An Examination of the Effects of Three Testing Techniques on Word Accuracy, Comprehension, Rate, and Percentages of Semantic Substitutions in Oral Reading
An Examination of the Effects of Three Testing Techniques on Word Accuracy, Comprehension, Rate, and Percentages of Semantic Substitutions in Oral Reading
Loading...
Files
Publication or External Link
Date
1972
Authors
Stafford, Gerald Edward
Advisor
Sullivan, Dorothy D.
Citation
DRUM DOI
Abstract
Authoritative opinion of long standing has recommended that
purposes for reading be established prior to reading. In spite of such
recommendations, testing procedures for oral reading typically have not
involved reading for purposes. Furthermore, research designed to examine
the effectiveness of reading for purposes has generally produced divergent
findings. Superior reading performance has been observed when purposes
for reading were established prior to reading as well as when they were
not established prior to reading. Moreover, research designed to examine
the effectiveness of purposeful reading has been confined almost exclusively
to the area of silent reading. To date not a single investigation
has been found which clearly illustrated the effects of purposes for reading
on oral reading performance.
The present study was designed to investigate the relationships
between three testing techniques and performance on four dimensions of
oral reading performance. The three testing techniques employed in this
study were identified as (1) careful reading, (2) reading for specific
purposes, and (3) reading for general purposes. The four dimensions
of oral reading performance on which comparisons were made involved oral
reading word accuracy, comprehension, rate, and the percentages of
semantic substitutions. The four research hypotheses examined in the investigation are stated as follows: 1. There is a difference in oral reading word accuracy under the treatments careful reading, reading for specific purposes, and reading for general purposes for third and sixth graders. 2. There is a difference in oral reading comprehension under the treatments careful reading, reading for specific purposes, and reading for general purposes for third and sixth graders. 3. There is a difference in oral reading rate under the treatments careful reading, reading for specific purposes, and reading for general purposes for third and sixth graders. 4. There is a difference in the percentages of semantic substitutions made under the treatments careful reading, reading for specific purposes and reading for general purposes for third and sixth graders. To obtain data for this study, forty-five third grade and forty-five sixth grade subjects were randomly selected from two elementary schools. The ninety subjects chosen for the study were then randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups. Each subject was requested to read orally in the manner dictated by the treatment group to which he had been assigned. The materials from which subjects read were the appropriate passages from Form A of the Gilmore Oral Reading Test (1852). Measurements for oral reading word accuracy, comprehension, rate, and percentages of semantic substitutions were computed for each subject. A 2x3 analysis of variance design was used to test for differential treatment effects. An analysis of the data from the study indicted that none of the research hypotheses was supported at the .05 level of significance.
The present study led to recommendations in the areas of theory,
diagnosis, teaching, and research. Authoritative opinion has suggested
that many of the classification schemes used for analyzing oral reading
errors are a theoretical. It is possible that performance differences
not evidenced through the classification scheme employed in this study
could be found using a classification scheme having a sounder theoretical
basis. It was therefore recommended that the effects of the three treatments
employed in this study be reexamined using a classification scheme
built around a theory of reading.
In contrast to investigation in the area of silent reading, the
present study did not evidence differences in reading performance under
the treatments employed. The failure of oral reading performance to
vary in the manner observed for silent reading suggested that the two
forms of reading are in some respects dissimilar. It was therefore recommended that
that diagnostic procedures include measures of both oral and silent
reading .
Recent investigation has suggested that children often need
greater skill in reading for different purposes. One possible explanation
for why differential treatment effects were not obtained in the
present study was that subjects did not have skill in reading for different
purposes. The recommendation was made, therefore, that classroom
teachers place greater. emphasis on teaching children to read for different
purposes.
The following recommendations were made for the area of research.
(1) It was recommended that research be undertaken to develop measures
of oral reading comprehension, rate, and percentages of semantic substitutions
which have greater test-retest reliability. (2) The sample
chosen for this study was restricted to third and sixth graders whose
performance on a standardized silent reading test placed them in the
second or third quartile of the normative population. A replication
of this study using subjects from other grade and performance levels
was recommended. (3) It was recommended that investigation be undertaken
to further examine the relationships between oral and silent reading.
Special consideration should be given to identifying those factors
in which a satisfactory generalization from oral reading to silent reading
can be made. (4) This study did not evidence differential treatment
effects using reading materials and purposes for reading supplied by an
examiner. It was recommended that investigation be undertaken to examine
the effectiveness of using pupil-selected materials and pupil purposes
for reading.