NCEC-63( ERIC REPORT RESUME EC C1C C6C 1CCEE6 24 (REV) INSTRUCTION CF HIGH sum STUCENTS IN REACING FOR DIFFERENT PLRPOSE: SMITH, HELEN K. * ANCRESEN, CLIVER S. C1YCS354 LNIVERSITY CF CHICAGC CRF-1714 EEPS PRICE MF$C.63 HC$17.84 446P. *REACING, REACING IHSTnLCTICK, REACING PROGRAMS, *PROGRAM EVALLATION, *INSTRICTICNAL MATERIALS, *SECONDARY ECUCATION, NILES TOWNSHIP HIGH sueu WEST, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO EE DERIVED FRCP PLANNEC PURPOSEFUL READING INSTRICTION WERE STUCIED. TWELVE PURPOSES WERE THEN SELECTED FCR PIRPOSEFLL REACING AT THE NINTHGRACE NIGH SCHOOL LEVEL. STUDENTS IN TEE EXPERIMENTAL GROLP AND COINTROL GROUP WERE THEN SELECTED ON THE BASIS CF NEED FOR PURPOSEFLL READING INSTRUCTION. INDIVIDUALS IN THE CCNTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS WERE MATCHED ON THE BASIS OF READING INVENTORY SCORES AND I.C. PLANNED PURPOSEFUL READING INSTRUCTION WAS TEEN GIVEN 'IC THE EXFERII"ENTAL GRCLP AND EVALUATED. THE EXPERIMENTAL EVALLATICh WAS CCMPAREC WITH AN EVALUATION OF CONTROL GROUP INSTRUCTION. INSTRUCTION IN BCTH GROUPS WAS OBSERVED EY A READING RESEARCH ASSOCIATE TC ASCERTAIN PROCECCRES ANC METHODS ISEC EY TEACHERS. EFFECTIVENESS CF THE INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNIQUES USED WAS CCMPAREC. ANALYSIS OF CCVARIANCE WAS USED TO ADJUST FOR DIFFERENCES IN I.Q. CR PLRFCSEFUL READING PRETEST SCORES. EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS CID NOT READ SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN THE CCNTRCL GROUP FOR THE 12 STUN' PURPOSES SELECTED. HOWEVER, THE RESULTS INDICATE THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF STLDEN1S SCORING ABOVE ONE STANDARD DEVIATION WAS HIGHER IN THE EXPERIMENTAL GIMP. IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE MATERIALS CEVELOPED FOR INSTRUCTION ANC TESTING HAD BEEN USED SLCCESSFILLY ANC THAT PLAKNEC PURPOSEFUL READING INSTRUCTION WAS SIPERICR TC INCIDENTAL INSTRUCTION. IWO WELFAlia 1-lf_N_IH,CDUCATION AND U. S.DEPARTW;ENT Or exly asreceNed fromthe has rs7.roduseci or opinions This document oft,inzittng it.Po.nts ot view oigon EduCatkni person or represent officialOffice of stated do notncces.s.3tily position orpolicy. INSTRUCTICN OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN IZEADING FOR DI=RENT 1'URPO3ES Cooperative Research Project No. 1714 Helen K. Smith, Chief Tnvestigator Assisted by Oliver S. Andresen The University of Chicago 1966 The research reported hereinwas supported by the Cooperative Research Program of the Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people and agencies have made this study possible. Without the support of the United States Office of Education this investigation could not have been undertaken. The investigator is indebted to Mr. Oliver Andresen, who was the research associate for the duratior of the study, and to Mrs. Sandra Hatch and Mrs. Joan Staples who were members of the research team. kppreciation is extended to Dr. Helen M. Robinson and to Dr. Benjamin Bloom who offered suggestions and advice regarding problems encountered in the study; to Katherine Kennedy, Chairman of the English Department at Niles Township High School 'lest, to the freshman English teachers, and to the students who participated in the study or in the preliminary investigations; to Dr. Richard Wolf, Mr. Robert Panos, and Mr. Joel Ueisq for statistical assistance; the English and reading teachers in the Chicago area who helped in the selection of the purposes for this study; to the members of the Reading Seminar for their many surst;estions; and to the reading specialists who acted as judges. The investigator wishes to thank also the different members of the Reading Clinic staff who tried out selections, offered suggestions, assembled materials, scored tests, and helped in other numerous ways; to the secretaries whose services were very valuable; and to all others who helped to make this study possible. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page .OKNO1117DGMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES Chapter I. INTRODUCTIal. , Purpose of the Study Significance of the Study What This Study Proposes Oranization of the Report II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE PE2TIMTING TO FURIOSES READING , 7 Opinions of Experts Concerning the Nature of Reading The Development of a Conceptual Framework of Purposes for Reading Expert Opinion Related to the Secondary Purposes for Reading Research Related to the Secondary Purposes for Reading III. METHODS :,ND PROCEDURT,J) USED IN THIS STUDY 27 Definitions of Terms Hypotheses to be Tested Selection of Purposes to be Used in the study The Development of the Experimental Test of Purpose The Development of the Reading Inventory The Development of Instructional Materials and Teaching Procedures Reading Instruction in Ninth Grade English Classes Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Instruction References iii TABLE OF CCNIOTSContinued IV. AKA= 02 THE D"TA ****** . OOOOOO OOOOOOO .0 64 Analysis of Data for Experimental and Control Subjects Analysis of Data for Experimental and Control Classes Descriptions of Ways Students Read for Different Purposes Chapter Summary References V. rATCLUSI6NS, AND IZPLICilTIONS 111 Limitations of the Study Findings Belated to the Hypotheses Ancillary Findings Major Conclusions Imnlications of the Findings (.:Aiggestions for 2uture Research Concluding Statement APPENDIXES A. TPL T...11 CF FU1206E 41.3 R 128 B. TYE: .1171.DI2G INVENTCRY 6 ,9Si 267 C. INZTRUCTICITAL MAT:AI"LStioosootiowor000sa..41....oe. 271 Do OBSERT.TION SHEETOOOOOOOOOO 414 E. TI.BLIS OOOOO 417 0080 4:50 iv LIST OF 2:.BLES Table PaN 1. Conceptual Framework of Purposes*00000000000000000 12 2. Comparison of Experimental and Control Subjects in Readinc for Different Purposes*00000)00 00000 0 66 3. Comparison of Experimental and Control Subjects in Identifying Appropriate Purposes for Different 3elections000000000000000000000000 68 4. Comparison of Experimental and Control Subjects on Level of Comprehension. 0000000000000000000000 70 5. Comparison of .experimental and Control Subjects on Rate of Comprehension 00000 71 6. Comparison of Responses of Experimental and Control Subjects on the leading Inventory........ 76 7. Per Cent of Subjects Who Remembered the Pre-stated Purpose 78 8. Comparison of Performance of Lxperimental and Control Classes in ;leading for Different Purposes000000000000000000000000000000000 00000 00 82 9. Coinparison of Performance of Experimental and Control Classes in Reading for Different Purposes................... OOOOO . OOOOO 0000000000 83 10. Comparison of Performance of Experimental and Control Honors Classes in Reading for Different Purposes000000000000000000004000004000 84 11. Comparison of Performance of Experimental and Control Classes in Identifying Appropriate Purposes for 6elections 85 12. Comparison of Results of Experimental and Control Regular Classes in Identifying Appropriate Purposes for Reading000000000004000000000 OOOOO 000 86 LIST 0 TA3L12--Continued Table Page 13. Comparison or desults of Experimental and Control Honors Classes in Identifying Appropriate Purposes for Reading060 ****** 006006006?00006006 86 14. Comparison of Results of Lxperimental and Control Classes on Level of Comprehension06060000060000 88 15. Comparison of itesults of Experimental and Control Regular Classes on Level of Comprehension006000 88 16. Comparison of Results of Experimental and Control Honors Classes on Level of Comprehensionw... 89 17. Comparison of tresults of Rate of Reading for Experimental and Control Classes060060666060009 89 18. Comparison of Results of Rate of Reading for Experimental and Control Regular Classes0060600 90 19. Comparison of Rerults of Rate of Reading for Experimental and Corol Regular Classes0002900090 20. Per Cents of Honors Students Who liemembered Purposes for Which They Read414041....o......4.4.4.4.4,4,93 21. Per Cents of Regular English Students Who Remembered Purposes for Which They Read00066000094 22. Mean Per Cent of Correct Responses for Each Purpose00606660401,000000000000104000000006098 23. Per Cents of Correct Responseson the Reading Inventory1,16660641006600110000600 ***** 0060418 24. Per Cents of ubjects Who Did Not Reread 419 25. Per Cents of Subjects Who Did Not Skip ***** 419 26. Per Cents of Subjects Who Related Ideas to their Experiential Background0000060410600000420 27. Per Cents of Subjects Reporting Other Behaviorsogooadpoolipornolootooiroo ***** 421 28. Per Cents of Correct Responseson the Reading Inventory060000006609000000000000000422 vi LIST OP TLBLES--ContinLed Table Page 29. Per Cents of Honor Students Who Did Not Reread 423 30. Per Cents of Honor Students Who Did Not Skip lien They :lead 423 31. Per Cents of Honor Students Who Related Ideas to their Experiential Background.....e...*424 32. Per Cents of Honors Students Reporting Other Reading Behaviors 425 33. Per Cents of Regular Students Who Did Not Reread04,00000000000400041041000.0000000000001,00004,426 34. Per Cents of Regular Students Reporting Other Behaviors 427 35. Per Cents of Regular Students Who Did Not Skip When They Read000001,0000000,0,00000000040000428 36. Per Cents of Uegular Students Who Related Ideas to their :2x,Jriential Backgroundle..voseeet,429 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION DIE22222Elheagi The major purpose of this investigation was to determine the effectiveness of direct, planned instruction in purposeful reading for high school students. This study was designed to ascertain if high school freshmen who attempted to read for different purposes but used similar techniques could learn to adjust their reading to specific purposes by systematic instruc- tion, and, as a result, if they would read significantly better than those taught by the general procedures used in English classes. Although reading authorities