CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
Responses
of Elementary Teachers to the
It
Ransom Multi-Media, Multi-Modal Reading Program
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Elementary Education
Reading Improvement
by
Dorothy Carpenter
August, 1974
The thesis of Dorothy G. Carpenter is approved:
California State University, Northridge
August, 1974
11
This thesis is dedicated to my brother and sister-in-law,
Donald and Kathryn Bascom, who had enough faith in my
ability to finance the beginning of my career in education.
I wish to thank Dr. Fehl Shirley, chairman of my committee, for her continued interest and help to promote quality
educational research with this thesis. I wish also to thank
Dr. Walter Nelson and Dr. Raymond Jung, members of the
committee, for their contributions.
An additional word of ::hanks is extended to Dr. Grayce
Ransom, who encouraged me to pursue research in this
program.
D.G.C.
111
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V1
ABSTRACT
V111
Chapter
I
II
III
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ......................... .
1
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Limited Time in the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Use of a Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Ransom Reading System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary..............................................
1
2
2
2
2
3
4
5
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ..................... .
6
Need for This Type of Study · ............................. .
Individualization Through a Systems Management Approach ..... .
Instructional Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hackett System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Ransom Program - Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
7
9
10
13
15
METHODS AND PROCEDURES OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . .
16
Design of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Methodology Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Instruments and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Description of the Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Compilation of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary..............................................
16
16
16
18
19
20
lV
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
Chapter
IV
REPORT OF THE FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Findings Related to the Background of Teachers and
Schools Using the Ransom Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Findings Related to How Teachers Evaluated
Components of the Ransom Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Findings Related to the Responses of Teachers Toward
the Management Techniques of the Ransom Program . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS......
50
Summary..............................................
Development of a Management System for Teaching Reading... .
Procedures Used in This Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Findings of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
50
50
51
53
54
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
APPENDIX A -
Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
APPENDIX B- Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
APPENDIX C- The Ta.··wnomy of Reading Skills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
V
21
31
v
\
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Number of Respondents by Grade Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methods of Administering Pretests by Primary Teachers . . . . . . . . . . .
Methods of Administering Pretests by Intermediate and
Upper-Elementary Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methods of Administering Posttests by Primary Teachers . . . . . . . . . .
Methods of Administering Posttests by Intermediate
and Upper-Elementary Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Funding to Start the Ransom Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number of Teachers Who Have Resource Aides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number of Hours of Resource Aides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
How Test Levels Were Determined for Initial Placement
of Students for the Ransom Pretesting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number of Days Primary and Intermediate and UpperGrade Teachers Use the Ransom Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inservice for Orientation to the Ransom Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Types of lnservice for Starting the Ransom Program and
How Teachers Evaluated the Ransom Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Various Group Responses Toward the Usefulness of the Pretests . . . .
Various Group Responses Toward the Usefulness of the Posttests . . .
Group Responses Toward the Usefulness of Profiles for the
Individualization of Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Responses of Primary Teachers Toward Usefulness
of the Station Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Responses of Intermediate and Upper-Elementary Teachers
Toward Usefulness of the Station Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Responses of Primary Teachers Toward the Usefulness
of Alternate Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Responses of Intermediate and Upper-Elementary Teachers
Toward the usefulness of Alternative Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Responses of Primary Teachers Toward the Use of Specific Stations. .
Responses of Intermediate and Upper-Elementary Teachers
Toward the Use of Specific Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Teachers' Recommendations for Other Learning Stations . . . . . . . . . .
Respondents' Evaluation of Word-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respondents' Evaluation of Contracts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respondents' Opinion on the Usefulness of the Resource Teacher ...
Vl
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
27
28
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
35
36
36
37
38
39
40
40
41
LIST OF TABLES (Cont)
Table
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Respondents' Use of Time Planning Individualized Reading for
Students With Regard to Materials Prepared in Resource Room
Respondents' Opinion of Resource Room for Storage,
Dispersal, and Retrieval of Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respondents' Opinion of How Students Evaluate the
Ransom Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Types of Aides Used to Assist Classroom Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respondents' Evaluation of Aides in the Classroom. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respondents' Recommendations for Use of the Ransom Program
Crosstabulation of How the Decision Was Made to Start the
Ransom Program and Classroom Teachers' Evaluation of
the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Crosstabulation of How the Program Was Funded and the
Evaluation of the Total Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Crosstabulation of Ongoing Inservicc and How the Classroom
Teachers Evaluated the Ransom Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Crosstabulation of the Years of Teaching Experience and How
Teachers Evaluated the Ransom Program Providing for
Individualized Instruction for Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VJl
42
42
43
44
44
45
46
47
48
49
ABSTRACT
RESPONSES OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS TO THE
RANSOM MULTI-MEDIA, MULTI-MODAL READING SYSTEM
by
Dorothy Carpenter
Master of Arts in Elementary Education Reading Improvement
August 1974
The demand for more individualized ins:ruction has aroused interest in a systems
approach to the teaching of reading. The attitudes of teachers about the Ransom Program were assessed wit.h emphasis on what classroom te:::.chers found useful in
t.~e
sys-
tems approach and what changes took place as a result. The purposes of this study
were to (1) evaluate the usefulness of seler.::ted components b facilitating individualized
instruction; (2) ascertain the degree to 'Nhich te.a.chers had implemented the system;
and (3) receive reactions from teachers and to use this information about expanding a
systems approach to other schools.
This study was conducted through the use of a questionnaire distributed to 303
teachers using the Ransom Program as of Aprill, 1974. The 260 responses received
represented an 85.8-percent return. The data were tabulated, analyzed, and interpreted. The major findings of this study were:.
1.
The greatest percentage of teachers stated that this systems approach was
helpful to them in classroom man<!gement and in individualizing learni..'1g
for students.
Vlll
2.
A majority of teachers who were involved in the decision of starting this
program found this management system very helpful. When teachers were
not involved (decision made by building principals), teachers found the program less useful.
3.
The type of funding to start the program had no influence on the percentage
of teachers who found the program helpful.
. 4.
The greatest percentage of teachers regarded the preparation of materials
in the resource room helpful.
5.
Over three-fourths of the classroom teachers found the station approach
helpful.
6.
Over three-fourths of the classroom teachers feel that their students like
using this systems approach.
7.
Almost all of the teachers want to continue the Ransom Program. Some
want to incorporate some of the components into other programs.
Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations were made:
1.
Teachers should be involved in the decisions to start a systems approach.
2.
The success of the program does not appear to be related to funding.
Schools with limited funds found the program equally helpful as the
schools with special funding.
3.
Learning stations should be an important p2rt of a systems approach.
4.
By means of a student questionnaire, survey the groups to gain insight as
to their opinion of this systems approach.
5.
Make the best use of aides available. There should be some inser.rice program to train these people to accept the responsibilities given to them.
6.
Consideration should be given to other schools desiring to use this management system. More materials should be developed for the upper grades.
7.
This study, with appropriate variations, should be repeated to evaluate
the new commercial edition of the Ransom Program.
IX
Chapter I
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
For changes to occur in the classroom, the initial impetus must take place with
the teacher. The attitudes of teachers about the Ransom Diagnostic and Prescriptive
Multi-Media, Multi-Modal Reading Program were assessed with emphasis on what
teachers found useful in the systems approach and what changes took place in the
classroom as a result.
The survey was conducted in such a way as to provide information in the following areas:
1.
Diagnosing and prescribing materials for individualized learning
2.
Classroom management
3.
Organization of multimedia, multimodal materials.
Statement of the Problem
The demand for more individualized instruction has aroused interest in a systems
management apprmtch to the teaching of reading. In recent years, numerous attempts
were made to develop methods and techniques which would meet this need. But the
methods> techniques, md materials were incorporated into existing programs without
the necessary management. (Baker, 1970)
Diagnostic and prescriptive systems of te2.ching reading are relatively new within
the last decade. (Smit.h, 1963) Within this short period of time, most major educational publishing companies have devised their own systems or modified existing systems. Little data is available as to how valuable and useful such systems are to the
students and teachers. It was the purpose of this study to evaluate one such systemThe Ransom Diagnostic and Prescriptive Multi-Media, Multi-Modal Reading Program
(hereafter referred to as the Ransom Program or the Ransom System).
1
2
Purpose of the Study
The purposes of this study were the following:
1.
To evaluate the usefulness of the ensuing components of the Ransom System
in facilitating individualized instruction:
2.
a.
The taxonomy of skills
b.
The criterion-referenced tests
c.
The profiles, pretests and posttests
d.
The prescriptive management packages
To ascertain the degree to which teachers in the following classifications had
implemented the system:
3.
a.
Teachers in the primary grades (kindergarten, 1, 2, 3)
b.
Teachers in the intermediate and upper-elementary grades (4, 5, 6)
c.
New teachers with 3 years of experience or less
d.
Teachers with 4 to 10 years of experience
e.
Teachers who have taught 10 years or longer
To receive reactions from teachers and use this information as a basis for
decisions about expanding a systems approach to other schools.
Limitations of the Study
Limited Time in the Program
The experimental edition of the Ransom System has been used for the last five
years in 13 school districts in California. Some of these schools have used the system
for two years or less. All teachers who used the system for a period of one year or
more were invited to participate in this survey.
Use of a Questionnaire
Another limitation was use of the questionnaire as an instrument. The choice of
a questionnaire was based on the information the investigator wanted to determine.
3
It permitted wide coverage of teachers at a minimum expense itJ. money and time.
The respondents had a genuine interest in the problem under investigation and were
familiar with the components included in this study. No one was asked to sign or
otherwise be identified, which elicited more candid and objective replies. Criteria
were established to aid in the selection of items for this instrument.
Definition of Terms
Taxonomy or continuum of reading skills - A hierarchy of reading skills and behav-
ioral objectives for teachers' information and organizational purposes is called the
taxonomy or continuum of skills. It is arranged vertically into phases or grade levels.
The skills are organized horizontally into seven strands which spiral throughout the
program. (Dr. Ransom's continuum is appended to this report. See Appendix C.)
Individual profiles -
Individual profiles allow for a way of record keeping of what
has been mastered and what should be learned, which provides the teacher (and older
student) with a blueprint for planning a prescriptive program.
Group profiles -
Group profiles are identical to the individual profiles in content.
Each child's evaluation is entered on the group profile so that the teacher may plan
flexible skill groupings of children showing specific deficits.
Criterion-referenced tests or diagnostic tests - These tests measure the performance
of each student in relation to a set of objectives or criteria. They reveal exactly what
a child can do, both before instruction by pretest and after instruction by posttests.
(Hackett, 1971)
Prescriptive teaching -
To provide prescriptive teaching, profiles are used to identify
needs and the teacher plans instruction accordingly. Each child receives only the
skills needed and there is a choice of materials and methods to be used in learning
the skill. (Ransom, 1971)
JHultirnedia, rnultirnodal materials - A variety of many-faceted materials to be used
w'ith a variety of approaches.
4
Learning stations -
Learning stations are a management technique to provide for
meaningful self-directed experiences based on specific skill needs. This arrangement
allows the teacher time to work with a small group of children on a directed lesson.
(Ransom, 1971)
Resource room - Central area where materials are prepared, collected, and stored
systematically for teachers' use.
Systems approach or management approach - A vehicle that provides for an orderly
way of diagnostic and prescriptive teaching is a systems or management approach.
Learning packages -
Each skill is organized into a preassembled unit with the behav-
ioral objectives clearly defined. Multimedia learning materials included in the module
(envelope, box, etc.) provide for diversified learning activities. (Unruh, 1970)
The Ransom Reading System
The Ransom Reading System is a flexible, multiskilled arrangement, using a
variety of media to provide purposeful and worthwhile reinforcement activities for
individual children who need them, while the teacher is working with a small group.
It can be used with any reading program, such as basal reading, language experience,
individualized self-selection, linguistic, etc.
The components are: (Ransom, 1971)
1.
A basic taxonomy of reading skills and behavioral objectives for the
teachers' information and organizational purposes.
2.
A set of thirteen minutely defined placement and thirteen mastery skillstests keyed to the basic skills list.
3.
A set of many-faceted materials of ascending complexity at each level
keyed to the basic skills list.
4.
A brief description of many suggested teaching-learning activities for each
minutely defined subskill.
5.
A bibliography of specially produced and commercially produced materials
keyed to each reading subskill.
5
6. A set of pupil and class profile record forms for each of the thirteen levels
of reading instruction.
7. A system for organizing and maintaining a resource room for storage, dispersal, and retrieval of needed materials at teachers' request.
8. Delineation of the work of a school resource reading specialist who administers the program, conducts continuing inservice education in effective
teaching of reading, and coordinates planning with the author-director of
the project, Dr. Grayce Ransom.
9. A plan for setting up and maintaining learning stations in the classroom,
emphasizing multimedia use.
10. A system of placement testing (using the criterion-referenced level tests)
each ten weeks.
11. A system of skill-by-skill mastery testing used by the teacher with instructional groups following reinforcement activities for specific su bskills. [ 1, 2]
Through the use of the testing component and teacher evaluation, children are
being continuously assessed. At the elementary reading levels, this implies assessment
of breadth and depth of concepts, the child's facility in listening and speaking, visual
and auditory perception, phoneme-graphemic understandings, and perceptual-motor
skills relevant to the reading process. (Ransom, 1967)
From the testing information, individual profiles provide usable records to be
used as blueprints of instruction for each child. Resource rooms are set up to collect
visual, auditory, and manipulative materials and store them systematically.
Summary
If individualized instruction is to take place, it rests upon the teacher's ability to
diagnose the needs of each child and then to provide prescriptive teaching. To make
it possible for the teacher to do this, there must be a system of organization available.
The components and organizationa.l techniques of the Ransom Reading System were
described. The following chapter v.rill discuss the needs of such a program and how
educators are meeting this need.
Chapter II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter is a review of the existing literarure to examine research data
relating to systems approaches used in the teaching of reading.
Need for This Type of Program
Whatever the ultimate goals of education may be, learning should be the main
focus of its operation. (Manly, 1970)
Our schools, however, have not placed
enough emphasis on learning. Instead, they appear to have been concerned with secondary goals: grades and the graduation of a large percentage of srudents. However,
diplomas and report cards do not necessarily reflect learning. Too many students
graduate from our schools without acquiring the basic skills necessary for successful
performance in our society.
New learning depends primarily on the combining of previously acquired capabilities. (Gagne, 1970) The capabilities that a srudent acquires build on each other.
What a srudent will be able to learn depends very much on the capabilities he already
possesses. Every learning task, no matter how complex, is made up of severai smaller,
less complex learning tasks. Any learning task can be learned if the student is able to
perform the tasks that compose it.
If reading competence is established as a general goal, a detailed analysis of t..he
reading process will reveal the intellectual skills needed by the student from the
simple sensorimotor skills to highly complex levels of interpretations and problem
solving. These skills are then stated as performance objectives. A performance
describes, in operational terms, the outcome of specific instruction. Thus, general
goals of education can be changed into a coherent set of objectives around which
instruction can be designed.
6
7
By constructing and using criterion-referenced assessments, it is possible to
diagnose individual students' capabilities. Performance-based instruction allows the
schools to guide the development of each student according to his own potential. It
is then possible to evaluate the progress of each student and the success of classroom
instruction.
Because the study of performance leads to an analysis of specific learning tasks,
it is related to another important aspect of the learning process: the hierarchical
nature of learning. (Gagne, 1970) In reading, some kind of a skill continuum is
neces~
sary. The skills are ordered in a hierarchical fashion. The reading tasks are analyzed
and the skills that compose it are arranged from simplest to most difficult. For example, in order to read a paragraph, a student must be able to read a sentence, identify
the meani.11g of words in context, identify the words, and identify letters. But these
skills do not combine randomly. They have a hierarchically ordered structure. The
final skill, the ability to read a paragraph, is based on the ability of a student to read
a sentence. This, in turn, is based on the ability of a student to group the meaning of
words. Finally, this skill is based upon the ability of a student to identify words and
letters.
Because of the concept of transfer between tasks, it is important to design the
curriculum so that skills being taught will transfer positively to each other. The less
complex skills in a hierarchy have to be learned before the more complex skills are
attempted. Therefore, learning is cumulative in its effects. (Gagne, 1968)
Individualization Through a Systems Management Approach
A learner is an individual and must be taught accordingly. Innovations such as
small-group work, audio and videotapes, lectures and demonstrations, and teaching
machines and programmed instructional materials have all helped to a degree to improve education and training. Yet what is needed is a system which permits the
teacher to <'3Sess each pupil's progress and prescribe a variety of materials and methods.
Through the use of criterion-referenced tests, it is possible to diagnose the placement
of each student ·with respect to the specific skills on which he needs instruction and
8
to judge the progress of each student on an individual basis with respect to the
hierarchy of skills. Since performance objectives are sequential, it is possible to
diagnose the point at which any individual student needs instruction. (Hackett, 1971)
Teachers should use the results of the skills assessment pretest to provide the
actual instruction. The need for prescriptive teaching and a system of providing
materials which are designed to meet the performance objectives are essential for
successful teaching. (Hackett, 1971) The distinguishing features of well-designed
packages are that individualization is based on concepts organized into manageable
coordinated modules and that clearly stated instructional objectives inform the
teacher and/or student of the quality of performance expected. Multimedia leamit•g
materials included in the package provide for diversified learning activities and the
teacher's role is significantly changed. (Unruh, 1970)
Smith (1963) has written that teachers should make provision for individual
instruction. Each teacher should provide for individual differences and varying rates
of learning among students, as well as for the changing needs, interest, and materials
of learners. (White, 1973) It is implicit in the idea of meeting individual needs that
teachers need an abundance of instructional materials. Furthermore, teachers should
select appropriate materials.
{( T~e availability of materials is one of the major problems associated with indi7
"--~.,.__•••...-.;>·
vidualizing reading. (McKillop, 1957)
... such a program demanded a great many materials of different
sorts ... if children were to be taught individually, the teachers
would need different types of materials - readers, library books,
charts, and practice exercises. [139]
To make the best use of the nultimedia materials, a central storage room is
important. All the materials (commercial and teacher-made) are gathered from the
classroom shelves, coded to the subskills, and become a part of a retrieval system to
be used by all teachers. With all materials in one centrally located spot, the teacher
can provide the child with a broad and rich variety of reading resources and guide
the child in selecting those materials and experiences most suited to his needs, interest, purposes, and abilities. (Bohnhorst and Sellars, 1959)
9
Eight essential steps must be taken to set up a management system to provide
for individualized instruction. (Hackett, 1971) The steps are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Establishing general goals
Identifying the intellectual skills
Operationalizing objectives
Constructing criterion-referenced assessments
Diagnosing capabilities
Providing instruction
Assessing prog-ress
Evaluation of the system [29, 30]
It is to this last point that this study is directed. Hoetker (1970) stated that
"the most valuable thing that a systems approach has to offer is the promise of help
in discovering what we do not know that we did not know we needed to know." [117]
Instructional Management System
The Instructional Management System (I.M.S.) consists of the following com··
ponents: (Geddes, 1969)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Goals and objectives
Tests which measure the children's ability
Reports prepared by computers
Activities prescribed to remedy deficiencies
[337]
I.M.S. is designed to help the teacher monitor the progress of her pupils and
make decisions on the pace of instruction, the group of children, the sequence of
lessons, and the individualized instruction. It provides a framework for making
decisions on dass!·oom management at any gTade level. The needs and problems of
grouping are met. Before using I.M.S., children were grouped according to the
teacher's best judgment of how well they kept up with the group, not according to
their mastery of skills. Lesson assignments were made to the group as a whole and
were based on the teacher's intuitive judgment about what the children needed.
There was little opportunity for individual instruction. Any regular information the
teacher gathered about her pupils' progress depended on her. She could observe the
children in class or grade lessons or give tests that she herself planned and assigned,
10
but she had no help in planning her observation and assignments or in analyzing the
results. I.M.S. tried to provide infom1ation teachers lack. No attempt was made to
force immediate changes in the classroom routines that seemed satisfactory to
teachers. By trying I.M.S. in the classroom, teachers discovered what information
and what assistance actually helped the teacher help the child. Also, I.M.S. consists
of teacher-made items, often borrowed from workbooks, each keyed to the objectives.
When a code number appears under "activities recommended," the appropriate sheets
are used. However, the code number could designate some other activity, such as a
group lesson, tutoring, filmstrip, etc. The development of alternative activities is now
receiving primary attention in the improvement of I.M.S.
The I.M.S. is a classroom management system that used practical situations that
a teacher faces and offers help with informational needs she recognizes. The system
accommodates the general group-paced classroom. At the same time, by providing
information on children's learning difficulties, the system encourages the teachers to
undertake more individualization in the classroom. I.M.S. is planned to serve the
teacher who wishes to use this i..•1formation to make her own program completely
flexible and appropriate for each child's individual needs. However, this system has
not been evaluated.
Hackett System
Transfer of skills - In 1969, a performance-based system of instruction was
conducted with more than two thousand students in grades two, five, eight, and
eleven. The study was designed to answer three questions: (1) Can a hierarchy of
intellectual skills be established? (2) Can the ability to perform a single skill in the
hierarchy be predicted to transfer the ability to perform a more complex skill in the
hierarchy? (3) Can oral training improve listening ~.:omprehension and reading
comprehension? (Hackett, 1971)
1.
In second grade, the probability for success in Skill2, given that Skilll
had been achieved, was 0.82; the probability for success in Skill 3, given
that Skilll had been achieved, was 0.73; but the probability for success
in Skill 9, given that Skill1 had been achieved, was only 0.03. Thus,
11
there is relatively little
in the hierarchy.
2.
transf~r
between skills which are widely separated
The degree of predictable transfer between skills was also studied by looking at the percentages of correct responses for successive pairs of skills. In
grade two, if Skill 1 was achieved, the probability of success in Skill 2 was
0.82; if Skill2 was achieved, the probability of success in Skill 3 was 0.78;
if Skill 3 was achieved, the probability of success in Skill 4 was 0.67. This
means that there is a significant amount of transfer between skills which
are closely related in the hierarchy. [71]
Ethnic and economic differences - The results from a two-year study to determine the differences between low-income students and middle- and upper-income
students using criterion-referenced management showed that there were no significant differences between the two groups. (Hackett, 1971) This suggests that all}>
children can learn equally well if they are given the proper instru~~9~!l.J
·
·~·
Evaluation of the performance-based instruction - In Emeryville, California,
a study was conducted to evaluate the performance-based system of instruction. The
results showed that students in grades one through three improved in language objectives from a pretest of 26% mastery to a posttest of 70%. (Hackett, 1971)
These results are dramatic evidence of the success of the Emeryville
Project. Students in grades one through twelve showed an unprecedented degree of improvement in all subject areas. The students
learned- faster and more efficiently than ever before. We know
of no school district in the country which can show better results.
It was through a performance-based system of instruction that the
schools achieved this kind of success.
Equally impressive were the results from standard tests. In the schools,
norm-referenced tests are given to evaluate programs and to compare
different schools. As in most states, California selected the standardized tests which were administered at specific grade levels. For example, here are the results from the standardized reading tests. They
show how the Emery District students compare with the state averages.
Because the tests were given in June 1969 and June 1970, they directly
measure the effect of one year of performance-based instruction.
12
Average Grade Equivalent Gain Scores From
Norm-Referenced, Standardized Reading Tests
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grades 7 & 8
6/69
6170
1.9
3.5
4.9
4.9
6.1
7.0
3.2
3.3
4.2
5.4
Average gain for 6 grades = 1. 7
These results arc highly encouraging. The Emery students made
an average gain of almost two years. Remember that the Emery
District is made up entirely of minority students - blacks, Mexicans, orientals, and poor whites. It is also believed by most school
people that standardized tests are culturally biased. They are
geared for middle-class, white, suburban students. They often
ignore the background and culture of minority students. As a
result, minority students are at a serious disadvantage when
attempting these tests. Yet the Emery students not only equaied
the state average, they almost doubled it. These facts clearly show
the astonishing effectiveness for the first year of performance-based
instruction.
The Emeryville Project has been a continuing success. This year,
with both teachers and students more experienced in the operation
of the performance-based instruction, it is expected that the district's progress will be even more dramatic. But the importance of
our first-year results cannot be overestimated. Without an influx
of specialists, we were able to take an urban district of minority
students and turn it around. We accomplished results which are
difficult to match. Most importantly, the Project showed that the
situation in the schools is not hopeless. When school districts across
the country implement performance-based instruction, they can
truly become centers of learning. [87-88]
13
The Ransom Program- Research
An experimental research project investigating multimedia and multimodal
emphasis- In 1964, Dr. Ransom planned a reading study on the use of technology
and multimodallearning experiences in first-grade classrooms. The purpose of this
study was to appraise the value of experimentally prepared aural-visual and visual
supplementary materials as used in first-grade reading programs. The research design
embodied the establishment, operation, and evaluation of an experiment in fifteen
first-grade classrooms using supplementary materials emphasizing word recognition,
word analysis, and comprehension skills. The investigator developed and furnished
experimental materials for use in the study. One experimental group used these
materials in aural-visual form; a second experimental group used visual presentation
only; while a third, or control, group did not use them. The study was a statistical
comparison of the three groups. After running a full year (1965-66), computer
analysis by the use of an analysis of covariance research design revealed that the
aural-visual classes scored significantly better in comprehension, and consistently
showed higher achievement in all skills than either of the other two groups.
(Ransom, 1966).
Stucly of group and individual first-grade instruments of prediction of reading
success-- In 1967, with the conviction that group assessment measures at primary
levels are both financially necessary and extremely difficult to work out in effectiveness, Dr. Ransom planned a study to ascertain the predictive validity of certain group
tests of language perception in first-graders. (Ransom, 1968)
A battery of individually administered standardized tests was given to three
hundred first-grade children. These tests were chosen because they purported to
measure the same skills as the group-oriented Ransom Language Perception Test.
It was then possible to ascertain the effectiveness of group testing. Special care was
given to develop formats which were easy for primary children to use.
Skills tested included three types of visual discrimination, three types of auditory discrimination, the comprehension skills of classification and sequencing, and
also oral responses to a nursery rhyme picture.
14
The predictive validity of the group tests compared with individual tests with
the administration of the Stanford Reading Achievement Test as criterion was significant. The formats of the Ransom Language Perception Test had been adopted
in test and independent activity materials in the program.
A study of the factors that influence high and low reading test scores in first
and second grade - During 1968, a study by Dr. Ransom was based on the premise
that it was possible to identify certain factors or combinations of factors which
appear to have consistent relationship to high and low test scores. This was a statesponsored research including small suburban districts, large urban districts, and rural
districts. Of the variables shmving significant difference, residential stability was by
far the most distinguishing characteristic. (Ransom, 1968)
A study of central storage for multimedia keyed to the Ransom taxonomy of
reading subskills as a means of promoting flexible skill groups through the use of
learning stations- The field study was started in 1968-69 at the Haddon Avenue
School and the Noble Elementary School. Five experimental and five control classrooms were in low socioeconomic areas, while four experimental and four control
classrooms were in middle socioeconomic areas. No significant differences were
found between the experimental and control classrooms. At this point, Dr. Ransom
introduced th~ diagnostic and prescriptive components. During the 1969-70 and
1970-71 school years, considerable growth was shown in Stanford Achievement
Testing scores. (Ransom, 1971)
Stanford Achievement Tests
Median Percentiles at Haddon Avenue School
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
1967
1970
6th Percentile
7th Percentile
9th Percentile
56th Percentile
51st Percentile
37th Percentile
[3]
i
~~
J . .}
A field study of primary grade research project -
Use of the Cooperative
California Primary Battery State Scores and Wide Range Achievement Test scores
showed the effects of a systems approach on achievement. (Carpenter, 19'12) There
were four classes of first-graders and three classes of second-graders in the experimental
and control group, a total of 50 pupils in each group. The experimental groups were
in a school using the Ransom Program. The other school did not use the Ransom
ProgTam. Both schools used the same eclectic approach to teaching reading. Evety
class except one in the experimental group made gains above expectancy. As an
average, the experimental group scored higher than the control group. In the contTol
group, no chtsses scored above expectancy.
Summary
Much has been written about the individualizing of reading, yet very little
research is available to verify claims by various publishers and authors. A systems
approach may be one way to help teachers with the management of an individualized
reading program. In the review of the reLned literature, three ma.jor systems were
cited: Hackett Reading System, Instructional Ivbnagement System, and the experimental version of the Ransom System. Every effort '.Vas made to use prjmmy sources
and to survey all the recognized authorities in the field.
Very little evatuation on the use of :t systems approach has been completed.
There is a need for investigation in this area. Chapter Ill presents the design of this
evaluative study of the Ranson.-1 Pre gram
Chapter Ill
METHODS AND PROCEDURE OF INVESTIGATION
Design of the Study
Although the teachers using this system have indicated that children participating
in the progra.m benefit greatly, very little empirical evidence is available. This study
was intended to measure the impact of the use of the Ransom System on the attitudes
of teachers in classroom management, individualized learning, and organization of
multimedia, multimodal materials.
The Methodology Employed
The choice of a questionnaire was based on the information the investigator
wanted to determine. It permitted wide coverage of teachers at a minimum expense.
The questionnaire was easy to fill out, kept the respondents on the subject, was easy
to tabulate and analyze. The uniformity in the manner in which the questions were
answered allowed for comparability in the answers. Both open- and closed-type items
were used. Code numbers were used for all possible responses to permit easy transference to machine-tabulation cards.
Other questionnaires were studied and compiled into workable data. A rating
scale of 5 to 1 was used for the closed responses (5 being very helpful, 1 being not
helpful). (See Appendix B for the questionnaire used in this study.)
The Instruments and Procedures
The questionnaire was developed through the study of surveys, related literature,
and teacher opinions. Using the objectives of this study and the nature of the data
needed, the following items were included:
16
17
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The background information
a.
The number of years the teacher has been teaching.
b. The number of years the teacher has used the Ransom Program.
c.
The type of inscrvice.
The use of criterion-referenced testing (pretests and posttests).
The use of profiles to provide for individualized teaching.
The management technique of using learning stations.
The use of aides, paraprofessional, both paid and volunteer.
The evaluation of the entire program.
The recommendations for the following year.
This questionnaire was constructed to gain insights into five areas:
1.
The diagnostic and prescriptive materials for individualized teaching
(Teachers' questions 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
2.
'!:he classroom management
(Teachers' questions 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25)
3.
The organization of time and material
(Teachers' questions 12a, 12b, 13)
4.
The importance of inservice
(Teachers' questions 4, 6)
5.
The total program evaluation
(Teachers' questions 26, 27)
Teachers' questions 1, 2, 3, and 5 were used to gain background information.
The questions relating to the num her of years of teaching experience, the number of
years in the Ransom Program, how often the Ransom Program is used, and classroom
assignment were used to compile data about how different groups reacted to the same
questions.
Information concerning how each school made the decision to start the Ransom
Program, how the schools were funded, the use of resource aides, and how the testing
program was organized was compiled from the resource teacher's questionnaire. (See
Appendix B for the questionnaire used.)
Statements on the same subtopic were grouped to give the questionnaire a semblance of order and to enable the respondent to orient himself to the trend of thought.
18
After these statements were gathered, a trial test was given to 18 teachers who had
used the Ransom Program for two years or longer. Fifteen responded with suggestions and comments. Ambiguous statements were rewritten and only the items that
would give valuable information were retained.
Using the Likert scaling technique, a scale value was assigned to the five responses,
with 5 being very helpful and 1 being not helpful. (Best, 1970)
Description of the Sample
The aim was to involve the total population of teachers in the 13 districts who
had used the Ransom Program in lieu of a random sample so that results would not
be misleading. Dr. Ransom made available to the researcher the names and addresses
of all schools using this program. Included were 149 teachers who taught in Title I
schools which are federally funded (based on financial needs of parents and low test
scores in reading). The remaining 154 teachers were from schools that received no
special funding. The districts represent a wide spectrum of socioeconomic background.
The questionnaires were distributed at a Ransom meeting of resource teachers
during April1974. Those who were not present received their questionnaires by mail.
In turn, the resource teachers gave the survey to the classroom teachers. Self-addressed
envelopes accompanied each school's questionnaires, which were returned by prepaid
parcel post in May 1974. After three weeks, a letter reminded the recipients that the
completed questionnaire had not been received. (See Appendix A for the followup
letter that was used.)
The responses received totaled 260, which represented 85.8 percent returned.
The information obtained from the questionnaire replies was tabulated by the
investigator. As responses were received, they were opened and the surveys were
numbered consecutively by schools and by teachers in that school. The purpose of
the numbering was to allow the researcher
to
refer back to a particular survey if neces-
sary after the first tabulation.
The response to question number 20, "Suggestions for learning stations," was
recorded and put into main categories.
19
With the help of the computer services at California State University, Northridge,
the data was placed on computer worksheets. Good (1954) states that data cards are
useful for the purpose of crosstabulation because they can be sorted for many different traits. It was an advantage for this survey to be able to remove cards from the
main pack for use in another tabulation.
An expert from the University did the key punching and verification of all the
responses excluding number 20, which was tabulated by hand. The responses were
grouped into categories and listed in the tables. (Nie, 1970)
Compilation of Tables
Following the tabulations of the responses from the 260 questionnaires that
were returned, the computer was programmed to indicate the frequency count, percentages, and cumulative percentage for questions 1-19 and 21-27. These results are
shown in the tables in the following chapter. The data cards were then separated
into the following categories and were crosstabulated for the purpose of making
comparison:
1.
2.
Schools ·with special funding and those with no special funding.
Teachers with three years or less of classroom experience; teachers with
. three to ten years of classroom experience; teachers with more than ten
years of experience.
3.
Teachers who used the Ransom Program for one year; teachers who used
the Program for three years or longer.
4.
Teachers of primary grades and teachers of the intermediate and upperelementary grades.
5.
Teachers who received inservice training by attending a workshop and
teachers who did not attend a workshop.
The purpose of this procedure was to determine interrelationships between the
teachers and their responses to selected survey questions. These results and responses
to the open-ended comments were tabulated and discussed in chapter IV.
20
Summary
In this chapter, the methods and procedures used to collect and treat the data
for this survey of teachers in the eleven districts using the Ransom Program have
been described. Tabulation and analysis of the data are presented in chapter IV.
Chapter IV
REPORT OF THE FINDINGS
A survey questionnaire was distributed to three hundred teachers using the
Ransom Program. Responses were received from two hundred and sixty teachers.
The findings from the survey are reported in this chapter.
It will be noted tha.t the total number of respondents on the charts will vary.
This is because the respondents did not always answer every question.
Findings Related to the Background of Teachers and Schools
Using the Ransom Program
Most ~f the teachers using the Ransom Program are primary teachers. The grade
levels of the respondents are shown in table 1. The question deali.'1g with grade level
was divided into two sections. According to the datet received, 91.5 percent of the
total number, or 236 respondents, were teachers of grades kindergarten, 1, 2, 3;
8.5 percent, or 22 respondents, were teachers of grades 4, 5, 6.
Table 1
NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS BY GRADE LEVEL
Grade Level
Primarv (K, 1, 2, 3)
'
Intermediate and Upper
Elementary (4, 5, 6)
Number of
Respondents
Percentage of
Respondents
236
91.5
22
8.5
N ==258
21
22
Table 2 shows that most of the primary teachers pretested one level of the test.
Two categories were selected to show the pretesting methods used by the respondents:
each teacher testing one level and each teacher testing all levels. There were 213
respondents, or 94.7 percent, who tested one level; 11 respondents or 4.9 percent
who tested all levels.
Table 2
METHODS OF ADMINISTERING PRETESTS BY PRIMARY TEACHERS
Method
Number of
Respondents
Percentage of
Respondents
*One level
213
94.7
**All levels
11
4.9
1
0.4
Other
*One level - There is a systematic schoolwide testing program for the pretesting of
all students at the beginning of the year and on a continuing basis as needed. Each
teacher tests one level, with the children rotating to other classrooms as needed for
level testing.
**All levels - Each teacher tests all levels of the test for her own class.
23
In table 3, the methods of pretesting by teachers of grades four, five, and si.x
are shown. Two categories were selected to show the pretesting methods used by
the respondents: each teacher testing one level and each teacher testing all levels.
There were 13 respondents, or 68.4 percent, who tested one level; 4 respondents,
or 21.1 percent, who tested all levels; 3 respondents, or 10.5 percent, tested in
other ways.
Table 3
METHODS OF ADMINISTERING PRETESTS
BY INTERMEDIATE AND UPPER-ELEMENTARY TEACHERS
N=20
Method
Number of
Respondents
Percentage of
Respondents
One level
13
68.4
All levels
4
21.1
Other
3
10.5
24
The method of posttesting of primary grades is shown in table 4. Only a few
teacl;lers gave all levels of the tests. Four categories were used to show methods of
posttesting. Fifty-five respondents, or 27.5 percent, stated that the posttests were
given by classroom teachers at specific intervals. There were 52.0 percent, or 104
respondents, who posttested as a skill was completed; 7.5 percent, or 15 respondents,
who stated that the resource teacher posttested at specific intervals; and 13 percent,
or 26 respondents, who replied that the resource teacher posttested as each skill was
completed.
Table 4
METHODS OF ADMINISTERING POSTTESTS BY PRIMARY TEACHERS
Number of
Respondents
Percentage of
Respondents
55
27.5
104
52.0
By resource teacher at
specific intervals
15
7.5
By resource teacher as
a skill was completed
26
13.0
Method
By classroom teacher
at specific intervals
By classroom teacher
as a skill was completed
N=200
25
As opposed to the methods of pretesting, all levels of the posttesting were
administered by the classroom teacher over 7 5 percent of the time. The methods
of posttesting by teachers in the intermediate and upper-elementary grades is shown
in table 5. Of the 19 teachers who answered this question, 2, or 10.5 percent, replied
that the classroom teacher does the posttesting at specific intervals; 8, or 42.1 percent
of the respondents, said that the classroom teacher does the posttesting as a skill is
completed; 5, or 26.3 percent, indicated that the posttesting is administered by the
resource teacher at specific intervals; and 4, or 21.1 percent, stated that the posttesting
was administered by the resource teachers as skilis are completed.
Table 5
METHODS OF ADMINISTERING POSTTESTS
BY INTERMEDIATE AND UPPER-ELEMENTARY TEACHERS
Number of
Respondents
Percentage of
Respondents
By classroom teacher
at specific intervals
2
10.5
By classroom teacher as
a skill was completed
8
42.1
By resource teacher
at specific intervals
5
26.3
By resource teacher as
a skill was completed
4
21.1
Method
N = 19
I
26
How the classrooms were funded for starting the Ransom Program is shown in
table 6. No districts received unlimited funding. Over half of the classrooms were
funded by Title I.
Table 6
FUNDING TO START THE RANSOM PROGRAM
Funding
Unlimited district funding
Liznited district funding
Title I
Regular school budget
N = 217
Number
Percentage
0
0.0
48
22.1
149
68.7
20
9.2
27
In table 7, the number of teachers who have resource aides is shown. Table 8
shows the number of hours that the resource aides worked in the resource rooms.
Most of the teachers have aides for four or more hours each day.
Table 7
NUMBER OF TEACHERS WHO HAVE RESOURCE AIDES
Number
Percentage
Yes
217
83.5
No
43
16.5
N=260
Table 8
NUMBER OF HOURS OF RESOURCE AIDES
Hours
Number of Teachers' Who Have
Resource Aides in Their School::;
!
I
Percentage
1-3
14
6.5
4
64
29.5
5 or over
139
47.5
No aides
43
16.5
N=260
28
One of the major problems with levels testing is where to place students for the
first time. How the initial test levels were determined is shown in table 9.
Table 9
HOW TEST LEVELS WERE DETERMINED FOR INITIAL PLACEMENT
OF STUDENTS FOR THE RANSOM PRETESTING
Number of Teachers
Percentage
Wide Range Achievement Test Scores
37
17.1
Teacher Evaluation
66
30.4
State Test Scores
29
13.4
Combination of above
85
39.2
Instrument or Method
N
= 217
The number of days each teacher uses the Ransom Program will vary from
teacher to teacher and school to school. .How often the teachers use the Ransom
Program is shown in table 10.
Table 10
NUMBER OF DAYS PRIMARY AND INTERMEDIATE AND UPPER-GRADE
TEACHERS USE THE RANSOM PROGRAM
.
Teachers
5
Number of Days
2
4
3
1
p·rimary and intermediate
and upper-elementary
Number
Percent
N = 253
149
58.9
52
20.5
23
9.0
24
9.5
5
2.0
29
Table 11 shows how the teachers were inserviced for orientation to the Ransom
Program. Only one-fourth of the teachers attended a workshop. The resource teachers
were responsible for most of the inservice. Under the category of "other," some
teachers were inserviced by visiting Ransom schools and by consultants hired by the
district.
Table 11
INSERVICE FOR ORIENTATION TO THE RANSOM PROGRAM
Type
Number
Percentage
Classroom teachers attended workshop
66
26.6
Resource teachers attended workshop and inserviced classroom
teachers
161
64.9
21
8.5
Other
N=248
30
Teachers using the Ransom Program were inserviced on a regularly scheduled
basis or as needed. However, in a few cases there was no inservice. The relationship
between inservice and how teachers evaluated the program is shown in table 12. The
method of inservicing did not influence how teachers evaluated the program. However,
teachers with no inservice did not rate the program as high as teachers who received
some mserv1ce.
Table 12
TYPES OF INSERVICE FOR STARTING TI-lE RANSOM PROGRAi\1
AND HOW TEACHERS EVALUATED THE RANSOM PROGRAM
Usefulness
of Program
Classroom Teacher
Attended Workshop
Resource Teacher
Attended Workshop
and Inserviced Staff
No lnservice
Number Percent
Number Percent
Number Percent
-
·-
68
45.0
2
10.5
32.8
59
39.1
8
42.1
9
14.1
20
13.2
7
36.8
2
2
3.1
3
2.0
1
5.3
1 (not helpful)
2
3.1
1
0.7
1
5.3
5 (very helpful)
30
46.9
4
21
3
Total
N =234
I
64
I
151
I
19
31
Findings Related to How Teachers Evaluated Components
of the Ransom Program
Tables 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 show how the teachers evaluated
the components of the Ransom Program.
In table 13, various group responses toward the usefulness of the pretests is
shown. Various groups of teachers rated the pretest on a scale of 5 (very helpful)
to 1 (not helpful). There is very little difference between the responses of teachers
with regard
to
experience, grade level, or years in the program.
Table 14 shows the same information on how teachers evaluated the posttests.
Again, there was very little difference between the responses of teachers with regard
to experience, grade level, or years in the program. However, comparing the two
tables, teachers found the pretests much more beneficial than the posttests.
32
Table 13
VARIOUS GROUP RESPONSES TOWARD THE USEFULNESS
OF THE PRETESTS
Groups
Primary teachers
Number
Percent
Intermediate and
upper-elementary
Number
Percent
Teachers with 3 or less
years of experience
Number
Percent
Teachers with 3-10
years of experience
Number
Percent
Teachers with 10 or
more years of
expenence
Number
Percent
Teachers who have been
in the program 1 year
Number
Percent
Teachers who have been
in the program 2 or
more years
Number
Percent
*Very helpful
**Not helpful
Total Number
of Teachers
5*
4
Scale
3
95
43.0
89
40.3
29
13.1
4
1.8
4
1.8
221
7
3
15.0
1
5.0
0
0.0
20
35.0
9
45.0
20
40.8
14
28.6
14
28.6
1
2.0
0
0.0
49
36
46.8
33
42.9
6
1
1.3
77
7.8
1
1.3
45
39.1
51
44.3
12
10.4
3
2.6
4
3.5
115
55
40.1
50
36.5
24
17.5
137
2.9
4
2.9
4·'7
44.3
49
46.2
8
7.5
1
1.0
1
1.0
106
2
1**
I4
Table 14
VARIOUS GROUP RESPONSES TOWARD THE USEFULNESS
OF THE POSTTESTS
Groups
Primary teachers
Number
Percent
Intermediate and
upper-elementary
Number
Percent
Teachers with 3 or less
years of experience
Number
Percent
Teachers with 3-10
years of experience
Number
Percent
Teachers with 10 or
more years of
expenence
Number
Percent
Teachers whc have been
in the program 1 year
Number
Percent
Teachers who have been
in the program 2 or
more years
Number
Percent
*Very helpful
**Not helpful
5*
4
Scale
3
46
24.6
68
36.4
50
26.7
4
21.1
8
42.1
9
23.1
Total Number
of Teachers
2
1**
18
187
9.6
5
2.7
7
36.8
0
0.0
0
0.0
19
13
33.3
11
28.2
6
39
15.4
0
0.0
16
23.5
25
36.8
20
29.4
5
7.4
2
2.9
68
25
25.3
38
38.4
25
25.3
7
7.1
4
4.0
99
24
20.7
#
12
10.3
4
3.4
116
27
29.3
32
34.8
6
6.6
2
2.2
92
T
32
27.6
37.91
25
27.1
34·
The group responses toward the usefulness of profiles for the individualization of
instruction are shown in table 15. There was very little difference between responses
of teachers with regard to grade level, experience, or years in the program.
Table 15
GROUP RESPONSES TOWARD THE USEFULNESS OF PROFILES
FOR THE INDIVIDUALIZATION OF INSTRUCTION
Groups
Primary teachers
Number
Percent
Intermediate and
upper-elementary
Number
Percent
Teachers with 3 or less
years of experience
Number
Percent
Teachers with 3-10
years of experience
Number
Percent
Teachers with over 10
years of experience
Number
Percent
Teachers who have been
in the program 1 year
Number
Percent
Teachers who have been
in the program 2 or
more years
Number
Percent
*Very helpful
**Not helpful
5*
4
Scale
3
94
40.2
92
39.3
36
15.4
8
3.4
4
1.7
234
8
42.1
6
31.6
5
26.3
0
0.0
0
0.0
19
21
40.4
17
32.7
12
23.1
2
3.8
0
0.0
52
41
49.4
28
33.7
12
14.5
1
1.2
1
1.2
83
40
33.9
53
44.9
16
13.6
5
4.2
4
3.4
118
51
51
36.2 I 36.2
29
20.6
6
4.3
4
2.8
141
51
44.7
12
10.5
2
1.8
1
0.9
114
48
42.1
2
1**
Total Number
of Teachers
35
Tables 16 and 17 show the responses of the teachers toward the usefulness of
the station approach. Most of the teachers found this approach to be helpful.
Table 16
RESPONSES OF PRIMARY TEACHERS TOWARD USEFULNESS
OF THE STATION APPROACH
Opinion on Rating
Scale 5-1
Number of
Respondents
5 (very helpful)
87
4
73
3
44
2
1 (not helpful)
14
11
Percentage of
Respondents
38.0
31.9
19.2
6.1
4.8
N = 229
Table 17
RESPONSES OF INTERMEDIATE AND UPPER-ELEMENTARY
TEACHERS TOWARD USEFULNESS OF THE STATION APPROACH
Opinion on Rating
Scale 5-1
5 (very helpful)
4
3
2
1 (not helpful)
N:::l8
Number of
Respondents
5
9
4
0
0
Percentage of
Respondents
27.8
50.0
22.2
0.0
0.0
How teachers evaluated the use of alternate activities is shown in tables 18 and 19.
Alternate activities provide for a variety of tasks when the station assignment is completed. Most teachers found this technique helpful.
Table 18
RESPONSES OF PRIMARY TEACHERS TOWARD THE
USEFULNESS OF ALTERNATE ACTIVITIES
Opinion on Rating
Scale 5-1
Number of
Respondents
Percentage of
Respondents
5 (very helpful)
4
3
2
1 (not helpful)
77
77
35.6
35.6
24.1
3.2
1.4
52
7
3
N = 216
Table 19
RESPONSES OF INTERM.EDIATE AND UPPER-ELEMENTARY TEACHERS
TOWARD THE USEFULNESS OF ALTERNATIVE ACTIVITIES
Opinion on Rating
Scale 5-1
Number of
Respondents
5 (very helpful)
4
3
2
1 (not helpful)
7
N = 14·
4
3
0
0
Percentage of
Respondents
50.0
28.6
21.4
0.0
0.0
37
Tables 20 and 21 show the evaluation of specific learning stations by teachers
in the primary grades and upper-elementary and intermediate teachers. The enrichment station and skills station were rated very helpful by about 50 percent of the
primary teachers. Intermediate and upper-elementary teachers stated that the vocabulary and enrichment stations were very helpful.
Table 20
RESPONSES OF PRIMARY TEACHERS TOWARD THE
USE OF SPECIFIC STATIONS
Total Number
of Teachers
4
Scale
3
2
1**
109
48.2
72
31.9
35
15.5
9
4.0
1
0.4
226
83
38.1
79
5
2.3
5
2.3
218
36.2
46
21.1
Vocabulary Station
Number
Percent
77
37.4
76
36.9
41
19.9
6
2.9
6
2.9
206
Enrichment Station
Number
Percent
102
47.2
67
31.0
41
19.0
3
3
216
1.4
1.4
5*
Skills Station
Number
Percent
Manipulative Station
Number
Percent
Stations
--·
*Very helpful
**Not helpful
_j_ __
I
-··
38
Table 21
RESPONSES OF INTERMEDIATE AND UPPER-ELEMENTARY TEACHERS
TOWARD THE USE OF SPECIFIC STATIONS
Total Number
of Teachers
5*
4
Scale
3
Skills Station
Number
Percent
5
31.2
7
43.7
4
25.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
16
Manipulative Station
Number
Percent
3
20.0
9
0
0.0
0
0.0
15
60.0
3
20.0
Vocabulary Station
Number
Percent
7
46.7
7
46.7
1
6.7
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
Enrichment Station
Number
Percent
8
50.0
6
37.5
2
12.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
16
Stations
*Very helpful
**Not helpful
I
I
2
1**
39
Question 20 asked the teachers to list other learning stations that they had found
helpful in using the Ransom Program. The responses were read and sorted into categories as shown in table 22. These categories are listed in alphabetical order.
Table 22
TEACHERS'RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OTHER LEARNING STATIONS
1. Basal Readers Station
2. Comprehension Station using doze materials
3. Creative Art Station
4. Creative Writing Station
5. Crossword Puzzle Station
6. Filmstrip Station
7. Following Direction Station, using materials such as recipe books, construction kits, etc.
8. Game Station, both commercial and teacher-made
9. Individualized Learning Station, using SRA, We Are Black kits, Scholastic
Map Study skills, etc.
10. Library Center
11. Newspaper Center
12. Percepttlal Training Station
13. Teacher-Directed Station
14. Workshop Construction Station
40
\\brd-0 was used as a vocabulary station in grades 1 and 2. A total of 134
teachers used Word-0. An evaluation of this vocabulary game is shown in table 23.
Table 23
RESPONDENTS' EVALUATION OF WORD-0
Opinion on Rating
Scale 5-1
5 (very helpful)
4
3
2
1 (not helpful)
Number of
Respondents
Percentage of
Respondents
45
51
30
5
3
33.6
38.1
22.4
3.7
2.2
N= 134
Sixty-three of the respondents stated that they have used contracts with the
Ransom Program. Most of these teachers stated that they found contracts helpful.
Table 24 shows their responses.
Table 24
RESPONDENTS' EVALUATION OF CONTRACTS
Opinion on Rating
Scale 5-l
5 (very helpful)
4
3
2
1 (not helpful)
N =63
Number of
Respondents
16
21
20
2
4
L
Percentage of
Respondents
25.4
33.3
31.7
3.1
6.4
41
Findings Related to the Responses of Teachers Toward the
Management Techniques of the Ransom Program
The usefulness of the resource teacher is shown in table 25. From the table,
it can be stated that over three-fourths of the classroom teachers found the resource
teacher helpful.
Table 25
RESPONDENTS' OPINION ON THE USEFULNESS
OF THE RESOURCE TEACHER
Opinion on Rating
Scale 5-l
5 (very helpful)
4
3
21 (not helpful)
Number of
Respondents
157
58
23
53
Percentage of
Respondents
J
----,-----~-----
N=246
63.8
23.6
9.3
1.2
2.0
·---
42
In tables 26 and 27, the preparation of material and the services of the resource
room are presented. Most teachers found the resource rooms beneficial.
Table 26
RESPONDENTS' USE OF TIME PLANNING INDIVIDUALIZED READING
FOR STUDENTS WITH REGARD TO MATERIALS PREPARED
IN RESOURCE ROOM
Opinion on Rating
Scale 5-1
5 (very helpful)
4
3
2
1 (not helpful)
Number of
Respondents
Percentage of
Respondents
123
49.0
31.1
13.1
3.6
3.2
78
33
9
8
N = 251
Table 27
RESPONDENTS' OPINION OF RESOURCE ROOM FOR STORAGE,
DISPERSAL, AND RETRIEVAL OF MATERIALS
Opinion on Rating
Scale 5-1
5 (very helpful)
4
3
2
1
N
= 255
Number of
Respondents
Percentage of
Respondents
164
63
25
3
0
64.1
24.6
9.8
1.6
0.0
43
In table 28 is shown the teachers' opinion of how students evaluate the Ransom
Program. The responses were as follows: 245 teachers, or 98.8 percent, indicated
that they thought students found this program useful, as shown by a rating of 3 or
above; 3 teachers, or 1.2 percent, indicated that the students did not find this program useful, as shown by a rating of 1 or 2. This would indicate one factor that contributes to a good dassroom atmosphere, since how students feel about school does
influence learning.
Table 28
RESPONDENTS' OPINION OF HOW STUDENTS EVALUATE
THE RANSOM PROGRAM
Opinion on Rating
Scale 5-1
5 (very helpful)
4
3
2
1 (not helpful)
N=248
Number of
Respondents
101
103
41
2
1
Percentage of
Respondents
40.7
41.5
16.5
0.8
0.4
The types of aides used in the classroom are shown in table 29. Over threefourths of the teachers who have aides in the classroom have paid aides.
Table 29
TYPES OF AIDES USED TO ASSIST CLASSROOM TEACHERS
Types of Aides
Volunteer aides
Cross-grade tutors
Paid aides
Other
N
Number of
Respondents
Average Number of
Hours Percentage
32
14.2
8.4
76.5
0.8
19
173
2
= 226
In table 30 is shown how the classroom teachers evaluated their aides. This
would indicate that the aides are capable people who are able to assist the teacher.
Table 30
RESPONDENTS' EVALUATION OF AIDES IN THE CLASSROOM
------Opinion on Rating
Scale 5-l
5 (very helpful)
4
3
2
1 (not helpful)
Number of
Respondents
Percentage of
Respondents
129
48
23
3
0
63.5
23.6
11.3
1.5
0.0
45
The recommendations for the use of the Ransom Program are shown in table 31.
While 81.6 of the respondents expressed the desire to continue the program, only
2 percent wanted to stop the program; 13.2 percent wanted to incorporate some
components, and other suggestions were to extend the program to the upper grades.
Table 31
RESPONDENTS' RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE
OF THE RANSOM PROGRAM
Number of
Respondents
Percentage of
Respondents
204
81.6
5
2.0
C. Incorporate some
components, but not
use entire program
33
13.2
D. Other suggestions
8
3.2
Recommendations
A. Continue as it is,
expanding resources
and using new tests
B. Stop using Ransom
and use only methods
used prior to starting
this program
N= 250
46
Tables 3 2 and 3 3 show the crosstabulation of different variables. Table 32 is
concerned with how the decision was made to start the Ransom Program and classroom teachers' evaluation of the program. Teachers who were involved in the initial
decision found the components of the systems approach more helpful than teachers
who were not involved.
Table 32
'CROSS TABULATION OF HOW THE DECISION WAS MADE TO START
THE RANSOM PROGRAM AND CLASSROOM TEACHERS'
EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM
How Teachers
Evaluated the
Program
5 (very helpful)
Number
Percentage
4
3
2
Principal
Decision Made By
Principal and
Classroom
District
Teachers
Decision
Other
1
1.2
42
48.S
25
29.1
18
21.0
86
1
15
20"0
8
10.7
75
32
Number
Percentage
1.3
51
68.0
Number
Percentage
5
15.6
20
62.5
3
9.4
4
12.5
Number
Percentage
2
28.6
5
71.4
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
4
0
0.0
0
0.0
1 (not helpful)
Number
Percentage
N=204
Total
Number
of Teachers
100
0
7
4
The way of funding money to start the Ransom Program and how teachers
evaluated the program presented some interesting data. The crosstabulation of this
information shows that the way in which a school was funded had little or no relationship to how teachers evaluated the program. (See table 33.)
Table 33
CROSSTABULATION OF HOW THE PROGRAM WAS FUNDED AND THE
EVALUATION OF THE TOTAL PROGRAM
-
How Teachers
Evaluated
the Program
Limited
District
Funding
Special Funding
Regular School
(Title I)
Budget
Total
Number
of Teachers
5 (very helpful)
Number
Percentage
17
19.8
62
72.1
7
8.1
86
Number
Percentage
22
29.7
42
56.8
10
13.5
74
4
3
2
Number
Percentage
4
12.5
Number
Percentage
i
i
261
-
32
81.3
2
6.3
0
0.0
7
14.3
6
85.7
0
0.0
3
75.0
1
25.0
4-
--1 (not helpful)
Number
Percentage
N=203
The crosstabulation of ongoing inservice and how teachers evaluated the program
are shown in table 34. The table would indic:tte that if the program is to be helpful to
the teacher, inservice should be provided as needed.
Table 34
CROSSTABULATION OF ONGOING INSERVICE AND HOW THE
CLASSROOM TEACHERS EVALUATED THE RANSOM PROGRAM
How Teachers
Evaluated
the Program
Regular
Inservice
Inservice
As Needed
5 (very helpful)
Number
Percent
30
30.0
68
68.0
21
23.9
59
67.0
4
Number
Percent
-
I
Total Number
of Teachers
2
2.0
100
8
9.1
88
-
-·
3
Number
Percent
9
25.0
20
55.6
2
Number
Percent
2
33.3
3
50.0
1
N
I
No
Inservice
Number
Percent
= 234
2
5.0
1
25.0
I
I
7
19.4
36
1
16.7
6
IT
-
4
49
There is no difference between the number of years of teaching experience and
how the teachers evaluated the program. Table 3 5 shows this crosstabulation.
Table 35
CROSSTABULATION OF THE YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE AND
HOW TEACHERS EVALUATED THE RANSOM PROGRAM PROVIDING
FOR INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS
Years of Experience
5*
4
Scale
3
2
1**
One to three years
Number
Percent
26
52.0
14
28.0
6
12.0
2
4.0
2
4.0
50
Three to ten years
Number
Percent
39
47.6
29
35.4
12
14.6
1
1.2
1
1.2
82
Over ten years
Number
Percent
57
48.3
35
29.7
15
12.7
118
5.1
5
4.2
Total
Number
Percent
122
49.0
78
31.1
33
13.1
9
3.6
8
3.2
250
I6
Total Number
of Teachers
--
-*Very helpful
**Not helpful
Chapter V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
In order to ascertain and evaluate the usefulness of the Ransom Program, this
study was concerned mainly with a survey, using the questionnaire method. The
purposes of the study were: (1) to evaluate the components of the Ransom System
in facilitating individualized instruction; (2) to ascertain the degree to which teachers
implemented the system; and (3) to receive reactions from teachers and use this information as a basis for decisions about expanding a systems approach to other
schools.
Development of a Management System for Teaching Reading
Diagnostic and prescriptive systems of teaching reading are relatively new within
the last two decades. Within this short period of time, most major educational pubiishing companies have started to devise their
O'Nn
systems or to modify existing systems.
The Hackett System, the Instructional Management System, and the Ransom
System were reviewed in the related literature. While some research has been completed, there is still a need for further data in this field of study.
Procedures Used in This Study
This study was initiated in the spring of 197 4 as a followup to previous suggestions made at various Ransom meetings. It was often expressed that it would be
desirable to have classroom teachers' opinions about the usefulness of this systems
approach.
The aim was to involve the total population of teachers in the thirteen school
districts who had used the experimental edition of the Ransom Program. All districts
so
51
were contacted. Eleven school districts, with a total of 303 classroom teachers using
this program, participated in this survey. Of the 303 questionnaires that were distributed in April1974, 260 were completed and returned by May 30, 1974.
The survey method chosen for this study was a combi.t1ed open and closed questionnaire. The greatest advantages were the relatively low costs and the ability to
secure answers from large numbers of teachers in a short period of time.
The questionnaire was constructed with the help of 15 colleagues (13 classroom
teachers and 2 reading specialists) in two schools using the Ransom Program. Following their critical suggestions, the final questionnaire was written. Dr. Ransom was
instrumental in making suggestions about necessary changes.
Because the people answering the questionnaire had a genuine interest in the
information to be gained from participating in this study, a high return of responses
was not surprising. The comments written on the questionnaire regarding some of
the questions would make a complete study for another project. Some of the comments will be included in this summary; others will be tabulated for future use.
The information was tabulated by the researcher, then given to an expert key
punch operator to prepare and verify for the Computer Center of California State
University, Northridge. The frequency count and percentage were given for all the
questions. Then the data cards were crosstabulated for specific information to
enable the writer to make comparisons of related items.
Tables were made from the data received from the computer. The tables provide ease in interpreting and analyzing the data.
Findings of the Study
From three major areas of investigation, the following are the most important
findings based on this study.
Background characteristics of the respondents - Of the 260 respondents, over
three-fourths (78.8 percent) were teachers of the primary grades. The number of
days classroom teachers used the Ransom Program varied from one to five days a
week, with over half (56.6 pei·cent) using this system five days a week.
52
Funding for starting the program would indicate that over two-thirds (68.7
percent) of the teachers who answered this question were in schools where special
funding, such as Title I, was available.
A very high percentage of teachers (83.5 percent) indicated that their schools
had a resource aide for three hours a day or more. From the written comments, this
resource aide was an important part of the program.
A majority of the respondents administered the pretests on a schoolwide basis,
with each teacher giving one level of the tests. A plurality (68.8 percent) reported
that the posttesting of all levels was done by each teacher as the skill was completed
or at specific intervals.
Evaluating the components of the Ransom System - A large majority (79.5
percent) of the primary teachers rated the usefulness of profiles as a 4 or 5 on the
scale (very helpful); 5.1 percent indicated that the profiles were not helpful (1 or 2
on the scale). The percentage of teachers who indicated that the pretests were very
helpful (4, 5) was 83.3, while only 60.6 percent indicated that the posttests were
very helpful.
A very small pe:::centage (6.8) of the teachers stated that the resource materials
were not helpful (indicated by 1 or 2 on the scale).
Responses of teachers toward the management techniques - A majority of the
primary teachers, 69.9 percent, and 77.8 percent of the intermediate and upperelementary teachers indicated that a station approach was useful in their classroom
management, and over half of them stated that the use of alternate activities helped
with the organization of students.
Of the 63 teachers who used contracts as a part of their management system,
57 stated that they were helpful.
Responses of teachers toward the total program - Of the 248 respondents to
the question of evaluation of the Ransom Program, 82.2 percent indicated that the
program was helpful. The plurality (81.6 percent) of the classroom teachers indicated that they wanted to continue this program. Another 13.2 percent stated they
wanted to continue this system, making some variations in the program.
Conclusions
The data from the questionnaire have been tabulated, analyzed, and interpreted.
To the extent that the findings are valid for the total number of teachers using the
Ransom System, the following conclusions seem to be justified:
1.
The systems approach is helpful to teachers in classroom management and
in individualizing learning for students.
2.
The teachers who are involved in the decision of starting this program found
this management system very helpful. When teachers are not involved
(decision made by building principals), teachers find the program less useful.
3.
Funding to start the program has no influence on the percentage of teachers
who find the program helpful.
4.
The classroom teachers administer the pretest using a schoolwide testing
program with each teacher responsible for testing one level.
5.
Posttesting is administered by the classroom teachers at specific intervals
or as a skill is completed.
6.
The pretests are more helpful than the posttests.
7.
Teachers regard the preparation of mat~rials in the resource room helpful.
8.
The classroom teachers find thP. station approach helpful.
9.
Classroom teachers find that alternate 1.ctivitics help with classroom
management.
10.
The -::eachers who use Word-0 find it helpful to reinforce vocabulary in
first and second grades.
11.
The classroom teachers feel that their students like using this system
approach.
12.
Most of the classroom teachers have an aide of some type. Half of the
teachers have paid aides.
13.
Teachers who use contracts find them helpful.
14.
The teachers want to continue the Ransom Program. Some want to
incorporate other components into this program.
15. Teachers use a combination of test scores and teacher opinion for the initial
placement of students on the correct level.
16. Teachers indicate that inservice should be provided as needed.
17. The number of years of classroom experience is not directly related to how
teachers evaluate this program.
18. The resource teacher who attends a Ransom Workshop inservices the classroom teachers. The classroom teachers find this way of orientation useful.
Recommendations
On the basis of the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are made:
1. Teachers should be involved in the decision to start a systems approach.
2. Posttesting should be evaluated to find out why it is not considered as
helpful as pretesting.
3. The preparation of materials in the resource room should be directly
related to needs of the classroom teachers.
4.
Learning stations should be an important part of a systems approach.
5. Alternate activities should be provided at each learning center.
6. The use of Word-0 may be continued and expanded.
7. By means of a student questionnaire, groups can be surveyed to gain
insight as to their opinion of this systems approach.
8. Contracts should be revised, expanded, and made available to all schools.
9. Further study is needed for the identification and placement of students
for the purpose of the initial testing.
10. Consideration should be given to other schools desiring to use this manage-
ment system.
11. More materials should be developed for the upper grades.
12. This study, with appropriate variations, should be repeated to evaluate the
new commercial edition to the Ransom Program.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Baker, Gail and Isadore Golsberg. "The Individualized Learning System,"
Educational Leadership. Vol. 17, May 1970.
2. Best, John W. Research in Education. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, 1970.
3. Bohnhorst, Ben A. and Sophia N. Sellars. "Individual Reading Instruction -vs.
Basal Textbook Instruction: Some Tentative Explorations," Elementary
English. 36, March 1959, pp. 185-90.
4. Carpenter, Dorothy. "Field Study of the Achievement of Primary Students
Using a Systems Approach." Unpublished Project, 1972.
5. Carpenter, Poily. "Developing a Methodology for Designing Systems of Instruction," Educational Technology. Vol. 12, No.7, pp. 25-29.
6. Catholic Diocese at Pittsburg, Pa. Continuous Progress Program Survey Report.
May 1971.
7. Dodds, William]. "Highlights From the History of Reading Instruction,"
The Reading Teacher. Vol. 21, No.3, December 1967, pp. 274-280.
8. Gagne, R.M. The Conditions of Learning. 2nd Edition, New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970.
9. ______ . "Contributions of Learning to Human Development,"
Psychological Revie'w. Vol. 75, No.3, 1968.
10. Geddes, Gleone L. and Betty Y. Kooi. "Pu! Instructional Management System
for Classroom Teachers," Tbe Elementary School joumal. April1969,
pp. 337-345.
11. Good, Carter V. lv1ethods of Researcb. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft,
1954.
12. Hackett, Marie. Success in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 1971.
13. Hoetker, Jones. "Systems, Systems Approaches and the Teacher," National
Council of Teachers of English. Urbana, Illinois, 1972.
14. Jones, Richard V. "Learning Activity Packages: An Approach to Individualized
Instruction," journal of Secondary Education. 43, Apri11968, pp. 178-183.
55
56
15. McKillop, Alli<e. "Special Problems in Individualized Reading Instruction,"
lndividUtdized Reading Instruction. (Newark, Delaware: School of Education, University of Delaware, 1957), pp. 68-76, cited by Nila Benton Smith.
Reading Instruction for Today's Children. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
Prentice Hall, Inc., 1963, p. 139.
16. Monly, George J. The Science of Educational Research. Von Nostrand Reinhold
Co., New York, 1970.
17. Nie, Bert, D.H., and C.H. Hull. SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
18. Ransom, Grayce. The Diagnostic and Prescriptive Components of tbe Ransom
Multi-Modal, Multi-Media Reading Program. Report to the State Board of
Education, 1971, University of Southern California.
19. - - - · - - - - . An Experimental Researcb Project Investigating Multimedia
and JV!ulti-Modal Emphases. 1966, University of Southern California.
20.
. Language Perception Group and Individual Test Study.
Barstow, California, 1967, University of Southern California.
21.
. A Study of Factors Influencing Results of Reading Achieve- ,
meut Tests in Grades One and Two. Final Report to the California State
Department of Education, 1968, University of Southern California.
22. Smith, Nila Benton. Reading Instruction for Today's Children. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1963, p. 139.
23. Tuckman, Bruce W. Co·nducting Educational Research. Harcourt, Brace,
Javanowich, Inc., New York, 1972.
24. Unruh, Glenys G. "Can! Be Replaced by a Package?" Educational Leadership.
27, May 1970, pp. 763-766.
25. White, R0ger Carol. "Do Teachers Select Appropriate Instruction:d Material
for lndividmtlized Reading Instruction?'' California State University,
Northridge, Californi:;;,, 197 3.
APPENDICES
57
APPENDIX A
CORRESPONDENCE
58
59
May 23, 1974
Dorothy Carpenter
1505 S. Glenville Drive
Los Angeles, California 9003 5
Dear Resource Teachers:
As you are aware, a research questionnaire has been prepared to help evaluate the
Ransom Program. This study pwmises to be very valuable for several reasons. The
sampling will be comprised of all Ransom Teachers, which will give a large number
of participants. This research is intended to be a purposeful and practical attempt
to secure information necessary to indicate the usefulness of a management system.
To insure reliability, only acceptabie research techniques will be used. Dr. Ransom
has served as an advisor. This study is being completed in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the M.A. Degree in Education. It is expected that this study will
be completed by July 1974.
It is my hope that this survey will pro,~de data rather than mere opinions. A copy
of the findings will be sent to you as soon as the study is completed.
Many people have already returned the questionnaire. Thank you for your time
and attention to this effort.
If your school has not had the opportunity to complete the questionnaire, I would
urge you to mail it by May 31.
Thank you,
Dorothy Carpenter
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRES
60
61
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RESOURCE TEACHERS
RANSOM MULTIMEDIA, MULTI-MODAL
DIAGNOSTIC AND PRESCRIPTIVE READING PROGRAM*
The purpose of this evaluation is to furnish information
to
the writer and Dr. Ransom which can be used to appraise the
system as it is now being used and make suggestions to improve
the program.
By prior approval, your school has graciously consented to
help with this study. The results of this questionnaire will be
sent to your school early next fall. Thank you for your
cooperation!
Dorothy Carpenter
Reading Specialist
Culver City, California
*Hereafter referred to as the Ransom Program
62
Please fill in the appropriate spaces:
1.
Commitment to the Ransom Program Check the one that best describes your school:
The decision was made by the building principal
The decision was made by the building principal and
teachers after evaluating systems approaches
The decision was made by the district administrators
Other
2.
Money to start the program Unlimited District funding
Limited District funding
Special programs such as Title I, etc.
Regular school budget funding
Help from volunteer sources such as PTA, etc.
3.
Number of years my school has been using Ransom Program
4.
Approximate number of students in my school
5.
Approximate number of teachers in my building
6.
Approximate number of teachers in my building using the program
7.
Aides are used to help the resource teacher with the
management and storage of materials.
Do you have an aide in your resource room?
Yes
No
8.
For how many hours each day?
63
9.
For the first testing, our school determined the approximate Ransom
level placement by using which of the following: (You may need to
mark more than one way.)
Wide Range Achievement Test Scores (WRAT Scores)
Teacher Evaluation
State Test Scores (COOP Score)
Other tests, such as
Comments:
64
QUESTIOI\JNAIRE FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS
RANSOM MULTIMEDIA, MULTI-MODAL
DIAGNOSTIC AND PRESCRIPTIVE READING PROGRAM*
The purpose of this evaluation is to furnish information to
the writer and Dr. Ransom which can be used to appraise the
system as it is now being used and make suggestions to improve
the program.
By prior approval, your school has gntciously consented to
help with this study. The results of this questionnaire will be
sent to your school early next fall. Thank you for your
cooperation!
Dorothy Carpenter
Reading Specialist
Culver City, California
,..Hereafter referred to as the Ransom Program
65
Please fill in the appropriate spaces:
Teacher background
L Number of years of classroom teaching
2. Number of years I have used the Ransom Program
3. How often (how many days each week) I use the Ransom Program
4. lnservice training- how I started the program Teachers attended a Ransom Workshop
Only resource teacher attended workshops; in turn, they
inserviced the staff
Other comments:
K-3 _ _ 4,5,6 _ _
5. Classroom assignment (check one)
6. Ongoing inservices- meetings are scheduled
_ _ on a regular basis
as needed
no mserv1ce
Evaluation checklist
7. Pretesting- There are many components to the Ransom Program. To be
used effectively, the teacher will be using the components that relate to her
specific grade level. In the diagnosis, schoolwide testing will take place early
in the school year, and at several intervals throughout this year or as needed.
There is a systematic testing program for the testing of all students at the
beginning of the year. This is planned and organized by the resource teacher,
allowing students of one room to be tested on different levels according to
the individual skill needs.
Check one:
Each teacher tests one level
Each teacher will test all of her own students, giving
different levels of tests
66
8. Posttests - Posttests can be given at specific intervals or as the skill
is completed. (Check one)
Posttests are given by the classroom teacher or aide at specific intervals
Posttests are given by the classroom teacher or aide as a skill
is completed
Posttests are given by the resource teacher at specific intervals
Posttests are given by the resource teacher as a skill is completed
DIRECTIONS: Please rate the Ransom Program by putting a check (V) at the
appropriate point on the rating scale:
Testing
9. I have found the pretests to be
5
4
very helpful
10. I have found the posttests to be
3
2
1
not helpful
1
4
2
5
3
----------------------
very helpful
not helpful
Profiles - Criteria
11. On the basis of test data, individual profiles
and class profiles are used for pulli..'lg together
students with similar needs. Using the profiles has been
5
3
1
4
2 -------------------very helpful
Comments and suggestions:
not helpful
67
Resource Room
12a. Each school should have a system for organizing
and maintaining a resource room for storage,
dispersal, and retrieval of needed materials at
teachers' request. Our school's organization is
5
4
very helpful
3
4
5
very helpful
3 _ _-=..2_ _ _.:::._1
2
1
not helpful
Comments and suggestions:
12b. Through the preparation of multimedia, multimodal materials in the resource room, classroom teachers are relieved of this responsibility,
and ca.n spend their time using the profiles to
plan individualized lessons for students. I have
found this organization of time and materials
to be
not helpful
Comments and suggestions:
13. The resource teacher conducts inservice education in effective teaching of reading and
coordinates planning of the Ransom Program.
In our school, the resource teacher has been
.;._5_ __;_4_ _ 3
very helpful
Comments and suggestions:
2
1
not helpful
68
Learning Station
14. This management technique is designed to
enable the children to be self directed, and
to give the teacher the necessary time to
provide a directed lesson for a group. This
has been
5
4
very helpful
3
5
4
very helpful
3
2
1
not helpful
Comments and suggestions:
15. The Program provides for two or three alternate activities at a station when the assigned
work is completed so that children do not
roam aimlessly around the room. I have
found this station approach
2
1
not helpful
Comments and suggestions:
Stations. Check the learning stations used in your classroom.
1
5
4
very helpful
3
17. Manipulative Station
5
4
very helpful
3
2
1
not helpful
18. Vocabulary Reinforcement Station
5
4
very helpful
3
2
1
not helpful
19. Enrichment Station (literature
appreciation, etc.)
4
5
very helpful
3
2
l
not helpful
16. Skills Station (tapes, followup)
20. Others (please name)
Comments and suggestions:
2
not helpful
If you usc Word-0, please answer the question below:
21. The Word-0 game is to reinforce the sight words
at an independent learning station. I have found
Word-0 to be
2
1
4
3
very helpful
not helpful
Comments and suggestions: List games you found to be the most helpful.
5
Student Evaluation
22. The children in my room have found the
variety of materials and the learning station
approach to be
~5____4~--~3~--~2~--~1
very helpful
not helpful
Comments and suggestions:
Aides
23. M3ny schools have incorporated the use of aides to assist the classroom teacher
and to work with the students. During the reading period, I have the following
help in my classroom:
Aides
How they are used
How many hours each day
Volunteer aides
Cross-grade tutors
Paid aides
Others
24. My aides are
4
very helpful
5
3
2
1
not helpful
70
Contracts
25. Some schools have organized the skill materials
into contracts. Learning packets (contracts) are
compiled according to the child's profile. The
teacher gives a directed lesson on a particular
skill and the children continue with the followup
materials in their contracts. This has been
4
5
very helpful
3
5
4
very helpful
3
2
1
not helpful
Evaluation of the Total Ransom Program
26. The Ransom Program has been
2
not helpful
27. From my use of the Ransom Program, I recommend that (check one)
(a)
We continue the program as it is, expanding the resources and using
the new commercial testing component.
(b) We stop using the Ransom Program and use only the methods
of teaching reading that we used prior to the starting of this
program.
(c)
We incorporate some components of the Ransom Program, but
not use the entire system. (Be specific about which components
you wish to continue using.)
We stop using the Ransom Program and use
Comments:
1
APPENDIX C
THE TAXONOMY OF READING SKILLS
71
ST~~S
AND GOALS OF THE
STRANDS
1.
CONCEPTUAL
VOCABULARY
SKILLS
2.
3.
4.
PERCEPTUAL
Tili~ONOMY
Number of
Objectives
GOALS
1.1
Spoken Words from Subsequent Level Reading
Vocabulary
1.2 Pictures Representing Words
1.3 Printed Words
1.4 Words Describing Feelings
1.5 Thinking Processes Related to the Meanings
of Common Words and Phrases
1.6 Precision and Specificity with Words
1. 7 Typographical Clues to Heaning
1.8 Figurative, Idiomatic, and Colloquial
Expressions
1.9 Words Relating to Specific Subject Areas
VOCABULARY
2.1 Auditory Discrimination
2.2 Visual Discrimination
SKILLS
2.3
6
5
6
6
6
5
12
4
25
14
Basic Sight-Word Recognition
Phonic Analysis
Structural Analysis
LINGUISTIC
COMPREHENSION
SKILLS
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Kernel Sentence Patterns
Class Words and Phrases
Structure Words and Phrases
Sentence Transformations
;j
COGNITIVE AND
AFFECTIVE
4.1
Basic Meanings of Sentences and Paragraphs
5
7·\
8
4
7
5
COMPREHENSION
5
6
7
4.2 Organization
4.3 Analysis
4.4 Synthesis
4.5 Evaluation
4.6 Creative Response
ADAPTIVE
5.1
READING AND
5.2
SPEAKING
5.3
5.4
Adjusting Rate to Pu-rpose
Silent Rea.ding
Speaking
Oral Reading
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Dictionary Use
Skill in Using Parts of Book
Library Use
Aids to Recall
SKILLS
6.
6
9
5
2.4
2.5
SKILLS
S.
9
l~CA~ION ~u
STUDY
SKILLS
Total
TAXONOHY
5
7
7
6
NuF~er
15
8
6
9
of Objectives
242
RANSOM TAXONOMY
READING READINESS- GRADE 3
1. CONCEPTUAL VOCABULARY SKILLS
1.1
SPOKEN WORDS FROM SUBSEQUENT LEVEL READING VOCABULARY
1.1
-o-o-o-
0100
Spoken nouns
0200
Spoken adjectives
0300
Spoken verbs
0400
Spoken pronouns
0500
Spoken adverbs
0600
Spoken determiners
0700
Spoken prepositions
0800
Spoken conjunctions
1.1
-o-1
-o-o-o-o-o-
0900
Spoken auxiliaries
1.2
PICTURES
1.2
1.2
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
'
'
REPRES~LING
YaRDS
0100
Pictures representing nouns
0101
Pictures representing nouns:
Body parts
0102
Pictures representing nouns:
Clothing
0103
Pictures representing nouns:
Foods
0104
Pictures representing nouns:
Household items
0105
Pictures representing nouns:
School and classroom items
0106
Pictures representing nouns:
Animals
-0-
0107
Pictures representing nouns:
Toys
1.2
-o-
0108
Pictures representing nouns:
Vehicles
1.2
-0-
0109
Pictures representing nouns:
Indoor activities
1.2
-o-
0110
Pictures representing nouns:
Outdoor activities
1.2
-0-
0111
Pictures representing nouns:
Traffic and safety words
1.2
<f-6,2
0200
Pictures representing adjectives
1.2
::-o-
0300
Pictures representing verbs
1.2
-o-o-
0400
Pictures representing pronouns
0500
Pictures representing adverbs
0600
Pictures representing prepositions
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2 .-:--0-
-
I
I
1.3
PRINTED WORDS
1.3
'-1- -2- -3-
0100
Printed nouns
1.3
;.1... -2- -3-
0200
Printed adjectives
1.3
-1- -2- -3-
0300
Printed verbs
.:..i::. 1..;z...;
-3-
0400
Printed pronouns
1.3
-1- -2- -3-
0500
Printed adverbs
1.3
-1- -2- -3-
0600
Printed determiners
1.3
tsx~: -2-
-3-
0700
Printed prepositions
1.3
-1- -2- -3-
0800
Printed conjunctions
1.3
-1- -2- -3-
0900
Printed auxiliaries
1.3
1.4
•··.·
.
.
WORDS DESCRIBING FEELINGS
1-o-
-1- -2-1-3-
0100
Words describing sensory impressions
1.4
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0200
Emotionally charged words
1.4
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0300
Words describing natural phenomena
1.4
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0400
Words describing people
1.4
-0- -1-- -2- -3-
0500
Words describing places
1. 5
THINKING PROCESSES RELATED TO THE MEANINGS OF CGMMON WORDS AND PHRASES
1.4
1.5
~
f~0-}-1-
I 0100
r-dr--+--······>········.·-+--+1.5
r-o~~-l~
0200
Selecting pictures and/or spoken words related through
meaning
Classifying pictures and/or spoken words according to
meaning
0300
1.5
r<
I
l
according to meaning
f-"':i-j-2- -3- 0400
_1._5_..,-il
~-_:-)~3-""'.v--os_o._o
1.5
1.5
Arranging pictures and/or spoken words in sequence
Selecting words related through meaning
Classifying words according to meaning
-2- -3-j 0600
Arranging words in sequence according to meaning
.-t""
0400
Homographs
0500
Acronyms
1.6
1.6
1.6
1. 6
-0-
-1-
-3-
~w-----~--~--~-----
TAXONOMY
1.7
1.7
!rPOGfu\PHICAL CLUES TO MEANING
1-o-
-1-j-2- -3-
0100
Styles·of print
1.7
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0200
Sizes of print
1.7
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0300
Spaces on page
1.7
-1- -2- -3--
0400
Underlining
~2-
-3-
0500
Capital letters
1.7
-1- -2- -3-
0600
Punctuation marks
1.7
-1- -2- -3-
0601
Periods
1.7
-1- -2- -3-
0602
Question marks
-2- -3-1.
0603
Commas
1.7
-1- -2- -3-
0604
Apostrophes
1.7
-1- -2- -3-
0605
Quotation marks
1.7
1.7
-0- -1-
'
..
I
1.7
-1- -2- -3-
0606
Exclamation points
1.7
-2- -3-
0607
Hyphens
~,_F_I_G_U_RA
__T_rv_E_,._r_n_r_o_MA_T_r_c_,__AND
____
co_L_L_OQ~U-IA~L--EXP
___R_E_s_sr_o_N_s______________~-----------..
1.8
-1- -2- -3-
0100
Similes
1.8
-1- -2- -3-
0200
Personifications
1.8
-2- -3-
0300
Metaphors
1.8
-2- -3-
0400
Word blends
1.8
-3-
0500
Idiomatic compounds
1.8
-3-
0600
"Clipped words"
1.9
WORDS RELATING TO SPECIFIC SUBJECT AREAS
1.9
-o-1-1- -2- -3-l 0100
1.9 -o- -1- -2- -·3-
.
0200
Words relating to health
Words relating to sports and physi.cal education
Words relating to social science
1.9
-1- -2- -3-' 0300
1.9
-1- -2- -3-
0400
Words relating to mathematics
1.9
-1- -2- -3-
0500
Words relating to science
1.9
-1- -2- -3-
0600
Words relating to literature
TAX.ONOt-iY
2. PERCEPTUAL VOCABULARY SKILLS
2.1
AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION
0100
Different sounds and tones
2.1 I:;;.(>~
0200
Different sounds in words
0201
Different beginning sounds in words
2.1
-:-o.:;o:..
0202
Different ending sounds in words
2.1
~~··
0203
Different middle sounds in words
0300
Rhyming words
2.1
2.1
;.;.1;.;.
0400
Sounds of different consonant clusters
2.1
-:'{).;.. -1-
0500
Auditory memory
2.2
VISUAL DISCRIMINATION
2.2
-0-
0100
Colors
2.2
C.:(),..
'
0200
Shapes
2.2
:"-0-:-
0300
Sizes
0400
Different orientations of a figure, numeral, or letter
.
-
.
2.2
2.2
~o..;;
r~~
in space
0500
Matching shapes and figures
2.2
-0-
0600
Matching numerals
2.2
.-.o.:..:
0700
Matching letters
-0-
0800
Matching patterns
0801
Matching patterns:
Figures
0802
Matching patterns:
Letters and numerals
2.2
2.2
2.2
l
l
:-:.0':"'
'"-0'·
2.2
...:o.:..:
0900
Matching words
2.2
.:..:o--
1000
Visual memory for words
2.2
-1-1
1100
Visual similarities of worn families
2.2
;;,:J.;.;.
1200
Matching identical phrases
2.3
BASIC SIGHT-WORD RECOGNITION
0100
2.3
Words used for sight recognition in class program
and curriculum
2.3
-2- -3-
0200
Words used for sight recognition from primer and
first-grade composite list (which incorporates
first 110 Dolch Basic Sight Words)
TAXONOl-!Y
2.3
BASIC SIGHT-WORD RECOGNITION (cont.)
-2- -3-
2.3
0300
composite list (which incorporates 220 Dolch Basic
·.
.
Sight Words)
···
··.··
2.3
Words used for sight recognition from second-grade
.
..
-3-
0400
Words used for sight recognition from third-grade
composite list
2.4
PHONIC ANALYSIS
2.4
-o-o-
2.4
2.4
2.4
0100
Single initial consonants
-1-
0101
Single initial consonants:
~
-1-
0102
Single initial consonants:
E. /p/, !!. /n/, .!!._ /d/, ~ /w/
-1-
0103
Single initial consonants: . hard _g_ /g/, hard .£. /k/,
-1-
l
-3-
r•
2.4
!
-1-
2.4
-3-
I ml, .! It/, k /b/, h /h/
/f/,! /1/, ~ /k/,.!. /r/, .!!_ Is/
0104
Single initial consonants:
i /j/,
0105
Single initial consonants:
~
2.4
--1- -2-
0200
Single final consonants
2.4
-1-
0201
Single final consonants:
.!!. /n/, .!!._ /d/, hard
_g_
~
y_ /y/, y_ /v/,
~
/z/
/z/ (xylophone)
/m/, .! It/, k /b/, 1!. /p/,
/g/, ! /1/, .!. /r/
2.4
-2-
0202
Single final consonants:
Voiceless.!!_ /s/, voiced.!!_ /z/
2.4
-2-
0203
Single final consonants:
~
/ks/
~/a/,~
/e/,.! /i/, ~/of,.!!_ /u/
2.4
-1-
0300
Short vowel sounds:
2.4
-1-
0400
Common phonograms with short vowels
2.4
-1-
0401
Common phonograms with short a:
/a/ ab, ap, ad, at, ag,
amz an
2.4
-1-
0402
Common phonograms· with short
2.4
,-1-
0403
Common phonograms with short .!_:
/e/ eg! ed, et, en
~:
Iii ib! i2, id, itz
ith im 2 in
2.4
-1-
0404
Common phonograms with short o:
/of ob,
OE!
2.4
-1-
0405
Common phonograms with short
/u/ ub,
UE2
2.4
1:..1:
0500
Long vowel sounds:
2.4
-1-,-2-
0600
Long vowels with final e:
1
-2-
TAXONOHY
.!!_
/a/,
~
/'e/,
{a/
!
/if,
~
0700
-
/o/,
!!_-C-~ (gave),
(bike), /o/ ~-c-~ (rope), Iii/ E_-C-~ (cute)
!o i
-.1.-
ud 1 ut 1
ug, um 2 un
:.~:;><~::~::·· ::.
',-.:.:_---·=\
2.4
.!!_:
od 2 ot 2 og
Common phonograms with long vowels
.!!.
Iff
/u/,
!-C-~
2.4
PHONIC ANALYSIS (cont.)
2.4
0701
-1-1-2-
Common phonograms with
/a/ ace, ake, arne,
long~:
~~~
ave
0702
-1- -2-
2.4
Common phonograms with long ~:
/~/ jce, ikei ide, ite, ime,
ine, ipe, ive
0703
-1- -2-
2.4
Common phonograms with long
~
and long
~:
/o/ one, ope;
/U/ ute
2.4
-2-
0800
Long vowels at the end of syllables or monosyllabic words
2.4
-2-
0801
Long vowels at the end of syllables or monosyllabic words:
(e/
2.4
0802
-2-
final~
Long vowels at the end of syllables or monosyllabic words:
/o/ final
0803
-2-
2.4
'~i[~
2.4
2i-
2.4
-1-
~
Long vowels at the end of syllables or monosyllabic words:
I1•·····.··.·
\·.···
Iii final y in monosyllabic word; /e/ final y in poly-
tr\.··
syllabic word
. .s
-2-
0900
Initial two-letter consonant clusters
0901
Initial two-letter consonant clusters:
bl, cl, fl,
gl~
pl, sl
2.4
I
-1-
0902
Initial two-letter consonant clusters:
br, cr, gr, dr,
fr, pr, tr
2.4
0903
-1-
~~~
2.4
Initial two-letter consonant clusters:
sc, sk, sm, sn,
sp, st, sw, tw
-2-
1000
Initial consonant digraphs
/kw/; wh I hw/ or /w/
2.4
-1-
1001
Initial consonant digraphs:
~
2.4
-1-
1002
Initial consonant digraphs:
sh I sh/; ch /ch/
2.4
1-1-
1003
Initial consonant digraphs:
Voiced th
I
/~H/;
voiceless
th /th/
£!!.
-2-
1004
Initial consonant digraphs:
::2;;;
1100
Vowel digraphs
2.4
-2-
1101
Vowel digraphs:
ea, ee /e/
2.4
-2-
1102
Vowel digraphs:
ie
2.4
-2-
oa 2 oe, ow /of
2.4
1-2-
f~
Vowel digraphs:
4
Vowel digraphs:
ayz ai /a!
2.4
-2-
1 1105
Vowel digraphs:
ue /u./ (cue), /i.i/ (t~E.~~_)
_2.4_L_
-2-
1106
Vowel digraphs:
ui /U/ (juice)
2.4
2.4
I
/f/
II!
TAXONJM':t
2.4
?HONIC ANALYSIS (cont.)
~
/U/ (mood} and oo /u/ (hood)
2.4
-2-
1107
Vowel digraphs:
2.4
-2-
1200
Common phonograms with vowel digraphs
2.4
-2-
1201
Common phonograms with vowel digraphs:
Je!
~~~eak,
eal, eam, ean, eat
1202
-2-
2.4
/e/ eed, eek,
Common phonograms with vowel digraphs:
eep, eet
2.4
-2-
1203
Common phonograms with vowel digraphs:
/o/ oad, oat
2.4
-2-
1204
Common phonograms with vowel digraphs:
/a/ aid
2.4
-2-
1300
Vowel diphthongs
~.4
-2-
1301
Vowel diphthongs:
ow, ou /ou/
2.4
-2-
1302
Vowel diphthongs:
oi, oy /oi/
2.4.
-2-
1400
Soft consonants
2.4
-2-
1401
Soft consonants:
soft.£. Is/ (.£.modified
by~·
_!., or y)
2.4
-2-
1402
Soft consonants:
soft £ /j/ {£modified
by~.
_!., or y)
2.4
-2-
1500
Double consonants and letters which precede or follow .
them
2.4
1501
-2-
Final double consonants:
-!!_
It/, -11 /1/, -ff /f/,
-~Is/
2.4
-2- -3-
1600
Irregular letter combinations
2.4
-2-
1601
Irregular letter combinations:
/n/ kn (know); /n/
~
(gnome)
2.4
-2- -3-
1602
Irregular letter combinations:
/r/
~
(write);
/r/ rh (rhyme)
~
2.4
-2-
2.4
-3-
1603
Irregular letter combinations:
/h/ wh (who)
1604
Irregular letter combinations:
/m/ ffib {climb, lamb);
/m/ lm (calm, salmon); /m/
~
(autumn)
tal~)
2.4
-3-
1605
Irregular letter combinations:
/k/ lk (chalk,
2.4
-3-
1605
Irregular letter combinations:
/f/ 1f (half); /v/ lv
(halves)
2.4
-3-
1607
Irregular letter combinations:
/ch/ tch (catch); /j/ ~
(bridge)
-3·-
1608
Irregular letter combinations:
2.4
-3-
1700
Common phonograms with irregular letter combinations
2.4
-3-
1701
Common phonograms with irregular letter combinations:
TAXONOMY
/s/
~(seen£,
2.4
science)
alk
_____________________________________________________
,
2.4
PHONIC ANALYSIS (cont.)
2.4
-3-
1702
Common phonograms with irregular letter combinations:
alm,
amb, omb, imb, umb
2.4
-3-
1703
Common phonograms with irregular letter combinations:
atch, itch, otch, utch
2.4
-3-
1704
Common phonograms with irregular letter combinations:
2.4
~~
2.4
-2-
1801
Final consonant clusters:
st, sk, sp
2.4
-2-
1802
Final consonant clusters:
~
2.4
-2-
1803
Final consonant clusters:
nd, nt, nk
lp, lt, ld, ft, ct, xt
·... ·.~·
, .. i
i't
edge, idge, udge
r.,.3..;
rx · •· · · 1800 Final consonant clusters
2.4
-3-
1804
Final consonant clusters:
2.4
..;t:..:
.· -3-
1900
Common phonograms with consonant clusters
2.4
-2-
1901
Common phonograms with consonant clusters:
-
ast, est, ist,
ost, ask
2.4
1902
-2-
Common phonograms with consonant clusters:
amp, ump, and,
end, ind, ant, int, unt, ank, ink, unk
2.4
-3-
--
1903
Common phonograms
consonant clusters:
alt, elt, olt,
Common phonograms with consonant clusters:
aft, eft, oft,
~~th
ilt, ald, eld, old
2.4
-3i·
1904
ift, act, ext
~
2.4
!Lz- -3-
2000
Final and medial consonant digraphs
2.4
-2-
2001
Final and medial consonant digraphs:
ck /k/,
!!_&
/ng/,
sh /sh/, ch /ch/
2.4
-2-3-
2.4
2.4
2.4
~w
2002
Final and medial consonant digraphs:
Voiceless th /th/,
2003
Final and medial consonant digraphs:
.E!!.
/f/, _g!!_ /f/'
ch /sh/ (machine)
-3-
-2-
2100
Common phonograms with final consonant digraphs
2101
Common phonograms with final consonant digraphs:
ack,
eck, ick, ock, uck
2.4
2102
-2-
Common phonograms with final consonant digraphs:
ash,
ish, ush, ath
2.4
2.4
-2-3-
2103
Common phonograms with final consonant digraphs:
ang, ing, ong
2104
Common phonograrns with final consonant digraphs:
ough, aph
T.A'"'{ONOMY
2.4
PHONIC ANALYSIS (cont.)
2.4
-2- -3-
2.4
-2- -3-
2.4
-3-
2202 _Variant sounds of-vowels:
£ /u/ (son)_
2.4
-3-
2203
au /8/ (caught), !E!!_/6/ (sa·..r),
I
2200
Variant sounds of vowels
2201
Variant sounds of vowels:
schwa /a/
Variant sounds of vowels:
!! /M (salt)
2.4
-3-
2204
~
Variant sounds of vowels:
/er/ (word), ie le/ (chief),
ea /e/ (bread), ei /a/ (eight),
fq_
/e/ (money)
2.4
-2- -3-
2300
Vowel - ! combinations
2.4
-2- -3-
2301
Vowel - ! combinations:
~ /~r/
(far); _2!_ /8r/ (store)
2.4
-2- -3-
2302
Vowel - I combinat:f_ons:
~
~;
ur
/er/
ir /er/ (s.til.:);
/er/ ~
2.4
-2- -3-
2400
Common phonograms with vowel - I combinations
2.4
-2- -3-
2401
Common phonograms with vowel - I combinations:
ark,
art, ard, arm
2.4
-3-
2402
Common phonograms with vowel - r combinations:
£!!,
ord, ork, orm
2.4
-3-
2403
Common phonograms with vowel - r combinations:
2.4
-2- -3-
2500
Initial three-letter consonant clusters
2.4
-2- -3- 2501
Initial three-letter consonant clusters:
irt, ert
str, spl, thr,
sch
2.4
-3-
2502
2.5
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
2.5
-0- -1-
2.5
-0- -1-
2.5
Initial three-letter consonant clusters:
spr, scr, shr
0100
-
Base words
0101
Base words in common compound words
-1-
0102
Base words in inflected forms of known words
2.5
-1- -2- -3-
0200
Compound words
2.5
-3-
0300
Hyphenated compound words
2.5
-1- -2- -3-
0400
Prefixes
2.5
-1- -2- -3-
0500
Suffixes
2.5
-1-
-z-1 . .3·-
0600
Contractions
2.5
:..1- -2- -3-j 0700
;:;-, 1-1- -2- -3-l
- - - · __.__I--.
TAXONOMY
0701
Noun forms
Noun forms:
Inflectional ending ::E.. to indicate plurals
2.5
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS (cont.)
~1~
-2-!~3..5
2.5
-1-
~t
2.5
-1-
2.5
2.5
.
0702
Noun forms:
Inflectional ending -es to indicate plurals
following x, s, sh, ch
0703
Noun forms:
Inflectional ending--'s to show possession
1~--
0704
Noun forms:
Inflectional ending -s' to show possession
-1- --2- -3-
0800
Verb forms
.;1-'
0801
Verb forms:
Inflectional ending -s (jumps)
2.5
fi~
0802
Verb forms:
Inflectional ending -ed (jumped)
2.5
--iS
0803
Verb forms:
Inflectional ending -ing {jumping)
0804
Verb forms:
Inflectional
0805
Verb forms:
Inflectional ending -es to show present
2.5
I
2.5
-2-
2.5
r~z7
2.5
2.5
-3-
t1~f
ending~
(given)
tense of verbs ending in x, ch, sh, or
~
-3-
0900
Different sounds of inflectional ending -ed
-2- -3-
0901
Different sounds of inflectional ending -ed:
/t/ after
f, k, p, s, sh, ch, ck, gh (walked)
2.5
-2- -3-
0902
Different sounds of inflectional ending -ed:
/d/ after
1, w, b, z, m, th and vowels {called, echoed)
2.5
-2- -3·
..
0903
Different·sounds of inflectional ending -ed:
/ad/
·
after
. . . . .i
t···.······
2.5
...;.2_;
2.5
-2- -3-
1-3.::..
1000
1001
~
or
i (painted)
Changes in base words when endings are added
Changes in base words when endings are added:
Drop
final e (smiling)
2.5
-2- -3-
1002
Changes in base words when endings are added:
Double
final consonants in monosyllabic words (stopping)
2.5
-2- -3-
1003
Changes in base words when endings are added:
final y
to~
Change
before adding -es, -ed, -er, -est.
(dries, dried, happier, happiest)
2.5
-3-
1004
Changes in base words when endings are added:
final y to
2.5
2.5
-3-
1005
bi:
~
before adding -ly.
(happily)
Changes in base words when endings are added:
f to
~
to form plural.
Change
Change
(leaf-leaves)
Changes in base words when endings are added:
For
--'---·
verbs ending in a consonant preceded by a short vowel,
double the consonant before adding -ed or -ing.
(referred, referring)
TAXONOMY
2.5
2.5
STRUCTURAL A.J.'l"ALYSIS (cont.)
I
f-3-
1007
Changes in base words when endings are added:
For
verbs ending in y preceded by a vowel, retain the y
before adding an inflectional ending. (paving, plaved)
2.5
-1- -2- -3-
1100
Auditory recognition of syllables
2.5
-1-2_:... .
1101
Auditory recognition of syllables:
Hearing number
of syllables
2.5
1102
-2- -3-
Auditory recognition of syllables:
Hearing accented
syllables
2.5
-2-
1200
Associating number of vowel sounds with number of
syllables in a word
2.5
-2- -3-
1300
Clues to syllabication
2:.5
-2- -3-
1301
Clues to syllabication:
Compound words (mail·man)
2.5
-2- -3-
1302
Clues to syllabication:
Double medial consonants between
two vowels (lad•der)
2.5
1303
-2- -3-
Clues to syllabication:
between two vowels
2.5
1304
-2- -3-
Two.different medial consonants
(bas·ke~)
Clues to syllabication:
Words ending in a consonant and
le (ta•ble)
2.5
1305
-3-
Clues to syllabication:
Vowel before medial consonant
digraph or blend (rush·es)
2.5
1306
-3-
-3-
Single medial consonant in
words (pi·lot)
I
2.5
Clues to syllabication:
1307
Clues to syllabication:
Pr~fix,
suffix, and root
word (un·fair) (fast•est)
2.5
1308
-3-
Clues to syllabication:
Identifying open syllables
(pi-lot) and closed syllables (cac.tus)
·,_
2.5
:....3-
2.5
-3-
I
1400
Clues to accenting of syllables
1401
Clues to accenting of syllables:
Root word accented when
combined with prefix or suffix (decide')
2.5
-3-
1402
Clues to accenting of syllables:
First syllable
accented when single vowel followed by consonant (hap' E:J)
2.5
-3-
11103
Clues to accenting of syllables:
vowel
TAXONOMY
(~
rade' )
Syllable with long
3. LINGUISTIC COMPREHENSION SKILLS
-------==;_;;,...,.._.....,......,=--;-.;----------------------------·'
3.1
KERNEL SENTENCE PATTERNS
3.1
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0100
N-V-N pattern
3.1
-1- -2- -3-
0200
N-LV-Adj pattern
3.1
-1- -2- -3-
0300
N-LV-N pattern
3.1
-1- -2- -3-
0400
N-LV-Adv pattern
3.1
-1- -2- -3-
0500
N-V-N-(D)-N pattern
3.1
-2- -3-
0600
N-V pattern
3.1
-3-
0700
V-N pattern
3.2
CLASS WORDS AND PHRASES
3.2
-1- .::;2-:- C.:j..;
0100
Nouns and noun phrases
3.2
-1- -2- -3-
0200
Adjectives and adjective phrases
3.2
-1- ,-2-
-3~
0300
Verbs and verb phrases
3.2
-1- -2- -3-
0400
Pronouns
3.2
-1-
,..,z-
0500
Adverbs and adverb phrases
-3~
3.3
STRUCTURE HORDS AND PHRASES
3.3
-0-1-1-
-2-'
0100
Question markers
3.3
-1- -2- -3-
0200
Noun markers
3.3
-1~
-2- -3-
0201
Noun markers:
Articles
3.3
-1- -2- -3-
0202
Noun markers:
Possessives
3.3
-1-
..,.z-l-3-
0203
Noun markers:
Designators
1-1-~-2- '-3-
0300
Verb markers
-3-
0301
Verb markers:
Forms of be
3.3
-1- '-2"- -3-
0302
Verb markers:
Forms of do
3.3
-1-
3.3
-1- -2- -3-
0304
Verb markers:
Can, may, will, seems (to)
3.3
-1- -2- -3-
0305
Verb markers:
Must, should
3.3
-1-f..:?+ -3-
0400
Intensifiers
3.3
-1- -2- -3-
0500
Phrase markers
3.3
-1- -2-,,;.J...;
0501
Phrase markers:
3.3
-1- -2- -3-
0600
Clause markers
0601
Clause markers:
Coordinating conjunctions
0602
Clause markers:
Subordinating conjunctions
3.3
3.3
!
_.tl-
~.;_2~.
'
cz~ -3- 0303 Verb markers:
Forms of have
'
Prepositions
TAXONONY
3.4
SENTENCE TRANSFOP.XATIONS
3.4
-2-l-3-
0100
Active affirmation transformations
3.4
-2- -3-
0200
Yes/No transformations
3.4
-2- -3-
0300
Negative transformations
3.4
-2- -3-
0400
Do
3.4
-3-
0500
Passive transformations
3.4
-3-
0600
Wh
3.4
-3-
0700
Imperative transformations
TAXONOMY
transformations
question transformations
4. COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE COMPREHENSION SKILLS
4.1
BASIC HEANINGS OF SENTENCES AND PARAGRAPHS
4.1
-0- -1-l-2- -3-
0100
p))
Understanding meanings of varying tone levels, accents,
and pauses in spoken sentences
······>\
4.1
f~f -1-
-2- -3-
0200
Following oral directions
4.1
U(}- -.1.-.. -2- -3-
0300
Remembering important details
4.1
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0400
Identifying main ideas
0500
Following written directions
4.1
4.2
ORGANIZATION
4.2
-0-
-3-
0100
Selecting appropriate meanings for words in context
4.2
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0200
Classifying words in context according to meaning
0300
Classifying characters, ideas, and actions
~);:...1-i£
..
·
4. 2
-0- -1- -2:... '-3-
4.2
:...()- -1-
-3-
0400
Placing events in sequence
4.2
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0500
Summarizing
4.2
-0- -1- -2·- -3-
0600
Marshaling relevant supporting details for a main idea
4.2
-2·- -3-
0700
Paragraph usage
::-2-
4.3
ANALYSIS
4.3
-0- -1-l-2-l.:j:, 0100
Distinguishing between important and unimportant details
4.3
....0,-,: 1;.1- -2- -3--
0200
Part-whole relationships
4.3
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0300
Cause and effect relationships
4.3
-1- ~2-- -3-
0400
Place relationships
4.3
-1- -2-
0500
Interpreting figurative language in context
4.3
~3.:;_
-3..:1 0600
Time relationships
... ·.. I
4.3
:...r;
0700
Comparisons and contrasts
4.3
-3-
0800
Coordination-subordination relationships
4.4
4.4
j-o-
0100
Generalizing from descriptive details
4.4
-0-
0200
Obtaining intended meaning from pictures, charts, and maps
4.4
0300
Drawing conclusions
4.4
0400
Drawing inferences
TAXONOMY
4.5
EVALUATION
4.5
-0- -1-[-2-1-3-
0100
Distinguishing between emotive and informative expressions
4.5
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0200
Distinguishing fact from fancy
4.5
-0- -1- -2- -3-1 0300
4.5
-o-l-1- -2- -3-
0400
Expressing agreement or disagreement with author's stand
4.5
-2- -3-
0500
Distinguishing fact from opinion
4.5
-2- -3-
0600
Recognizing implied assumptions
4.5
-3-
0700
Evaluating author's qualifications for writing on a subject
Making observations of author's purpos:
I
4.6
CREATIVE RESPONSE
4.6
-o-j-1-
-2- -3-
0100
Listening and reading for enjoyment
4.6
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0200
Responding to sensory and emotive impressions
4.6
-0-
-2- -3-
0300
Responding to humor
4.6
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0400
Predicting outcomes
4.6 -0- -1- -2- -3-
0500
Creating alternative endings
-1-
TAXONOMY
5. ADAPTIVE READING AND SPEAKING SKILLS
5.1
ADJUSTING RATE TO PURPOSE
5.1
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0100
Scanning
5.1
-1- -2- -3-
0200
Skimming
5.1
-1- -2- -3-
0300
Phrasing
5.1
-1- -2- -3-
0400
Establishing appropriate rate in reading for detail
5.1
-1- -2- -3-
0500
Establishing appropriate rate in reading for enjoyment
5.2
SILENT READING
5.2
-0- -1-l-2-
0100
Eye focus appropriate to task
5.2
-0-
0200
Effective eye-hand coordination
5.2
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0300
Smooth left-to-right eye movement
5.2
-1- -2- -3-
0400
Reading without vocalization, whispering, or lip movements
5.2
-1- -2- -3-
0500
Reading without head movements
5.2
-1- -2- -3-
0600
Reading without pointing
5.2
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0700
Maintaining good reading posture
5.3
SPEAKING
5.3
-0- -1-j-2-
0100
Acquiring vocabulary adequate to convey ideas and feelings
5.3
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0200
Using complete sentences
5.3
-0- -1- -2-1-3-, 0300
-3-l
Modeling sentences
5.3
-1- -2- -3-
0400
Using information to construct sentences
5.3
-1- -2- -3-
0500
Correct pronunciation
0600
Correct phrasing
5.3
5.3
"'
-1- -2-'-3-1- -2- -3-
"'
0700
Appropriate intonation to express meaning
5.4
ORAL READING
5.4
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0100
Choral reading
5-'•
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0200
Reading aloud an original story
5.4
-1- -2- -3-
0300
Intonation appropriate to punctuation clues
5.4
-1- -2- -3-
0400
Intonation appropriate for portraying characteristics
of characters
5.4
-1- -2- -3-
0500
Expressing intended mood of printed material
--
-1-,-2- -3-
0600
Improving eye-voice span
5.4
TA..'{ONOMY
6. LOCATION AND STUDY SKILLS
6.1
DICTIONARY USE
6.1
-o-
:_1-
0100
Identifying letters when shown or named
6.1
-1-
0101
Identifying letters when shown or named:
Capitals
6.1
-o-o-
-1-
0102
Identifying letters when shown or named:
Lowercase
6.1
-0- -1-
0200
Pronouncing names of letters when shown
6.1
-o-
-1-
0300
Matching capital and lowercase letters
6.1
-0- -1-
0400
Knowing alphabetical order
6.1
-1- -2- -3-
0500
Alphabetizing
6.1
..:1-
0501
Alphabetizing to first letter
6.1
-2-
0502
Alphabetizing to second letter
6.1
-2-
0503
Alphabetizing to third letter
6.1
-3-
0504
Alphabetizing beyond third letter
6.1
-1- -2- -3-
0600
Understanding use of entry words
6.1
-1- -2- -3-
0601
Understanding use of entry words:
Noting single words
as entries
6.1
-1-
I 0700
6.1
-1-
0800
Filing and. locating words in word boxes and word books
0900
Using guide words
-3-1
Using first letter to locate words in simple dictionary
6.1
-2-
6.1
-2-
0901
Using guide words:
First letters identical
6.1
-2"" -3-
0902
Using guide words:
First two letters identical
6.1
-2- -3-
6.1
-2- -3-
6.1
-
1000
Estimating location of words in
1100
Understanding syllable markings
-3-
1101
Understanding syllable markings:
6.1
-2- -3-
1200
Noting inflected forms of words
6.1
-2- -3-
1300
Noting derived forms of words
6.1
-3-
1400
Understanding use of pronunciation key
6.1
6.1
-6.1
TAXONOMY
f~J ~: :
diacritical markings
:·o·
phonetic spelling
1~3-1
mmJ. '
1500
di~tionary
Noting accented syllables
Understanding use of pronunciation key:
Understanding use of pronunciation key:
Interpreting
Interpreting
Selecting correct definition to fit context
6.2 SKILL IN USING PARTS OF BOOK
~~~~~~~~~~~~~----------------------------------------=6.2 -00100 Locating front cover and title
6.2
-0- -1-
0200
Using title page to find specific information
6.2
-0- -1-
0300
Understanding uses of illustrations in a book
6.2
-0- -1-
0400
Understanding uses of table of contents
6.2
-1-
0500
Using cover to find specific information:
-
Ii ·.,
6.2
Title,
author, illustrator
-1- -2- -3-
0600
: >:
Using table of contents to find specific information:
Titles of stories, page numbers
.....
·
.:..3.:..
0700
Using an index to find information
-3-
0800
Using a glossary to find definitions
-1- -2-1-3-' 0100
Caring for books and other materials
6.3
-1- -2- -3-
0200
Lean1ing library procedures and appropriate behavior
6.3
-1- -2- -3-
0300
Becoming familiar with sections of library
6.3
-1- -2- -3-
0400
Locating and selecting appropriate books
6.3
-2- -3-
0500
Using a card catalogue
6.2
I
6.2
6.3
6.3
I,IBRARY USE
1-o-
6.3
-3-1 0600
Using reference books
6.3
,.-3-
0601
Using reference books:
Encyclopedia
-3-
0602
Using reference books:
Large dictionary
6.3
~
6.4
I
~------------------------------------------------------------
AIDS TO
-0-
0100
Identifying types of literature:
Nursery rhymes, short
poems, stories
6.4
0200
-
-0-
Identifying information within stories:
6.4
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0300
S-Q-3R Method
6.4
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0301
S-Q-3R Method:
Surveying
Fact/fiction,
funny/sad
I
6.4
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0302
S-Q-3R Method:
Questioning
6.4
-0- -1- -2- ·-3-
0303
S-Q-3R Method:
Reading
6.4
-0- -1- -2- -3-
0304
S-Q-3R Method:
Reciting
6.4
-o-
0305
S-Q-3R Method:
Reviewing
-1- -2- -3-
1
----'----
TAXONOMY
6.4
6.4
1-1- -2- -3'-1- -2- -3-
0400
Summarizing
0500
Summarizing main points of a simple passage
n~in
points of an
eA~erience
6.4
-:1- -2- -3-
0600
Selecting topic sentence of a simple
6.4
-1- -2- -3-
0700
Selecting key words of a simple passage
6.4
-2- -3-
0800
Organizing details under main ideas
6.4
-2- -3-
0900
Outline form
TA..'WNOMY
pas~age