Presented to the Graduate Council of the North

A COMPARISON OF THREE TECHNIQUES OF TEACHING LITERATURE: SILENT READING, SOLO PERFORMANCE, AND READERS THEATRE DISSERTATION Presented to the Graduate Council of the North Texas State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By David R. Maberry, B. A., M. A. Denton, Texas December, 1975 Maberry, David R., A Comparison of Three Techniques of Teaching Literature: Silent Reading, Solo Performance, and Readers Theatre. Doctor of Philosophy (College Teaching: Speech Communication and Drama), December, 1975, 231 pp., 17 tables, bibliography, 35 titles. The problem of this study was a comparison of the re- sponses of students to three techniques of teaching literature: silent reading, solo performance, and readers theatre. Students in three classes of grade nine and students in three classes of grade eleven were selected at three high schools in the north Texas area. There was a total of three hundred seventy-one students involved in the experiment. Each of the three classes at each grade level in each high school received three presentations of three short stories. Each class read one short story silently; each class heard one short story presented by solo performance; and each class heard one short story presented in the technique of readers theatre. Immediately after each presentation the students were administered a semantic differential to determine which technique of presentation stimulated the most appreciation of literature. At the same time they were administered a short objective test of ten items to determine which technique achieved more comprehension. Ten days later all students received the same test over all three stories to determine which technique stimulated the most retention. 1 2 Each of the five research hypotheses was tested in the null form. If a significant F was found for any of the hypotheses, a multiple comparison (Newman-Keuls') was applied to determine the source of the variance. The readers theatre technique evoked a higher mean than either solo performance or silent reading and solo performance evoked a higher mean than did silent reading. In each of the analysis of variance for each of the research hypotheses the results were significant beyond the 0.001 level. In using the Newman-Keuls' all results were significant at better than the 0.01 level. Regardless of technique of presentation, there were lower scores on the retention test given ten days after the presentation than on the comprehension test given immediately after the presentations. However, the loss in mean was smaller for readers theatre than for solo performance or silent reading. The loss for solo performance was smaller than for silent reading. At the same time retention of comprehension was tested, appreciation was also tested. The appreciation of silent reading declined by 1.46 while the appreciation of solo performance increased by 1.47, and the appreciation of readers theatre increased by 1.37. Since the results of the experiment remained consistent regardless of which story was presented, it may be concluded that the technique, rather than the literature was responsi- ble for the better results. 3 Since many teachers of literature state that one of the main purposes of teaching literature is to get students to enjoy literature, oral interpretation techniques should be employed. Since the results were significant that oral presentation of literature was more successful than silent reading, further research could determine how much oral presentation should be used. Since the oral interpretation of literature has a much longer history than the printed page, it should be kept in mind for further research that regardless of the success or convenience of any technique of presentation that perhaps no one technique should replace all others. There should be rather a blending of silent reading, solo performance, and readers theatre. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . iv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . 1 Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Hypotheses Background and Significance of the Study Definition of Terms Instruments Procedures for Collection of Data Procedures for Analysis of Data II. SYNTHESIS OF RELATED LITERATURE . 11 History Oral Interpretation in Academe Oral Interpretation in the English Classroom Summary III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . 29 Description of the Instruments Procedure for Collecting the Data Procedures for Analysis of Data IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . 43 Treatment of the Data Data Relative to the Hypotheses Summary V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 57 Summary Conclusions Recommendations Subjective Observations Related to the Experiment APPENDIX.-....- ....-.-.-. 64 BIBLIOGRAPHY. .-....-.. 229 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Order of Technique Used in Presentation of the Short Stories . 30 II. Means for Achievement Tests at Ninth Grade Level . 33 III. Means for Evaluative Component of the Semantic Differential at the Ninth Grade Level . 34 IV. Means for Retention Tests at the Ninth Grade Level . 34 V. Schedule for High School I . 36 VI. Schedule for High School II . 36 VII. Schedule for High School III . 37 VIII. Number of Observations, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Achievement Tests . 45 IX. Summary of Analysis of Variance for the Achievement Tests . 46 X. Summary of Newman-Keuls for the Achievement Tests . 47 XI. Number of Observations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Retention of Achievement Tests. ....-... 48 XII. Summary of Analysis of Variance for the Retention of Achievement Tests . 49 XIII. Summary of Newman-Keuls for the Retention of Achievement Tests.............. 50 XIV. Number of Observations, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Appreciation Tests . 51 XV. Summary of Analysis of Variance for the Appreciation Tests.............. 52 iv V Table Page XVI. Summary of Newman-Keuls for the Appreciation Tests . 52 XVII. Post Versus Retests Means, Analysis of Variance and Level of Significance for the Evaluative Componant of the Semantic Differential .............. 53 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Many times students of English have been told to read Macbeth as preparation for discussions and evaluation or have been instructed to write papers on Shakespeare's use of iam- bic pentameter or the identity of the missing fourth murderer in this play. Many times teachers of English have been dis- appointed when students failed to develop an appreciation for Macbeth or any other literature. Perhaps some students turn from literature because of the way it is sometimes taught. Dorothy Mathews of the University of Illinois wrote, I agree with those who believe that stimulating an interest in books is one of the most vital responsi- bilities of the teacher of English and also one of the most frequently neglected. I wonder how many times high school graduates can honestly say that their English classes instilled in them a lifelong love of reading.1 Most literature is taught through the technique of silent reading, discussion, and testing for facts contained within the literature. That technique does not seem to be accomplishing the goal of stimulating an interest in literature. Elizabeth Worrell of Northeast Missouri State College described what she considered a typical classroom situation. 1 Dorothy Mathews, "The Uses of Oral Interpretation in Directing and Motivating Outside Reading of High School Students," Oral Interpretation and the Teaching of English, edited by T. L. Fernandez (Champaign, Illinois, 1969), p. 59. 1 2 Once upon a time there was a teacher with a class of students, and they were "studying literature." They read, and they analyzed and they discussed--at least the teacher discussed, and the students supposedly listened. Then the teacher made out a list of questions on what he thought they should know about the story, and the students tried to answer the questions the way they thought2 he wanted them answered, and everyone passed the course. In that typical classroom there was no mention of stimulating an interest in literature. According to J. H. Hook this lack of interest was caused by a lack of involvement with literature. Literature should turn students on, not off. Many American teachers are so eager to have students learn facts about literature ("Who is the speaker?" "What is the rhyme scheme?" "When did Wordsworth live?") that many students never r eally become personally involved in the literature. Hook went on to state that becoming involved meant to enjoy literature, which he thought was the most important reason for reading in the classroom. He quoted the late Paul Landis of the University of Illinois, who, Hook said, was the best-loved teacher of literature there as saying, "My only objective is to help the youngsters have fun with reading. If they do that, everything else will follow." 4 Hook suggested that if more emphasis were placed on oral presentations of literature, a sense of fun with 2 Elizabeth Worrell, "Readers Theatre and the Short Story," Oral Interpretation and the Teaching of English, edited by T. L. Fernandez (Champaign, Illinois, 1969), p. 45. J. N. Hook, The Teaching of High School English, 4th ed. (New York, 1972), p. 123. 4 Ibid., p. 180. 3 literature would result. He stated that a teacher should have ". touches of expertise and showmanship that a professional speaker, oral interpreter, or actor possesses." 5 Leslie Irene Coger of Southwest Missouri agreed with Landis that enjoyment of literature would lead to better understanding of literature. She also agreed with Hook that oral performances would create that enjoyment. She wrote, When literature becomes an enjoyable, personalized experience, it takes on a significance, a new excite- ment. The study of the written page becomes fun when it prepares the reader for sharing literary material with an audience. And reading literature aloud deepens the reader's understanding of the text, for in giving it voice he experiences the writing more completely,6 more comprehensibly, than he does in silent reading.

Load more