Louisiana State UniversityLSU Digital Commons

LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School

1981

A Study of Reading Skills of Third Grade Studentsin Terms of Observable Classroom Behavior andOther Variables.Mary Louise spand JonesLouisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion inLSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contactgradetd@lsu.edu.

Recommended CitationJones, Mary Louise spand, "A Study of Reading Skills of Third Grade Students in Terms of Observable Classroom Behavior and OtherVariables." (1981). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 3641.https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/3641

INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy o f a docum ent sent to us fo r microfilming. While the m ost advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material subm itted.

The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1 .T he sign or " ta rg e t” fo r pages apparently lacking from the docum ent 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 cu tting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you o f com plete continuity .

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black m ark it is an indication th a t the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of m ovem ent during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we m eant to delete copyrighted materials th a t should n o t have been film ed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent fram e. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent fram e.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc ., is part of the material being p ho to ­graphed the photographer has followed a definite m ethod in “ sectioning” the material. It is custom ary to begin filming a t 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 com plete.

4. For any illustrations th a t canno t be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased a t additional cost and tipped in to your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Custom er Services Departm ent.

5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

UniversityMicrofilms

International3 0 0 N. 2 E E B RD„ ANN A R B OR , Ml 4 8 1 06

8126963

Jo n e s , M ary Lo u ise Spand

A STUDY OF READING SKILLS OF THIRD GRADE STUDENTS IN TERMS OF OBSERVABLE CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR AND OTHER VARIABLES

The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Col. D.Ed. 1981

UniversityMicrofilms

international 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

Copyright 1981

by

Jones, Mary Louise Spand

All Rights Reserved

A STUDY OF READING SKILLS OF THIRD GRADE STUDENTS IN TERMS OF OBSERVABLE

CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR AND OTHER VARIABLES

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and

Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Educationin

The Interdepartmental Program in Education

byMary Louise Spand Jones

B.S., Louisiana State University, 1971 M.Ed., Louisiana State University, 1972

August, 1981

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is with gratitude that I express my sincere appreciation to my committee for the guidance provided me during this study. Dr. Helen M. Cookston, my major profes­sor, gave unselfishly of herself in time, understanding, advice, and above all words of encouragement. Dr. Sam Adams, Dr. E. Jean Andrews, Dr. Frances Beck, Dr. Earl Cheek and Dr. David Yang, who served as members of my committee, each made unique and valuable contributions to this study.

A special note of appreciation is made to the East Baton Rouge Parish Schools for allowing me to conduct the study in ten of the schools in the parish. The principals of these schools were most helpful and cooperative through­out the study. I wish to thank each of the eighteen teachers who participated in the study. I also appreciate the cooperation of students who participated in the study and their parents for granting permission to include their children in this study.

I wish to thank Mrs. Sebell Jones who served as my assistant in this study. She gave unselfishly of her time to help me collect data. A special note of thanks must be given to Mrs. Marsha Jones who typed drafts of this manu­script and to Ms. Patricia Toles and Mrs. Shelia Chavis who scored the test booklets.

Finally, I wish to express my appreciation to my immediate family, Johnnie, Jessie, Stefanie and Kyle. Johnnie, my husband; Jessie, my mother; each offered words of encouragement and remained with me through each step of the dissertation. To Stefanie and Kyle; my daughter and son, I thank them for their patience and cooperation.

TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................... iiLIST OF TABLES.............................................viABSTRACT.................................................. viiCHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY..........................1Statement of the Problem........................2Importance of the Study. ..................... 4Delimitations of the S t u d y ......................5Definition of Terms.............................. 5Procedure.........................................6Organization of Remainder of the Study . . . . 9

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.................... 10Variables That Influence the Acquisition ofReading Skills ................................ 10

Socioeconomic Factors.........................11Psychological Factors.........................14Educational Factors...........................16Summary........................................18

Behavioral Categories Related to Achievement . 18Summary........................................24

Other Variables That Influence Achievement . .25Sex............................................25Socioeconomic Background and Race............. 26Intelligence ................................ 27Summary...................................... 28

Summary..........................................28III. PROCEDURE..........................................30

Design of the Study............................. 30Description of Test Instruments................ 30Selection of Subjects...........................33Collection of D a t a ............................. 34Statistical Analysis ......................... 37

IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA................ 39Analysis of Data for All Students.............. 41Analysis of Data for S e x ...................... 42Analysis of Data for SocioeconomicBackground..................................... 44Analysis of Data for Race...................... 46Summary of Findings............................. 48

iv

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 50Summary....................................... . 50

Statement of the Problem.....................50Procedure..................................... 51Analysis of D a t a ....................... 54Findings..................................... 55

Conclusions................ 56Recommendations................................. 57

REFERENCES................................................ 59APPENDICES.............. 66

A. LETTER: PERMISSION TO MODIFY DEVEREUXELEMENTARY BEHAVIOR SCALE ................. 67

B. BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST .......................... 69C. DEFINITION OF TERMS ON BEHAVIOR

CHECKLIST................................... 72D. LETTER: REQUESTING PERMISSION TO CONDUCT

S T U D Y ........................................76E. LETTER: TENATIVE AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT

STUDY AND DO VIDEO TAPE CLASSES............ 78F. LETTER: PARENTAL PERMISSION TO VIDEO TAPE

THEIR C H I L D ................................. 80G. LETTER: PERMISSION TO CONDUCT STUDY . . . . 82H. LETTER: PARENTAL PERMISSION FOR THE USE

OF THEIR CHILD IN THE S T U D Y ................ 84I. PARENTAL PERMISSION TO RELEASE TESTING DATA

TO CLASSROOM TEACHER.........................86J. LIST OF SCHOOLS AND CLASSROOM TEACHERS

PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY.................. 88VITA 89

TABLE LIST OF TABLES PAGE

1. Correlations Between Reading Skills Subtestsand Behavior Scores for All 86 Students. . . . 41

2. Correlations Between Reading Skills Subtestsand Behavior Scores for 35 G i r l s ............. 43

3. Correlations Between Reading Skills Subtestsand Behavior Scores for 51 Boys............... 43

4. Correlations Between Reading Skills Subtestsand Behavior Scores of 22 Higher SocioeconomicBackground Students........................... 45

5. Correlations Between Reading Skills Subtestsand Behavior Scores of 64 Lower SocioeconomicBackground Students........................... 45

6. Correlations Between Reading Skills Subtestsand Behavior Scores of 70 Black Students . . . 47

7. Correlations Between Reading Skills Subtestsand Behavior Scores of 16 Non-Black Students . 47

vi

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a relationship between selected reading skills of stu­dents in regular third grade classes and selected variables including observable classroom behavior, sex, race and socioeconomic background. The study took place in ten elementary schools in Baton Rouge, Louisiana during the 1980-81 school session.

Statement of the ProblemThe following null hypothesis was tested using the

.05 level of significance: There was no significant rela­tionship between selected reading skills of students in regular third grade classes and selected variables including observable classroom behavior, sex, race and socioeconomic background.

ProcedureThis study was confined to 86 third grade students

in ten randomly chosen schools. The Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test was administered to all students in each chosen classroom. Once scoring was completed, this researcher was given 10 separate lists of students to be observed designated by individual schools and teachers. The names on each of the individual lists were those of students whose composite raw scores placed them in a range either below 160 or above 201 on the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test.

Classroom observations using a checklist based on a modified version of the Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale were conducted during the reading instructional period for five consecutive days. Total observation time was 60 minutes per student. Any student with less than 54 minutes of observational time was eliminated from the study. Students obtained a behavior score based on the classroom observations.

Analysis of DataIn order to adequately test the hypothesis, the

students were divided into the following subgroups: race(Black and Non-Black), sex (boys and girls) and socio­economic background (higher and lower). The five reading subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test were: auditory vocabulary, auditory discrimination, phonetic analysis, word reading and comprehension.

Statistical data using raw scores of the individual subtests was compiled to obtain the Pearson product moment coefficient of correlation between the behavior scores of the students and the five individual subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test.

Findings1. There were significant correlations between four

of the five reading subtests and the behavior scores for all students tested.

XX

2. There were significant correlations between all of the reading subtests and the behavior scores for girls. There were no significant correlations for boys.

3. There were significant correlations between all of the reading subtests and the behavior scores for higher socioeconomic background students. There were no significant correlations for lower socioeconomic background students.

4. There were significant correlations between all of the reading subtests and the behavior scores for Non- Black students. There were no significant correlations for Black students.

Recommendations1. Research should be conducted to study the

effects of classroom behavior of high achieving students.2. More research should be conducted to determine

why there were more significant negative correlations between behavior and reading skills for girls than for boys.

3. Conduct research to determine the effects of classroom behavior upon the reading skills of high and low socioeconomic background students.

4. Future studies are needed to determine why the reading skill of phonetic analysis is affected in more instances than other reading skills among the various subgroups.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Throughout educational history there have always been children with reading problems. The classroom teacher has the responsibility to help determine and evaluate these problems. Instruction in reading is then initiated at or slightly below the problem point in order to help the student progress as quickly as possible.

Today, considerable emphasis in some content areas and especially in reading instruction is placed on the diagnostic - prescriptive technique. Teachers first deter­mine what problems the child is experiencing, and then prescribe instructional strategies to assist in alleviating the problem areas. Quite frequently problems are behavioral as well as academic. Behavioral problems exhibited in the classroom may be a primary cause of the academic problems and vice versa. The relationship between academic problems experienced in the classroom and behavioral problems needs to be determined.

Classroom teachers and administrators need to be cognizant of the relationship between classroom behavior and other variables and the student's reading skills. This awareness will enable them to develop an educational program which meets the needs of all students.

1

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a relationship between selected reading skills of stu­dents in regular third grade classes and selected variables including observable classroom behavior, sex, race and socioeconomic background.

The null hypotheses were stated as follows:1. There is no significant correlation between

reading skills as indicated by the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (Red Level) and selected observable classroom behaviors of students as indicated by a behavior score derived from a modified version of the Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale.

Reading skills indicated by the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test include:

a. auditory vocabularyb. auditory discriminationc. phonetic analysisd. word readinge. reading comprehensionSpecific observable classroom behavior factors indi­

cated by a modified version of the Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale included:

a. classroom disturbanceb. impatiencec. disrespect-defianced. achievement anxietye . comprehens ionf. inattentive-withdrawn

3

g. other (a cluster that includes three behaviors which are not part of a common factor). They are:1. student is unable to change from one task

to another,2. student is likely to quit or give up when

the task demands more than usual effort, and

3. student completes his work slowly.2. There is no significant correlation between the

Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and behavior scores for boys*

3. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and behavior scores for girls.

4. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and behavior scores for high socioeconomic background students.

5. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and behavior scores for low socioeconomic background students *

6. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and behavior scores for Blacks.

7. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and behavior scores for Non-Black students.

IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY

Until recently, it was believed by the general public and some educators that one of the primary indicators of reading difficulty for many children was intelligence. Researchers, in the areas of both education and psychology, however, have now concluded that student behaviors, as well as other factors, also play an important part in the acquisi­tion and retention of academic skills (Harper, Guidubaldi and Kehle, 1978).

The importance of this present study lies in assisting the classroom teacher to ascertain which specific reading skills are affected by a child's classroom behavior when combined with other variables including race, sex and socioeconomic background. If specific behaviors are related to academic achievement, and, if the influence of the behaviors in combination with the other variables can be determined, interventions may be designed to enable the child to increase his academic skills in all areas.

This study will also add knowledge in the area of child psychology. One aspect of child psychology is con­cerned with behavior problems and how these problems, in conjunction with other variables, affect the child psycho­logically and academically. In the future, educators and psychologists may be able to make objective predictions about reading achievement, reading difficulties and other academic abilities on the basis of behavorial observations.

5

DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This study was confined to 86 third grade students in ten randomly chosen schools in the East Baton Rouge Parish School System, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, during the 1980-81 school term. All students so designated by required test scores and who remained in the school for the duration of the stated observation and testing time were included. A student must have had a minimum of 54 minutes of the total 60 minutes of direct observation to have been included in this study.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Behavior: Behavior will be defined as observableovert actions exhibited by the student in the classroom.

Title I School: A school within a given schooldistrict in which the average percentage of children deter­mined eligible for free lunch assistance in the given district was 37 percent. This percentage was based on 1979- 80 school lunch form data.

Low Socioeconomic Children: Children attending aTitle I school.

High Socioeconomic Children: Children who do notattend a Title I school.

Attending: Doing what is appropriate in anacademic situation.

6

PROCEDURE

Students for this study were chosen from ten elementary schools in the East Baton Rouge Parish Public School System. In order to obtain students from all socioeconomic levels, a list of all elementary schools within the school system was divided into two groups - Title I schools and non-Title I schools. The names of five schools were drawn from each group. The five Title I schools were Beechwood Elementary, Dalton Elementary,Harding Elementary, Progress Elementary and Wyandotte Elementary. The five non-Title I schools included Brown- fields Elementary, Greenbrier Elementary, Mayfair Elemen­tary, Wedgewood Elementary and Westminister Elementary.

Children from third grade classes in these selected schools were used for this study. Research has shown that most behavior problems manifest themselves during a child's elementary grades (Miller, Hampe, Barrett and Noble, 1971; Werry and Quay, 1971). Third grade classes were selected because research has also shown the greatest instability in behavior occurs among students in the seven to nine year old group (Peterson, 1961). In the event that a teacher or school did not wish to participate in this study, another school from the same group (either Title I or non-Title I) was chosen. In some schools two classes were observed, in other schools only one class was observed. The number of classes observed in a school was dependent upon the number of third grade classes in that particular school.

This study began the fourth week (September 8, 1980) of the 1980-81 school year. The study was begun after school had been in session for three weeks in order that classroom routines could be established. Nine weeks were needed for data collection for the entire research project, therefore, the study ended on November 7, 1981.

Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test was admin­istered to all students in each chosen classroom by this researcher and an assistant. These test booklets contained only the first name, initial of last name, race and sex of the student. This information was needed for further grouping of the students and for identifying purposes.

Once the test was administered, test booklets were given to two volunteer classroom teachers for scoring purposes. These teachers' classrooms and/or students were not connected with this study. Once scoring was completed, this researcher was given 10 separate lists of students to be observed grouped by individual schools and teachers. The names on each of the individual lists were those of students whose composite raw scores placed them in a range either below 160, or above 201. These score limits represent the cutoff points which would place a student in either the bottom three or the upper three stanines of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. Only those students who scored within the given raw score range were observed, but neither the students nor the classroom teachers were aware of which students were being observed. In addition, the observers

had no knowledge as to whether the student to be observed had scored in the top or bottom one-third of the test.

Before beginning observations, the trained observer received instruction by the researcher in (1) meaning of each behavior on the checklist, (2) meanings of the abbre­viated checklist items, and (3) observation techniques to be used in this study. Tests using actual video taped class­room situations were conducted on observations done by this researcher and the assistant to ensure inter-rater reli­ability of 85 percent agreement. The trained observer was a recently retired school teacher from the East Baton Rouge Parish School System, with over 30 years teaching experience.

Before actual classroom observation began, each classroom teacher gave to the observers a class schedule indicating the time during the day when reading instruction would occur. The classroom teacher was also given a sche­dule of observation times.

Classroom observations were conducted during the reading instructional period for five consecutive days.Both observers obtained two, three-minute daily observations per student. Tally marks for each observed behavior were placed on a checksheet during each three-minute observational interval.

Total observation time was 60 minutes per student. Any student with less than 54 minutes of observation time was eliminated from the study.

9

A raw score for each of the six behavior categories and the three additional behavioral items was derived by using the total number of tally marks obtained during the 60 minute observation period. Addition of the six raw scores plus the three additional behaviors yielded a composite raw score; this became the behavior score for each particular student.

Statistical data using raw scores for the individual subtests was compiled to obtain the Pearson product moment coefficient of correlation between the behavior scores of the students and the five individual subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. Correlations were also determined using the "Pearson r" formula to test other hypotheses posed in the study. All coefficients of corre­lation were tested at the .05 level of significance.

ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE STUDY

The remainder of this study is organized into four chapters. A review of related literature is summarized in Chapter 2; the experimental procedure and sources of data are described in Chapter 3; and Chapter 4 presents an analysis of the data collected. Chapter 5 offers summaries, conclu­sions and recommendations for future study related to the information gained from this research.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Reading skills are influenced by many variables such as intelligence, language and readiness. The interactions of these variables may cause a student to become a high achiever or a low achiever in reading. These variables can also influence achievement in other academic areas. The purpose of this chapter was to discuss literature that is related to reading skills in terms of observable behavior and other variables including race, sex and socioeconomic background. Studies published prior to 1970 will not be cited except for those with historical significance or for which subsequent studies were based. The literature will focus on the following topics:

1. variables that influence the acquisition of reading skills;

2. behavioral categories which have been shown to be significantly related to achievement; and

3. other variables that influence achievement (including sex, socioeconomic background, race and intelligence).

VARIABLES THAT INFLUENCE THE ACQUISITION OF READING SKILLS

Reading is a multifaceted process. At one stage, the major performances may be visual discrimination among forms and words, and the learning of sufficient common words

1 0

to enable the reader to begin the true act of reading.Later, the process may shift to one involving a number of thinking processes -- recalling, interpreting, judging, evaluating. During both of these states, the reader's success is conditioned by such factors as his language development, his readiness for the school's objectives as determined by his home background, and the accuracy of his perceptual behaviors in both visual and auditory discrimi­nation (Spache and Spache, 1977).

One view of reading is that of skills development. Gray (1960) describes reading in these words:

The reader directs his attention to the printed page with his mind intent on meaning. He reacts to each word with a group of mental associations regarding the word form, its meaning and its sound. With the aid of these associations, he discriminates this word from all others, also using clues of general configuration, distinc­tive characteristics of the shape, some of the letters or syllables and the implications of the sense of pattern of the sentence. Thus the process begins with word recognition.A student's ability or inability to acquire the

necessary skills needed for reading is influenced by anumber of variables. These variables might be classified associoeconomic, psychological, educational and physical(Ekwall, 1976).

Socioeconomic FactorsSocioeconomic factors usually studied that relate to

the acquisition of reading skills include the presence of a father in the home, ethnic background, social relationships,

economic levels, dialect, sibling relationships, parent- sibling relationships and the presence of books or stimulating reading material in the home. Extensive research has been done in many of these areas.

Deutsch (1967) studied family relationships in­cluding broken homes where the father was not present in the home. He stated that ..."intact homes are more crowded than broken ones, although children from intact homes do better in scholastic achievement... Apparently, who lives in the home is more important than how many."

A recent study tends to contradict parts of Deutsch's (1967) research. Baumer-Mullory (1977), found no positive relationship between reading achievement and the presence or absence of a father in the home. This research also indi­cated that there was also no positive relationship between reading achievement and the number of siblings present in the home or the child's ordinal position in the family.

Research by Cousert (1978), Perry (1978), and Karlin (1978), indicate that parental attitude, involvement and the personal reading habits of mothers and fathers have a positive relationship upon the reading achievement of their children. The more parents read at home, the better their children will read.

Studies by Rystom (1968), Labov (1969), Cohen and Cooper (1972), and more recently Schwartz (1978), and McPhail (1979), in studying reading and dialect, have

13

stressed that dialectical differences of disadvantaged readers are not a hindering factor in learning to read.

Research conducted by Belchev (1973) tends to contradict the above mentioned studies. Her findings suggest that in addition to such factors as intelligence, social adjustment, sensory disorders and environment, Black English dialect may contribute to reading failure of dis­advantaged black students.

Dialectical differences of the disadvantaged may not hinder the acquisition of necessary reading skills, but other factors inherent in being a member of a disadvantaged minority do influence reading skills and reading achieve­ment. A report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights (1971) found that there was a two-to-one ratio of below average reading achievement for students of minority groups. This report emphasizes the importance of ethnic background and its social ramifications on the acquisition of reading skills.

A study of Friutt (1979), supports the above mentioned Commission report. Fruitt found that the first grade students in upper middle socioeconomic groups and middle socioeconomic groups achieve significantly higher than do students in the low socioeconomic group.

Research has found that good listeners rated higher than poor listeners on intelligence, reading, socioeconomic status and achievement. Children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were at a distinct disadvantage in learning to

14

read because their language patterns interfered with the comprehension of both oral and written material. Econom­ically disadvantaged preschool students were found to possess a significant deficiency in auditory discrimination (Cheek and Cheek, 1980).

Ekwall (1976) states that studies dealing with the relationship of reading ability and such factors as the number of books found in the home or between reading ability and the amount of time childrens' parents spend reading are of little value in furnishing one with information concern­ing contribution of these factors in reading achievement, because of other intervening factors. Cousert (1978), Perry (1978) and Karlin's (1978) research tend to go beyond Ekwalls work and begins to give some information concerning the contribution of these factors in reading achievement.

Psychological FactorsA number of studies have been conducted to determine

the relationship of various psychological factors to the acquisition of reading skills. Among psychological factors often studied are various emotional problems, intelligence and self-concept. It should be stressed that all of these factors are highly interrelated so that it becomes difficult to completely separate them for isolated study.

Harris (1970) reports that of several hundred cases of reading disability seen in the Queens College Educational Clinic during a fifteen year period, close to 100 percent

15

showed some kind of maladjustment. Harris reports that emotional maladjustment (acting out behavior) was a causal factor in about 50 percent of the cases in this group.

A number of research studies have been done to determine the relationship between reading achievement and intelligence (Harris, 1963; Ames and Walker, 1964; Spache and Spache 1969, 1977, Miller et al., 1971; and Hobbs, 1975). Harris (1963) indicates that the correlation between reading and individual verbal intelligence tests, such as the Stanford-Binet, tends to be in the neighborhood of .60 to .70. However, as children enter the middle grades and begin to take group intelligence tests that are more verbally oriented, the correlations may range from .70 to .85.

Miller and his associates (1971) found a negative correlation between intelligence and academic disability scores. These findings led the authors to speculate that much disturbed behavior in childhood "may be linked to scholastic failures resulting from an incompatibility between children of lower intelligence and the modern educational system."

Spache and Spache (1977) point out that the IQ is a fairly good predictor of reading ability for children with extremely high IQ's or for children who are mentally retarded. An important point to remember is that many children with low IQ's become good readers and many children with medium and high IQ's become disabled readers. There­fore, the IQ should only be considered in conjunction with other factors.

16

Pryor (1975) states that changing a poor reader's self-concept by bolstering his feelings about himself is the first step toward improving his academic problem. A study by Cohn and Kornelly (1970) has shown that a significantly positive relationship does exist between reading achievement and self-concept.

Other studies including those by Caselli (1977), Claytor (1978), and Vereen (1980) tend to collaborate Cohn and Kornelly's (1970) research. Akande (1979) found that the above average reading group in his research scored significantly higher in self-concept than did the below average group in reading achievement on all ten subscales of the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale. Not only is a poor reader's self-concept lower than a good reader's, but McMichael (1980) has done research indicating that poor readers are less popular than good readers.

Educational FactorsTeachers' personalities, methods of teaching

reading, materials available and class size are just some of the educational factors that influence the acquisition of reading skills. A 1972 study by Clary determined that there were four characteristics possessed by teachers that predict successful reading instructions. The four variables included teacher personality, knowledge of reading, years of experience and number of years since the last reading course

17

taken. The best combination of predictors was personality and knowledge.

Many children may fail to acquire the necessary reading skills because of the particular teaching method employed. Reading skills are taught using many methods and approaches such as; the basal reader approach, the indi­vidualized reading approach, the diagnostic-prescriptive approach, the linguistic approach, the language experience approach and various multi-sensory approaches. Teachers need to determine which approach best suits the need of a particular student. Research by Jorgenson et al. (1977), stresses the need for children to be taught reading with materials whose level of difficulty are approximately matched to their level of ability.

Regardless of the factors that influence the acquisi­tion of reading skills, studies have indicated that reading achievement is a stable characteristic. Bloom's (1964) study on the stability and change of reading achievement has since been corroborated by a more recent one by Stevenson et al., (1976). These researchers have reported that by the third grade reading performance was sufficiently stable so that relatively little change in level of performance could be expected later. An underlying assumption has usually been that without remediation, low achievers in reading will remain poor readers (Belmont and Belmont, 1978).

18

SummaryAccording to researchers, the acquisition of reading

skills is influenced by the following factors: socioeconomic,psychological (including intelligence and self-concept) and educational. Research in these areas tended to be varied.The inter-relationship of the above mentioned variables was found to be significant in determining which group of children would acquire the necessary reading skills that would enable him to become a proficient reader.

BEHAVIORAL CATEGORIES RELATED TO ACHIEVEMENT

For the purpose of this study, behavior will be defined as observable overt actions exhibited by the student in the classroom which influences the student's academic progress in either a positive or negative manner. A considerable amount of research by educators and psycholo­gists suggest a predictive relationship between classroom behavior and academic achievement. Direct observation and teacher ratings have been shown to be a highly effective means of assessing classroom behaviors that have predictive significance. Generally, studies have shown moderate positive correlations (.30 to .50) for task-oriented atten­tive behaviors with achievement and similar negative corre­lations for non-attentive and disruptive behaviors (Luce and Hoge, 1978; Cobb, 1972, 1973; Werry and Quay, 1969;Lahaderne, 1968).

iy

Swift and Spivack (1968) , developed twelve behavior factors which were found to be significantly related to academic progress. Factors 7 and 10 were positively corre­lated with achievement; all of the others were negatively related to achievement. The twelve factors are:

1. Classroom Disturbance2. Impatience3. Disrespective - Defiance4. External Blame5. Achievement Anxiety6. External Reliance7. Comprehension8. Inattentive - Withdrawn9. Irrelevant Responsiveness

10. Creative - Initiative11. Need for Closeness to Teacher12. Need Achievement RecognitionCobb (1972) found that "attending" and "non-attending"

were behaviors that correlated with academic progress. Withdrawn behaviors was identified as a behavior problem by Galvin and Annesley (1979) and Galvin and DeGiralamo,(1970).

The Behavior Problem Checklist (Quay and Peterson, 1975) is concerned with the three primary behavior dimen­sions which they have found are related to student achieve­ment. These dimensions include:

1. Conduct disorders (child is disruptive, uncooperative, etc.),

2. Personality disorder (child is anxious, with­drawn etc.), and

3. Inadequacy - immaturity (child is passive, has short attention span, etc.).

20

In a study by McKinney, Mason, Perkerson and Clif­ford (1975), the prediction of academic achievement from intelligence test scores was significantly improved when certain classroom behaviors were added to the prediction formula. McKinney and associates, employing multiple- regression procedures, generated regression equations using the frequencies of twelve behaviors (including attending, constructive play, distractibility, gross motor activity, social interaction, dependency aggression, teacher inter­action, constructive self-directed activity, task-oriented interaction, non-constructive activity, and passive responding) to predict the academic achievement of ninety second grade children. The prediction of achievement using only these behaviors results in final multiple R's ranging from .51 to .63. When intelligence as well as behavior predictors were used in the regression equations, the predictions were substantially better than when intelligence scores alone were used.

Cobb (1972) found that there was a positive corre­lation between certain discrete classroom behaviors to academic achievement in fourth graders. Students were observed in two schools for 9 days during arithmetic periods. From observations of children's behavior and arithmetic scores, Cobb was able to predict scores for reading and spelling. Findings indicated that children who were "attending" (doing what is appropriate in an academic situation) were found to have higher arithmetic scores than

Z1

the non-attending students. The hypothesis that behaviors observed in arithmetic would be predictive of success in reading and spelling received support in this study. A positive relationship was also found between measures of a student's attention and scores on achievement and intelli­gence test in 6th grade students (Lahaderne, 1968).

Samuels and Turnure (1974) replicated Lahaderne's study in Grade 1 hoping to determine whether attentiveness was related to academic achievement (i.e., reading prior to the effects of long term success/failure school experiences). In addition, the study was designed to determine if the ex­pected superior reading achievement of girls was related to observed attentiveness in the classroom. In this study, it was found that girls were significantly superior in class­room attentiveness as well. It was also found that in­creasing degrees of attention were related to superior word recognition. Thus, like Lahaderne, and more recently Cobb and Hops (1973), it was found that overt task-relevant orienting behavior was related to scholastic achievement; furthermore, this relationship was obtained in beginning reading before a long history of academic failure had been established.

The relationship of classroom behavior to academic achievement among higher and lower achieving elementary school children was examined by Soli and Devine (1976). Classroom behavior of 312 third and fourth grade students

was observed during math and verbal skills instruction and coded into discrete categories using the same method as Cobb(1972). The results from the different academic settings and achievement groups supports researchers original hypo­thesis that behavior and achievement share a stable rela­tionship in different academic settings, but not among different classroom groups formed solely on the basis of achievement levels.

The results from the separate achievement groups support the second part of the researchers original hypo­thesis that achievement and behavior related differently among high and low achievers. In the high group, task- oriented behavior such as interacting with both the teacher and peers about academic matters was most predictive, while in the low group the absence of inappropriate behavior such as playing during class and neglecting to pay attention was most predictive. The second hypothesis, that achievement is more behavior related among low achievers, was also supported.

The purpose of a study by Lindholm, Touliatos and Rich (1979) was to examine the relationship between behavior problems and school achievement. Three hypotheses were tested. First, behavior problems are negatively associated with school achievement. Second, certain kinds of behavior problems are negatively correlated with particular types of school achievement and are not correlated with others.

Third, the relationship between behavior problems and school achievement vary for different grades, sexes and races. Subjects were 971 elementary school children. Measures were the Behavior Problem Checklist and the California Achieve­ment Tests.

The hypotheses were only partially confirmed.Results indicated a generally negative correlation between the measures that varied with grade, sex and race, indicating that children with behavior problems do less well on school achievement tests. For the behavior problems, the inadequacy-immaturity dimension contributed the most to the statistical relation, and socialized delinquency contributed the least. For the school achievement tests, mathematics typically contributed more. These findings suggested that the degree of association between certain behavior problems and certain areas of school achievement vary for different grades, sexes and races.

Research by Lambert and Urbanski (1980) concluded that behavior associated with their adaptation dimension (difficulty in following directions, difficulty learning school subjects, no enthusiasm for school, does not respond to or maintain interest in learning tasks, is overly dependent on teacher for choice of activity and becomes uneasy without continued supervision) are related to academic success. The adaptation dimension defines traits that other investigators consider to be a prerequisite to successful learning (Hewlett, 1968). These findings are

consistent with those of Lambert and Nicoll (1977) who reported that these behaviors are significantly related to reading achievement and accounted for more variance in reading achievement than did measures of cognitive func­tioning. Supporting these conclusions are the results of the Khon and Rosman (1974) study, where the task orientation dimension was the best predictor for reading and arithmetic achievement in second grade boys.

Lambert and Urbanski?s (1980) study found that the interpersonal dimension (gets into fights or quarrels often, behaves in ways which are dangerous to self or others, or is easily distracted) and intrapersonal dimension (seems unhappy or depressed, makes immature or inappropriate responses during normal school activities, becomes sick or upset when faced with a difficult problem or situation, has to be coaxed or forced to play or work with others) in the behavior typology group did not appear to influence reading and mathematics achievement.

SummaryA considerable amount of research has accumulated

suggesting a predictive relationship between classroom behavior and academic achievement. Generally, studies have shown moderate positive correlations for task-oriented attentive behavior with achievement and similar negative correlations for non-attentive and disruptive behaviors.

OTHER VARIABLES THAT INFLUENCE ACHIEVEMENT

SexBoys and girls differ in their classroom behavior

and achievement. Many studies show that boys are more aggressive and presumably more difficult to manage and that the academic performance of boys in American elementary schools is lower than that of girls. Some data suggest that male aggressiveness and poor achievement are highly corre­lated (Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974).

Research by Brophy and Good (1970), and Good et al.,(1973) has shown that boys exhibit more negative behavior in the classroom than girls. This tendency for problem behavior to be more prevalent in boys was also observed in studies done by Miller et al. (1971) and Werry and Quay (1971).

Lahaderne (1968) and Samuels and Turnure (1974) found that sex did not have an effect on the behavior - achievement relations, while a number of other investigators have found support for such a hypothesis. Cobb (1970), for example, found a higher correlation between behavior and achievement for boys than for girls, and he also reported that different behaviors entered regression equations differently for the two sexes. Lahaderne and Jackson (1970) reported significant relations between frequency of pro­hibitory interactions and achievement for boys, but no significant relations in the case of girls. Perhaps the most interesting set of findings in this area has been reported by Good et. al. (1973). Those researchers reported

Zb

a number of significant sex-by-achievement interactions such that frequencies of certain teacher - pupil interactions varied as a function of both sex and achievement level.They interpreted the statistical interactions in terms of a quality of interaction dimension, with high - achieving boys enjoying the highest quality interactions, and high - and low - achieving girls at intermediate points on the dimen­sion (Hoge and Luce, 1979). Research by Samuels and Turnure(1974) found that superior reading in girls was positively correlated with classroom attentiveness, whereas boys were less attentive and had lower reading scores.

Socioeconomic Background and RaceA study by Cobb (1970) contains suggestions that

socioeconomic status may function as a variable in studying academic skills. Cobb obtained evidence of social class differences with respect to frequencies of various behaviors, level of achievement, and relation between behaviors and achievement. Thus, regression equations for two socio­economic status were significantly different.

A report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights (1971) tends to emphasize the importance of a child's socioeconomic background and race on reading achievement.The Commission found, on the basis of information provided by school principals, that from 50 to 70 percent of Mexican American and Black students in the fourth, eighth and

z/

twelfth grades are reading below grade level. This approaches a two-to-one ratio of below average reading achievement students of minority groups.

Findings by Lindholm et al. (1979), suggested that the pattern of relationship between particular behavior problems and particular areas of school achievement varied for different grades, sexes and races. Further study on the relationship between academics and achievement, race and socioeconomic background is heeded.

IntelligenceIQ constitutes still another possible variable,

though the role of IQ in the behavior - achievement relation is likely more complex than is the case with previously dis­cussed variables. There have been countless demonstrations of relations between IQ scores and achievement, and there are suggestions of relations between IQ and and classroom behavior. Lahaderne (1968) has shown significant positive relations between attention scores and IQ. The question here is whether or not behavior and IQ contribute inde­pendently to achievement or whether some more complex relationship exists between the variables.

Both Lahaderne (1968) and Luce and Hoge (1978) showed that the partialling out of IQ scores reduced the magnitude of correlations between classroom behavior measures and achievement. The outcomes of regression analysis from the Firestone and Brody (1975) and McKinney et

al. (1975) studies showed that behavioral data contribute to the prediction independently of IQ. The precise nature of the contribution of IQ is difficult to determine from those analyses.

The most direct demonstration that IQ may function as a variable in the behavior - achievement relationship was found in the Spaulding and Papageorgiou (1972) study. Those researchers reported that negative relations were obtained between their index of ideal classroom behavior and achieve­ment for low - IQ subjects. That is the reverse of the relation obtained for middle - and high - IQ subjects.

SummaryOther variables in addition to a child's behavior

influence his academic achievement. These variables included sex, socioeconomic background and race, and intelligence.

Research studies have shown that boys exhibit more behavior problems than girls and that there is a significant correlation between behavior and academic achievement. Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and those with lower intelligence also have lower academic achievement.

SUMMARY

Research has indicated that there is a correlation between a child's classroom behavior and his academic achievement. The correlation is clear - if a child is not

attentive in class, or has other behavioral problems such as acting out or withdrawing, then his academic achievement will usually be lower than that of the child who does not exhibit these problems.

The primary behavior factors affecting academic achievement are: (1) withdrawal, (2) immaturity, (3)conduct problems, and (4) inattentiveness. Research has also indicated that academic achievement in all subject matter areas and especially reading, must not be viewed only in terms of behavioral correlates, but that other variables including the sex of student, his race and socioeconomic background should be considered.

The factors identified above as potential variables do not, of course, exhaust the list of possibilities. Other pupil characteristics (intelligence, anxiety and need for achievement), other teacher characteristics (teaching style, sex), and other characteristics of school undoubtedly play roles in behavior - achievement relations (Hoge and Luce, 1979). Further research is needed in the area of behavior and achievement with special emphasis on specifying which academic areas are influenced more by a child's behavior and other variables.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURE

The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a relationship between selected reading skills of students in regular third grade classes and selected vari­ables including observable classroom behavior, sex, race and socioeconomic background. The students were selected from ten randomly selected elementary schools in East Baton Rouge Parish, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. This study was conducted for nine weeks during the fall semester of the 1980-81 school year.

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The experimental design of this study was descriptive research using the Pearson product moment coefficient of correlation. This procedure was used to determine the correlations between the behavior scores of the students in terms of other variables including race, sex and socio­economic level, and the five individual subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test.

DESCRIPTION OF TEST INSTRUMENTS

One instrument used in this study was the Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale. This scale groups behavior into 11 categories of overt problem behavior which experienced teachers have judged as being related to class­

30

JJ.

room achievement (Spivack and Swift, 1967). As a research device, it measures behavior occurring in a classroom setting.

The scale measures 47 behaviors which are put into 11 categories. It also measures three additional behaviors that are not a part of one of the categories, but which relate to classroom behavior. For observation purposes of this study, only six of the 11 categories plus the three additional behaviors entitled "other" were used for a total of 26 observable behaviors. The six categories and the behaviors included in each were:

1. Classroom Disturbancea. student needs to be reprimanded or

controlled by the teacherb. student teases classmatesc. student annoys or interferes with work or

his peersd. student is drawn in to talking or noise

making2. Impatience

a. student starts working before getting directions straight

b. student is sloppy in his workc. student is unwilling to go back over his

workd. student rushes through his work making

unnecessary mistakes3. Disrespect-Defiance

a. student speaks disrespectfully to teacherb. student acts defiantc. student makes derogatory remarks about

subject being taughtd. student breaks classroom rules

4. Achievement Anxietya. student gets openly disturbed about scores

on tests or worksheetsb. student is anxious about knowing the "right"

answersc. student is outwardly nervous when a test or

worksheet is givend. student is sensitive to criticism

5. Comprehensiona. student gets the point of what he reads or

hears in classb. student is able to apply what he has learnedc. student knows material when called upon to

recite in class6. Inattentive-Withdrawn

a. student quickly loses attention when teacher explains something to him

b. student makes one doubt whether he is paying attention to what you are doing or saying

c. student seems oblivious to what is going on in class

d. student is difficult to reach7. Other

a. student is unable to change from one task to another

b. student is likely to quit or give up when the task demands more than usual effort

c. student completes his work slowlyThese 26 behaviors were chosen because they repre­

sent a combination of frequently appearing behaviors found on other related checklists including those by Quay and Peterson (1975), and research by Cobb (1972).

A second instrument used in this study was the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. This is a test which measures the major skills included in the reading process. The primary purpose of this test is to diagnose pupils' strengths and weaknesses in reading. The Red Level is

33

designed for use at the end of grade 1, in grade 2, and with low achieving pupils in grade 3 and succeeding grades. The Red Level has been normed for grades 1.6 through 3.5.Median split half reliabilities for Red Level are .94 and .93 for grades three and four, respectively (Kasdon, 1972). The test measures the following reading skills:

1. auditory discrimination2. phonetic analysis3. auditory vocabulary4. word recognition and5. comprehension of short sentences and

paragraphs

SELECTION OF SUBJECTS

Students for this study were chosen from elementary schools in East Baton Rouge Parish. Ten schools were used in the study. The ten schools were Beechwood Elementary, Brownfields Elementary, Dalton Elementary, Greenbrier Elementary, Harding Elementary, Mayfair Elementary, Progress Elementary, Wedgewood Elementary, Westminister Elementary and Wyandotte Elementary. In order to obtain students from all socioeconomic levels, a list of all elementary schools within the school system was divided into two groups - Title I schools and non-Title I schools. A Title I school was a school within the given school district in which the average percentage of children eligible for the free lunch assis­tance was 37 percent. This percentage was based on 1979-80 school lunch form data. The names of five schools were drawn from each group. Title I schools were Beechwood

Elementary, Dalton Elementary, Harding Elementary, Progress Elementary and Wyandotte Elementary. Non-Title I schools included Brownfields Elementary, Greenbrier Elementary, Mayfair Elementary, Wedgewood Elementary and Westminister Elementary. The list of schools received approval from the East Baton Rouge Parish School System. Approval was neces­sary in order that this study would not interfere with on­going Title I research studies.

Three hundred thirty-four (334) students were tested using the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. Of these, 100 were chosen for observation purposes. During the course of the study, 14 students were dropped because of insufficient observation time. This study was then concerned with 86 students.

COLLECTION OF DATA

The Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test was adminstered by this researcher and an assistant to all students in each chosen classroom during the period of September 8-19, 1980. The assistant was a retired East Baton Rouge Parish School teacher. The test booklets contained only the first name, initial of last name, race and sex of the student. These items on the test booklet were needed in order to distin­guish the booklets for research data collection purposes.

Once the test was adminstered, test booklets were given to two volunteer teachers for scoring purposes. These teachers' classrooms and/or students were not connected with

J3

this study. Once scoring was completed, this researcher was given 10 separate lists of students to be observed grouped by individual schools and teachers. The names on each of the individual lists were those of students whose composite raw scores placed them in a range either below 160, or above 201. These score limits represent the cutoff points which would place a student in either the bottom three or the upper three stanines of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. Only those students who scored within the given raw score range were observed, but neither the students nor the class­room teachers were aware of which students are being observed. The observers had no knowledge as to whether the student to be observed had scored in the top or bottom one- third of the test.

Classroom observations were conducted only during the reading instruction period. Before beginning observa­tions , the trained observer received instruction by the researcher in (1) meaning of each behavior on the checklist, (2) meanings of the abbreviated checklist items, and (3) observation techniques to be used in this study. Tests using actual video taped classroom situations were conducted on observations done by this researcher and the assistant to ensure inter-rater reliability of 85 percent agreement. The trained observer is a recently retired school teacher from the East Baton Rouge Parish School System, with over 30 years teaching experience.

Before actual classroom observations began, each classroom teacher gave to the observers a class schedule

JO

indicating the time during the day when reading instruction would occur. The classroom teacher was also given a schedule of observation times.

Actual classroom observations occurred for five consecutive days during the reading period until each observer had obtained two, three-minute daily observations per student. Each student was observed for three minutes and tally marks for each observed behavior were placed on the checksheet. A stop watch was used to determine the intervals. After a one minute break, the observer then watched another student for three minutes until every student had been observed. Then the sequence of students observations was begun again for the second set of three- minute observations. The two observers observed in the same school at the same time. One observer observed and tallied at one time during the reading period, the other observed and tallied at another time during the period. The sequence of student observed rotated from one observation session to another. When there was only one classroom in the school to be observed, the students were observed on a random basis by the two observers.

Total observation time was 60 minutes per student. Any student with less than 54 minutes of observation time was eliminated from the study.

A raw score for the 26 behaviors observed was derived by using the total number of tally marks obtained during the 60 minute observation period. Addition of the

six raw scores plus the three additional behaviors yielded a composite raw score; this became the behavior score for each particular student.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DATA

Statistical data derived from raw scores from the individual subtests were compiled to obtain the Pearson product moment coefficient of correlation between the behavior scores of the students and the five individual subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. In order to eliminate negative numbers encountered with some of the behavior scores, the number 50 was added to each of the behavior scores. Correlations were determined using the "Pearson r" formula to test the hypotheses stated in the study. All coefficients of correlation were tested at the .05 level of significance. Coefficients of correlations were obtained between the following:

Behavior scores and1. auditory vocabulary subtest scores2. auditory discrimination subtest scores3. phonetic analysis subtest scores4. word reading subtest scores5. reading comprehension subtest scores for

the following groups:

38

1. all students2. for girls3. for boys4. for low socioeconomic students5. for higher socioeconomic students6. for Black students7. for Non-Black students

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this chapter was to present and analyze the data relative to the relationship between selected reading skills of students in regular third grade classes and selected variables including observable class­room behavior, sex, race and socioeconomic background. Included in the study were 86 children from ten elementary schools in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. All students were tested and observed over a nine week period.

The following null hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of significance:

1. There is no significant correlation between reading skills as indicated by the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (Red Level) and selected observable classroom behaviors of students as indicated by a behavior score derived from a modified version of the Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale.

2. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and the behavior scores for boys.

3. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and behavior scores for girls.

39

4. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and behavior scores for higher socioeconomic background students.

5. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and behavior scores for lower socioeconomic background students.

6. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and behavior scores for Black students.

7. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and behavior scores for Non-Black students.

In order to adequately test the hypotheses presented in this study, students were divided into the following sub­groups: race (Black and Non-Black), sex (boys and girls)and socioeconomic background (high and low). The five reading subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test were: auditory vocabulary, auditory discrimination, phoneticanalysis, word reading and reading comprehension.

Statistical data using raw scores on the individual subtests were compiled to obtain the Pearson product moment coefficient of correlation between the behavior scores of the students and the five individual subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. Correlations were determined using the "Pearson r" formula and the above mentioned subgroups. All correlations were tested for

4-1

significance at the .05 level. An analysis of the corre­lation was presented through the use of tables.

ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR ALL STUDENTS

The purpose of this section was to test hypothesis 1 as stated: There is no significant correlation betweenreading skills as indicated by the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (Red Level) and selected observable classroom behavior of students as indicated by a behavior score derived from a modified version of the Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale. Correlation coefficients for the various reading subtests for the group ranged from -.20 to -.37 (Table 1).

TABLE 1

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN READING SKILLS SUBTESTS AND BEHAVIOR SCORES FOR ALL 86 STUDENTS

Subtest Correlation

Auditory Vocabulary -.35*Auditory Discrimination -.29*Phonetic Analysis -.37*Word Reading -.20Reading Comprehension -.30*

* Significant at the .05 level.

SummaryCorrelation coefficients for all students ranged

from -.20 to -.37. Eighty six students were in this group. Correlations were significant at the .05 level for the reading subtests including auditory vocabulary, auditory discrimination, phonetic analysis and reading comprehension and the students' behavior scores. There was no significant correlation between the reading subtest word reading and the students' behavior scores. The null hypothesis was rejected at the .05 level for students on four of the five reading subtests. The negative correlations indicated that a high behavior score was usually related to lower achievement.

ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR SEX

The purpose of this section was to test hypotheses 2 and 3 as stated: There is no significant correlationbetween the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and behavior scores for girls and for boys. Correlation coeffi­cients for the various reading subtests for this subgroup ranged from -.33 to -.56 for girls (Table 2), and from -.03 to -.35 for boys (Table 3).

43

TABLE 2

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN READING SKILLS SUBTESTS AND BEHAVIOR SCORES FOR 35 GIRLS

Subtest Correlation

Auditory Vocabulary -.44*Auditory Discrimination -.52*Phonetic Analysis -.56*Word Reading -.42*Reading Comprehension -.33*

* Significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 3

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN READING SKILLS SUBTESTS AND BEHAVIOR SCORES FOR 51 BOYS

Subtest Correlation

Auditory Vocabulary -.32*Auditory Discrimination -.24Phonetic Analysis -.35*Word Reading -.03Reading Comprehension -.25

* Significant at the .05 level.

44

SummaryCorrelation coefficients for girls ranged from -.33

to -.56. Thirty five students were in this subgroups. Correlations were significant at the .05 level between all reading subtests and behavior scores for girls. The null hypothesis was therefore rejected at the .05 level for girls. The negative correlations indicated that a high behavior score was usually related to lower achievement.

Correlation coefficients for boys ranged from -.03 to -.35. Fifty-one students were in this subgroup. Corre­lations were significant at the .05 level for the reading subtests including auditory vocabulary and phonetic analysis and the behavior scores of boys. There were no significant correlation between the reading subtests including auditory discrimination, word reading and reading comprehension and the behavior scores of boys. The null hypothesis was therefore rejected at the .05 level for boys on two of the five reading subtests.

ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND

Hypotheses 4 and 5 were tested in this section:There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and the behavior scores for higher and for lower socioeconomic background students. Correlation coefficients for the various reading subtests for these subgroups ranged from -.42 to -.71 for higher socioeconomic students (Table 4), to -.043 to a -.21 for lower socioeconomic students (Table 5).

45

TABLE 4

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN READING SKILLS SUBTESTS AND BEHAVIOR SCORES

OF 22 HIGHER SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND STUDENTS

Subtest Correlation

Auditory Vocabulary -.58*Auditory Discrimination -.53*Phonetic Analysis -.71*Word Reading -.47*Reading Comprehension -.42*

* Significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 5

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN READING SKILLS SUBTESTS AND BEHAVIOR SCORES

OF 64 LOWER SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND STUDENTS

Subtest Correlation

Auditory Vocabulary -.21Auditory Discrimination -.08Phonetic Analysis -.20Word Reading i • o

Reading Comprehension -.06

46

SummaryCorrelation coefficients for higher socioeconomic

background students ranged from -.42 to -.71. Twenty-two students were in this subgroup. Correlations were signifi­cant at the .05 level between all reading subtests and behavior scores for higher socioeconomic background stu­dents. The null hypothesis was therefore rejected at the .05 level for higher socioeconomic background students. The negative correlations indicated that a high behavior score was usually related to lower achievement.

Correlation coefficients for lower socioeconomic background students ranged from -.043 to -.21. Sixty-four students were in this subgroup. Correlations were not significant at the .05 level between any of the reading subtests and behavior score for lower socioeconomic back­ground students. The null hypothesis was therefore accepted at the .05 level for lower socioeconomic background students.

ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR RACE

The purpose of this section was to test hypotheses 6 and 7 as stated: There is no significant correlationbetween the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and behavior scores of Black and Non-Black students. Corre­lation coefficients for the various reading subtests and these subgroups ranged from -.03 to -.20 for Black students (Table 6) and from a -.56 to -.76 for Non-Black students (Table 7).

47

TABLE 6

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN READING SKILLS SUBTESTS AND BEHAVIOR SCORES OF 70 BLACK STUDENTS

Subtest Correlation

Auditory Vocabulary -.19Auditory Discrimination -.06Phonetic Analysis -.20Word Reading -.03Reading Comprehension -.05

TABLE 7

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN READING SKILLS SUBTESTS AND BEHAVIOR SCORES OF 16 NON-BLACK STUDENTS

Subtest Correlation

Auditory Vocabulary -.75*

Auditory Discrimination -.57*

Phonetic Analysis -.70*

Word Reading -.56*Reading Comprehension -.76*

* Significant at the .05 level.

SummaryCorrelation coefficients for Black students ranged

from -.03 to -.20. Seventy students were in this subgroup. Correlations were not significant at the .05 level between any of the reading subtests and the behavior scores for Black students. The null hypothesis was therefore accepted at the .05 level for Black students.

Correlation coefficients for Non-Black students ranged from a -.56 to -.76. Sixteen students were in this subgroup. Correlations were significant at the .05 level between all reading subtests and the behavior scores for Non-Black students. The null hypothesis was therefore rejected at the .05 level for Non-Black students.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

1. There were significant correlations between four of the five reading subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and the behavior scores for all students tested. The null hypothesis was rejected at .05 level for four of the five reading subtests.

2. There were significant correlations between all of the reading subtests scores of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and the behavior scores for girls. The null hypothesis was rejected.

49

3. There were significant correlations between two of the five reading subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and the behavior scores for boys. The null hypothesis was rejected for two of the five reading subtests.

4. There were significant correlations between all of the reading subtests scores of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and the behavior scores for higher socio­economic background students. The null hypothesis was rejected.

5. There were no significant correlations betweenany of the reading subtests scores of the Stanford DiagnosticReading Test and the behavior scores for lower socioeconomic background students. The null hypothesis was accepted.

6. There were no significant correlations betweenany of the reading subtests scores of the Stanford DiagnosticReading Test and the behavior scores for Black students.The null hypothesis was accepted.

7. There were significant correlations between all of the reading subtests scores of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and the behavior scores for Non-Black students. The null hypothesis was rejected.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a relationship between selected reading skills of stu­dents in regular third grade classes and selected variables including observable classroom behavior, sex, race and socioeconomic background. The study took place in ten elementary schools in East Baton Rouge Parish in Louisiana over a nine week period, beginning September 8, 1980.

Statement of the ProblemThe following null hypotheses were tested using the

.05 level of significance:1. There is no significant correlation between

reading skills as indicated by the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and selected observable classroom behaviors of students indicated by a behavior score derived from a modified version of the Devereux Elementary School Behavior Scale.

2. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and behavior scores for boys»

3. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test scores and behavior scores for girls.

50

4. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and behavioral scores for high socioeconomic background students.

5. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and behavioral scores for low socioeconomic background students*

6. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and the behavior scores for Black students.

7. There is no significant correlation between the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and the behavior scores for Non-Black students.

ProcedureStudents for this study were chosen from ten elementary

schools in the East Baton Rouge Parish School System. In order to obtain students from all socioeconomic levels, the list of elementary schools within the school system was divided into two groups - Title I schools and non-Title I schools. A Title I school is a school within a given school district in which the average percentage of children determined eligible for free lunch assistance in the given district is 37 percent. This percentage was based on the1979-80 school lunch form data. The names of five schools were drawn from each group. The five Title I schools were Beechwood Elementary, Dalton Elementary, Harding Elementary, Progress Elementary and Wyandotte Elementary. The five non- Title I schools included Brownfields Elementary, Greenbier

Elementary, Mayfair Elementary, Wedgewood Elementary and Westminister Elementary.

Children from third grade classes in these selected schools were used for this study. In the event that a teacher or school did not wish to participate in this study, another school from the same group (Title I or non-Title I) was chosen. In some schools two classes were observed, in other schools there was only one class observed.

This study began the fourth week (September 8, 1980) of the 1980-81 school year. The study was begun after school had been in session for three weeks in order that classroom routines could be established. Nine weeks were needed for data collection for the entire research project.

The Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test was admin­istered to all students in each chosen classroom by this researcher and an assistant. These test booklets contained only the first name, initial of last name, race and sex of the student. This information was needed for further grouping of the students and for identifying purposes.

Once the test was administered, test booklets were given to two volunteer classroom teachers for scoring purposes. These teachers1 classrooms and/or students were not connected with this study. Once scoring was completed, this researcher was given 10 separate lists of students to be observed grouped by individual schools and teachers. The names on each of the individual lists were those of students whose composite raw scores placed them in a range either

53

below 160, or above 201. These score limits represent the cutoff points which would place a student in either the bottom three or the upper three stanines of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. Only those students who scored within the given raw scores were observed, but neither the students nor the classroom teachers were aware of which students were being observed. In addition, the observers had no knowledge as to whether the student to be observed had scored in the top or bottom one-third of the test.

Classroom observations were conducted during the reading instructional period for five consecutive days.Both observers obtained two, three-minute daily observations per student. Tally marks for each observed behavior were placed on a checksheet during each three-minute observational period.

Total observation time was 60 minutes per student.Any student with less than 54 minutes of observation time was eliminated from the study.

A raw score for each of the six behavior categories and the three additional behavioral items was derived by using the total number of tally marks obtained during the 60 minute observation period. Addition of the six raw scores plus the three additional behaviors yielded a composite raw score; this became the behavior score for each particular student.

Statistical data using raw scores for the individual subtests was compiled to obtain the Pearson product moment

54

coefficient of correlation between the behavior scores of the students and the five individual subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. Correlations were also determined using the "Pearson r" formula to test other hypotheses posed in the study. All coefficients of corre­lation were tested at the .05 level of significance.

The experimental design of this study was descrip­tive research using the Pearson product moment coefficient of correlation to determine the correlations between the behavior scores of the students in terms of other variables including race, sex and socioeconomic level, and the five individual subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test.

Analysis of DataIn order to adequately test the hypotheses, the

students were divided into the following subgroups: race(Black and Non-Black), sex (boys and girls) and socio­economic background (higher and lower). The five reading subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test were: auditory vocabulary, auditory discrimination, phonetic analysis, word reading and comprehension.

Statistical data using raw scores of the individual subtests was compiled to obtain the Pearson product moment coefficient of correlation between the behavior scores of the students and the five individual subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. Correlations were deter­mined using the "Pearson r" formula and the above mentioned

55

subgroups. All correlations were tested for significance at the .05 level. An analysis of the correlations were presented through the use of tables.

This study was confined to 86 third grade students in ten randomly chosen schools in the East Baton Rouge Parish School System, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, during the1980-81 school term. All students so designated and who remained in the school for the duration of the stated observation time and testing period were included. A student must have had a minimum of 54 to 60 minutes of direct observation to have been included in this study.

FindingsThe findings for the study were listed below:1. There were significant correlations between four

of the five reading subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and the behavior scores for all students tested. The null hypothesis was rejected at .05 level for four of the five reading subtests.

2. There were significant correlations between all of the reading subtests scores of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and the behavior scores for girls.

3. There were significant correlations between two of the five reading subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and the behavior scores for boys. The null hypothesis was rejected for two of the five reading subtests.

56

4. There were significant correlations between of all the reading subtests scores of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and the behavior scores for higher socioeconomic background students. The null hypothesis was rejected.

5. There were no significant correlations between any of the reading subtests scores of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and the behavior scores for lower socioeconomic background students.

6. There were no significant correlations between any of the reading subtests scores of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and the behavior scores for Black students. The null hypothesis was accepted.

7. There were significant correlations between all of the reading subtests scores of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and the behavior scores for Non-Black students. The null hypothesis was rejected.

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions were reached as a result of this study:

1. There was a significant negative relationship between the behavior of students in reading class and reading skills. This relationship is especially evident in the skills of phonetic analysis, auditory vocabulary and reading comprehension.

2. There is a significant negative relationship between the behavior of girls in reading class and reading

57

skills in all tested areas. The highest relationship is in the skill of phonetic analysis with the lowest relationship in the skill of reading comprehension.

3. Classroom behavior did not significantly affect the reading skills of boys.

4. Classroom behavior in relationship to reading skills of higher socioeconomic background students had a significant negative relationship in all tested skill areas. The highest relationships were in the areas of phonetic analysis and auditory vocabulary, with the lowest relation­ship in the areas of auditory discrimination, word reading and reading comprehension.

5. There were no significant relationships between behavior and reading skills of lower socioeconomic back­ground students.

6. There were no significant relationships between the behavior of Black students and those students' reading skills.

7. Classroom behavior in relationship to reading skills of Non-Black had a significant negative relationship in all tested skill areas. The highest relationships existed in the areas of reading comprehension, auditory vocabulary and phonetic analysis.

RECOMMENDATIONS

From the data gathered and analyzed in the study, the following recommendations for further study are:

1. Research should be conducted to study the effects of classroom behavior on high achieving students.In this study 83 of the 86 students studied were low achievers.

2. More research should be conducted to determine why there were more significant negative correlations between behavior and reading skills for girls than for boys. The findings of this study contradict other studies, including those by Maccoby and Jacklin, (1974) and Goodet al., (1973).

3. More research should be conducted to determine the effects of classroom behavior upon the reading skills of high and low socioeconomic background students.

4. Future studies in relationship to behavior, reading skills achievement and race are needed.

5. Future studies are needed to determine why the reading skill of phonetic analysis is affected in more instances than other reading skills among the various subgroups.

6. More research is needed to determine what obser­vable classroom behaviors are more related to a child's reading achievement than others.

7. More research is needed to determine what inter­ventions may be designed to enable a student to increase his academic skills in reading and other areas.

REFERENCES

Akande, Theophilus A. "A Study of the Relationship of Self- Concept and Reading Achievement of Ninth Grade Stu­dents." Dissertation Abstracts International, volume 40. page 774-A, August, 1979.

Ames, Louise B. and Richard N. Walker. "Prediction of Later Reading Ability from Kindergarten Research and IQ Scores." Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 55, pages 309-313, December, 1964.

Baumer-Mulloy, Marjorie. "A Study of the Relationship of Certain Home Environmental Factors to High or Low Achievement in Reading Among Black Primary School Age Pupils of Low Socioeconomic Status." Dissertation Abstracts International, volume 39, page 660-A, August,vm~.

Belcher, Mary S. "The Effect of Black English DialectDifferences on the Reading Achievement of Disadvan­taged Black Pupils From Average and Below Average Reading Groups." U.S. Educational Resources Informa­tion Center, ERIC Document ED 173-160, 1973.

Belmont, Ira and Lillian Belmont. "Stability or Change in Reading Achievement Over Time: Developmental andEducational Implications." Journal of Learning Disabilities, volume 11, number 2, pages 80-867 February, 1978.

Bloom, Benjamin S. Stability and Change in Human Character­istics . New York; Wiley, 1964T

Brophy, Jere E. and Thomas L. Good. "Teachers' Communica­tion of Differential Expectations for Children's Classroom Performance: Some Behavioral Data."Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 61, number 1", pages-365-374, 1979'. -----

Caselli, Delila A. "A Cross-Lagged Correlation of Self- Concept and Reading Achievement in First Grade." Dissertation Abstracts International, volume 39, page 5308-A, March^ 1979.

Cheek, Martha C. and Earl H. Cheek, Jr. Diagnostic -Prescriptive Reading Instruction: A Guide for Class­room Teachers. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. BrownCompany, 1980.

59

60

Clary, Lina. "Teacher Characteristics that PredictSuccessful Reading Instruction." U.S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 174-961, 1972.

Claytor, Mary. "The Relationship of Reading Achievement Reading Attitude Self-Concept and Classroom Behavior:A Multivariate Study." Dissertation Abstracts Inter­national, volume 39, page 4727-A, February, 1979^

Cobb, Joseph. Survival Skills and First Grade AcademicAchievement (Technical Report No. T). Eugene, Oregon: Center of Oregon for Research in the Behavioral Education of the Handicapped, December, 1970.

Cobb, Joseph. "Relationship of Discrete Classroom Behaviors to Fourth Grade Academic Achievements." Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 63, number 1, pages 74- 80, February” 1972.

Cobb, Joseph and H. Hops. "Effects of Academic Survival Skills Training in Low Achieving First Graders."Journal of Educational Research, volume 67, pages 108- 113, 1973.

Cohen, S. Alan and Thelma Cooper. "Seven Fallacies:Reading Retardation and the Urban Disadvantaged Beginning Reader." The Reading Teacher, volume 26, pages 38-45, October, 1972.

Cohn, Maxine and Donald Kornelly. "For Better Reading - A More Positive Self-Image." The Elementary School Journal, volume 70, pages 199-201, January, 1970.

Cousert, Girly C. "Six Selected Home Reading Environmental Factors and Their Relationship to Reading Achievement at Third Grade." Dissertation Abstracts International, volume 39, page 5308-A, March, 1979.

Deutsch, Martin, et al. The Disadvantaged Child. New York, Basic Books, Inc., page 104, 1967.

Ekwall, Eldon E. Diagnosis and Remediation of the Disabled Reader. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976.

Firestone, G. and N. Brody. "Longitudinal Investigationof Teacher - Student Interactions and Their Relation­ship to Academic Performance." Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 67, pages 544-550, 1975.

61

Fruitt, Jane B. "The Relationship Between First Grade Reading Achievement and Grouping Readiness, Sex, and Socioeconomic Status." Dissertation Abstracts International, volume 40, page 3212-A, December, T979.

Galvin, John P. and Fredick R. Annesley. "Reading andArithmetic Correlates of Conduct Problem and Withdrawn Children." Journal of Special Education, volume 5, number 3, pages 213-219, 1971.

Galvin John P. and Grace DeGiralamo. "Spelling Errors of Withdrawn and Conduct Problem Children." Journal of Special Education, volume 4, number 2 , pages 1 9 9 - 2 0 4 ^ Spring-Summer 1970.

Garrett, Henry E. Statistics in Psychology and Education.New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1970.

Gray, William S. "The Major Aspects of Reading," inSequential Development of Reading Abilities, Helen M. Robinson, ed., Supplementary Educational Monographa,No. 90. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,pages 8-24, 1960.

Good, Thomas L., J. Neville Sikes and Jere E. Brophy."Effects of Teacher Sex and Student Sex on Classroom Interaction." Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 65, number 1, pages 74-87, 1973.

Harper, Gregory F., Joen Guidubaldi and Thomas J. Kehle."Is Academic Achievement Related to Classroom Behavior?" Elementary School Journal, volume 78, pages 202-207, January, 1978.

H a r r i s , A l b e r t J. R e a d i n g s o n R e a d in g I n s t r u c t i o n . E d i t e d b y A l b e r t J. H a r r i s , N ew Y o r k : D a v id M cK ay, 1963.

Harris, Albert J. How to Increase Reading Ability. 5th ed. New York: David McKay"] 1970.

Hewlett, F. M. The Emotionally Disturbed Child in the Class­room. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1968.

Hobbs, N. The Futures of Children: Labels, and TheirConsequences. San Francisco, California: Jossey -Bass, 1975.

Hoge, Robert D. and Sally Luce. "Predicting Academic Achieve­ment from Classroom Behavior." Review of Educational Research, volume 49, number 3, pages 47(5-496, 1979.

62

Jorgenson, Gerald W., Nancy Klein and V. K. Kumar."Achievement and Behavior Correlates of Matched Levels of Student Ability and Material Difficulty." Journal of Educational Research, volume 71, number 2, pages T00-103, November/December, 1977.

Karlin, Robert. "Causes and Cures of Reading Failure in the Culturally Different: A Minority View." U.S. Educa­tional Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 158-225, 1978.

Karlsen, Bjorn, Richard Madden and Eric J. Gardner, Manual for Administering and Interpreting and Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test-! New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1976.

Kasdom, Lawrence M. in Oscar K. Buros (ed.) The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook, volume 2, New Jersey, Gryphon Press, pages 1127-1129, 1972.

Kohn, M. and B. L. Rosman. "Social Emotional, Cognitive and Demographic Determinants of Poor School Achievement: Implications for a Strategy of Intervention." Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 65, pages 267-276,t_75_

Labov, W. "The Logic of Non-Standard Dialectic." Educational Journal Alatis, School of Languages and Linguistics Monographs Series, 1969.

Lahaderne, Henriette, M. "Attitudinal and Intellectual Correlates of Attention: A Study of Four SixthGrade Classroom." Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 59, number 5, pages 320-324, 1968.

Lahaderne, Henriette M. and Philip W. Jackson. "Withdrawal in the Classroom: A Note on Some Educational Corre­lates of Social Desirability Among School Children." Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 61, number 2, pagesT7-10r,"T979.

Lambert, Nadine and R. C. Nicoll. "Conceptual Model for Non-intellectual Behavior and Its Relationship to Early Reading Achievement." Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 69, number 5, pages 481-490, 1977.

Lambert, Nadine and Carolyn Urbanski. "Behavioral Profiles of Children With Different Levels of Achievement." Journal of School Psychology, volume 18, number 1, pages 58^36, 1980.

Lindholm, Byron, John Touliatos and Amy Rick. "A Canonical Correlation Analysis of Behavior Problems and School Achievement for Different Grades, Sexes and Races." Journal of Educational Research, volume 70, number 70, pages 34(Jr342, I9T57

Luce, Sally R. and Robert D. Hoge. "Relations Among Teacher Rankings, Pupil-Teacher Interactions, and Academic Achievement: A Test of the Teacher Expectancy Hypo­thesis," American Educational Research Journal, volume 15, number 4, pages 489-500, 1978.

Maccoby, E. E. and C. N. Jacklin. The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford, California: StanfordUniversity Press, 1974.

McKinney, James, Jeanne Mason, Kathe Perkerson and Miriam Clifford. "Relationship Between Classroom Behavior and Academic Achievement." Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 67, number 2, pages 198-203, 1^78.

McMichael, Paquita. "Reading Difficulties, Behavior and Social Status." Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 72, number 1, pages 76-86, February, 19807

McPhail, Irving P. "Beyond Black English: Toward anEthnography of Communications in the Inner City Class­room." U.S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 172-178, 1979.

Miller, L. C., E. Hampe, C. L. Barrett, and H. Noble. "Children's Deviant Behavior Within the General Population." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, volume 37, pages 16-227 1971.

Perry, Adrienne M. "The Relationship of the Home Literary Environment and the Reading Achievement of Low Socio- Economic Disabled Readers." Dissertation Abstracts International, volume 39, pages 6042-A, April, 1979.

Peterson, Donald R., "Behavior Problems of Middle Childhood", Journal of Consulting Psychology, volume 25, pages 205- 209, 196T7

Pryor, Frances. "Poor Reading - Lack of Self Esteem?"The Reading Teacher, volume 23, pages 358-359,January, 1975.

Quay, Hebert C., and Donald R. Peterson. Behavior Problem Checklist and Manual (Revised). Unpublished Manu­script, University of Miami, 1975.

64

Rystrom, Richard. Effects of Standard Dialect Training on Negro First Graders Being Taught to Read." Report Project No. 81-053. U.S. Department of Health, Educa- tion and Welfare, 1968.

Samuels, S. Jay and James E. Turnure. "Attention andReading Achievement in First Grade Boys and Girls." Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 66, number l,"pagesT9-32, 1974':-----------

Schwartz, Judy. "Dialect and Learning to Read." U.S.Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Docu­ment ED 163-397, 1978.

Soli, Sigfred D., and Vernon T. Devine. "BehavioralCorrelates of Achievement: A Look at High and LowAchievers." Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 68, number 3, pages 335-341, 1976.

Space, George and Evelyn B Spache. Reading in theElementary School. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,VFfT.

Spaulding, R. and M. R. Papgeorgiou. Effects of EarlyEducation Interventions in the Lives oT~Disadvantaged Children-(Final Report, Project No. I-I-124).Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Educa­tion and Welfare, Office of Education, June, 1972.

Spivack, George and Marshall Swift. Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale Manual. Devon, Pennsylvania, Devereux Foundation, 1967.

Stevenson, H. W. T. Parker, A. Wilkinson, A Hegion and E. Fish. "Longitudinal Study of Individual Differ­ences in Cognitive Development and Scholastic Achieve­ment." Journal of Educational Psychology volume 68, pages 377-"40OfT976.--------------

United States Commission on Civil Rights. The Unfinished Education, October, 1971.

Vereen, Margaret, "Reading Achievement and Self-Concept of Fifth. Grade Students." U.S., Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 192-264, 1980.

Werry, John S. and Hebert C. Quay. "Observing the Classroom Behavior of Elementary School Children." Exceptional Children, volume 35, number 6, pages 461-470, February, TW&T.

65

Werry, John S. and Hebert C. Quay. "The Prevalence of Behavior Symptoms in Younger Elementary School Children." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, volume 47, pages 136-143, T57TT

APPENDIX A

THE DEVEREUX FOUNDATION D E V O N , P E N N S Y L V A N I A

Devon, Pennsylvania 19333

March 26, 1980

Ms. Mary Jones1228 S. Eighteenth StreetBaton Rouge, LA 70802

Dear Ms. Jones:

Mr. Bruce Fyne has referred your recent request to me to have permission to modify the Devereux Elementary Behavior Scale (DESB) for purposes related to your dissertation.

Permission is granted with the stipulation that the modification of the copyrighted Devereux scale is used essentially for the purposes stated and not intended for sale or public distribution.

A complimentary copy of the DESB manual and scale is being forwarded under separate cover from the Devereux Foundation Press. Enclosed is a reference sheet listing articles written about the Devereux scales.

With eveiy good wish for success with your project.

Sincerely,

Director of Publications and Information

/n h

enc

cc: Mr. Bruce Fyne

67

APPENDIX B

TimeSchoolTeacher

Date

needscontrol Classroom

Disturbance

teasesInterferesdrawn Instartsearly Impatience

sloppydoes not go backrushesdisrespect Disrescect

Defiance

defiesteacherremarks about subjectsbreaks rulesdisturbed by scores Achievement

Anxiety

right answers?nervous about lestsensitive to criticismunderstands Cenpre-

• Inattentive

j hension j

Withdrawn 1

Other

--------

applies----- reci tes

losesattention

----- not attending oblivious unreachable can't change quitswurks slowly

----— _ _

--- -----. — ___ _ ____

DAILY TALLY SHEET

classroom 1 |disrespect disturbance Impatience defiance achievement | |inattentive | 1

anxiety !comprehension • withdrawn i other * behavior score

TOTAL

70

APPENDIX C

DEFINITION OF ABBREVIATED CHECKLIST ITEMS

The following checklist items are taken from the Devereux Elementary

School Behavior Rating Scale developed by George Spivack and Marshall

Swift.

needs control

teases

interferes

drawn in

starts early

sloppy

does not go back

rushes

disrespect

defies teacher

remarks about subjects

breaks rules

Has to be reprimanded or controlled by the teacher because of his behav­ior in class.

Poke, torment or tease classmates.

Annoys or interferes with the work of his peers in class.

Quickly drawn into the talking or noise making of others (stops work to listen or join in).

Starts working on something before getting the directions straight.

Sloppy in his work (his work is dirty, marked up or wrinkled).

Unwilling to go back over his work.

Rushes through his work and therefore makes unnecessary mistakes.

Speaks disrespectfully to teacher (calls teacher names, treats teacher as an equal.

Acts defiant (will not do what he is asked to do, says: "I won't do it")!

Belittles or makes derogatory remarks about the subject being taught.

Breaks classroom rules (e.g., throws things, marks up desk and books, etc.)

72

disturbed by scores

right answers?

nervous about test

sensitive to criticism

understands

applies

recites

loses attention

not attending

oblivious

unreachable

can't change

Gets openly disturbed about scores on a test, worksheet or other graded material (may cry or get emotionally upset).

Shows worry or gets anxious about knowing the "right" answers.

Outwardly nervous when a test, work­sheet or other graded material is given.

Sensitive to criticism or correction about school work (gets angry, sulks, seems "defeated").

Gets the point of what he reads or hears in class.

Able to apply what he has learned to a new situation.

Knows material when called upon to recite in class.

Quickly loses attention when teacher explains something to him (becomes fidgety, looks away).

Makes you doubt whether he is paying attention to what you are doing or saying (looks elsewhere, has blank stare or far away look).

Oblivious to what is going on in class (not "with it" seems to be in his own private world).

Difficult to reach (seems preoccupied with his own thoughts, may have to call him by names to bring him out of himself.

Unable to change from one task to another when asked to do so (has difficulty beginning a new task, may get upset or disorganized).

73

quits Likely to quit or give up whensomething is difficult or demands more than usual effort.

works slowly Slow to complete his work (has toto prodded, takes excessive time).

74

APPENDIX D

May 15, 1980

Dr. Donald HooverDirector of Research Program and Development East Baton Rouge Parish Schools P. 0. Box 2950 Baton Rouge, LA 70821Dear Dr. Hoover:

I am requesting permission to conduct research for my dissertation in ten of the East Baton Rouge Parish Schools.

The title of the study is "A Study of Reading Skills of Third Grade Students in Terms of Observable Classroom Behavior and Other Variables.” Approximately 350 children will be involved in the initial testing in these schools. Those whose scores fall into a given range will be used for observation purposes.

In order to train another observer I am also requesting permission to make a video tape in the three of the parish schools this summer. The video tape will be utilized for observer training only and will not be viewed publicly.

The study will benefit the East Baton Rouge Schools by providing information on the relationship between speci­fic reading skills and observable classroom behavior.All information on individual children will be kept confi­dential and no publication of findings will be made without permission from the School Board. I will provide you a copy of the dissertation when it is completed.

I have enclosed a copy of my proposal as approved by my committee. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Mary S. Jones

MSJ :mcj Enc.

76

APPENDIX E

CLYDE H. LINDSEY, s u p e r i n t e n d e n t

P. O. BOX 2980

June 5, 1980

Ms. Mary Jones1228 South. 18thBaton Rouge, Louisiana 70802

Dear Ms. Jones:

Please let this letter serve as tentative authorization to conduct your study in this parish pending completion of your measuring devices in assessing behavior. You should have authorization from parents for student participation in the study as well as authorization for video taping. It is my understanding that the video tape would be utilized for observer training only and would not be viewed publicly.

If I can be of any assistance please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Donald L. Hoover

DLH/pmb

APPROVAL:

Dr. Lorin VI Sniley, Assistant Superintendent Management and Planning Services

78

APPENDIX F

June 9, 1980

To Whom It May Concern:As parent and/or guardian of _______________________

I grant permission to Mary S. Jones to video tape my childin a summer school session at ___________________________Elementary school.

I understand that the video tape will be utilized for observer training only and will not be viewed publicly.

Signature _________________Date

Please return this signed form to your teacher no later than Tuesday, June 17, 1980.

APPENDIX G

^Hen^e Scfao/*RAYMOND G. ARVESON, Superintendent

P. O. Box 2950 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821

September 23, 1980

Ms. Mary Louise Jones Baton Rouge, La.

Dear Ms. Jones:

Please let this letter serve as your authorization to conduct your research study in the following elementary schools:

Beechwood Elementary Mayfair ElementaryBrownfields Elementary Progress ElementaryDalton Elementary Wedgewood ElementaryGreenbrier Elementary Westminster ElementaryHarding Elementary Wyandotte Elementary

The study has been approved by each principal and by Dr. Newkome in the Instruction Department. It is my under­standing that you will obtain parental permission.

Yours sincerely,

Donald L. Hoover

DLH/pmb

cc: Dr. Newkome

82

APPENDIX H

August 18, 1980

To Whom It May Concern:As parent and/or guardian of ____________________

I grant permission to Mary S. Jones to administer the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test to my child.

I understand that the information obtained will be used in a research project concerning reading skills, observable classroom behavior and other variables. All information will be treated as confidential - no names will be mentioned in reports of this research.

Signature _______________Date

84

APPENDIX I

SchoolDate

Dear Parents:During the weeks of September 8-18, 1980, Mary S. Jones

tested your child using the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. This test information was for a graduate research project in the Department of Education at L.S.U.

Before Mrs. Jones could test your child, you signed a permission slip with stated "all information will be treated as confidential - no names will be mentioned in reports of this research." I have found that the test results will be useful to me in planning a reading program to meet your child's individual needs. I would appreciate it it you would grant Mrs. Jones permission to release these test scores to me.

Thank you

TeacherPrincipal

To Whom It May Concern:

As parent and/or guardian of _______ _________I grant permission to Mary S. Jones to release confidential test scores obtained by my child on the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test to his or her classroom teacher.

Signature ____________________Date

86

APPENDIX J

PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS

Schools Teachers

Beechwood Elementary Mrs. DunbarBrownfields Elementary Mrs. Jennings

Mrs. Allen*Dalton Elementary Mrs. Juneau

Mrs. HowardGreenbrier Elementary Mrs. Chankshaw

Mrs. MailletHarding Elementary Mrs. Morris

Mrs. SmithMayfair Elementary Mrs. Ervin

Mrs. FullerProgress Elementary Ms. Dupy

Mrs. RobertsWedgewood Elementary Ms. Kornbacker*

Mrs. WilliamsWestminister Elementary Mrs. Davis*

Mrs. TurnerWyandotte Elementary Ms. Batiste

* Students were tested, but none scored within the necessary range.

8 8

VITA

Mary Louise Spand Jones, the daughter of Emmett Melvin Spand and Jessie Maryman Spand, was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana June 5, 1950. She graduated from Baton Rouge High School in 1968. She received a Bachelor of Science degree in Elementary Education from Louisiana State University in 1971. The Master of Education degree in Special Education was awarded to her by Louisiana State University in 1972.

During the years 1972-1981, she taught Special Education classes in the public schools in East Baton Rouge Parish.

She is married to Johnnie Anderson Jones, Jr., and is the mother of two children, Stefanie Dene and Kyle Spand.

89

EXAMINATION AND THESIS REPORT

Candidate:

Major Field:

T itle of Thesis:

Mary Louise Spand Jones

Educat ion

A Study of Reading Skills of Third Grade Students in Terms of Observable Classroom Behavior and Other Vari ables

Approved:

Major Professor and Chairman

Dean of the Graduate School

EX A M IN IN G CO M M ITTEE:

Si V-K&k

D ate o f Examination:

June 30, 1981