INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material subm itted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 300 N. 3EEB HOAD, ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WC1 R 4EJ, ENGLAND 8022355 T e r z ie f f , Iv a n S . THE EFFECTS OF A SEQUENTIAL LANGUAGE TRAINING PROGRAM ON INCREASING READING RATES WITH THE OPTACON The Ohio Slate University Ph.D. 1980 University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 18 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4EJ, England PLEASE MOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark . 1. Glossy photographs _ _ _ _ _ _ 2. Colored illustrations _ _ _ _ _ _ 3. Photographs with dark background / A. Illustrations are poor copy _______ 5. Drin t shows through as there is text on both sides of page _ _ _ _ _ _ 6. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages !/ throughout 7. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine _______ 8. Computer printout pages with indistinct print ______ 9. Page(s) lacking when material received, and not available from school or author _______ 10. Page(s) _______ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows ________ 11. Poor carbon copy __________ 12. Not original copy, several pages with blurred type ______ 13. Appendix pages are poor copy __________ 14. Original copy with light type _________ 15. Curling and wrinkled pages _________ 16. Other Jniversitv Microfilms nternarional ;cc \ I = = 5 =0. A \ ' \ M: JS’Q6 ‘312; 761-4700 THE EFFECTS OF A SEQUENTIAL LANGUAGE TRAINING PROGRAM ON INCREASING READING PATES NITH THE OPTACON DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ivan S. Terzieff, B.A., M.Ed. * # # # # The Ohio State University 1980 Reading Committee: Approved By John 0. Cooper, Ed.D. Patricia A. Looney, Ph.D. Adviser Fred Staub, Ph.D. Faculty for Exceptional Children Thomas Stephens, Ed.D. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to several individuals for their encouragement and cooperation during this project and graduate program. I am indebted to Dr. S. Ashcroft for his personal interest and strong support for this project. Special thanks are hereby expressed to Drs. T. Stephens, J. Cooper, P. Looney and F. Staub for their patience and assistance as members of the reading committee. Special appreciation to Dr. M. Moore for the many suggestions offered during the instructional materials development. To all visually impaired individuals who participated in the study and made the study possible, my special appreciation. Finally, this is dedicated to my wife, Ellie, whose patience, understanding and love throughout these few years made the work seem easily attainable. VITA October 20, 1937........ Born - Bulgaria 196^................... B.A., University of Massachusetts at Amherst 196^-1966............. Teacher, Greenfield Public Schools, Greenfield, Massachusetts 1966-1968.............. Teacher, Roosevelt School, Stanford, Connecticut 1968-1971.............. Teacher, Allegheny County Schools, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1971-197 2 .............. M.Ed., University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania 1972-197 3.............. Orientation and Mobility Specialist, Arkansas School for the Blind, Little Rock, Arkansas 1973-1976... ........... Orientation and Mobility Specialist, Ohio State School for the Blind, Columbus, Ohio 1976-1978.............. Graduate Research Associate, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1978-1980.............. Assistant Professor, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona FIELD OF STUDY Major Field: Special Education TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............ ..................................... ii VITA............... iii LIST OF TABLES........ vi LIST OF FIGURES. .......... vii Chapter I . INTRODUCTION. ......... 1 Background........................................... 1 Statement of the Problem .... 1+ Summary. ..... 9 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. ....... 10 Introduction. ...... 10 Reading Devices for the Blind .... 12 Braille Reading .... 25 Print Reading .... 33 Summary: Review of the Literature ..... 1+3 III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES........ 1+5 Purpose............. 1+5 Subjects .... 1+5 Setting. ...... 1+7 Equipment and Materials ....................... 1+7 Data Recording Procedure..................... 1+9 Design. ............ 52 Design Conditions ......... 53 Training Procedure ......................... 55 Analysis of Data. .......................... 62 IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA .............. 61+ Interobserver Agreement ............... 75 Presentation of Data*«............. 77 iv Page V. DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................... 89 Discussion of Data.................................... 89 Limitations of Study.................................. 92 Implications of Study................................. 9^ Summary............................................... 95 Recommendations for Further Study...................... 96 APPENDIXES A. Optacon........ 98 B. Sample of Baseline Materials.......................... 103 C. Sample of Instructional Materials......................... 109 D. Sample of Reading Materials............................... 119 E. Weekly Schedule............... 126 F . Data Recording Form ................ 128 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................. 130 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Subject Characteristics........................ 46 2. Running Log for Subject One.............. 66 3. Running Log for Subject Two..................................67 4. Running Log for Subject Three ........... 68 5 . Running Log for Subject Four ............ 69 6. Running Log for Subject Five ...... 70 7. Running Log for Subject Six......... 71 8. Running Log for Subject Seven ..... 72 9. Running Log for Subject Eight ........ 73 10. Running Log for Subject Nine.................. 74 11. Percentage of Interobserver and Error Rate by Condition ........ 76 12. Oral Reading and Error Rates During Baseline for Each Subject by Session ......... 83 13- Mean Oral Reading Rates and Mean Error Rates per Subject During Baseline Condition ..... 84 14. Mean Oral Reading Rates and Mean Error Rates per Subject for Baseline and Intervention Conditions .......................... 86 15. Mean Oral Reading Rates per Subject for Baseline and Intervention Conditions............... 87 16. Mean Error Rate per Subject for Baseline and Intervention Conditions.......... 88 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Example of Daily Log Form.,................................. 51 2. Multiple Baseline Design and Artifical Data. .......................................... 56 3* Oral Reading Rate and Error Rate for All Subjects.................................... 78 k. Oral Reading Rate and Error Rate for Group One........................................ 79 5. Oral Reading Rate and Error Rate for Group Two........................................ 80 6. Oral Reading Rate and Error Rate for Group Three...................................... 8l vii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background The process of reading continues to be of primary concern for all educators regardless of the student population they serve. Anumber of investigations have focused on the sensory processing deficits as the main contributory variables or causative factors resulting in reading failure (Caxtfley, Goldstein & Burrow, 1968; Erickson, 19695 Guralnick, 1972; Samuels, 1971)" The specific channels most often studied are the visual, auditory and tactual (Barraga, 1973? Birch & Belmont, 196^; Hammil, 1972; Hurley, 1968; Lowenfeld, 1973? Schevill, 1971)• The tactile system of reading for the