Means and Standard Deviations of the Linguistic Group and the Control Group of the Converted .."'"%r Scores of the Mean Length of the T-units of the Pre Writing Samples. 27 TABLE XII A Comparison of the Means and Standard Deviations of the Linguistic Group of the Converted Scores of the Mean Length of the T-units of the Pre- and Post- Writing Samples 27 TABLE XIII A Comparison of the Means and Standard Deviations of the Control Group of, the Converted Scores of the Mean Length of the T-units of the Pre- and Post-Writing Samples 28 TABLE XIV A Comparison of the Means and Standard Deviations of the Linguistic Group of the Converted Scores of the Mean Length of the T-units of the Post-Writing Samples 28 TABLE XV A Comparison of the Pre- to Post-Gain of the Means and Standard Deviations of the Linguistic Group and the Control Group of the Converted Scores of the Mean Length of the T-units of the Writing Samples 29 1. INTRODUCTION L Background, The relation of the studyof English grammar and itseffect upon the ability of studentsto write more maturecompositions -- by whatever criteria-- is at once one of the most important and yet one of the most elusive questions that thepublic school teacher of English must face. With the increasedattention paid to the new descriptions of English grammar madeby linguists, the hypothesis has been advancedthat perhaps there istentative evidence to supporta program of writing for studentsin which they study English grammars that are baseci upon the mostaccurate research available and whichdescribe English realisticallyand accurately. There is a stated needfor the most recent and accepted research inlinguistics to be translatedinto practice in the public school classrooms; the problem of therelationship between achievementin writing ability andstudy of modern grammars of English isone which deserves close attention. The editors of theHarvard Educational Review,Spring, 1964, an issue devoted entirely toLanguage and Learning, stated: If a theme pervades theIssue, it is criticism of the current teaching ofa first language at all academic levels. That almost everyone of our contributors fl comments upon this inadequacysuggests that university specialists inmany discrete disciplinesare eager for new insights Wollarguage to betranslated into class- room practice.0.0) In 1962 H. A. Gleason quite unequivocally maintainedthat "The point of contact between comp9sition and literature lieswithin language, broadly conceived."(7).For Gleason, students shouldbe trained to understand Englishin terms of syntactic patterns. This of course shouldnot be begun in Freshman English, nor for that matter in highschool. Junior high school students can dovery well at it. They can work out inductively the basic principlesof English grammar and they can carry this farbeyond what is set forth in the school textbooks. We desperately needsome thorough explanation of the abilitiesof school children in this field. I suspect thatwe will be astounded at the depths, to which theycan penetrate in language analysisaswell.kb In 1964, Gleason wrotethat the study of Englishgrammar by linguistic approaches "hasa relevance in the study of literature and composition simplybecause it deals ina systematic way with the same basic stuff which theyuse as their medium. It is the central 2 component in a comprehensive English curriculum."(6)For Gleason, what is required in composition instruction is an appreciation of "artful patterning," a developing in the student of the ability to make choices of sentence patterns effectively.Gleason concludes by observing that a total change in the method of presenting language is needed, that students should be introduced to techniques by which

Load more