DOCUMENT RESUME - ERICDOCUMENT RESUME RE 001 958 Jones, Eert; And Others A Study cf Remedial Reading...

ED 033 824

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTICN

Spcns Agency

Pub DateNote

EDRS PriceDescriptors

DOCUMENT RESUME

RE 001 958

Jones, Eert; And OthersA Study cf Remedial Reading Prcgrams inthe Omaha and Marquette Jcb Ccrps Centersfcr Wcmen.Eurroughs Corp., Detroit, Mich.; NorthernMichigan Univ., Marquette.Cffice of Econcmic Opportunity,Washingtcn, D C.[65]43p.

EERS Price MF$0.25 HC -$2.25*Adult Reading Programs, Group Ncrms, JobTraining, *Poverty Prcgrams,Psychometrics, Reading Improvement,Reading Research, *Reading Tests,*Remedial Reading Prcgrams

AbstractThis joint investigation invclving the

Omaha Job Ccrps Center fcr Wcmen and the Marquette JobCorps Center fcr Wcmen assessed the remedial readingprograms of the twc centers. A major objective was toprcvide Jcb Corps norms for the GatesMacGinitie ReadingTest, Survey E, forms 1M and 2M. Each center designatedccntrcl and experimental grcups. The experimental grcups'80 subjects received 40 class hcurs of reading instruction.The ccntrcl group's 37 received no formalized readinginstruction. The Wilccxcn MatchedPairs SignedBanks Testwas used fcr within groups data analyses; the MannWhitneyU Test and the MOSES Test of Extreme Reaction were used forbetween grcups analyses. Significant differences were foundbetween the experimental and the control groups and betweenpretesting and posttesting on the comprehension subtestfcr these subjects rated at a fourth grade, ninth month andbelow reading level at time of entry intc the program. Thisled to the conclusion that these remedial reading programswere best able to help the lowerlevel reader. The controlgrcup in Marquette showed significant gains cn thevocabulary subtest. A strcng relationship between formaleducation and reading achievement was noted. Data tablesand charts are included. (Authcr/WB)

p .

1.

4

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THEPERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCAHONPOSITION OR POLICY.

NORTHERN MICHIGAN BURROUGHSUNIVERSITY CORPORATION

JOINT READING STUDY

MARQUETTE WOMEN'S

ccAfp

0

OMAHA WOMEN'SJOB CORPS JOB CORPS

Job CorpsEmu

ABSTRACT

This joint investigation involving the Omaha Job Corps

-4" Center for Women and the Marquette Job Corps Center forC\JCO Women was designed to asses the characteristics of the JobpeN

prN Corps remedial reading programs. The focus of the study was

CDcm concentrated on the assessment of the individual enrollee,

each centers remedial reading program and similarities and

differences between each center. One of the major objectives

of this study was to provide Job Corps norms for the Gates-

Mac Ginitie Reading Test.

Two group of enrollee's were designated at each center.

The experimental groups of 80 receiving 40 class hours of

reading instruction and the control group of 37 receiving no

formalized reading instruction.

Significant differences were found between the experimental

and control groups and between pre and post testing for the

subtest comprehension for those subjects rated at a fourth

grade, ninth month and below reading levels at time of entry

into the program. This difference was not found for the group

of subjects rated at fifth grade and above. This led to the

conclusion that remedial reading programs were best able to

handle the problem of the lower level reader (fourth grade,

ninth month and below). Further it was ascertained that the

control group in Marquette significantly progressed on the

subtest of vocabulary indicating a favorable condition within

the Marquette Center. The relationship between formal educa-

tion and reading achievement was also strongly supported.

A.STUDY OF REMEDIAL READING PROGRAMSIN THE OMAHA AND MARQUETTEJOB CORPS CENTERS FOR WOMEN

by

Bert Jones, Charles Myrbach, Joan Cooper and Guy More

Sponsored by the Burroughs Corporationand Aorthern Michigan University

INTRODUCTION

Job Corps centers constitute a major division of the War on

Poverty. The young corpswomen and corpsmen attending these

centers present a vast range of unique social and educational

problems. Educational innovations have thus become a necessity

in dealing with these problems. Staff in all centers have found

it necessary to modify old educational techniques and to create

new methodologies in meeting the learning needs of Job Corps

populations. However, educational programs have been based

largely on subjective observations or intuition. Very little

objective information is available to guide Job Corps educators.

This study is devoted to an analysis of the effect of

special reading programs on Job Corps populations at the Omaha

and Marquette Centers. A side product of this study is the

compilation of normative data derived from intelligence scores,

achievement scores, and demographic information relevant to the

corpswomen of the two Centers.

Background of Study Population

As of June 1, 1968, there were 9,683 females in Job Corps

centers for women. The combined Omaha-Marquette Job Corps

Centers have a population of 1,150 or 11.9 per cent of the total

population in women's centers.

Sixty per cent of the girls are from broken homes and 63

per cent of the heads of households are unemployed. Forty per

cent of heads of households are on relief. Fifty per cent of

the corpswomen's parents have less than an eighth grade education.

Five per cent of the corpswomen are from rural areas, 35 per

2.

cent are from small towns, and 60 per cent are from cities of

100,000 population or more.

Eighty per cent of the corpswomen lack previous medical care.

The average age of the corpswomen is nineteen. The average for

highest grade completed is 9.8 while the average reading and math

achievement levels are 6.2 and 5.5 respectively.

Rationale for Joint Omaha-Marquette Study

The mutual interest of the Omaha and Marquette Job Corps

Centers for Women in the need for objective data for guidance

and evaluation of their education programs provided a unique

opportunity to study the differential effect of two center pro-

grams operated in widely different settings. The initial

assumption was made that the input populations of the two centers

would be homogenous.

The Omaha Center is located in a metropolitan area and is

sponsored by the Burroughs Corporation, while the Marquette

Center is sponsored by Northern Michigan University and is

located in a small town. The Omaha Center is housed in two

downtown hotel buildings. In contrast, the Marquette Center is

housed on the University's campus in a dormitory and special

classroom and office building. Thus, this study of the reading

programs in the two centers provides for both an analysis of

between center and within center differences.

The Problem

A common characteristic of disadvantaged populations is a

low level of reading ability. This fact has required centers to

establish special remedial reading programs whose subjects are

3.

determined by various reading tests. Objective data, however,

are not available to show whether gains in reading are due to the

special effect of the reading program, or instead due to the

effect of previous experience of study subjects. This problem

further suggests the following specific questions:

1. To what extent is the reading ability of subjects

in special reading programs changed in contrast to

like subjects who do not participate in special

reading classes, but who are exposed to all other

phases of a center's education program?

2. Is there a difference in the effect of the reading

program in Marquette and Omaha Centers on like

subjects?

3. Do like subjects in Omaha and Marquette Centers

who are not in special reading programs progress

at the same reading rate?

4. Does grade level achievement in public schools

prior to entry into Job Corps affect reading

progress in the special reading program?

5. Is age of reading program subjects a factor in

reading progress?

6. Does a rural versus urban background of reading

program subjects affect reading progress?

PROCEDURE

2LLER. of Study

The study design included an experimental and control

group for each center. Qualification of subjects for the study

4.

was based on scores made on the Gates-Mac Ginitie Reading Test.

Preliminary analysis of the data revealed that there was a

greater sensitivity for reading progress for subjects who scored

at fourth grade, ninth month or below than for those subjects

who scored at the level of fifth grade and above. It was felt

that data analysis would be more meaningful if this dichotomy

was made.

Analysis of differences between groups was based on pretest

and posttest scores for the subtests of Comprehension and

Vocabulary (see Chart I on following page). Speed and accuracy

subtests scores were omitted because of data deficiencies in the

two areas.

Instruments Used

The Gates-Mac Ginitie Reading Test, Survey E, forms 1M and

2M, was chosen because it provides a good index of reading pro-

gress rather than depth analysis of reading ability. The test

is also easy to administer thus minimizing tester errors. Form

1M was used for the pretest and Form 2M was used for the post-

test.

Sampling and Method of Subject Input,

All new enrollees at each Center were given Form 1M of the

Gates-Mac Ginitie Reading Tests. A total score of 7.9 reading

achievement level qualified an enrollee for study participation.

Subjects were drawn from this pool of candidates for the experi-

mental and control groups on a random basis until the quota for

each group was reached. Both Centers observed a mutual agree-

ment not to include any corpswoman who had been in the Center

H cn 0 -I:1 rri P., -I:1

D (.0 N.) 1--. 0.3 N.) Cn H n rn C-1 ed C cn

0

:.. a< rn

-Es rn zi 1-1 M.

z H

Speed & Accuracy Attempted

Speed & Accuracy Correct

Comprehension

Vocabulary

5 CO N.) I-, co r) cn P-i 0 ril (-4 tr1 C cn

> 7:) /2 rn H rH n

0 g) C Pu

Speed & Accuracy Attemeted


Comprehension

Vocabulary

co r..) I--' CO N.) 1-, cn H (--) to Li to c cn

o c-)

= H P:J o r.-.

O c -I:1

Speed & Accuracy Attempted '


Comprehension

Vocabulary

1 CcoN),...., co r..) 1-, cn H 0 rri (-1 tzi c cn

m H H m

Speed & Accuracy Attempted


Comprehension

Vocabulary

6.

more than thirty days, or who had previously taken the Gates-

Mac Ginitie Test.

The enrollees who qualified for the reading project were

then enrolled into either the reading class or control group.

Each center enrolled fifty girls into the reading class and 25

girls into the control group. Each girl in the experimental

group was required to complete 40 class sessions before taking

the posttest and leaving the reading class. After 40 days of

regular class attendance, the members of the control group were

also administered the posttest.

After a total of 50 girls were enrolled into the reading

class and the 25 girls were placed in the Control Group, no

replacements were made for the enrollees who left the program

for one reason or another. At the close of the program the

Marquette project has 45 girls who had completed the 40 sessions

of the remedial reading class and 22 girls in the Control Group

who were exposed only to the general education program for the

required 40 days.

The Omaha retention rate was 35 corpswomen in the Experi-

mental Group, while 15 were left in the Control Group.

Reading Teaching Methodologies in Omaha and Marquette Centers

The stated objectives of the Reading Laboratories at each

Center are similar: to develop the reading skills of the corps-

women to a level required for job entry in her particular

vocational choice. An additional objective is to stimulate

reading for enjoyment.

The motivational techniques of each center were similar

with the overriding technique being a deep and abiding interest

in corpswomen, and an intense desire to help them read better.

Both centers used a combination of visual, audio and

kinesthetic techniques, although the Marquette Center's emphasis

was on the audio-visual methods.

Similar teaching devices were used at both centers. How-

ever, the teaching emphasis placed on the devices differed.

The Omaha Center lists the following teaching aids as

being used in its reading program:

1. Aud-X Learning 100 program

2. Language Master

3. Controlled Reader

4. Barnell Loft Specific Series

5. Tape Recorders

6. Paperbacks

7. Tach X

8. SRA Books

9. Play Books

10. Scrabble (word game)

The Marquette Center used the devices listed below:

1. Auto-tutor

2. Tape Recorder

3. SRA Reading Accelerator

4. Typewriter (large print)

5. Film strips (language usage)

6. Film projector

7. SRA Reading Kits

7.

8.

8. A variety of other reading materials dealing with

phonics, word analysis and comprehension.

Individualized instruction was used at both centers.

Reading speed, comprehension, and vocabulary were prime areas

of concentration in the program at each center. One instructor

at the Omaha Center, however, felt that she had emphasized

comprehension more than speed and relied more on actual reading

than on the mechanical aids available. She also emphasized oral

reading. Her laboratory was the only one equipped with study

carrels. With the availability of the Aud-X program, the Tach-X,

and the controlled reader, the Omaha Center seems to have had

more mechanical aids at their disposal than did the Marquette

Center.

Class size differed. The Omaha program incorporated two

classroom teachers whereas the Marquette reading classes were

taught by one teacher, and, consequently, the classes were

larger.

Reading Instruction Received by Control Groups

Marquette. The members of the Control Group received the

same reading instruction that is given to all members of the

regular general education classes. The requirements for each

class is that they complete the Reading for Understanding series

(junior level).

They also work on comprehension, speed, and word analysis

in the SRA Reading kit. Their level of reading kit is determined

by pretests. To graduate from the general education program,

the corpswoman must read at a 7.5 grade level. If she wishes to

enroll in the G.E.D. prep class, she must read at an 8.5 grade

level.

Any corpswoman who reads at a tested level of less than

5.0 is required to enroll into the Remedial Reading laboratory.

Omaha. Girls in the Control Group received no formal

reading instruction, as such. However, they would have received

reading training informally by the nature of the course work in

Life Skills, Basic Education, and prevocation classes.

Techniques of Measurement

Most measurements in the study were made with nonparametric

techniques. This was necessary because not all of the assump-

tions underlying parametric treatment of data could be met.

This was particularly true of the assumption requiring normality

of data.. In some instances where combination of group data

resulted in larger N's, parametric techniques were used.

The nonparametric procedures used were the Wilcoxon Matched-

Pairs Signed-Ranks Test, the Mann-Whitney U Test, and Moses Test

of Extreme Reaction. The Wilcoxon Test was applicable for with-

in groups data analyses while the Mann-Whitney U Test and the

Moses Test were used for between groups analyses.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The data presented in this section are based on the results

of testing 13 hypotheses. Test results for each hypothesis are

discussed below.

Hypothesis 1. No significant difference exists between the

pretest and posttest for the Omaha experimental groups.

Table 1 shows that the null hypothesis is rejected for the

10.

subtests of vocabulary and comprehension on subjects rated at

the fourth grade, ninth month or below. However, the null

hypothesis could only be rejected on the vocabulary subtest for

those subjects rated fifth grade and above. Thus, while the

reading program produced significant gains for both subtests

in the lower achievement group, the higher achievement group

derived less benefit. This may be due to the fact that reading

ability levels of the higher rated group were too high to be

challenged by the reading program. This is borne out by the

high mean of the fifth grade and above group on the pretest as

compared to the means of the lower rated group on the pretest.

Hypothesis 2. No significant differences exist between the

pretests and posttests for the Marquette experimental groups.

Table 2 indicates that the Marquette group experienced the

same results as the Omaha group except that for Omaha the null

hypothesis was rejected for the subtest of comprehension at a

higher level of significance.


pretests and posttests for the Omaha control groups.


pretests and posttests for the Marquette control groups.

Null hypothesis three is accepted for all subtests as

shown in Table 3. Thus for Omaha, the reading program produced

significant improvement for experimental subjects, but exposure

to the general program of the Center did not produce significant

gains for the control subjects. Interestingly, however, the

null hypothesis is rejected for Marquette's vocabulary subtest

11.

scores for the subjects rathed in the lower reading level group

(Table 4). This may indicate that general program climate in

Marquette is more conducive to vocabulary gains than is Omaha's

general program. Additional evidence of this possibility is

given in Table 12, which compares posttest scores between

Marquette and Omaha control groups.

Hypothesis 5. No significant differences exists between the

experimental and control group subtests scores for the Omaha

and Marquette Centers.

Reference to Table 5 reveals that Omaha's under fourth

grade, ninth month experimental group gained significantly in

reading comprehension compared to the control group. It should

be noted that data in this table, and in the following table,

are based on the mean of gains, or difference scores, between

the pretest and posttest. The fact that the vocabulary subtest

scores were not significant could be the effect of one or more

of the following:

(a) Subjects were already so advanced in vocabulary

before entering the experiment that gains between

the pretest and posttest were too small to be

significant.

(b) The reading program was not powerful enough to

contrast general Center program effect to produce

significant changes.

(c) The Gates-Mac Ginitie Test is not sensitive enough

to disclose small gains in vocabulary.

(d) The statistical treatment of data was not powerful

12.

enough to show changes.

The data show, however, that the reading program in Omaha is

effective in teaching comprehension.

For the fifth grade and above, the data for Omaha experi-

mental and control groups do not show significant gains between

the pretests and posttests. As explained earlier, this effect

is possibly due to the power of the reading program being

focused on extremely low reading levels. Thus, there is less

opportunity for significant reading gains for thos subjects

already reading at a comparable level of fifth grade and above.

There is also a possibility that the reading test is less

sensitive to gains made by the fifth grade and above subjects.

For the Marquette differences in experimental and control

groups (see Table 6), the previous discussion of Omaha results

is applicable, except that Marquette's control group for fifth

grade reading level and above shows a significant gain on the

comprehension subtest. This significance could be attributed

to positive factors operating in the general center program,

or could have been due to negative factors in the remedial

reading program.

Hypothesis 6. No pretest significant differences exist between

the two Centers' experimental pretest scores.

Table 7 shows that Omaha experimental group subjects

scored significantly higher on the subtest for comprehension.

Thus the null hypothesis is rejected for that subtest. Assuming

an error was not made in the random method of input, two

possibilities could account for this difference: (1) tester

13.

effect and (2) regionalized recruiting of enrollees. Great care

was taken to minimize tester effect leaving the possibility of

selective recruiting as the most likely contributing factor.

Enrollees at the Omaha Center may have been influenced by a pre-

Job Corps educational system or related factors that did not

exist for Marquette enrollees.

Hypothesis 7. No posttest significant differences exist between

the two Centers' experimental group. subtest scores.

The null hypothesis as accepted is noted by Table 8. This

outcome seems to emphasize that the impact of the Omaha and

Marquette remedial reading programs is comparable. Major

differences in the study seem to occur as a result of control

group variations between centers and within centers.

Hypothesis 8. No pretest significant differences exist between

the two Centers' control groups.

The null hypothesis is accepted indicating initial control

group equivalency for Omaha and Marquette (See Table 9). This

factor justifies combination of the two control groups for

some areas of data analysis required by the study design.

Hypothesis 9. No posttest significant differences exist between

the two Centers' control 1L2thELI.

The null hypothesis is rejected in favor of Marquette for

the subtest of vocabulary and accepted for the subtest of

comprehension as indicated in Table 10. Again, there was

apparently a favorable condition operating in Marquette's

general Center program which was not present in Omaha's program.

This could possibly be due to a greater degree of academic

14.

emphasis in Marquette's general education and vocational

education classes. Further study would be necessary to isolate

such factors if they do, indeed, exist.

Hypothesis 10. There are no significant differences between

rural and urban subjects' subtest scores.

For the purposes of this study, rural was defined as

having a population of less than 10,000 and being at least

50 miles from a metropolitan center of 50,000 or more population.

Study subjects were classified as urban for all other population

bases.

The null hypothesis was accepted for all subtests as shown

in Table 11. Thus prior educational experience in rural ox

urban schools as defined above had no influence on initial

reading levels.

Hypothesis 11. Age, is not a significant variable on the pretest

with respect to subtest scores.

The null hypothesis is accepted as seen in Table 12. Age,

therefore, apparently did not influence reading ability on the

initial test. This finding may indicate that once a cutoff

point was reached in reading learning, such as public school

termination, further progress was minimal as the subject grew'

older.

Hypothesis 12. Past school achievement as measured school

grades completed has no significant effect on subtest scores

on the pretest.

Hypothesis 13. Past school achievement as measured school

grades completed has no significant effect on subtest scores on

15.

the posttest.

The null hypothesis on the pretest is rejected as indicated

by the data in Table 13. Thus, there seems to be a strong

relationship between formal school achievement and reading

ability. However, the null hypothesis for posttest scores is

accepted for comprehension and rejected for vocabulary subtests.

The effect, therefore, of prior school achievement has a bearing

on vocabulary gains in a remedial reading program but does not

seem to effect gains in comprehension. This differential could

be the result of many unknown variables. For example, one might

speculate that a remedial reading program tends to build on

vocabulary gains experienced in previous formal education

experience, while neglecting the more difficult task of teaching

comprehension. In turn, comprehension of reading material

could be more closely related to such general factors as

intelligence, which could increase the difficulty of the

remedial reading task.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of this study the following conclusions

were made:

1. For both the Marquette and Omaha Centers the reading

program was of greatest benefit for subjects who

were reading at the relatively low level of fourth

grade, ninth month or below.

2. Participation of control subjects in the general

education program in the Marquette Center resulted

in significant increases in vocabulary, indicating that

there are factors in Marquette's general education

program which seems to produce vocabulary gains

equivalent to the effect of the special remedial

program.

3. For both Marquette and Omaha the reading program

produced significant gains in reading comprehension

for subjects rated fourth grade, ninth month and

below. It may be generalized, therefore, that

remedial reading programs conducted in the same

fashio'n as those at Marquette and Omaha Centers

are not effective in teaching reading comprehension

for subject who read at fifth grade level or above

as measured by the Gates-Mac Ginitie Reading Test

used in this study.

4. Within the limitations of this study no significant

differences were found in reading achievement be-

tween rural and urban population based subjects.

However, it should be noted that this study did

not differentiate between subjects from rural

aggrarian backgrounds and subjects who lived in

small towns. Such a classification could have

produced differences. This classification was

not made because of the sample limitation of the

number of enrollees.

5. Age was not a significant variable in reading

achievement for subjects in this study.

6. Greater accomplishments in remedial reading pro-

grams may be expected in the area of vocabulary

16.

for those subjects who have experienced higher

levels of public school grade completion. Thus,

a remedial reading teacher may find it profitable

to give additional emphasis to the task of teaching

reading comprehension regardless of the past

educational experiences of her pupils.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CENTER PROGRAM CHANGES

The findings of this study, in some instances, confirmed

existing practices while in other instances new program

directions were indicated. Major study implications are

listed below:

1. It is recommended that the remedial reading pro-

gram be confined to enrollees who read at the

fifth grade level or below as measured by the

Gates-Mac Ginitie Test.

2. Further analysis of teaching methodolog related

to vocabulary should be made for both Centers.

3. The use of the Gates-Mac Ginitie Reading Test

has gained more validity with the establishment

of Job Corps norms (See appendix). Therefore,

it is recommended that these norms be incorpor-

ated into the evaluation of the test results.

4. The Gates-Mac Ginitie Test should be supplemented

by other reading tests having diagnostic power.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH STUDIES

Based on the findings of this study listed below are

suggestions for further research:

17.

18.

1. Cross validation of the present results. This

could be done by enlarging the present sample

which would permit use of parametric techniques

leading to the recovery of large quantities of

data than was possible in the present study.

2. Item analysis of the Gates-Mac Ginitie Reading

Test. This research would durther enhance the

use of the Gates-Mac Ginitie Reading Test for

Job Corps populations.

3. Other specific questions raised by this study

suggests research in the following additional

areas:

a) In-depth proble of rural - urban hypothesis.

b) Analysis of general Center program effect on

reading ability.

c) The use of the Gates-Mac Ginitie Reading

Test in conjunction with a diagnostic

reading test.

d) Study of male and female reading performance.

e) Study of the relationship of reading per-

formance of enrollees who participation is

remedial reading programs to employment

success after Job Corps graduation.

TABLE 1

Omaha Experimental Group- -Pretest and Posttest Differences

Group Means

N Vocabulary

Fourth Grade Ninth Month and Below

Comprehension

Experimental Pretest 15 9.87 15.60

Experimental Posttest 15

Fifth Grade

12.67*

and Above

.19.27**


Experimental Posttest 20 19.90* 31.30

Note: Wilcoxon Matched--Pairs Signed--Ranks Test

P > .05** P > .02

19.

TABLE 2

Marquette Experimental Group- -Pretest and Posttest Differences

Group Means

N Vocabulary


Comprehension


Experimental Posttest 24

Fifth Grade

15.92**

and Above

19.79**


Experimental Posttest 21 19.90* 26.76


*P .05**P .01

20.

21.

TABLE 3

Omaha Control Group- -Pretest and Posttest Differences

Group Means

N Vocabulary


Comprehension

Control Pretest 8 11.63 17.38

Control Posttest 8 13.13 17.00

Fifth Grade and Above




22.

TABLE 4

Marquette Control Group-Pretest and Posttest Differences

Group Means

N Vocabulary


Comprehension


Control Posttest 10

Fifth Grade

14.40*

and Above

16.80




* P > .01

.,

..

.

TABLE 5

Omaha Experimental andControl Differences

Group Mean Gains

N Vocabulary Comprehension


Experimental Pretest 15 2.8 3.70*

Control Pretest 8 1.5 - .38


Experimental Pretest 20 2.2 - .40

Control Pretest 7 .57 - .86

Note: Moses Test of Extreme Reactions

* P .05

23.

..

TABLE 6

Marquette Experimental andControl Differences

Group Mean Gains



Experimental Pretest 24 4.0 5.13*

Control Pretest 10 4.2 .30


Experimental Pretest 21 2.05 -1.86.

Control Pretest 12 1.71 1.08*

Note: Moses Test of Extreme Reactions

* P > .05

..

TABLE 7

Pretest Experimental flroupDifferences Between Centers

Center Meand


25.

Omaha 34 14.53 25.06*

Marquette 45 14.69 20.96

Note: Mann Whitney U Test

* P r= .05

TABLE 8

Posttest Experimental GroupDifferences Between Centers

Center Means


26.

Omaha 34 16.91 26.15

Marquette 45 17.66 29.71


t.

27.

TABLE 9

Pretest Control GroupDifferences Between Centers

Center Means


Omaha 15 14.13 24.80

Marquette 22 x.5.41 23.82


k

TABLE 10

Posttest Control GroupDifferences Between Centers

Center Means


Omaha 15 15.20 24.20

Marquette 22 18.09* 24.64


** P .02

R

PopulationBase

TABLE 11

Rural-Urban Differences

N

Means

Vocabulary Comprehension

Rural 45 14.02 21.71

Urban 106 15.08 23.19

Note: t-test

29.

30.

TABLE 12

Pretest Age Differenceson Subtest Scores

Age Means


16, 17, 18 99 14.93 22.82

19, 20, 21 52 14.56 23.12

Note: t-Test

t.

TABLE 13

Highest Grade Completed - Pretest

Grades Means

N

31.

Vocabulary Comprehension

6, 7, 8, 9 36 11.77 17.77

10, 11, 12 44 16.58*** 25.91***

Highest Grade Completed - Posttest

Grades Means


6, 7, 8, 9 35 15.53 22.42

10, 11, 12 45 18.89* 26.07

Note: t -Test

.05

.01

50

49:48_4746

45444342_141

40_393g_3736

353433323130

229

27

25-

242322 :1

210 -12

1918

171615

141312

109

FIGURE 1

OMAHA EXPERIMENTAL GROUPPRE AND POST TEST DIFFERENCES

4th GRADE 9th MONTH AND BELai

MEANS

z

50

494847

4645

VOCABULARY COMP DI I SION

44

434241

40r: 39

383736

35343332

3130

2928

27

26

-2524

21

20

19

18-17-16

15

14

13

12

-11-09

3 2

50_ _

4948-147,4&-45-14443_42,

4039_38_37_36_

35--

34CO

rmi 33n4 32

30_to 29--

2827

4:4 26cd 251

24_2322

21

20

18

17161514--13 _i1211I10

9

FIGURE 2

OMAHA EXPERIMENTAL GROUPPRE AND POST TEST DIFFERENCES

5th GRADE AND ABOVE

/

i MEANS

VOCABULARY COMPREHENSION

50

4r- 9

484746

_ 454443

_ 42_

40_ 39

38_ 37_ 36

3534333231302928

_ 272625

24-- 23

22

212019

18

1716

15

13

1211109

33.

CD

C)

0

txi

4

50

49148__

47--46_45--44434241403938_37--36 _35

A 34,33

0 32

302928

c4 2726252423222120191817_16151413 _1211109 1

FIGURE 3

MARQUETTE EX1ERIMENTAL GROUPPRE AND POST TEST DIFFERENCES

4th GRADE 9th MONTH AND HELM

MEANS

1 5011 491 48

4746454443424140

H 39r_38_ 37

3635

_ 34_ 33

321 31

302928r 272625

24232221

1 201918171615

14_13_ 12_ 11

109


34.

co

co

50

49-1484746454443-42414039383736353433323130292A

2625

24232221120

189

17

1

16

5

14 -4

1211109

FIGURE 4

MARQUETTE EXPERIMENTAL GROUPPRE AND POST TEST DIFFERENCES

5th GRADE AND ABOVE

MANS

50

49

48_ 47- 46

45444342

- 41- 4039- 38- 3736353433323130

28272625

24

232221

L. 201918

_171615

-14

-12-11__10


50

49484746_..is.5

44434241403938_37

36

35cn 34

33 .J132

U 3130292827

1:426

25

2423222120 1

19

1817161514

131211

109

FIGURE 5

OMAHA CONTROL GROUPPRE AND POST TEST DIFFERENCES

4th GRADE 9th MONTH AND BELOW

MEANS

COMPREHENSIONVOCABULARY

36.

50

4948

1+7

46

45

44

43

4241403938

37

36

r_3534

r_3332

31

2928272625

_ 2423

_222.1

1-20:191_18X17

'16

15

_141, 1312

L109

50

49484746454443424140393837363534

rx) 333231302928

272625

24

2322

21

20

191817161514

13121110

9

FIGURE 6

OMAHA CONTROL GROUPPRE AND POST TEST DIFFERENCES

5th GRADE AND ABOVE

MEANSVOCABULARY

50

494847

_ 4645

_44- 43- 42

-40--39_38-37

36_. 35_ 34_33

3231

23029

_28272625

_2423222120

_18_17

16_15-14

COMPREHENSION

_13_12-.1110

_9

37.

FIGURE 7

MARQUETTE CONTROL GROUPPRE AND POST TEST DIFFERENCES

4th GRADE 9th MONTH AND BELOW

50_49-48_474544434241_

39-38__37,36_35_34_33_32

Frl

C4

0 30_29_2827_

.c4 26_25_24_2322:21_2019181716

1413 _11211.

10_9

ro

VOCABULARY

MEANS .....?12 .40.1101-1/1.1

COMPREHENSION

_ 50

49484746

_ 45

44_ 43

424140393837363534333231302928272625

24_ 23

22_21

20_19

18_17_16

15

14_13- 12- 11-1O

9

50_4948474645::444342_43._40_39383736_35_34_3332

30_co 29_

28

272524232221

20191817163.5

131211

.-

109

FIGURE 8

MARQUETTE CONTROL GROUPPRE AND POST TEST DIFFERENCES

5th GRADE AND ABOVE

MEANS


50_ 49_ 48_ 47

46_.45_ 44

4342

_ 42[__ 40

391.--38

_ 3736

_35_ 34_ 33

32_31

30

29_2827_26

25

_ 242322

20

1918

r-1716L1514..1.3

12_11.

109

e

NAME AGE

DATE OF TEST

GATES MAC GINITIE READING TESTWOMENS JOB CORPS NORMS

PROFILE SHEET .c.... c.. ..4 Lti

C.) -i =at = Luci cc co truJ c.) c..1 Xcl-

LLJ = .4c.) C, C)_30-36 42 - 50

. LI51 - 52

Cl) dez

100 ---- 100,3 640 - 41 5 0

-..... 32 - 35 272-52-926-,, 3395 - 3895 --19-31

---.....- i 1 3 3 - 34 14 -- 95

2 2 3 2 4 6

90

: i S 21-- 2 04 1 81 9

3 130

45 -.....- 90- 24

i 2 9, 2 1 -4-. 1 7 4----- 2 0 28 3

4 2L. 8585

4 1-4-- 1 8 26

80 801 5 4017 2 5

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Yaw

14

I 3

12

.r-.11

--**- 1 0

11,...

1 0

9

8

%IMO 7

MIMMINOI

.1.101.1111110

6

5

43

IleVamaMO

aMINIMMI

9

8

7

6

4

3

2

1

20

39241 6 1 4 7 538

2 3 37

---

3565

34

33

32

1 9 31

1 tJ

30

29

17 2827

16

15

26

2524

231 4 2 2

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

654

21

2019

1 7 - 1 8

16

151413

12

11

1098

4 - 5

x_,60

, 5 5

50

45

3 5

30

2 5

20

I 5

5

DOCUMENT RESUME - ERICDOCUMENT RESUME RE 001 958 Jones, Eert; And Others A Study cf Remedial Reading...

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME - ERICDOCUMENT RESUME RE 001 958 Jones, Eert; And Others A Study cf Remedial Reading...