The Relationship of sentence-expansion with pictorialization on grade six writing
by Linda Wason-Ellam
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education
Montana State University
© Copyright by Linda Wason-Ellam (1984)
Abstract:
This study was designed to investigate the relationship of instruction and practice of
sentence-expansion with pictorialization on the syntactic maturity of grade six students. Of interest to
this study was the interaction of sex and prior achievement to determine whether the differentiation in
the instructional technique was beneficial to a particular group.
The procedures included development of and instruction in two parallel sentence-expansion programs
which differed in the task demand that the experimental program required students to draw each
expansion while the control program required students to only expand sentences.
In order to measure syntactic maturity four pre-writing and post-writing samples were collected from
46 grade six students who were randomly divided into two groups: experimental and control. Two
modes of discourse, narrative and expository, were examined on both free and controlled writing.
Fixty-six null hypotheses were tested in this study, fifty-four of which were accepted and two rejected.
A three way analysis of variance was used to determine if there was a significant difference between
the mean gain score of various syntactic factors.
Among the findings and conclusions were: 1. The use of sentence- expansion was found to be effective
in increasing syntactic maturity in grade six writers independent of treatment; 2. There was a
significant difference in favor of the experimental group in number of sentence transformations in
narrative free writing, the most fluent writing mode in elementary levels; 3. High achieving males
performed better in narrative free writing than did middle and low achieving males as well as all female
achievement levels; 4. Observation demonstrated that students used pictorialization as a visual
brainstorming activity, an idea sketching of what they intended to say in words. Thus, students used
pictorialization to demonstrate the verbal intention; 5. The researcher found no significant differences
in narrative controlled, expository, free and controlled writing based on sex, prior achievement and
method of instruction. ©
COPYRIGHT
by
Linda Wason-Ellam
1983
Al I Rights Reserved
THE RELATIONSHIP OF
SENTENCE-EXPANSION WITH
PICTORIALIZATION ON GRADE SIX WRITING
by
Linda Wason-Ellam
A t h e s i s sub mit te d in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t
of t h e requir em en ts f o r t h e degree
of
Doctor of Education
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
February 1984
APPROVAL
o f a t h e s i s submitted by
Linda Wason-El I am
This t h e s i s has been read by each member o f t h e t h e s i s committee
and has been found to be s a t i s f a c t o r y r e g a r d i n g c o n t e n t , English usage,
fo rm at , c i t a t i o n s , b i b l i o g r a p h i c s t y l e , and c o n s i s t e n c y , and i s ready
f o r submission to th e College o f Graduate S t u d i e s .
I , M N ________
Date
'
C hai rp er so n, Graduate Comfhittee
Approved f o r the Major Department
l/yia^
Date
/ .
/
/f^
Approved f o r t h e College o f Graduate S tu di es
P-./fey
Date
Graduate Dean
iii
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of th e requirements
f o r a d o c to ra l degree a t Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , I agree t h a t the
Li brary s h a l l make i t a v a i l a b l e to borrowers under r u l e s of the L i b r a r y .
I f u r t h e r agree t h a t copying of t h i s t h e s i s i s allowable only fo r
s c h o l a r l y p u rp o s e s , c o n s i s t e n t with " f a i r use" as p r e s c r i b e d in the U.S.
Copyright Law.
Requests f o r e x te n s iv e copying or re p r o d u c ti o n of t h i s
t h e s i s should be r e f e r r e d to U n iv e r s it y Microfilms I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 300
North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106, to whom I have granted "the
e x c lu s iv e r i g h t to reproduce and d i s t r i b u t e copies of t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n
in and from microfilm and t h e r i g h t t o reproduce and d i s t r i b u t e by
a b s t r a c t in any f o r m a t . "
Signature
Date
iv
This t h e s i s i s d e d i c a t e d to
John, who l i t a can dle of
u n d e r s t a n d i n g , which s h a l l
not be put out.
;
V
VITA
Linda Ann Wason-Ellam was born on October 16, 1942, in Boston,
M a s s a c h u s e t t s , d a u g h te r o f G. F l e t c h e r and Ethel Raymond Wason.
Educated in t h e Boston a r e a , she r e c e i v e d t h e Bachelor of Arts degree
in Art H i s t o r y from Chatham C o ll e g e , P i t t s b u r g h , Pennsylvania in 1964
and a Master o f Education degree from t h e U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h in
1967.
Ms. Wason-Ellam was a t e a c h e r in elem ent ary and j u n i o r high
school grades in P e n n s y lv a n i a , Montana, and A l b e r t a , Canada. Formerly,
she was t h e D i r e c t o r o f t h e Teacher Center f o r G a l l a t i n County, Bozeman,
Montana. At p r e s e n t , she i s t e a c h in g Reading and Language Arts in th e
Fa c ulty o f E duc a tio n, U n i v e r s i t y of C al gar y, A l b e r t a .
Ms Wason-Ellam was a c h a r t e r member o f Phi Delta Kappa, Calgary
Chapter and Kappa Delta P i . She holds memberships in t h e National
Council o f Teachers o f E n g l i s h , The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading A s s o c i a t i o n ,
The Early Childhood Education Council and The I n t e r n a t i o n a l S t o r y ­
t e l l e r s ' Gu ild . In 1983, she was named t h e r e c i p i e n t o f t h e Education
Undergraduate S o c i e t y ' s Outst and in g P r o f e s s o r o f t h e Year Award, The
U n i v e r s i t y of Calgary.
Ms. Wason-Ellam i s marr ie d t o Dr. Benjamin John Eli am, p h y s ic i a n
and P a r t - t i m e A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r , Fa c ulty of Medicine, U n i v e r s i t y of
Calgary. She has two d a u g h t e r s , Courtney Wason and Nicole Smith
Bardonner and two s t e p - s o n s , Timothy S t . John and Marcus Dunbar El I am,
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This stu dy owes i t s completion t o t h e kindness and u n d e r s ta n d in g ,
a s s i s t a n c e and s u p p o rt o f many pe ople.
P a r t i c u l a r l y I e xpre ss my
g r a t i t u d e t o Dr. William D. H a l l , my s u p e r v i s o r , who always encouraged
me, p a t i e n t l y g uid in g my e f f o r t s .
I thank Dr. Old Coyote, Dr. T h i b e a u lt ,
Dr. M a r k o v it s , Dr. S u l l i v a n and Dr. Mundy f o r t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n and
suggestions.
F u r t h e r , I thank t h e personnel of Rockyview School D iv is io n #41 —
S i r i j e McWilliams and Fred Archer and t h e i r grade s i x c l a s s e s who were
most c o o p e r a t i v e duri ng t h e s tu d y .
A s i n c e r e thank you to my c o l l e a g u e s , e s p e c i a l l y Dr. Emma F l a t t e r ,
f o r encouragement and s u p p o rt given with remarkable g e n e r o s i t y and t o
Ethel Wason, my mother, f o r p ro vid in g t h e o p p o r t u n i t y .
And, t o my husband, a s p e c i a l thank you f o r k i n d l i n g new d i r e c t i o n s
in my searc h f o r knowledge and u n d e r s t a n d i n g .
vi i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPROVAL PAGE..................
11
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO U S E ......................................................................... 111
DEDICATION
.............................................................................
Iv
V I T A ..............................................................................................................................
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................
vi
LIST OF T A B L E S .........................................................................
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
ABSTRACT
. . ' ............................................
xiii
............................................................................................................. .... . xiv
CHAPTER
I
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROBLEM.......................................................
I
I n t r o d u c t i o n .........................................................................................
I.
The Importance o f t h e S t u d y ............................................. • . •
3
Stateme nt o f t h e Problem . . . ..... .....................................................13
Hypotheses to be T e s t e d ....................................................................... 14
D e f i n i t i o n of T e r n s ............................................................................... 16
General Procedures
..........................................................................
18
L i m i t a t i o n s o f th e S t u d y .................................................................. 21
II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................................................................ 23
I n t r o d u c t i o n ..............................................
23
L i t e r a t u r e Relate d t o I n c r e a s i n g S y n t a c t i c M at ur ity . .
23
L i t e r a t u r e Relate d to Visu al- Ver ba l A s s o c i a t i o n s
29
L i t e r a t u r e Relate d t o D r a w i n g ..............................
. . .
35
viii
Page
Summary o f L i t e r a t u r e Reviewed
................................................
37
............................................
37
Verbal-Visual A s s o c i a t i o n s ....................................................
38
Drawing ' ....................................................
38
I n c r e a s i n g S y n t a c t i c M a tu r it y
III
PROCEDURES..................................................................
Introduction
.......................................................................................
Po pu la ti o n D e s c r i p t i o n
..................................................................
40
40
41
Design o f t h e Study ...............................................
42
T r e a t m e n t .......................................................................................
43
I n s t r u c t i o n a l O b je c ti v e s ................................................ .... .
45
Performance O b je ct i ves .............................................................
45
Lesson O b je c ti v e s
46
......................................................................
Summary of Treatment .......................................................................47
T e s t Ins tru me nts
. . ........................................................................... 48
Canadian T e s ts o f Basic S k i l l s . ..............................
48
S y n t a c t i c M atu ri ty T e s t
.........................................................
49
Free Writ ing T e s t ................................................................. . .
50
C o l l e c t i o n and O rg a n iz a ti o n o f D a t a .............................................51
W riting Sample C o l l e c t i o n
....................................................
51
R a t e r s ................................... .... . ’................................................ 52
S c o r i n g .....................................................................
53
Time Schedule
56
................................................
S t a t i s t i c a l H y p o t h e s e s ....................................... • ...................... 60
Analysis o f D a t a ....................................................................................64
P r e c a u t i o n s Taken f o r A c c u r a c y ....................................... .... . .65
ix
Page
IV
DATA
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ....................................................................... 66
Relevant Data and F i n d i n g s .............................................................. 69
Mean T - u n i t
and Mode
o f W r i t i n g ...................................... 70
Exposito ry C o n tr o ll e d Writing
.................. . . . .
70
N a r r a t i v e C o n tr ol le d Writing .......................................
75
N a r r a t i v e Free Writing ....................................................
78
Exp os ito ry Free W r i t i n g .................., ......................... 82
Number o f Sentence Tr ans for m atio ns and
Mode of W r i t i n g .......................................................................85
Exp osi to ry C o n tr o ll e d Writi ng
. . . .
..................
87
N a r r a t i v e C o n tr o ll e d W r i t i n g . ............................................ 90
N a r r a t i v e Free W r i t i n g ..........................................................94.
Ex po si to ry Free Writ ing
................................... .... . .
Relate d O bse rvations .......................................
98
102
Summary of F i n d i n g s ......................................................................... 104
V.
IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................... .... . 106
C o n c l u s i o n s ' ................................................................................... • 106
I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r I n s t r u c t i o n ..................................................... 115
Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research .....................
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
115
....................................................................................... 117
APPENDICES.....................................................................................................................123
APPENDIX A - T e s t Ins tru m e nts f o r C o n t r o l l e d Writing . . . . . .
124
APPENDIX B - T e s t In st rum en ts f o r Free W r i t i n g ...................................... 127
APPENDIX C - S y n t a c t i c M a tu r it y An alysis Sheet ................................... 132
APPENDIX D - Feat ure s o f t h e Program
135
X
Page
APPENDIX E - S t u d e n t s ' W rit in g Samples .......................................
. . .
147
APPENDIX F - S t u d e n t s ' L e t t e r s ...................................................................... 154
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
Lesson O b je c ti v e s .......................................................................................
46
2
T e s t i n g and I n s t r u c t i o n Time Schedule ...........................................
58
3
Comparison of P r e t e s t Mean Scores on t h e V a ri a ble s
of S y n t a c t i c Development f o r C o n t r o l l e d and Free,
W r it in g : Experimental and Control Groups (One
Way ANOVA).....................................
68
Means and Sta ndard D ev iati on f o r Gain Scores f o r Mean
T - u n i t Length f o r Free and C o n t r o l l e d Writing
(E x p o si t o ry and N a r r a t i v e ) .............................................................
71
Three-way ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores f o r Mean T - u n i t
Length in Ex po si to ry C o n tr o ll e d Writing ...............................
74
Three-way ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores f o r Mean T - u n i t
Length in N a r r a t i v e C o n t r o l l e d W riting .....................................
77
Three-way ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores f o r Mean T - u n i t
Length in N a r r a t i v e Free W rit in g ................................................
81
Three-way ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores f o r Mean T - u n i t
Length in Exp osi to ry Free Writi ng ............................................
84
Means and Sta ndard D ev iation f o r Gain Scores f o r Number
of Sentence T r an s fo rm at io ns f o r Free and C o n tr o ll e d
Writing ( E xpo si to ry and N a r r a t i v e ) ............................................
86
Three-way ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores f o r Number of
Sentence T ra ns fo rm at io ns in Exp os ito ry C o n tr o ll e d
W r i t i n g ....................................................
89
Three-way ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores f o r Number of
Sentence T ra ns fo rm at io ns in N a r r a t i v e C o nt ro lle d
W r i t i n g .....................
93
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Means f o r Number o f Sentence T ra ns fo rm at io ns f o r t h e
I n t e r a c t i o n o f Sex and Achievement in N a r r a t i v e
Free W r i t i n g .................................................................................................96
13
Three-way ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores fp r Number of
Sentence T ra ns fo rm at io ns in N a r r a t i v e Free W riting . . .
97
14 Three-way ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores f o r Number of
Sentence T ra ns fo rm at io ns in Ex pos ito ry Free W riting
. . 101
xi i
Table
Page
15
Summary of Mean T - u n i t L e n g t h ................................................
16
Summary o f Number of Sentence T ransf orm atio ns .......................... 104
103
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1
Visual T h i n k i n g ................................................................................... .
10
2
Graphic I d e a t i o n ...............................................
10
3
Three-Way C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Cube ...................................
15
4
Scheduling and A n a l y s i s .....................................................................
59
xiv
ABSTRACT
This stu dy was designed to i n v e s t i g a t e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f i n s t r u c ­
t i o n and p r a c t i c e o f s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n on the
s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y of grade s i x s t u d e n t s . Of i n t e r e s t to t h i s stu dy was
t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f sex and p r i o r achievement t o determine whether the
d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n in t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l te ch n i q u e was b e n e f i c i a l to a p a r ­
t i c u l a r group.
The procedures inc lud ed development of and i n s t r u c t i o n in two
p a r a l l e l se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n programs which d i f f e r e d in t h e t a s k demand
t h a t t h e experimental program r e q u i r e d s t u d e n t s to draw each expansion
while t h e c o n t r o l program r e q u i r e d s t u d e n t s to only expand s e n t e n c e s .
In o r d e r t o measure s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y fo u r p r e - w r i t i n g and p o s t ­
w r i t i n g samples were c o l l e c t e d from 46 grade s i x s t u d e n t s who were
randomly d i v id e d i n t o two groups: ex perimental and c o n t r o l . Two modes
o f d i s c o u r s e , n a r r a t i v e and e x p o s i t o r y , were examined on both f r e e and
controlled w riting.
F i x t y - s i x null hypotheses were t e s t e d in t h i s s t u d y , f i f t y - f o u r of
which were a cc e pte d and two r e j e c t e d . A t h r e e way a n a l y s i s of v a ri a nce
was used t o det ermi ne i f t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the
mean gain s co r e of v a ri o u s s y n t a c t i c f a c t o r s .
Among t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c lu s io n s were: I . The use of se n te n c e expansion was found t o be e f f e c t i v e in i n c r e a s i n g s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y in
grade s i x w r i t e r s indepen de nt of t r e a t m e n t ; 2. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e in f a v o r o f th e experimental group in number of s en te n c e
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g , t h e most f l u e n t w r i t i n g mode
in elementary l e v e l s ; 3. High a c h ie v in g males performed b e t t e r in
n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g than did middle and low a ch ie vi ng males as well
as a l l female achievement l e v e l s ; 4. Observation demonstrated t h a t
s t u d e n t s used p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n as a v is u a l bra in s to rm in g a c t i v i t y , an
idea s k e tc h in g o f what they int ended t o say in words. Thus, s t u d e n t s
used p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n to demonstrate th e ve rbal i n t e n t i o n ; .5. The
r e s e a r c h e r found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d ,
e x p o s i t o r y , f r e e and c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g based on s e x , p r i o r achievement
and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
I
Chapter I
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROBLEM
INTRODUCTION
W rit in g i s p r i m a r i l y a proc ess and only s e c o n d a r i l y a p ro duc t.
As
a process w r i t i n g i s to r e s e a r c h , t o c l a r i f y i n f o r m a t i o n , t o d is c o v e r
o n e ' s knowledge and o p i n i o n s , t o l e a r n in fo r m a t io n s p e c i f i c a l l y and to
e x p lo re t h e s e l f and t h e world.
C hild re n should use w r i t i n g as an a id
t o t h e i r own t h i n k i n g .
In t h e primary g r a d e s , t h e c h i l d d i s c o v e r s t h a t English i s w r i t t e n
as groups of words, each group beginning with a c a p i t a l l e t t e r and
ending with a mark of p u n c t u a t i o n .
Then he d is c o v e r s t h a t t h e r e i s a
r e l a t i o n s h i p between a u n i t of th ought and a group o f words.
Develop­
ing t h e un de rs ta n d in g t h a t a s e n te n c e is a thoug ht conveyor i s an aid
in composing good s e n t e n c e s .
An e s s e n t i a l w r i t i n g s k i l l i s t h e a b i l i t y to combine more than one
idea i n t o a s e n t e n c e .
According to Hunt (196 5) , young c h i l d r e n had
t r o u b l e b u i l d i n g s e v e r a l r e l a t e d ide as i n t o one s e n t e n c e .
They r e l i e d
on t h e word and to s t r i n g thoughts t o g e t h e r as in:
I saw a dog and he was big and he was with a boy.
Older w r i t e r s were more l i k e l y to combine th e th ou ghts :
I saw th e big dog t h a t was with the boy.
Sentence-building was one of the s k i l l s that contributed to the overall
2
q u ality of w riting.
Educators need to desi gn a program to help c h i l d r e n develop w r i t i n g
skills.
S tu d i e s conducted during t h e 1970's by the National Assessment
o f Educational Programs (1969-1974) confirmed the need f o r ongoing and
s y s t e m a t i c programs through which c h i l d r e n a c q u i r e r e q u i s i t e w r i t i n g
s k i l l s ( NAEP1 1975).
Between 1969 and 1975 the NAEP found i n c r e a s e s in awkwardness,
run-on se n te n c e s and in c o h e r e n t p a r a g r a p h s .
Stu de nt s t e s t e d in 1975
e xp re ss ed themselves in only the s i m p l e s t s en te n c e p a t t e r n s and with a
l i m i t e d vocab ula ry (NAEP1 1975).
Reacting t o s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s , Hook ( c i t e d in P o r t e r , 1972) hypothe­
s i z e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s between th oug ht p a t t e r n s . a n d th e p u n c t u a t i o n p a t t e r n s
b a s i c to w r i t i n g .
He s ugg es te d t h a t " c h i l d r e n do not use more complex
c o n s t r u c t i o n because t h e i r th ought p a t t e r n s do not r e q u i r e them and
development o f such p a t t e r n s may be more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h in k in g
a b i l i t y than t o w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . "
Hook proposed t h a t le a r n i n g
mechanics was not a m a t t e r o f l e a r n i n g r u l e s but of developing an under­
s ta n d i n g of what each usage could do.
In t h i s r e s p e c t , t h e mechanics of
w r i t i n g was a r e f l e c t i o n of c l a r i t y o f t h i n k i n g .
When w r i t i n g and t h i n k i n g a r e viewed as p a r t s o f a whole, fo u r
c a t e g o r i e s o f w r i t i n g s k i l l s emerge as b a s i c in el ementary programs:
The a b i l i t y t o p r e s e n t id e as l o g i c a l l y in w r i t t e n form;
To compose s e n t e n c e s ;
To p u n c tu a t e and c a p i t a l i z e t o h i g h l i g h t th ought
patterns;
And t o choose t h e a p p r o p r i a t e words to communicate
in te nd e d meani ngs.
3
Granted t h e importance o f t e a c h i n g w r i t i n g s k i l l s , how does one go
ab out developing t h e t a s k ?
Haynes (1978) summarized much o f t h e r e s e a rc h
on t h e t e a c h in g o f w r i t i n g by s t a t i n g :
H i s t o r i c a l l y i f t h e r e has been any c o n s i s t e n c y ,
in t h e t e a c h i n g o f w r i t i n g in t h i s c o u n tr y , i t
l i e s in t h e f a c t t h a t most approaches used have
been n e g a t i v e (p . 82).
One o f t h e major approaches a tt e m pte d has been th e te a c h i n g of
grammar.
However, r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s reviewed by th e Curriculum Commission
of th e National Council of Teachers o f English showed t h a t knowledge of
t r a d i t i o n a l grammar had almos t no r e l a t i o n s h i p t o th e a b i l i t y t o speak
o r w r i t e c l e a r l y (Haynes, 1978).
To teach grammar was not t o teach th e
s k i l l s of w riting.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY
A common s u g g e s ti o n f o r f a c i l i t a t i n g w r i t i n g competence is to help
c h i l d r e n develop s k i l l s through f i r s t h a n d e xper ie nc e s with s e n t e n c e ­
b u i l d i n g te c h n i q u e s as p a r t o f t h e i r a c t u a l w r i t i n g a c t i v i t y .
To a c q u ir e
a sens e of what a s e n te n c e i s , one must be a b le to ma nip ul a te s e n t e n c e s .
Numbers of s t u d e n t s have memorized t h e d e f i n i t i o n "a s e n te n c e is a group
o f words t h a t e x p r e s s e s a complete t h o u g h t . "
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , a s ent en ce
i s not t h e only way t o exp ress complete t h o u g h t s .
At times in s pea kin g,
people exp ress complete tho ughts through s i n g l e words and through
phrases.
Today, l i n g u i s t s a re proposing t h a t a b e t t e r approach to
b u i l d i n g s e n te n c e sense i s t o have c h i l d r e n manip ula te s e n t e n c e p a r t s
and g r a d u a l l y a c q u i r e a fundamental un d e rs ta n d in g of t h e tw o- parte dness
o f a s e n t e n c e ; p a r t s may be c a l l e d s u b j e c t and verb o r noun phrase and
•
. - (• t. .Iv1 -Ym
verb p h r a s e .
Once having b u i l t s e n te n c e s from s u b j e c t and verb p a r t s ,
c h i l d r e n can a t t e m p t t o w r i t e s e n te n c e s in v a r i e d p a t t e r n s as they
r e f i n e t h e i r a b i l i t y t o handle th e b a s i c s en te n c e p a t t e r n s .
T h e re fo re ,
s e n te n c e b u i l d i n g would seem v a l u a b l e durin g both th e p r e w r i t i n g and the
rew riting period.
Chomsky's (1957) t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l g e n e r a t i v e th e o r y has become a
possible a lte r n a t iv e for educators.
B asic to Chomsky's th e o ry was a
s c i e n t i f i c method by which he t r i e d to d i s c o v e r and d e s c r i b e th e r u l e s
t h a t g e n e r a t e a l l th e grammatical s e n te n c e s o f a language as well as the
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s t h a t govern t h e arrangement and rear rangeme nt of
t h e s e kernel s e n te n c e s by such p ro c e ss es as a d j u n c t i o n , s u b s t i t u t i o n ,
d e l e t i o n and pe rm u ta ti o n .
T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l i s t s seldom concern themselves
with d e f i n i n g terms l i k e " s e n t e n c e ; " i n s t e a d , they simply t r y t o d e s c r i b e
our i n t u i t i v e knowledge about how t h e language i s s t r u c t u r e d , our
unconscious "se nt e nc e s e n s e . "
In Chomsky's view, t h i s was one of the
primary f u n c t i o n s o f grammar:
to d e s c r i b e a n a t i v e s p e a k e r ' s unconscious
knowledge of what was and what was. not grammatical in t h e language.
A
grammar should d e s c r i b e not merely human speech, b u t t h e language system
which u n d e r l i e s a c t s o f speech.
Thus, Chomsky p o s t u l a t e d two l e v e l s of
language s t r u c t u r e , a s u r f a c e le v el and a deep l e v e l .
Chomsky s a id t h a t
t h e s u r f a c e l e v e l c o n s i s t e d o f a l i n e a r sequence of c l a u s e s , p h ra s e s ,
words and sounds or l e t t e r s .
The deep le v e l c o n s i s t e d of th e underlying
p r o p o s i t i o n s and t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among them.
T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l i s t s were
concerned p r i m a r i l y with t h e pro c e ss es by which deep s t r u c t u r e was
trans for me d i n t o s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e .
grammar.
Hence the name t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l
5
Hunt (1973) noted t h e change in e d u c a ti o n a l th i n k i n g with rega rd to
t h e changing emphasis in language i n s t r u c t i o n .
He wrote:
T r an s fo rm at io na l sy ntax i s a s c i e n c e of language as no
pre vio us grammar has been. I t i s so s c i e n t i f i c t h a t
i t can be shown to be wrong in some pla ces and incom­
p l e t e in o t h e r s . And i t i s c o n s t a n t l y changing a t the
f o r e f r o n t , l i k e c h e m i s t r y ----- b u t i t is r i g f i t in p la ce s
t o o ___ o r a t l e a s t as r i g h t as a s c i e n c e e ver i s u n t i l
t h e nex t major r e v i s i o n comes along (p. 112).
Thus, s t u d i e s on v a ri o u s a s p e c t s of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar began.
Supported by the f i n d i n g s o f o t h e r r e s e a r c h . Hunt (1973)
made the
e m p ir ic a l o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t a c l e a r l i n e o f growth e x i s t e d in language
s k i l l s from grades f o u r through twe lve .
As s t u d e n t s became o l d e r they
wrote se n te n c e s w ith an i n c r e a s i n g number of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , t h a t i s ,
s e n te n c e s i n t o which had been combined a g r e a t e r number of ide as than
co uld have been e xp re ss ed in simple kernel s e n t e n c e s .
The r e s u l t was
not merely lo n g e r se n te n c e s or g r e a t e r use of s u b o r d i n a t i o n but a l s o
c l a u s e s t h a t were more complex in t h a t they c onta in ed a g r e a t e r number
o f embedded elements reduced to phrase or s i n g l e word m o d i f i e r s .
T h e r e f o r e , a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar approached grammar through
g e n e r a t i o n or b u i l d i n g of s e n t e n c e s .
Numerous s t u d i e s followed i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t s o f s e n t e n c e ­
b u i l d i n g e x e r c i s e s on s t u d e n t s from second grade to c o l l e g e l e v e l .
Recent r e s e a r c h by S i n a t r a (1979, 1980) and Graves (1979) showed a new
t r e n d , a concern f o r th e in c r e a s e d use o f v i s u a l l i t e r a c y s t r a t e g i e s in
t h e p r e w r i t i n g process as a way to s t r e n g t h e n composing and comprehending
processes.
S i n a t r a s t a t e d t h a t one c o n t r o v e r s i a l area r e g a r d s t e l e v i s i o n
viewing time and i t s e f f e c t upon I e a r n e r s .
The second a r e a regarded mode
of th i n k i n g and l e a r n i n g pro c e ss es i n f l u e n c e d by hemispheric dominance.
6
Few w r i t i n g programs have c u r r e n t l y been developed t h a t c a p i t a l i z e on
t h e v i s u a l o r i e n t a t i o n o f modern y o u th .
McCullogh (1973) i n d i c a t e d t h a t p r i o r to t h e age of e i g h t e e n , th e
American t e e n a g e r s p e n t more time viewing t e l e v i s i o n than in the c l a s s ­
room.
C h il d e rs and Ross (1973) poin te d ou t in t h e i r review o f middle
e lem en ta ry school p u p il s who watched a mean number o f 3 .3 hours of
t e l e v i s i o n d a i l y t h a t th e number of hours had changed very l i t t l e over
t h e pre vio us twenty y e a r s .
At t h i s p o i n t , t h e r e had been no re s ea rc h
f i n d i n g s a d d r e s s s i n g t h e e f f e c t of t h e "video craze" on s t u d e n t s .
With
t h e s e f a c t s in mind, i t became more a p p a r e n t than ever b e f o r e t h a t
t o d a y ' s c h i l d r e n were f u n c t i o n i n g in a v i s u a l world.
Research conducted by W i l l i s e t a l . (1979) i d e n t i f i e d t h e b r a i n ' s
r o l e in t h e p ro c e ss e s o f d i f f e r e n t types o f s t i m u l i and t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n
o f each hemisphere o f t h e b r a i n to l e a r n i n g .
Each hemisphere appeared to
r e a c t d i f f e r e n t l y to t h e in f o r m a t io n r e c e i v e d .
For most p e o p le , the l e f t
hemisphere pro c e sse d s t i m u l i s e r i a l l y , performing in a l o g i c a l , a n a l y t i ­
cal way by a b s t r a c t i n g ou t r e l e v a n t d e t a i l s and a t t a c h i n g verba l l a b e l s .
The r i g h t h e m is p h e re 's mode o f p e r c e p t i o n was p r i m a r i l y h o l i s t i c .
The
r i g h t hemisphere was p r i m a r i l y a s y n t h e s i z e r , p ro c e ss in g many s t i m u l i a t
a ti m e , and was more concerned with t h e t o t a l s ti m ulu s c o n f i g u r a t i o n , a
visual-spatial association.
Those who performed b e t t e r a t verbal and
language r e l a t e d t a s k s were co n si d e re d t o be l e f t dominant.
Those who
seemed t o perform b e t t e r a t v i s u a l - s p a t i a l t a s k s f o r which t h e r i g h t
hemisphere was org a ni z ed were co n si d e re d t o be r i g h t dominant.
Stude nts
d i f f e r e d in t h e way they performed v a r i o u s t a s k s depending on how
in fo r m a t io n was pro ce sse d in t h e dominant hemisphere.
7
The i m p l i c a t i o n s drawn from t h e s e c l i n i c a l f i n d i n g s were t h a t schools
have overemphasized t h e l e f t hemisp heric f u n c t i o n s t o t h e v i r t u a l
d e p r i v a t i o n of t h e r i g h t .
'
The q u e s t i o n t h a t was f r e q u e n t l y r a i s e d was
t h a t t h e c r i s i s in re a d in g and w r i t i n g s k i l l s may have been based in p a r t
o n , t h e impact of modern te c h n o l o g y , i n c l u d i n g t h e v is u a l media of the
t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , upon c h i l d r e n .
This r e s e a r c h has g e n e r a te d a g r e a t
deal o f i n t e r e s t , b u t , due t o i t s co mp le xity , a l s o mi su nd e rst an din g and
abuse.
Some e d u c a to r s had found in i t a magic panacea to c ure t h e i l l s
o f t h e e d u c a ti o n a l system.
T h e ir i n t e r e s t in b r a i n r e s e a r c h was r e l a t e d
t o t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e whole e du c a ti o n a l system was s t i f l i n g c r e a t i v i t y .
They saw c r e a t i v i t y as th e p r e r o g a t i v e o f man.
Many eq uated i t with
r i g h t b r a i n a c t i v i t y , a c onc lu s io n which was not sup porte d by r e s e a rc h
(Winn e t a I . , 1983).
The A l b e r t a Elementary Language A rts Curriculum Guide ( C oss it t ,
1982) looked a t th e i n t e r r e l a t e d n e s s of a l l a s p e c t s of language a r t s and
i n t e g r a t e d viewing in t h e mandated program.
C h i l d r e n ' s a c t i v e involvement in a v a r i e t y of
v i s u a l e x p e r ie n c e s cannot b u t he lp to enhance
language development and l e a r n i n g (p. 43).
Art e d u c a t o r s as well have looked a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between
language and viewing.
S i r H erber t Read (1945) th ough t a r t e x p re ss io n
was n a t u r a l and e s s e n t i a l t o a l l c h i l d r e n .
Art should be t h e b a s i s of
education.
Read s t a t e d :
___ what is wrong with our e d u c a ti o n a l system i s
p r e c i s e l y our h a b i t o f e s t a b l i s h i n g s e p a r a t e t e r r i ­
t o r i e s and i n v i s i b l e f r o n t i e r s . Art i s th e r e p r e ­
s e n t a t i o n , language i s t h e e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e same
r e a l i t y (p . 11).
8
Read advocated i n t e g r a t i n g t h e Three R's cu rri c ulu m i n t o a broad program
based on a r t .
I n s t e a d , a r t today i s l a r g e l y a tool f o r promoting the
l e a r n i n g o f the Three R ' s .
Goodnow (1977) s t a t e d t h a t a g r e a t deal o f t h i n k i n g and communica­
t i n g took p la c e v i s u a l l y .
However, over t h e p a s t twenty y e a r s a naly se s
o f communication have c o n c e n t r a t e d p r i m a r i l y on words.
po in te d ou t t h a t our c u l t u r e was preoccupied with words.
Arnheim (1969)
He wanted to
se e words in t h e i r pla ce and more a t t e n t i o n given to the v i s u a l a s p e c ts
of th ought s and memory.
For S a p i r (1949) words were our common and
co nv en ie nt means of e x p r e s s i o n , y e t o f t e n t h e ri c h n e s s o f e xper ie nc e
la y beyond t h e i r r e a c h .
Language did more than supply s t a b l e ta gs t h a t
commit s en so ry e x p e r ie n c e s t o acknowledging c e r t a i n type s o f phenomena.
Language i n t e r a c t e d with t h e o t h e r p e rc e p tu a l media which were th e
p r i n c i p a l v e h i c l e s o f t h o u g h t ; i t was more than "the f i n a l l a b e l put
upon t h e f i n i s h e d thoug ht" (p. 15).
According to G r i f f i t h s (1973) language could be a id ed by a r t .
"One
o f th e many f u n c t i o n s of a r t i s to e x p l o r e , not a l t o g e t h e r c o n s c i o u s l y ,
t h e gaps in human e x p e r ie n c e s n o t covered by language" ( p . 216).
Jameson (1968) summed up th e va lu e o f a r t in e d u c a t i o n :
Art is a c r e a t i v e process by which e xper ien ce s of
a l l kinds a r e ex pre sse d and communicated. I t is
a l s o a pro ce ss o u t o f which e x p e r ie n c e s a r i s e .
The val ue o f a r t in the e d u c a t i o n a l process a r i s e s
from th e f a c t t h a t drawing can provide t h e c h i l d
with r i c h e x per ie nc e s which can be de ri v e d from no
o t h e r s o u r c e . I t provides t h e c h i l d with means of
e x p r e s s i o n - a v i s u a l language - f o r h i s own p e r ­
sonal and s o c i a l e x p e r ie n c e s (p . 19).
Dimondstein (1974) e l a b o r a t e d f u r t h e r by s t a t i n g t h a t c h i l d r e n had
e xp e r ie n c e s which a r e "knowable" b u t d id hot lend themselves t o verbal
9
description.
Thinking i s ex pre sse d on two l e v e l s . On a d i s c u r ­
s i v e l e v e l , such as in math o r s c i e n c e , language
i s communicated through l o g i c a l , c o n v e n t i o n a l l y
acc e pte d meanings t h a t t r a n s l a t e e xper ie nc e in
r e l a t i v e l y d e f i n i t e p r e c i s e t e r m s . On a nond i s c u r s i v e le vel t h e a r t s exp ress exp erien ce
in v ol vin g impr ess io ns and a s s o c i a t i o n s t h a t stem
not only from words, b u t from s h a p e s , movements,
c o l o r s , sounds and o t h e r s en s ory d a ta (p. 29).
Arnheim (1969) argued in Visual Thinking t h a t v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n and
e x p r e s s i o n were c o g n i t i v e a c t s .
could be a way o f t h i n k i n g .
In o t h e r words, drawing, l i k e w r i t i n g ,
E i s n e r and Ecker (1966) concurred with
Arnheim and s t a t e d t h a t a r t (drawing) could c o n t r i b u t e t o e duca tio n by
pr ov id i n g t h e nonverbal p r e s e n t a t i o n by which communication o f new con­
c e p ts could t a k e p l a c e .
McKim (1980) s t a t e d t h a t v i s u a l t h i n k i n g was c a r r i e d on by t h r e e ,
kinds o f v i s u a l imagery:
1.
The kind t h a t we s e e , "people see images, not
things"
2.
The kind t h a t we imagine in our mind's eye,
as when we dream
3.
The kind t h a t we draw, doodle o r p a i n t .
Although v i s u a l t h i n k i n g could oc cur p r i m a r i l y in t h e c o n t e x t of
s e e i n g , or only in ima gin at io n or l a r g e l y with pencil and p a p e r , vis ual
t h i n k e r s f l e x i b l y u t i l i z e d a l l t h r e e kinds of imagery.
s e e i n g , imagining and drawing were i n t e r a c t i v e .
They found t h a t
The i n t e r a c t i v e n a tu re
o f t h i n k i n g i s shown dia g ra m m a ti c a lIy in Figure I .
10
Figure I
VISUAL THINKING
The t h r e e ove rl a p p in g c i r c l e s symbolize th e idea t h a t
v is u a l th i n k i n g i s exper ien ce d t o the f u l l e s t when
s e e i n g , imagining and drawing merge i n t o a c t i v e
i n t e r p l a y (p . 8 ).
The q u e s t i o n a r o s e about t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between v i s u a l th in k in g
and gra ph ic language, such as drawing.
Vygotsky (1966) wrote t h a t
s c h e m a t i c a l l y we may imagine thought and speech as two i n t e r s e c t i n g
circles.
In t h e i r ove rl a p p in g p a r t s , thoug ht and speech co in ci d ed to
produce what was c a l l e d verbal th o u g h t.
By t h e same an alo gy, McKim
(1980) reasoned t h a t v i s u a l th i n k i n g and g r a p h i c language i n t e r a c t e d
in gr a p h ic i d e a t i o n as shown in Figure 2 .
Visual
Thinking
Graphic
Language
Figure 2
GRAPHIC IDEATION
11
The ove rl a p p in g c i r c l e s h i g h l i g h t two im port ant
o b s e r v a t i o n s ab out t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of th i n k i n g and
language. F i r s t , not a l l v is u a l t h i n k i n g is
language t h i n k i n g ; v i s u a l t h i n k i n g can u t i l i z e
o p e r a t i o n s (such as t h e a c t o f s y n t h e s i s ) , can be
r e p r e s e n t e d by imagery ( such as pe rc ep tu a l and
mental im a g e r y ) , and can occur a t l e v e l s o f con­
s c io u s n e s s (such as dreaming) o u t s i d e th e realm of
language t h i n k i n g . Second, not a l l use of gra phic
language inv olv es t h i n k i n g : a major use o f g r a p h ic
language i s to communicate t h e r e s u l t of t h i n k i n g
t o o t h e r people (p . 130).
Drawing and t h i n k i n g were f r e q u e n t l y so simultaneous t h a t the
g r a p h i c image appeared almost as an o r g a n i c e x te n s io n o f mental pro­
c e s s e s . . H il l (1966) li k e n e d drawing t o a m i r r o r :
r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e v i s u a l mind.
a drawing a c t s as th e
On i t s s u r f a c e we can prov e, t e s t and
develop t h e workings of our p e c u l i a r v i s i o n .
H il l a ddre ss ed t h i s no tio n
in The Language of Drawing:
Language f u n c t i o n s as a means o f c o l l e c t i n g , o r d e r ­
i n g , r e l a t i n g , and r e t a i n i n g e x p e r i e n c e . We house
our memory-thoughts in words and f a i n t images; and
th e maze of s e n s a t i o n s and p e r c e p t i o n s t h a t e n t e r in
upon our mind a r e given a form through la nguage, th e
f i r s t i n s t r u m e n t o f o r d e r . Language i s both an in c e n ­
t i v e and means t o pursue an u nde rs ta ndin g o f e x p e r i e n c e ;
in t h e same way drawing i s a symbolic form f u n c t i o n i n g
toward t h e same end. Drawing diagrams e x p e r i e n c e . I t
i s t r a n s p o s i t i o n and a s o l i d i f i c a t i o n of t h e mind's
p e r c e p t i o n s . From t h i s we see drawing not simply as
g e s t u r e , b u t as, m e d i a t o r , as a v i s u a l th ought process
which en abl es t h e a r t i s t to tr a n s f o r m i n t o an ord ered
consequence what he p e r c e iv e s in common ( o r v i s i o n a r y )
e x p e r i e n c e . For t h e a r t i s t , drawing i s a c t u a l l y a
form o f e x p e r i e n c i n g , a way o f measuring th e p r o p o r­
t i o n s of e x i s t e n c e a t a p a r t i c u l a r moment. Because of
t h e d i r e c t n e s s of th e drawn l i n e and th e s i m p l i c i t y
o f t h e m a t e r i a l means, i t i s t h e most e x p e d i t i o u s form
in t h e v i s u a l a r t s . Drawing, then i s s e e i n g . And ,this
prov ide s t h e r a i s o n d' e t r e o f drawing (p. 8 ) .
For McKim (198 0) , drawing not only helped to bring vague in ne r
images i n t o f o c u s , i t a l s o provided a re c o r d o f t h e advancing thought
12
s tr e am .
Furthermore, drawing provided a f u n c t i o n t h a t memory cannot:
t h e most b r i l l i a n t images could not compare a number of images, s i d e by
s i d e in memory, as one could compare idea s ket c he s ta cked-up upon a w a l l .
Drawing t o extend o n e 's t h i n k i n g i s f r e q u e n t l y con­
fus ed with drawing t o communicate a well informed
i d e a . Graphic i d e a t i o n precedes gra p h ic communicat i o n ; g r a p h ic i d e a t i o n hel ps to develop v is u a l
id e as worth communicating. Because th i n k i n g flows
q u i c k l y , g r a p h i c i d e a t i o n i s u s u a l l y fr e e h a n d ,
i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c , and r a p i d . Because communication
to o t h e r s demands c l a r i t y , g r a p h i c communication is
n e c e s s a r i l y more f o r m a l , e x p l i c i t , and time-consuming.
Education t h a t s t r e s s e s g r a p h i c communication and
f a i l s t o c o n s i d e r g r a p h ic i d e a t i o n can u n w i t t i n g l y
hamper v is u a l t h i n k i n g (p. 12).
Thus, t h e young c h i l d had a unique a b i l i t y t o l e a r n and t o form an
u n d e rs ta n d in g o f t h e world on h is own, by o b s e r v a t i o n and by a c t i n g upon
th is observation.
Much of t h i s u n de rs ta ndi ng of th e world and many of
t h e e x p e r ie n c e s t h a t a c h i l d had can be r e p r e s e n t e d in a l l kinds of ways,
i n c l u d i n g drawing as well as w r i t i n g .
Drawing was not a r e p r o d u c t i o n .
I t was an image of what a c h i l d th ought and understood.
Rohman (1965) e x p la i n e d t h a t p r e w r i t i n g was not simply a "time" which
preceded t h e w r i t i n g .
his subject.
I t was a m a t t e r o f awareness of t h e w r i t e r toward
This awareness allowed him t o draw upon h i s s t o r e o f ex per­
ie n ce t o s e l e c t and o r d e r h i s m a t e r i a l in a manner a p p r o p r i a t e t o the
mode and purpose of t h e p i e c e .
v i s u a l i z e , draw and then w r i t e .
The 1 e a r n e r must be encouraged to t h i n k ,
S e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g with p i c t o r i a l i z i n g ,
t h e n , becomes a d e s i r a b l e f u n c t i o n o f each i n d i v i d u a l and v a r i a t i o n
w i t h i n s t u d e n t ' s w r i t i n g must be c o n s id e re d normal and d e s i r a b l e , r a t h e r
than a s i n g l e s t e r e o t y p e d re s p o n se . ' The f i n d i n g s by Hunt (1973) suggested
t h a t t h e a b i l i t y t o m a nip ul a te s e n te n c e s was impor tan t in t h e te a c h in g of
13
w riting.
Since co mp arati ve ly l i t t l e time was spp nt on s y n t a c t i c manipula­
t i o n in English c l a s s e s , w r i t i n g programs should c o n t a i n an enlar ged
language development component in which s e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g e x e r c i s e s
would play an im p o r ta n t r o l e .
These e x e r c i s e s would not focus on any one
s e n te n c e p a t t e r n b u t would e x p l o i t t h e e n t i r e range o f s y n t a c t i c a l t e r ­
n a t i v e s allowed by t h e grammar of E n g l is h .
What the young w r i t e r needed
was as much p r a c t i c e as p o s s i b l e with every c once iv a ble combination of,
syntactic a ltern ativ e.
Stu de nt s exposed to s e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g te ch niq ue s could use th e s e
s y n t a c t i c m a n ip u la ti v e s k i l l s a t t h e p r e w r i t i n g or r e w r i t i n g s t a g e in
t h e i r work or co mposi tion.
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e s e s t u d i e s a d d r e s s i n g w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n showed
a la ck of r e s e a r c h on t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between v e r b a l - v i s u a l p r o c e s s e s ;
t h u s , i t seemed r e l e v a n t t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e e f f e c t s o f v i s u a l p r o c e s s e s ,
namely l e a r n e r - p r o d u c e d drawing as a composing a c t i v i t y p r i o r to w r i t t e n
s e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g p r a c t i c e in the w r i t i n g of elementary school c h i l d r e n .
T r a d i t i o n a l l y , drawing in the elementary school has been done a f t e r the
w r i t i n g was completed.
Thus, drawing was not con sid ered a p a r t of the
composing and t h i n k i n g pro ce ss of w r i t i n g .
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The problem o f t h i s study was t o i n v e s t i g a t e whether s t u d e n t s who
p r a c t i c e s e n te n c e m a nip u la ti o n with p i c t o r i a l i z i n g (drawing) would expand
kernel se n te n c e s and w r i t e compositions t h a t could be d e s c r i b e d as more
s y n t a c t i c a l l y mature from t h o s e w r i t t e n by s i m i l a r s t u d e n t s who p r a c t i c e
only expanded m an ip u la ti o n of s e n t e n c e s .
14
The un de rl y in g problem o f t h i s stu dy was, t h e r e f o r e , to determine
i f s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n p r a c t i c e with p i c t o r i a l i z i n g had a s i g n i f i c a n t
r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y o f s t u d e n t s ' f r e e and c o n t r o l l e d
w riting.
HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED
S p e c i f i c a l l y , th e stu dy was designed to t e s t t h e ga in s c o r e s in
r e g a r d s t o Mean T - u n i t s and number of s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s on the
fo ll o w i n g e i g h t dependent v a r i a b l e s :
1.
N a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g (mean T - u n i t s )
2.
N a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g (number of s ent en ce
transformations)
3.
Exp os ito ry c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g (mean T - u n i t s )
4.
Expo sitory c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g ( number of sen te nc e
transform ations)
5.
N a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g (mean T - u n i t s )
6.
N a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g (number of s en te n c e t r a n s f o r ­
mations)
7.
Exp os ito ry f r e e w r i t i n g (mean T - u n i t s )
8.
Expo sitory f r e e w r i t i n g (number o f s en te n c e t r a n s f o r ­
m a ti o n s ).
Each o f t h e e i g h t dependent v a r i a b l e s
was analyzed by i n c l u s i o n in
a t h r e e way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e de sign usi ng gain s co r es to examine the
d i f f e r e n c e , o r change, in performance from t h e p r e t e s t to t h e p o s t t e s t .
The b a s i c assumption was t h a t a tr e a t m e n t e f f e c t would le ad to more ( o r
l e s s ) change in t h e experimental group than in the co n tr o l group.
15
(sex)
Figure 3
THREE-WAY CLASSIFICATION CUBE
P r i o r achievement, sex and group a r e the independent v a r i a b l e s .
In t h e l a y e r s , H r e p r e s e n t s high achievement, M r e p r e s e n t s middle
achievement and L r e p r e s e n t s low achievement.
s e x , male and female.
The columns r e p r e s e n t
In th e rows Group A r e p r e s e n t s th e c o n tr o l
group w hil e Group B r e p r e s e n t s t h e experimental g r o u p .
Three null
hypotheses were t e s t e d f o r each of th e e i g h t dependent v a r i a b l e s .
Since main e f f e c t rows, main e f f e c t columns, main e f f e c t l a y e r s ,
and i n t e r a c t i o n were a n a ly z e d , seven hypotheses were g e n e r a te d f o r
each of t h e e i g h t dependent v a r i a b l e s .
hypotheses were t e s t e d .
Therefore, f i f t y - s i x
See Chapter I I I f o r a l i s t i n g of the
s p e c i f i c f i f t y - s i x h y p oth e se s .
16
DEFINITION OF TERMS
For t h e purpose o f t h i s stu dy a number o f terms r e q u i r e d e f i n i t i o n :
Kernel S e n t e n c e .
A kernel s e n te n c e i s a s h o r t , simple sen te nc e
which c o n t a i n s a noun phrase and a verb p h r a s e .
Any s e n te n c e which con­
t a i n s elements o t h e r than a noun phrase and a verb phra s e i s no lon ge r a
k e r n e l , b u t a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n (Chomsky, 1965).
T r an s fo rm at io na l Grammar.
T r an s fo rm at io na l grammar i s a kind of
grammar t h a t re ga rd s th e s pea ke r or w r i t e r in e f f e c t as a g e n e r a t o r of u t t e r ­
ances o r s e n te n c e s and views a l l s e n te n c e s in a given language as e i t h e r
e s s e n t i a l l y simple b a s i c p a t t e r n s ( k e r n e l s ) or combinations and permuta­
t i o n s ( t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s ) of t h e s e p a t t e r n s , r e s u l t i n g from t h e a p p l i c a t i o n ,
s t e p by s t e p , o f c e r t a i n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s ( F r i e n d , 1967).
P ictorializing.
P i c t o r i a l i z i n g i s drawing a p i c t u r e as p a r t of the
t h i n k i n g t h a t goes i n t o w r i t i n g (Graves, 1979).
Controlled W ritin g .
C o n tr o ll e d w r i t i n g i s w r i t i n g which i s maxi­
mally c o n t r o l l e d by having a l l w r i t e r s begin w r i t i n g with th e same
m a t e r i a l and proceed to change t h e s t r u c t u r e by expanding t h e same s h o r t
kernel s e n te n c e s (Hunt, 1970).
Free W r i t i n g .
Free w r i t i n g i s w r i t i n g which i s minimally c o n t r o l l e d
Where t h e w r i t e r has a c hoice o f s u b j e c t s w i t h i n a d e s i g n a t e d framework
(as in M ell on's 1969 and O' H a r e ' s 1973 s t u d i e s ) .
Terminable Unit or T - u n i t .
The minimal te r m in a b le u n i t ( T - u n i t )
c o n s i s t s o f one main c l a u s e expanded a t any o f many d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s by
s t r u c t u r e s t h a t a r e m o d i f i e r s or complements o r s u b s t i t u t e s f o r words in
the main c l a u s e (Hunt, 1965).
17
Nominal C l a u s e .
A nominal c l a u s e f u n c t i o n s as a noun by a c t i n g as
a s u b j e c t o f a c l a u s e , d i r e c t o b j e c t o f a v e r b , p r e d i c a t e nominative,
o b j e c t of a p r e p o s i t i o n o r i n d i r e c t o b j e c t .
I t is i n t r o d u c e d by a
comp!ementizer ( t h a t , i f , w h e th e r) o r by a WH-word (mainly who, w h a t,
whi c h , when, wh ere, why, how) .
Dumbo th i n k s t h a t John w i l l b r in g him p e a n u t s .
Dumbo wonders i f John w i l l b r in g him p e a n u t s .
Dumbo wonders who w i l l b r in g him p e a n u t s .
Dumbo wonders what John w i l l b r i n g him. .
R elative Clause.
modify a noun.
A r e l a t i v e c l a u s e f u n c t i o n s l i k e an a d j e c t i v e to
A r e l a t i v e c l a u s e is i n t r o d u c e d by a r e l a t i v e pronoun
(mainly t h a t , who, wh ic h, whose) .
T u r t l e s t h a t a r e p r e t t y a r e my weakness.
The man t h a t i s i n s i d e s t o l e t h e money.
The woman who is coughing should see a d o c t o r .
I want something which i s unus u al l y p r e t t y .
A l b e r t , whose eyes were bla ck with h a t e , g l a r e d
a t her a n g rily .
Adverb C l a u s e .
An adverb c l a u s e f u n c t i o n s l i k e an a dverb.
an adverb c l a u s e modif ies an independent c l a u s e .
Usually
An adverb c l a u s e is
i n t r o d u c e d by a s u b o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n .
Among the most common sub­
o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n s a r e the f o l l o w i n g :
a f t e r , a l t h o u g h , a s , as i f ,
b e c a u s e , b e f o r e , even th ou gh, i f , l i k e , s i n c e , so ( t h a t ) , th ough, t i l l ,
u n l e s s , u n t i l , when, wh ere, w h e re v e r, wh et her ( o r not) and while
(Weaver, 1979).
Syntactic M aturity.
S y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y r e f e r s to a r e l a t i o n s h i p
between deep s t r u c t u r e and s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e so t h a t a s y n t a c t i c a l l y
18
mature s e n te n c e e x p r e s s e s a r e l a t i v e l y high number o f u nde rly in g propo­
s i t i o n s in r e l a t i v e l y few words (Weaver, 1979).
Sentence T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .
The kernel s en te n c e i s s u b j e c t to c e r t a i n
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s t h a t i n c lu d e m a n i p u l a t i o n , e x p an s io ns , i n v e r s i o n s , and
s u b s tit u tio n s within p a tte rn s .
A s e n te n c e may be expanded with va rio us
words and word gro ups , as "The g i r l s a t down."
adjectives:
This may be expanded with
"The small g i r l , th e very small g i r l , th e very small b l u e ­
eyed g i r l ; " with p r e p o s i t i o n a l p h r a s e s :
"The very small blu e -e yed g i r l
w ith t h e red r i b b o n ; " w it h c l a u s e s ; "The very small b lu e -e yed g i r l on t h e
s t a g e with t h e red ri bbo n who had made a costume f o r th e puppet;" and so
on.
Thus an i n f i n i t e v a r i e t y of English s en te nc es can be ge ner at e d from
a b a s i c p a t t e r n (Boyd, 1970).
GENERAL PROCEDURES
The gener al proce dures t h a t were foll owed a r e :
1.
The r e s e a r c h e r conducted an e x t e n s i v e review of th e l i t e r a t u r e
p e r t a i n i n g to s t u d e n t w r i t i n g ; s p e c i f i c a l l y a t th e s e n te n c e l e v e l .
This
review a dd re ss ed s t u d i e s in t h e fo ll ow in g s u b c a t e g o r i e s :
2.
a.
A summary of s en te n c e m a ni p u la ti o n a c t i v i t i e s
b.
S tu d i e s a d d r e s s in g v i s u a l and verbal a c t i v i t i e s
c.
S tu d i e s a d d r e s s i n g drawing.
Two c l a s s e s of he te r o g e n e o u s ly grouped grade s i x s t u d e n t s a t
Springbank J u n i o r High School, Rockyview Rural School D i s t r i c t , Calgary,
A l b e r t a , Canada, were s e l e c t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s s t u d y .
Rockyview
-is a school d i v i s i o n comprising a combination of r u r a l and suburban
19
communities a d j a c e n t t o th e City o f Calgary.
The s t u d e n t s r e p r e s e n t e d a
c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f socio-economic groups and m u l t i p l e e t h n i c backgr ounds .
Grade s i x s t u d e n t s were s e l e c t e d f o r t h r e e re a so n s :
f i r s t , empiri­
cal r e s e a r c h by Hunt (1965) s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e was a c l e a r l i n e of growth
e x i s t i n g in language s k i l l s from grades f o u r through twelve to s k i l l e d
adults.
Secondly, t h e r e s u l t s of Golub's and F r e d e r i c k ' s (1971) study on
w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e were comp at ibl e with th o s e of Hunt and i n d i c a t e d t h a t
c h i l d r e n a t t h e s i x t h grade le vel s t a r t e d t o I earn how to use a d j e c t i v e s and
adverb m o d i f i c a t i o n more e f f e c t i v e l y .
T h i r d l y , s i x t h grade s t u d e n t s in t h e
Rockyview School D i s t r i c t r e c e iv e d i n s t r u c t i o n w i t h i n a "middle school"
co nc e pt .
Thus, w r i t i n g was on a r o t a t i o n a l t i m e t a b l e , and t h e r e f o r e ,
w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n duri ng the experimental cy cle was e a s i e r to co ntro l
as only one t e a c h e r was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n s t r u c t i o n in c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g .
3.
There were two classrooms used during the s t u d y .
They were
d e s i g n a t e d as f o ll o w s :
a.
experimental - s i x t h grade s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g
i n s t r u c t i o n in se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n and p i c t o r ­
i a l i zing
and
b.
4.
.
c o n tr o l - s i x t h grade s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g only
i n s t r u c t i o n in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
Both t h e ex perimental and c o n t r o l groups were t e s t e d in February,
1983, with t h e Canadian T e s ts of Basic S k i l l s , Level 12, on which were
measured a s t u d e n t ' s achievement l e v e l in v oc ab ula ry , r e a d i n g , the
mechanics of w r i t i n g , method o f s t u d y , and mathematics.
Anal ysi s o f . t h e l a n g u a g e . s c o r e s , T e s t L, L - I , L-2, L-3, L-4, allowed
t h e r e s e a r c h e r t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e both t h e experimental and c o n t r o l groups
20
i n t o t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s - h i g h , middle and low language a c h i e v e r s .
Assign­
ment o f language achievement groups was determined by ranking the t o t a l
language s co r es by t h i r d s .
These d a ta were used to i n v e s t i g a t e the
i n t e r a c t i o n between achievement l e v e l s and method of i n s t r u c t i o n .
5.
The ex perimental and c o n t r o l groups were p r e t e s t e d in March,
1983, to a s c e r t a i n t h e i r eq u iv al en c e and l e v e l of s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y f o r
t h e i r f r e e and c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g using H unt' s Measurement o f L i n g u i s t i c
M at ur ity ( f o u r w r i t i n g sa m ple s ).
6.
I n s t r u c t i o n a l l e s s o n s and supplementary m a t e r i a l s in se n te n c e -
expansion were developed and t a u g h t by t h e r e s e a r c h e r t o grade s i x
s t u d e n t s in both t h e ex perimental and c o n t r o l groups in A p r i l , 1983.
The i n s t r u c t i o n involved p r a c t i c i n g se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n a c t i v i t i e s f o r
f i v e f i f t y - f i v e minute p e ri o d s each week over a pe rio d o f t h r e e weeks.
These a c t i v i t i e s inc lu de d both or al and w r i t t e n work.
S tu d e n ts could expand s en te nc es o r , as one language s e r i e s put i t ,
they could make se n te n c e s "grow."
The wheels con tin ue d to s p i n . . . .
The s t u d e n t s were c h a ll e n g e d to p r e d i c t what might be added through a
s e rie s of q u e s tio n s .
The wheels co ntin ued to s p i n as t h e men worked
d i l i g e n t l y ___
What did s t u d e n t s p r e d i c t f o r the ne xt t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ?
The wheels con tin ue d t o s p i n as th e men worked
d i l i g e n t l y to g e t the r a c e r r e a d y . . . .
7.
The t r e a t m e n t f o r th e ex perimental group involved th e s t u d e n t s
in p i c t o r i a l i z i n g each and every expansion while changing t h e i r drawings
21
t o match t h e expan sion .
St ud e nts in t h e c o n tr o l group only expanded
sentences.
8.
A f t e r th e d u r a t i o n o f the s en te nce- exp an din g u n i t , both the
experimental and c o n t r o l c l a s s e s were p o s t t e s t e d in May, 1983, to
measure t h e i r s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y in f r e e and c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g using
H un t' s Measurement o f L i n g u i s t i c M at ur ity ( f o u r w r i t i n g s a m p l e s ) .
The primary concern was t o deter mine i f t h e w r i t i n g of th os e
s t u d e n t s exposed to s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n p r a c t i c e with p i c t o r i a l i z i n g would
e x h i b i t lo n g e r Terminable u n i t s ( T - u n i t s ) than th e c o n tr o l g ro u p ' s w r i t ­
ing.
Secondly, th e r e s e a r c h e r wanted t o determine whether th e number of
nom inal, r e l a t i v e and a d v e r b ia l s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s would i n c r e a s e
as w e l l .
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
This study was l i m i t e d in t h e fo ll o w i n g ways:
1.
The s u b j e c t s involved in t h i s stu dy were l i m i t e d to two grade
s i x c l a s s e s in a j u n i o r high in th e Rockyview School D i s t r i c t No. 41,
C al gary, A l b e r t a , Canada.
2.
G e n e r a l i z a t i o n s drawn from the d a t a produced in th e study were
f u r t h e r l i m i t e d as only 15 i n s t r u c t i o n a l le s s o n s were used.
3.
The p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t inc lu de d f o u r w r i t i n g samples based on
two modes ( n a r r a t i v e and e x p o s i t o r y ) as well as two types ( f r e e and
c o n t r o l l e d ) which according t o previous r e s e a r c h ( e . g . ; Hunt, O'Donnell,
Mellon, O'Hare, Perron) c o n s t i t u t e d an adequate sampling o f s t u d e n t
w riting fo r analysis.
However, a l l s t u d e n t s may not have produced w r i t ­
ing t h a t r e p r e s e n t e d t h e i r b e s t work or t h e i r general w r i t i n g a b i l i t y .
22
4.
The m a j o r i t y of r e f e r e n c e s was from th e Montana S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y , t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Calgary L i b r a r y , I n t e r - L i b r a r y
Loan S e r v i c e s , and use o f ERIC r e s o u r c e s .
The review o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e
was l i m i t e d t o r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s f o r t h e pe rio d of J a n u a r y , 1965, t o J u l y ,
1983.
S tu d i e s l i s t e d under t h e fo ll o w i n g d e s c r i p t o r s were in c lu de d:
s en te n c e m a n i p u l a t i o n , v i s u a l s t i m u l i , v i s u a l - v e r b a l a s s o c i a t i o n s , and
c h i l d r e n ' s drawing and w r i t i n g .
23
Chapter II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
INTRODUCTION
In t h i s c h a p t e r the I i t e r a t u r e w a s reviewed in r e l a t i o n to i n v e s t i ­
g a t i o n s concerned with s t u d e n t w r i t i n g , s p e c i f i c a l l y a t t h e s en te n c e
l e v e l , r e s e a r c h in v e r b a l - v i s u a l a s s o c i a t i o n s and c h i l d r e n ' s drawing.
Findings a re r e p o r t e d under the fo ll o w i n g main headings:
Literature
Relate d t o I n c r e a s i n g S y n t a c t i c M a t u r i t y , L i t e r a t u r e R el ate d to VerbalVisual A s s o c i a t i o n s , L i t e r a t u r e R el ate d t o C h i l d r e n ' s Drawing, and
Summary o f L i t e r a t u r e Reviewed.
LITERATURE RELATED TO INCREASING SYNTACTIC MATURITY
Chomsky's p u b l i c a t i o n o f S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s (1957) ad dressed his
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - g e n e r a t i v e th e o ry which " r e v o l u t i o n i z e d grammatical
th eo ry" (O'Hare, 1973, p. 5).
Research, pre vio us to t h i s , had explored i s s u e s
r e l e v a n t t o t h e study o f t r a d i t i o n a l grammar in r e l a t i o n to some a s p e c t
o f co mposi tion.
Braddock (1963) summed up t h e consensus of most of th e
s t u d i e s by s t a t i n g t h a t :
In view of t h e widespread agreement of r e s e a r c h
s t u d i e s based upon many, types of s t u d e n t s and
t e a c h e r s , t h e co n cl u s io n may be s t a t e d in s t r o n g
and u n q u a l i f i e d terms: t h e t e a c h i n g of formal
grammar has a n e g l i g i b l e o r , because i t u s u a l l y
. d i s p l a c e s some i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e in
a c t u a l co m pos it io n, even a harmful e f f e c t on
t h e improvement o f w r i t i n g (pp. 37-38).
24
Thus, in view of t h i s r e s e a r c h , t h e t r a d i t i o n a l grammar programs in
t h e English c ur ri c ulu m began t o be r e p l a c e d or supplemented with t r a n s ­
fo r m at i o n al grammar approaches and r e s e a r c h began on t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
Several s t u d i e s conducted between 1964 and 1978 concluded t h a t the
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar approach had a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on s t u d e n t
w riting.
Bateman and Zidonis (1966) conducted a study exposing n i n t h -
grade s t u d e n t s to t h e s tu dy of a g e n e r a t i v e - t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar.
They concluded t h a t a study of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar in c r e a s e d t h e i r
s t u d e n t s ' s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y as well as reduced th e o c cu r re nc e of e r r o r s .
T r a d i t i o n a l l y , o b s e r v a t i o n s on language development or s y n t a c t i c
m a t u r i t y had i d e n t i f i e d th e le n g th e ni ng of s en te nc es and in c r e a s e d use
of s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s as i n d i c a t o r s o f pro gress toward a mature s t y l e .
Concurrent with B at em an -Z ido nis 1 r e s e a r c h . Hunt (1964) conducted a study
d e a l i n g with a new measure of language development, t h e minimal te r m in a b le
u n i t or T - u n i t which was a re fi n e m e n t o f Loban's (1961, 1963) "communica­
tion u n it."
The T - u n i t was one main c l a u s e plus any s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e
or no nc lau sa l s t r u c t u r e t h a t was a t t a c h e d t o or embedded in i t .
Hunt
di s co v e re d t h a t as s t u d e n t s got o l d e r they tended t o w r i t e longer
T-units.
On t h e b a s i s of h i s f i n d i n g s . Hunt proposed t h a t a s e n t e n c e ­
b u i l d i n g program a c c e l e r a t e d s t u d e n t s y n t a c t i c development.
Mellon (1969) examined the e f f e c t s i n s t u d e n t s ' w r i t i n g of a
s e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g program l i k e t h e one recommended by Hunt (1965).
Examining t h e s t u d e n t w r i t i n g a g a i n s t t h e b a s e l i n e of ex pected growth in
s y n t a c t i c f l u e n c y , M el lo n' s ex perimental group achieved from 2.1 to 3.5
y e a r s o f growth in one y e a r while h i s c o n t r o l group f a i l e d t o show even
one y e a r ' s growth.
Mellon concluded t h a t s e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g problems, not
25
a s tu dy of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar, in c r e a s e d t h e r a t e a t which the
s e n te n c e s t r u c t u r e of t h e s t u d e n t s ' w r i t i n g s became more hig hly
e l a b o r a t e d and thus more mature.
He judged t h i s i n c r e a s e in growth r a t e
t o be o f s u f f i c i e n t magnitude to j u s t i f y using the programs t h a t produced
i t as supplements to r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g and d i s c u s s i n g .
O'Hare (1973) s t a t e d t h a t M ell on's study was " q u i t e d i f f i c u l t " and
"may have i n h i b i t e d some s t u d e n t s and in some ways c o u n t e r a c t e d p o s s i b l e
g a in s" (p . 12).
Thus, O'Hare conducted r e s e a r c h based upon Mell on's
study o f s e n te n c e combining e x e r c i s e s .
While Mellon o b ta in e d two to
t h r e e y e a r s o f growth in s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y in one y e a r f o r h i s seventh
g r a d e r s , a t t h e c onc lu s io n o f O 'H a re 's s t u d y , th e w r i t i n g o f his e ig hth
g r a d e r s was equal to t h a t o f t w e l f t h g r a d e r s in number o f words per
T - u n i t , words p e r c l a u s e and a r a t i o of c l a u s e s to T - u n i t s .
Working with an a u d i o - l i n g u a l o r o r a l - d r i l l te c h n i q u e , Ney (1966),
Raub (1966) and M i l l e r and Ney (1968) inde pen de ntl y a r r i v e d a t con clu­
s io n s s i m i l a r to th o s e o f O'Hare; not only did s t u d e n t s w r i t e sen te nc es
of th e p r a c t i c e d type more f r e q u e n t l y b u t e x h i b i t e d s i d e e f f e c t s in
o v e r - a l l improvement in t h e i r w r i t t e n composition.
The M i l l e r and Ney stu dy (1968) compared th e performance of a f o u r t h
grade ex perimental c l a s s to r e g u l a r oral and w r i t t e n p r a c t i c e in manipu­
l a t i n g s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s with a f o u r t h grade c o n tr o l c l a s s t h a t had
r e g u l a r l e s s o n s in re a d in g and comp osi tio n.
A f t e r oral p r a c t i c e , the
ex perimental s t u d e n t s read l i t e r a r y r e w r i t e s of Mark Twain's work which
provided a l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t f o r t h e language e x e r c i s e .
A number o f r e c e n t s t u d i e s have shown th a t. s o m e type of sen tence
m a n ip ul a tio n e x e r c i s e in c r e a s e d the s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y of c e r t a i n
26
students.
Davis (1967) found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in h e r f o u r t e e n week
stu dy with e ig h th g r a d e r s .
The ex perimental group r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n
in t h e kernel s e n te n c e s of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - g e n e r a t i v e grammar and the
o t h e r group was t a u g h t p a r a l l e l concepts of t r a d i t i o n a l grammar.
Davis
concluded t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n in the kernel s en te nc es of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l g e n e r a t i v e grammar promoted growth in s en te n c e w r i t i n g when thjree
I
s en te n c e v a r i a b l e s were c o n s id e re d :
t h e noun phrase e le m en t, iverb
expansion element and average le ng th of c l a u s e s .
I
She su gg est ed t h a t the
"new" grammar o f f e r e d promise to t h e a d o l e s c e n t ' s unde rs ta n d in g and
I
w r i t i n g o f matured s y n t a c t i c language s t r u c t u r e s (p . 213-A).
j
In comparing t h e complexity of s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s w r i t t e n by f i f t h
g r a d e r s . Gale (1968) found t h a t th os e in th e l i n g u i s t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d
grammar c l a s s showed s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e in t h e i r s e n te n c e complexity
over th o s e in a t r a d i t i o n a l grammar c l a s s .
:
Also working with f i f t h g r a d e r s . Green (1973) compared t h e e f f e c ­
t i v e n e s s o f t h r e e language programs:
composition with s e n te n c e combining,
composition w i t h , e r r o r c o r r e c t i n g (usage and p u n c t u a t i o n ) , and a t r a d i ­
t i o n a l language program.
He concluded t h a t sentence-combining a c t i v i t i e s
did not d i f f e r e n t i a l l y i n f l u e n c e w r i t t e n s t r u c t u r e s when compared to
o t h e r programs although th e t r e n d favored the sentence-combining group.
Young (1972) used second gra de rs to deter mine t h e e f f e c t s of
s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n on w r i t t e n composition.
Also a s s e s s e d was
t h e e f f e c t o f t h e use o f ta p e r e c o r d e r s , as one experimental group used
t h e r e c o r d e r and t h e o t h e r used pen cil and paper.
After in s tru c tio n th a t
invol ve d t h e expansion of s en te nc es using a dver bia l p h r a s e s , c l a u s e s and
27
a d j e c t i v e s , t h e t r e n d i n d i c a t e d t h a t second gr a de rs seemed t o improve
t h e i r w r i t t e n composition through i n s t r u c t i o n , although most r e s u l t s were
not s i g n i f i c a n t .
In a s i m i l a r stu dy with second g r a d e r s in 1970,
Helfman's r e s u l t s were s i g n i f i c a n t .
The s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y l e v e l o f f i f t h , seventh and n i n t h gra de rs
was s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e d by F i s h e r ' s (1974) s e l e c t e d e x e r c i s e s in
sentence-combining and embedding based on t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar
theory.
His t r e a t m e n t c o n s i s t e d of sen tence-combining e x e r c i s e s based on
twelve t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .
In t h e f i r s t p a r t of the c o u r s e , t h e s t u d e n t s
combined t h e s e n t e n c e s ; and in the l a t t e r p a r t , they r e v e r s e d th e process
t o s e p a r a t e complex se n te n c e s i n t o the kernel s en te nces from which they
were composed.
S y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y was measured by T - u n i t l e n g t h , c l a u s e
l e n g th and c l a u s e s per T - u n i t .
F i s h e r noted t h a t the sen tence-combining
p r a c t i c e helped s t u d e n t s in a l l t h r e e grades e q u a l l y , and i n t e l l i g e n c e
did not a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t s as a l l s t u d e n t s improved.
Research by S t o t s k y (1975) and Combs (1977) had shown t h a t p r a c t i c e
with both oral and w r i t t e n sen tence-combining e x e r c i s e s r e s u l t e d in more
s y n t a c t i c a l l y mature s e n t e n c e s .
P r a c t i c e with m a n ip ul a tin g sen te nc e
elements may be c o n s id e re d an in te r m e d ia r y s t e p in composition develop­
ment.
The c h i l d ' s a t t e n t i o n was d i r e c t e d t o applying a s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e
t h a t combined th e words and c o n te n t a l r e a d y given in t h e kernel s e n t e n c e s .
Perron (1976) s t u d i e d c o n c r e te and meaningful ways t o in v o lv e f o u r t h
g ra d e rs in sen tence-combining a c t i v i t i e s .
Perron concluded t h e fo ll owi ng:
The s i x month study demonstrated t h a t a grammarf r e e program o f sen tence-combining le ss o n s by
games, a c t i v i t i e s and e x p e r i e n t i a l e x e r c i s e s in
s en te n c e m a nip u la ti o n does encourage s y n t a c t i c
28
growth in t h e w r i t i n g o f f o u r t h g r a d e r s . I t
a l s o demonstrated t h a t games and a c t i v i t i e s do
pro vid e a v a l u a b l e supplement t o th e language
a r t s c u rr ic ul um (p. 168).
Comparing two approaches to s e n t e n c e - m a n i p u l a t i o n , Jensen (1982)
i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e use of s e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g techni ques was found to be
e f f e c t i v e i n i n c r e a s i n g o v e r a l l q u a l i t y and s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y in grade
six w riters.
She found sen tence-combining was b e t t e r f o r improvement of
w r i t i n g q u a l i t y and se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n was b e t t e r f o r s y n t a c t i c develop­
ment.
Thus t h e c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h in s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n has not been
concerned with how language works b u t in developing ways t o help
s t u d e n t s use t h e i r language.
R es e rv a ti o n s a bo ut t h e e f f e c t of sentence-combining programs on s t u ­
de nt w r i t i n g have been ex pr e sse d by M o ff e tt (196 8) , C h r i s t e n s e n (1967)
and Strong (1973).
M o ffe tt ex pre sse d concern t h a t s t u d e n t s might o v e r l e a r n
th e gymnastics o f s e n te n c e e l a b o r a t i o n in embedding e x e r c i s e s .
He s t a t e d :
I f he ( t h e s t u d e n t ) l e a r n s t o c o i l and embed
c o n s t r u c t i o n as an e x t r a n e o u s l y motivated
i n t e l l e c t u a l f e a t , he may w r i t e his own
se n te n c e s w i t h o u t re g a rd f o r t h e needs of the
whole d i s c o u r s e in which they oc cur and which
alo ne can provide th e p ro pe r c o n t e x t f o r them
(p . 170).
He c i t e d examples of s t u d e n t s being i n s t r u c t e d t o s u b o r d i n a t e
c l a u s e s in e x e r c i s e s en te nc es or to w r i t e m o d i f i e r - c l u s t e r sentenc es
modelled on examples.
These s t u d e n t s o f t e n b e l i e v e d t h a t such c o n s t r u c ­
t i o n s were a b s o l u t e l y good and concocted them f o r no o t h e r motive than to
comply wit h what seemed t o be t h e t e a c h e r ' s p r e f e r e n c e , j u s t as they
o r i g i n a l l y s u b o r d in a te d c l a u s e s to comply with the e x e r c i s e d i r e c t i o n s ,
i n s t e a d of doing so because t h e i r id e as demanded such c o n j u n c t i o n s .
29
T h e r e f o r e , M o ffe tt concluded t h a t th e i s o l a t i o n sentence-combining
e x e r c i s e s must be t i e d t o l a r g e r composition problems a t every oppor­
t u n i t y w ith t h e t e a c h e r a s s i s t i n g t h e s t u d e n t in making c r i t i c a l le a r n i n g
c o n n e c ti o n s .
Strong (1973) added t h a t " e x p e ri m e n ta ti o n in composing i s b a s i c to
t h e p r o c e s s , f o r w it h o u t e x p l o r a t i o n t h e r e i s l i t t l e in t h e way of l i n ­
g u i s t i c p ro g r e s s" (p. 5).
F u r t h e r r e s e r v a t i o n s about sentence-combining programs were
e xp resse d by C h r is te n s e n (1967).
He argued t h a t embedding e x e r c i s e s •
might u l t i m a t e l y produce bad w r i t i n g , which he de fi n e d as ov e rl y compli­
c a te d s e n t e n c e s , m u l t i p l e l e v e l s o f embedding and g r o te s q u e noun phrases
s i m i l a r to th os e found in many government documents and s o c i a l s c ie n c e
textbooks.
Strong (1973) s t r e s s e d t h a t t e a c h e r s must be aware of t h i s
and must help s t u d e n t s become g r a d u a l l y more ad ept in making c l e a r ,
vigorous t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .
LITERATURE RELATED TO VISUAL-VERBAL ASSOCIATIONS
Since language i s c l o s e l y li nke d with th o u g h t, t h e compositions t h a t
a c h i l d c o n s t r u c t s a r e outward e x p r e s s i o n s of his th i n k i n g and a c r u c i a l
p a r t o f h is l e a r n i n g .
One u s u a l l y looks only a t th e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e of
la nguage, b u t each i n d i v i d u a l has i n t e r n a l i z e d a deep and complicated
un de rs ta n d in g o f language.
Thus, t h e deep s t r u c t u r e of la nguag e c an a l s o
be e l i c i t e d by non-verbal e x p r e s s i o n s , namely drawing o r p i c t o r i a l i z in g .
Language allows us to communicate and e x p r e s s ; but b e fo re t h a t , i t .
c l a r i f i e s , c o n n e c t s , and forms th o u g h t.
Drawing does th e same.
30
R e l a t i n g to v i s u a l - v e r b a l a s s o c i a t i o n s i s th e r e s e a r c h o f Pavio
(1971 , 1981). who s t a t e d t h a t a c h i l d developed a s t o re h o u s e of images t h a t
r e p r e s e n t e d h is knowledge o f t h e wo rld.
t i o n remained i n t e r l o c k e d with i t .
Language b u i l t upon t h i s founda­
Pavio p o s i t e d a dual pro ce ss of
memory, which means t h a t t h e I e a r n e r had two independent ways of encod­
ing and s t o r i n g i n fo r m a t io n - - one l i n g u i s t i c in c h a r a c t e r , th e o t h e r
based on images.
Images may have been formed from s en so ry impressions of
c o n c r e t e o b j e c t s or e v e n t s , or g e n e r a te d from verbal in p u t s which name
the objects o r events.
According to t h i s view, r e t r i e v a l o f l i n g u i s t i c ­
a l l y s t o r e d e n t i t i e s may have been aroused by images o r v i c e v e r s a .
This view was c o n s i s t e n t with t h e notio n t h a t th i n k i n g was a general
term which cannot be equated with t h e more s p e c i f i c concept o f language.
Pavio (1981) rioted:
Thinking can go on in t h e form of verbal b e h a v i o r ,
b u t i t can a l s o go on in terms o f nonverbal c ogni­
t i v e a c t i v i t y t h a t may be r e f l e c t e d in o v e r t non­
ve rbal be h a v io r on conscious im agery. Moreover,
t h e verbal and nonverbal p ro c e ss e s a r e viewed as
independent although c apa ble o f i n f l u e n c i n g each
o t h e r through t h e i r i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n s (p. 265).
T h e r e f o r e , some t a s k s r e q u i r e d predominantly nonverbal thought pro­
c e s s e s ; o t h e r s r e q u i r e d ve rbal p r o c e s s e s ; and s t i l l o t h e r s r e q u i r e d both
t o va ryi ng d e g r e e s .
Thinking can go on l i n g u i s t i c a l l y , non!i n g u i s t i c a l I y ,
or b o t h , with e i t h e r system e l i c i t i n g c o o p e r a t i v e a c t i v i t y in the o t h e r .
According to Pavio (1981):
. . . i t i s u n j u s t i f i e d to conclude t h a t th o u g h t,
lan gua ge , o r r e a l i t y completely dominates the
o t h e r s . R a t h e r , some a s p e c t s o f thoug ht are
dominated by la nguage, and o t h e r s a r e dominated
by t h e p e r c e p tu a l p r o p e r t i e s o f c o n c r e t e o b j e c t s
and even ts (p . 268).
31
Pavio sug ges te d t h a t t h e grammars f i r s t l e ar ne d by c h i l d r e n were
" t i e d to " t h e s ynt ax o f c o n c r e t e o b j e c t s and e v e n t s , presumably via the
medium o f imagery and only l a t e r would more a b s t r a c t grammars emerge
(p . 437).
B utte rw orth (1977) sup porte d the t h e s i s t h a t t h i n k i n g can be de­
s c r i b e d by two s e p a r a t e b u t i n t e r r e l a t e d symbolic systems:
a verbal
symbol system and an imagery or non-verbal system.
The d e f i n i t i o n o f imagery i s not r e s t r i c t e d to
what i s i n t r o s p e c t i vely o b s e r v a b l e . Imagery
may be i n f e r r e d and o p e r a t i o n a l l y de fi n e d on
t h e v a r i e t y o f measures, d r a w i n g . is one such
measure (p . 75).
The a c q u i s i t i o n o f a drawing a b i l i t y seemed remarkedly s i m i l a r in i t s
developmental p a t t e r n to t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of ve rbal language.
According
to Comer (1974):
I t would a p p ea r t h a t t h e c h i l d does not l e a r n
words b u t t h a t he in v e n ts them f o r t h e th in g s
he wants t o communicate. Furthermore, i m i t a t i o n
does not appear to be a mechanism of a c q u i s i t i o n .
This does n o t mean t h a t t h e s e in v e n t i o n s a r e
t o t a l l y independent of the language he hears
about them; they a re c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to i t , bu t
a r e n e v e r t h e l e s s independent o f i t in im por ta nt
r e s p e c t s , th e most imp ort an t ap pearing to be
t h e c r e a t i v i t y which he b r i n g s t o be ar on th e
a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s , and t h i s c r e a t i v i t y has to
do with t h e communication o f concepts which he
i s c o g n i t i v e l y a b l e t o handle (p . 206).
Addressing v i s u a l - v e r b a l a s s o c i a t i o n s from an a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l p o i n t
o f view, Hewes (1973) a l l e g e d t h a t t h e communication system had both a
v i s u a l - g e s t u r a l channel and a v o c a l - a u d i t o r y ch annel.
The v i s u a l -
g e s t u r a l channel had i t s o r i g i n s in man's e a r l y non-verbal s i g n a l s , hand
and arm g e s t u r e s .
Hewes b e l i e v e d t h a t manual communication r e p r e s e n t e d
th e deep c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e which not only language b u t a l l of our
32
i n t e l l e c t u a l and t e c h n o l o g i c a l achievements r e s t e d ,
He saw g e s t u r e not
merely as "a kind o f o l d e r r e t a r d e d b r o t h e r of speech" b u t one which came
i n t o i t s own with t h e b i r t h o f drawing which he regarded as "frozen
g e s t u r e " a ki n t o t h e a i r p i c t u r e s o f s i g n language.
H i s t o r i c a l l y , he
m a i n t a i n e d , both w r i t i n g systems and numerical n o t a t i o n s a r o s e from
drawings and p i c t o g r a p h s .
The v i s u a l - g e s t u r a l channel became th e p r e f e r r e d
mode f o r advance p r o p o s i t i o n a l communication in
h i g h e r m a th e m a ti c s , p h y s i c s , c h e m i s tr y , bio log y
and. o t h e r s c i e n c e s and te c h n o l o g y , in the f a m i l i a r
form o f a l g e b r a i c s i g n s , m o le c u la r s t r u c t u r e d i a ­
grams and a l l t h e o t h e r ways in which we r e p r e s e n t
complex v a r i a b l e s f a r beyond t h e c a p a c i t y of th e
l i n e a l b u r s t of speech sounds ( p. 11).
Thus, Hewes viewed drawing as a n o t h e r channel o f communication
which went beyond t h e realm o f language.
Some r e s e a r c h has atte m pt ed to t r e a t c h i l d r e n ' s drawings as da ta
about t h e i r imagery.
In h e r q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s of c h i l d r e n ' s drawings,
Kellogg (1970) ex p la i n ed t h a t c h i l d r e n ' s p i c t o r i a l ism was meaningful f o r
i t s s t o r y element or f o r i t s s o c i a l or ps ych olo gic a l s i g n i f i c a n c e r a t h e r
than f o r j u s t i t s a e s t h e t i c comp osi tio n.
In c o n t r a s t , , Goodnow (1978)
contended t h a t drawings were not simple p r i n t o u t s o f p e r c e p t i o n , j u s t as
images could no t be r e p l a y s o f i n i t i a l s e n s a t i o n s .
Research conducted by Freeman (1972) suggested t h a t t h e c h i l d had
many items a v a i l a b l e in memory bu t because of t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s the c h i l d
had in r e t r i e v i n g them such items were not inc lu de d in t h e i r d r a w in g s . The
c h i l d was tempered by h i s own c o o r d i n a t i o n , th e edge of t h e paper and the
l i n e t h a t he executed h i m s e l f .
For t h e s e r e a s o n s . Freeman r e j e c t e d draw­
ing as a source of d i r e c t acce ss t o t h e c h i l d ' s mental imagery.
Hayes
33
( c i t e d in Kosslyn, 1980) a l s o noted t h a t c h i l d r e n were unable to d e p i c t a l l
of t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ' t h a t they knew about th e appearance o f an o b j e c t ,
No m a t t e r what c h i l d r e n ' s drawings look l i k e we
probably can p o s i t an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n process
t h a t w i l l c o n v e r t p r a c t i c a l l y any i n t e r n a l
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n t o t h a t drawing (p. 420).
Kosslyn (1980) agreed t h a t c h i l d r e n ' s drawings did no t provide
s u p p o rt f o r t h e view t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s memory r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a r e p i c t o r ­
i a l images.
K o ss ly n 's model d i f f e r e d from P a v i o ' s d u a l- c o d in g process
which r e p r e s e n t e d i n fo r m a t io n in memory.
Images have two major components. The " s u r f a c e
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n " i s th e q u a s i - p i c t o r i a l e n t i t y in
a c t i v e memory t h a t is accompanied by the e x p er ­
ie nce o f "having an image." The "deep r e p r e s e n ­
t a t i o n " i s t h e in fo r m a t io n in lon g-t erm memory
from which t h e s u r f a c e image is d e ri v e d (p . 139).
S i n a t r a (1980) advocated r e s t r u c t u r i n g language a r t a c t i v i t i e s to
i n c lu d e a v i s u a l composition which would help c h i l d r e n in t h e composing,
w r i t i n g , and comprehending p r o c e s s .
A v i s u a l composition i s a sequence
of commercial p i c t u r e s , photos o r s l i d e s , t h a t t e l l s or i n f e r s a complete
s t o r y o r theme.
The o b j e c t i v e in s t r u c t u r i n g a v is u a l composition i s to
c o o r d i n a t e a s e r i e s o f s i n g l e p i c t u r e s so t h a t l e a r n e r s can use w r i t t e n
language t o compose t h e s t o r y seen in t h e v i s u a l sequence.
Sinatra
(1980) b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e v i s u a l s provided c o n c r e te s t i m u l i to bri d g e the
gap between the id e a and th e v i s u a l i z a t i o n o f the i d e a , s t r e n g t h e n i n g the
memory bond between language and e x p e r i e n c e .
When t e a c h e r s combine a
v i s u a l mode o f p r e s e n t a t i o n with a s s o c i a t e d verbal e x p l a n a t i o n , they
provid e a powerful tool f o r th i n k i n g and language expansion.
T u t t l e (1978) a l s o sug ges te d a media approach, to s t i m u l a t e w r i t i n g
through t h e use of p i c t u r e s , , s l i d e s and c a r t o o n s .
Stu de nts should
34
p a r t i c i p a t e in p r e - w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s by t r a n s l a t i n g v i s u a l ide as i n t o
verbal i d e a s .
Language a r t s and b i l i n g u a l t e a c h e r s a l s o used p i c t u r e s and p i c ­
t o r i a l s e q u e n c e s , as su gge st ed by Sohn (1969, 1970) and L e a v i t t (1969)
t o i n c r e a s e s t u d e n t ' s v i s u a l awareness and to spark i m a g in a ti v e oral and
w ritte n compositions.
Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s th e r e s e a r c h of Golub, F r e d e r ic k and
Bargent (1970) who found t h a t when c h i l d r e n used c o n c r e t e p i c t u r e s in the
p r e - w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s , they used more a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e s and ad ver bia l
m o d i f i c a t i o n s in t h e i r w r i t i n g than th o s e produced by a b s t r a c t p i c t u r e s .
s However, t h e viewing o f commercial p i c t u r e s , s l i d e s and c a r to o n s about
which t h e c h i l d r e n w r i t e was not t h e same process as th e c h i l d v i s u a l i z ­
ing and drawing h is own images and w r i t i n g his own t h o u g h t s .
This
s u g g e s ts t h a t t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e between v i s u a l l y r e c e i v i n g an image
and v i s u a l l y producing an image.
Only in t h e re s e a r c h conducted by
Graves and Sowers (1979) did t h e l e a r n e r s produce t h e i r own drawings in
the pre-w riting a c t i v i t i e s .
One of th e a c t i v i t i e s was p i c t o r i a l i z i ng,
which i s drawing a p i c t u r e as p a r t of t h e th i n k i n g t h a t goes i n t o
w riting.
Before a c h i l d w r i t e s , he draws a p i c t u r e and e x p l a i n s i t .
Then he w r i t e s about what he drew and be gin s the same sequence f o r th e
nex t e p i s o d e .
Because p i c t o r i a l i zing appeared to be a n a t u r a l way in
which young c h i l d r e n plan ahead as they w r i t e . Graves e t a l . f e l t t h a t
such a c t i v i t i e s should be encouraged as p a r t of p r e - w r i t i n g .
Graves r e p o r t e d :
Child ren need t o r e h e a r s e b e f o r e they w r i t e .
They may need t o draw, play or t a l k before
they w r i t e . A change or e l a b o r a t i o n in
35
r e h e a r s a l such as drawing in p r o f i l e , planning
a s t o r y o r composing aloud may lead to a more
s o p h i s t i c a t e d pie ce of w r i t i n g (p . 835).
S i m i l a r r e s e a r c h i s being conducted in o t h e r c u r r i c u l a r a r e a s .
In
ma thematics, c h i l d r e n were encouraged t o exp ress mathematical ideas
through t h e i r own drawings.
Dirkes (1980) s t a t e d :
P i c t u r e s and c o n c r e t e o b j e c t s s e r v e to communi­
c a t e mathematics in a way t h a t words and symbols
do not match (p . 10).
Working with b i l i n g u a l s t u d e n t s , C a s t a l l a n o s (1980) sup porte d D i r k e s :
Many c u l t u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n are g i f t e d in
nonverbal communication. They draw and i n t e r p r e t
v i s u a l s more r e a d i l y than o t h e r c o n t e n t . In some
cases t h e i r drawings a i d d i a g n o s i s , f o r p i c t u r e s
compensate f o r vocabulary d e f i c i e n c i e s (p. 16).
LITERATURE RELATED TO DRAWING
There have been more d e s c r i p t i v e than experimental r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s
conducted on t h e t o p i c of drawing.
Drawings a r e normally seen as the
performance t h a t ends with a pro d u c t.
Thus, i t i s th e performance t h a t
tends t o be measured, not t h e th ou ght behind i t .
This i s l i m i t i n g in
many ways because t h e type o f knowledge most useful f o r guidin g educa­
t i o n a l p r a c t i c e i s not simply a d e s c r i p t i o n , but an i n d e n t i f i c a t i o n of
casual r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
As e d u c a t o r s , one is i n t e r e s t e d n o t only in under­
s t a n d i n g c h i l d r e n , b u t in h e lp in g them dev elop .
The most use fu l re s e a r c h
f o r b r i n g i n g such change i s t h e type t h a t w i l l i n d i c a t e th e probable con­
sequences of a p a r t i c u l a r e d u c a ti o n a l a c t i o n .
l i k e l y t o be s ec ure d from experimental s t u d i e s .
Such knowledge i s most
At p r e s e n t , t h i s
r e s e a r c h e r has i d e n t i f i e d no publ is h e d s t u d i e s examining th e r e l a t i o n ­
sh ip between drawing and th e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s .
36
Numerous r e s e a r c h e r s have s t u d i e d drawings as i n d i c e s of mental
m a t u r i t y , memory f o r v i s u a l form and general p e r s o n a l i t y .
In r e c e n t
y e a r s , t h e r e have been some a tt e m p ts to r e l a t e drawing to c o g n i t i o n , p a r ­
t i c u l a r l y language development.
Included in t h i s review were s ev e ra l
p e r i p h e r a l s t u d i e s a d d r e s s i n g dra w in g.
Lansing (1979) demonstrated t h a t
drawing c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e development o f mental r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s which
he u l t i m a t e l y sug ges te d had i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r language development.
Lan­
guage could be f a c i l i t a t e d i f c h i l d r e n possessed more h ig h ly d i f f e r e n ­
t i a t e d mental r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s .
Words could then be connected with more
r e c o g n i z a b l e t h i n g s , have more meaning, be e a s i e r to r e c a l l and use.
Research looking a t l i n k s between oral language and drawing in cl ude
t h a t of Martin (1981) who developed an ass essment index which measured
growth in t h e p i c t o r i a l - n a r r a t i v e s t a t e m e n t s of Kinderga rte n c h i l d r e n .
R e s u lt s of t h i s study showed p a r a l l e l growth in verbal and v i s u a l f o r m s .
As c h i l d r e n i n v e n t and c r e a t e sequences of
personally s ig n ific a n t p ic to r ia l- n a r r a tiv e
s t a t e m e n t s , they seem to un de rs ta nd t h e i r
e x p e r ie n c e s and d i s p l a y new l e a r n i n g s in
both v i s u a l and verba l form. As t h e i n d i ­
vidu al grows in awareness and unde rs ta ndin g
about t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among s e l f , l i f e ,
and en vironment, t h e complexity o f th e s t a t e ­
ments seem to i n c r e a s e as new s t a t e m e n ts a r e
' made t o ex pre ss new l e a r n i n g s , personal
v i s i o n s of l i f e and th e world a r e a d j u s t e d
and r e f i n e d and new s t r u c t u r e s and complexi­
t i e s emerge (p. 164).
Examining f i r s t grade drawings and t h e oral s t o r i e s th e c h i l d r e n t o l d
about them, S t u l l (1982) r e p o r t e d t h a t c h i l d r e n whose drawings were r i c h
in d e t a i l a l s o e x h i b i t e d verbal language t h a t was r i c h in d e t a i l .
More
i m p o r t a n t , S t u l l observed t h a t c h i l d r e n s olv ed problems through communi­
c a t i o n both i n ve rbal language and in drawing.
37
SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEWED
INCREASING SYNTACTIC MATURITY
R e s u lt s o f r e c e n t s t u d i e s (Mellon, 1969; O'Hare, 1973) have sub­
s t a n t i a t e d t h e hy p o th e si s t h a t s e n t e n c e - m a n i p u l a t i o n in c r e a s e d th e r a t e
a t which t h e s e n te n c e s t r u c t u r e of t h e s t u d e n t ' s w r i t i n g became more
mature.
Pe rh a ps , o f g r e a t e r s i g n i f i c a n c e , th e .O 'H a re (1973) and M i l l e r
and Ney (1968) s t u d i e s concluded t h a t p r a c t i c e a t a s e n te n c e le vel was
t r a n s f e r r e d t o general improvement in l a r g e r u n i t s of w r i t i n g .
St ude nts from grade two t o grade twelve had been exposed t o some
type o f s e n t e n c e - m a n i p u l a t i o n e x e r c i s e s (Ga le, 1968; Green, 1973;
F i s h e r , 1974; S t o t s k y , 1975; Combs, 1977; P e rr o n , 1976) and a l l s t u d i e s
have fa vor ed t h e exper imen ta l groups.
Research with s e n te n c e b u i l d i n g t e c h n i q u e s (HiIfman, 1970; Young,
1972) t h a t r e q u i r e d s t u d e n t s to add grammatical s t r u c t u r e s t o kernel
s e n te n c e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h i s method of t e a c h i n g composition showed
promise and t h a t f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h was w a rr a n te d .
In o r d e r t h a t s e n t e n c e - m a n i p u l a t i o n c u r r i c u l a be of optimum value
t o t h e s t u d e n t s , M o ff e tt (19 68 ), C h ri s te n so n (1967) and Strong (1973)
s t r e s s e d t h a t i s o l a t e d s e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g e x e r c i s e s be t i e d t o l a r g e r
composition problems and t h a t e x p l o r a t i o n with many forms o f sen tence
combinations be encouraged.
38
VERBAL-VISUAL ASSOCIATIONS
Research s t u d i e s (P a v io , 1971, 1981 and B u t t e r w o r t h , 1977) have
sug ges te d t h a t th i n k i n g could be d e s c r i b e d by an i n t e r r e l a t e d dual symbol
system; verbal and n o n - v e r b a l .
They saw language and th ough t as r e l a t e d .
\
.
In p a r t , they s ug ge st ed t h a t language i_s t h o u g h t , bu t th e con verse is not
n e c e s s a r i l y t r u e , s i n c e some th i n k i n g goes on n o n - l i n g u i s t i c a l l y .
Non-
1 i n g u i s t i c t h i n k i n g might occur in images or i t could i n i t i a t e verbal a c t i v i t y .
To accommodate f o r t h i s dual coding system, Golub, Fr e d e ri c k and
Bargent (197 0) , S i n a t r a (1978, 1980), T u t t l e (1978), Graves (1979) and
Dirkes (1980) advocated i n c o r p o r a t i n g v i s u a l s t r a t e g i e s w i t h i n the
w r i t i n g and composing a c t i v i t i e s .
Other r e s e a r c h e r s ( Freeman, 1972; Goodnow, 1978; Hayes, 1980 and
Kosslyn, 1980) r e j e c t e d t h e no tio n t h a t drawing was merely a p r i n t o u t of
what t h e c h i l d has s t o r e d in memory.
Drawing was tempered by an i n t e r p r e ­
t i v e process as well as handicapped by t h e process of r e t r i e v a l .
DRAWING
At p r e s e n t , t h e r e s e a r c h e r has no t i d e n t i f i e d any pu blis he d s t u d i e s
looking a t t h e l i n k s between drawing as a p r e - w r i t i n g a c t i v i t y and
w r i t t e n comp osi tio n.
However, some s t u d i e s (Lan sin g, 1979; M artin, 1981;
a n d . S t u l l , 1982) ad dr e sse d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between drawing and cogni­
tion, particularly
language development.
These s t u d i e s su ggested t h a t
drawing could f a c i l i t a t e growth in language development.
grew r i c h in d e t a i l , oral language developed as w e l l .
As drawing
39
' Obser va tio ns by S t u l l (1982) demonstrated t h a t g r a de .o ne c h i l d r e n
s o lv e language problems through drawing.
40
Chapter I I I
PROCEDURES
INTRODUCTION
. T h i s study was de signed to t e s t t h e e f f e c t of a t h r e e week period of
or a l and w r i t t e n s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n p r a c t i c e with p i c t o r i a l i z t n g ( i n d e ­
pendent o f s t u d e n t s ' formal knowledge of grammar) on t h e r a t e of growth
in s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y r e f l e c t e d in grade s i x s t u d e n t s ' f r e e and c o n t r o l ­
led w r i t i n g .
D i f f e r e n c e s in T - u n i t (Terminable u n i t ) le ngth and number of
s e n t e n c e - t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s ( i n v o l v i n g both nominal, r e l a t i v e and ad ver bia l
s t r u c t u r e s ) were t h e two f a c t o r s co n si d e re d in th e pre and p o s t t e s t s .
The procedure used f o r conducting t h i s study i s o u t l i n e d under th e
fo ll ow in g c a t e g o r i e s :
1.
Po pu la ti o n D e s c r i p t i o n and Sampling Procedures
2.
Design of t h e Study
3.
Treatment
4.
T e s t Instru me nts
5.
C o l l e c t i o n and O rg a n iz a ti o n o f Data
6.
S t a t i s t i c a l Hypotheses
7.
Anal ysi s o f Data
41
POPULATION DESCRIPTION
In o r d e r to compare t h e two s en te n c e- ex p a n si o n t e c h n i q u e s , s t u d e n t s
in two grade s i x c l a s s e s in Springbank J u n i o r High S c h o o l, Rockyview
School D iv is io n #41, Cal gary, A l b e r t a , Canada, were a s s ig n e d to one of
two groups— experimental o r c o n t r o l .
The experimental group r e c ei ve d
i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n and p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n .
This group was composed o f 23 s t u d e n t s o f whom 13 were g i r l s and 10 were
boys.
The c o n tr o l group r e c e i v e d s en te n c e- ex p a n si o n i n s t r u c t i o n and
practice.
This group was composed o f 23 s t u d e n t s of whom 16 were g i r l s
and 7 were boys.
The t o t a l number of s u b j e c t s involved in t h i s study
was 46 o f whom 29 were g i r l s and 17 were boys.
Rockyview is a school d i v i s i o n comprising a combination of r u r a l
and suburban communities a d j a c e n t t o th e City of Calgary.
The s t u d e n t s
r e p r e s e n t e d a broad c ro s s s e c t i o n of socioeconomic groups and m u l t i p l e
e t h n i c backgrounds.
This p a r t i c u l a r school was s e l e c t e d from among t h e gener al Calgary
School d i v i s i o n s f o r two re a s o n s :
F i r s t , t h e m a j o r i t y o f grade s i x
c l a s s e s in t h e Calgary a re a was grouped by a b i l i t y ; however, s t u d e n t s in
t h i s school were h e te r oge ne ous ly grouped.
acce ss t o t h i s school to conduct th e s tu d y .
Secondly, t h e r e s e a r c h e r had
At Springbank J u n i o r High,
t h e r e were f o u r grade s i x language c l a s s e s , two c l a s s e s were ta u g h t by
t h e same t e a c h e r and t h e remaining two c l a s s e s were each t a u g h t by a
d if f e r e n t teacher.
In o r d e r t o e l i m i n a t e t e a c h e r v a r i a b l e , which could
have contaminated t h e s tu d y , th e r e s e a r c h e r decided t h a t both c l a s s e s
t a u g h t by t h e same t e a c h e r would be used in th e s tu d y .
Enrollment had
42
d e c l i n e d in t h e Calgary area school d i v i s i o n during 1982-1983 due to the
de pre sse d economic c l i m a t e .
Thus, a s m a l l e r number of s t u d e n t s than
a n t i c i p a t e d p a r t i c i p a t e d in th e s tu d y .
The experimental and co n tr o l
groups were determined by a coin t o s s .
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Both t h e ex perimental and c o n t r o l groups were given a p r e t e s t . (y^)
on t h e dependent v a r i a b l e , th e s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y a ss e ss m e nt.
A One Way
ANOVA was done to de ter mi ne and v e r i f y t h e e q u iv al en c y o f th e groups on
selected syntactic fa c to rs.
A f te r t h r e e weeks of i n s t r u c t i o n th e s t u ­
de n ts were given a p o s t t e s t ( y . ) on t h e dependent v a r i a b l e .
The average
i
d i f f e r e n c e between t h e p o s t t e s t and t h e p r e t e s t ( y 2-y-,) was found f o r
each group and then t h e s e average d i f f e r e n c e sc or es were compared in
o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n whether th e experimental t r e a t m e n t r e s u l t e d in a
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in th e mean T - u n i t gain s co r es and number of
s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in t h e w r i t i n g samples.
The de sign had t h r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
1.
The independent v a r i a b l e , which was t h e method of
i n s t r u c t i o n with p i c t o r i a l i zing
2.
The dependent v a r i a b l e , which was th e gain s co r e
determined by s u b t r a c t i n g pre from p o s t sc or es on
th e s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y t e s t
3.
C o n t r o l s , c l a s s e s which were randomly a ssi gned to
two g r o u p s , which d i f f e r e d only in th e a d d i t i o n
of p i c t o r i a l i zing during i n s t r u c t i o n .
43
TREATMENT
t e a c h i n g s e n te n c e expanding te c h n i q u e s was used to develop s y n t a c ­
t i c m a t u r i t y in s t u d e n t w r i t e r s .
Research had demonstrated t h a t p r a c ­
t i c e with both oral and w r i t t e n s en te nce- exp an din g e x e r c i s e s promoted
more s y n t a c t i c a l l y mature se n te n c e s ( M i l l e r and Ney, 1968; Young, 1972;
S t o t s k y , 1975; Combs, 1977 and J e n s e n , 1982).
E s s en tially researchers
had sought to promote s y n t a c t i c growth through s ent en ce- exp an din g
"problems."
Ch ild ren were provided with a s e r i e s of e x e r c i s e m a t e r i a l s ,
each of which i l l u s t r a t e d a sent e nc e- ex pa ndin g te ch n i q u e and was f o l ­
lowed with p r a c t i c e a c t i v i t i e s u t i l i z i n g t h a t t e c h n i q u e .
Sente nce ­
b u i l d i n g a c t i v i t i e s a l s o in c lu de d e x e r c i s e s t h a t focused on changing
meaning, u s u a l l y by ex ten di ng o r making t h e kernel s e n te n c e more p re ­
cise.
For example, c h i l d r e n were asked t o d e s c r i b e what they "saw" or
what came to mind when they heard o r saw t h i s se nte nc e:
The c a t ran along t h e f e n c e .
Ch ild ren were asked d i r e c t e d q u e s t i o n s .
What kind o f c a t i t was,
what kind o f fence i t was, where t h e fence was, and whether th e c a t was
running f a s t .
Child ren were then asked to w r i t e a s e n te n c e t h a t con­
veyed th e images bro ug ht t o mind s p e c i f i c a l l y and c l e a r l y .
One response
might have been:
The Siamese c a t ran along t h e redwood fenc e.
Another might have w r i t t e n :
An enormous c a l i c o c a t paced back and f o r t h along
the picket fence.
Ch ild ren could have then extended t h i s proc ess by r e a r r a n g i n g th e Words
44
in t h e s e n te n c e :
Pacing along a p i c k e t fenc e was an enormous
c a l i c o c a t , or
The c a t , enormous and c a l i c o , paced along the
p i c k e t fe n c e .
Weiner (1978) poi n te d out t h a t t h e c o n t e x t of a l l s e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g
a c t i v i t i e s shou ld be o r i e n t a t e d towards th e c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t s .
s e q u e n t l y , t e a c h e r s must d e v i s e t h e a c t i v i t i e s thems elv es .
Con­
These
a c t i v i t i e s stemmed from t h e no tio n t h a t power in w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n grew
from a c t i v e m a n ip ula tio n of language r a t h e r than from stu dy about l a n ­
guage as an a b s t r a c t system.
P r a c t i c e with ma nip ula tin g se nte nc e
elements might be co n si d e re d as an in te r m e d ia r y s t e p in composition
development.
In an e f f o r t t o apply t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s men­
t i o n e d above, t h e r e s e a r c h e r atte m pte d t o in c lu d e s e v e ra l f e a t u r e s of
t h e s e in t h e sent e nc e- ex pa nd in g programs developed f o r th e p r e s e n t study
Impressed by th e f i n d i n g s of pre vio us re s e a r c h i n t o s e n t e n c e ­
b u i l d i n g , t h i s r e s e a r c h e r designed a program to extend some l i n e s of t h e
r e s e a r c h and combine o t h e r a re a s of r e s e a r c h in th e a r e a of composition
development.
In t h i s stud y an at te m p t was made to i n c o r p o r a t e the b e s t
f e a t u r e s of t h e s e s t u d i e s and to extend them in the fo ll ow in g ways:
1.
To inv olv e a grade s i x c l a s s
2.
To focus on embedding and a d d i t i o n a l problems in both
cued and uncued formats
3.
To i n c lu d e oral p r a c t i c e
4.
To p r e s e n t e x e r c i s e s in s e r i e s which r e s u l t in
paragraph development
45
5.
To c o n s t r u c t a v a r i e t y o f s e n te n c e p a t t e r n s in a
de veloped, org a ni z ed fa s h i o n
6.
To ta k e a l i n g u i s t i c approach to produce longe r
T - u n i t s and more s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s
7.
To develop games, poems, s l i d e s , ta pes to augment
student writing
8.
To compare t h e use o f s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r ­
i a l i zing to s e n t e n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
The i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s u n i t were as f o ll o w s :
1.
To e s t a b l i s h an awareness o f the need f o r w r i t i n g l o n g e r , more
complex s e n te n c e s
2. .To provid e a c t i v i t i e s t h a t would develop s k i l l in w r i t i n g
l o n g e r , more complex s e n te n c e s than th o s e p r e v i o u s l y c o n s t r u c t e d
3.
To provid e a c t i v i t i e s t h a t would develop s k i l l s in expanding
s h o r t choppy s en te nc es
4.
To pro vid e a c t i v i t i e s t h a t would encourage th e a p p l i c a t i o n of
t h o s e se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n s k i l l s t a u g h t in t h i s u n i t .
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
Upon completion o f t h i s u n i t , t h e s t u d e n t s would be a b l e to do th e
fo ll o w i n g :
1.
Expand given se n te n c e s through m o d i f i c a t i o n using words and
word groups
2.
C reate complex s en te nc es by fo ll o w i n g a given p a t t e r n
46
3.
Expand and vary s e n te n c e s t r u c t u r e s
4.
Expand s e n te n c e s using nominal, r e l a t i v e and
a d v e r b ia l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s which convey p r e c i s e
in fo r m a t io n and f e e l i n g s .
LESSON OBJECTIVES
Lesson o b j e c t i v e s were developed in an o r d e r which was c o n s i s t e n t
with t h e c u r r i c u l a developed by Perron (1974) as well as o u t l i n e d by
Li ndfor s (1980).
'
These l e s s o n o b j e c t i v e s a r e l i s t e d below in Table I:
Table I
LESSON OBJECTIVES
Lesson____________ Sentence-Expansion Technique
1
The s t u d e n t w i l l be a b l e to p r a c t i c e and expand compound sen­
te nce s by j o i n i n g two kernel se n te n c e s t o g e t h e r using a n d , o r ,
b u t , e i t h e r - o r , n e i t h e r - n o r and so_.
2
The s t u d e n t w i l l be a b l e t o p r a c t i c e and expand sen te nc es
through s u b o r d i n a t i o n usin g " j o i n i n g words" such as o f t e n , a s ,
b e f o r e , s i n c e , u n t i l , when, w h i l e , as soon a s , j u s t when,
a l t h o u g h , b e c a u s e , i f , s i n c e , th ough, u n l e s s .
3
The s t u d e n t w i l l p r a c t i c e and expand kernel s e n te n c e s making
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s a t t h e b e g i n n i n g , middle and e n d .
4
The s t u d e n t w i l l p r a c t i c e and expand kernel s e n te n c e s through
m o d i f i c a t i o n usi ng cue words.
5
The s t u d e n t w i l l p r a c t i c e and expand kernel se n te n c e s by
i n s e r t i n g who, which and t h a t .
6
The s t u d e n t wj I ! - . l i s t e n to a s t o r y and then p r a c t i c e expanding
t h e s h o r t choppy s en te nc es to i n c r e a s e t h e i r s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y .
7
The s t u d e n t w i l l p r a c t i c e and expand kernel s e n te n c e s using
a d j e c t i v e s o f s i z e , shape, t e x t u r e , c o l o r , f e e l i n g s and co ndi­
tions.
47
8
The s t u d e n t w i l l view a s l i d e sequence and w i l l p r a c t i c e and
expand im p e ra ti v e kernel s e n t e n c e s .
9
The s t u d e n t w i l l p r a c t i c e and expand s en te nc es using a l l i t e r ­
ation.
10
The s t u d e n t w i l l p r a c t i c e and be a b l e to use c lu e s to c o n s t r u c t
a s t o r y through s en te n c e expansion pro c e dur es .
The s t u d e n t w i l l be a b l e . t o p r a c t i c e and expand s en te nc es by
using p a r t i c i p l e s in t h e i r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .
11
The s t u d e n t w i l l be a b l e t o p r a c t i c e and expand s e n te n c e s by
using a p p o s i t i v e s in t h e i r s e n te n c e e xpans ion s.
12
The s t u d e n t w i l l p r a c t i c e and be a b l e to expand s en te nc es by
answering q u e s t i o n s using a c lu e word (who, why, what, where,
when, how).
13
The s t u d e n t w i l l be a b l e to p r a c t i c e and expand sen te nc es
using t h e p o s s e s s i v e (my, mine, h i s , h e r ( s ) , o u r ( s ) , y o u r ( s )
and t h e i r ( s ) ) .
14
The s t u d e n t w i l l p r a c t i c e and expand s en te nc es using s i m i l e s
and metaphors in t h e i r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .
15
The s t u d e n t w i l l p r a c t i c e and expand s en te nces using adverbs
of ti m e , p l a c e , manner, c a u s e , c o n d i t i o n and comparison.
Samples o f t h e program f e a t u r e s a r e in cl uded in Appendix D.
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT
Impressed by t h e f i n d i n g s o f pre vious re s e a r c h i n t o s e n t e n c e ­
b u i l d i n g , t h i s r e s e a r c h e r designed an a c t i v i t y program t h a t included
nom inal, r e l a t i v e and a d v e r b ia l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .
The r e s p e c t i v e program d i f f e r e d in t h e t a s k demand in t h a t in the
experimental program, t h e s t u d e n t s were r e q u i r e d to p i c t o r i a l i z e each
and every expansion w hi le in th e c o n t r o l program s t u d e n t s were only
r e q u i r e d t o expand s e n t e n c e s .
48
TEST INSTRUMENTS
CANADIAN TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS
The Canadian T e s ts of Basic S k i l l s provided a comprehensive and
continuous measurement o f growth in t h e fundamental s k i l l s . *
The
Language B a t t e r y o f t h e Canadian T e s ts o f Basic S k i l l s was a d m in is te r e d
to a l l s t u d e n t s in t h e stu dy during F e b r u a r y , 1983, t h e month p r i o r to
t h e i n c e p t i o n o f t h e s tu d y .
of four s u b t e s t s :
The Language B a t t e r y ( T e s t L) was made up
s p e l l i n g ( L - I ) , c a p i t a l i z a t i o n ( L - 2 ) , p u n c tu at io n
( L - 3 ) , and usage ( L - 4 ) .
The t e s t s in t h i s b a t t e r y y i e l d e d a measurement
o f growth in t h e mechanics o f w r i t i n g .
The s c o r e s o b ta in e d were used to de te rm in e h ig h , medium and low
language a c h i e v e r s .
Assignment o f language achievement groups was d e t e r ­
mined by ranking t h e t o t a l language s c o r e . T e s t L, by t h i r d s .
The s cor es
o b ta in e d were used in t h i s study to examine t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f p r i o r
language achievement and p r e - p o s t t e s t s c o r e s o f s e l e c t e d s y n t a c t i c
f a c t o r s found in th e w r i t i n g samples.
* The Canadian T e s ts of Basic S k i l l s a r e adapted from t e s t m a t e r i a l s
which were o r i g i n a l Iy designed and c o n s t r u c t e d by t h e s t a f f o f the
College o f Education a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Iowa. This p r o f e s s i o n a l
measurement p r o j e c t in t e s t development and u t i l i z a t i o n has been a
continuous endeavour s i n c e 1935. The Canadian p r o j e c t began in the
e a r l y 1960's under t h e d i r e c t i o n of Dr. Ethel King a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y
o f Calgary. Canadian e d u c a to r s reviewed t h e placement and r e l a t i v e
emphasis in t h e b a s i c s k i l l s which le d t o t h e p u b l i c a t i o n of Forms
I and 2 i n 1966. Since t h a t time c u rr ic u lu m in n o v a ti o n s and o t h e r
changes in e d u c a t i o n a l methods and philosophy have been under con­
s t a n t review. The placement and c o n t e n t s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e .
p r e s e n t forms r e f l e c t t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f c o n s u l t a n t s and p r o f e s ­
s i o n a l c o l l e a g u e s , a n a l y s i s o f Canadian cu rri c ulu m guides and t e x t ­
books, and t h e comments and s u g g e s t i o n s o f th e t e a c h e r s and admin­
i s t r a t o r s who use t h e t e s t s ( p . 9 ) .
49
Two t e s t in s tr u m e n ts were used in t h i s study in o r d e r to c o l l e c t a
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample o f s t u d e n t ' s w r i t i n g .
SYNTACTIC MATURITY TEST
The t e s t o f s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y was d e vis e d by Hunt (1970) in ord er
t o " t e s t more d i r e c t l y th e s t u d e n t s ' p r o f i c i e n c y in s e n te n c e embedding"
(1970, p. 10).
In t h i s i n s t r u m e n t , two passages c o n s i s t i n g o f extremely
s h o r t se n te n c e s were p r e s e n t e d t o s t u d e n t s who were d i r e c t e d t o " r e w r i t e
in a b e t t e r way."
The i n s tr u m e n t was designe d t o c o nt ro l what th e s u b j e c t
s a i d b u t n o t how he s a i d i t .
T h e r e f o r e , d i f f e r e n c e s due t o c o n t e n t or
s u b j e c t m a t t e r were r u l e d o u t , t h e only d i f f e r e n c e in th e o u t p u t of one
w r i t e r as compared to a n o t h e r would be w r i t t e n by t h e w r i t e r h im s e lf .
There were t h r e e f e a t u r e s t o t h i s t e s t :
1.
All s t u d e n t s were given t h e same pa ss a ge, t h e r e f o r e , a l l
s t u d e n t s wrote about t h e same t h i n g .
The d i f f e r e n c e lay
in how they s a i d i t .
2.
Because a l l s t u d e n t s were w r i t i n g about t h e same theme,
t h e number o f w r i t i n g samples was s m a l l e r .
3.
To e l i m i n a t e e x t e r n a l i n f l u e n c e s on w r i t i n g , the
w r i t i n g a c t i v i t y was conducted in one c l a s s p e ri o d under
teacher supervision.
I d e n t i c a l p r e t e s t s and p o s t t e s t s f o r t h e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g were
used , so t h e memory f a c t o r over t h e ex perimental pe ri o d should have been
min imal.
The t e s t f o r e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g was t h a t used by
Hunt (1970) and t h e one f o r n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g was from Mulder
(1975) (Appendix B ) .
Both co n ta i n ed t h e same number of kernel sen te nc es
50
of connected d i s c o u r s e .
Each s e n te n c e was a s i n g l e c l a u s e f o r an
average o f f o u r words per s e n t e n c e .
The extremely s h o r t s en te nc es were
chosen t o giv e abundant o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r th e s t u d e n t t o use many of th e
sent e nc e- ex pa nd in g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .
The w r i t i n g produced on t h e S y n t a c t i c M at ur ity T e s t was e v a lu a te d
by segmenting i n t o T - u n i t s and counting t h e number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r ­
ma tio ns .
FREE WRITING TEST
.
Hunt (1970) a dvis ed r e s e a r c h e r s t o use both th e S y n t a c t i c Maturity
T e s t ( c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g ) and c o l l e c t i o n s o f f r e e w r i t i n g samples in
o r d e r t o measure m a t u r i t y in handling s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s .
Free w r i t i n g r e p r e s e n t i n g two modes o f d i s c o u r s e , e x p o s i t o r y and
n a r r a t i v e , was based on t h e format used by Mellon (1969) and O'Hare
(1973) f o r t h e i r f r e e w r i t i n g c o l l e c t i o n s .
vided in each o f t h e two modes.
Stimulus t o p i c s were pro ­
For each mode, t h e s t u d e n t s were asked
t o s e l e c t one t o p i c from f o u r su ggest ed t o p i c s , and then were given one
hour t o w r i t e on t h a t t o p i c .
S p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n s f o r th e P r e t e s t -
P o s t t e s t a r e provided in Appendix B.
The w r i t i n g produced on th e Free
Writ ing T e s t was e v a l u a t e d by segmenting i n t o T - u n i t s and coun tin g th e
number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .
51
COLLECTION AND ORGANIZATION OF DATA
WRITING SAMPLE COLLECTION
In o r d e r to measure t h e s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y o f th e s u b j e c t ' s w r i t i n g ,
a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample o f t h a t w r i t i n g was c o l l e c t e d .
This w r i t i n g
r e p r e s e n t e d two modes o f d i s c o u r s e , n a r r a t i v e and e x p o s i t o r y , and f r e e
and c o n t r o l l e d .
Samples were c o l l e c t e d f o r t h e two modes, acknowledging
t h a t a w r i t e r ' s performance could vary acc ording to t h e mode in which he
was w r i t i n g (San J o s e , 1972).
A p r e t e s t ( s e e Appendix A and B) was given
t o a l l s t u d e n t s on t h e i r f r e e and c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g ( f o u r samples)
b e f o r e they began t h e experimental t r e a t m e n t ; and a p o s t t e s t (see
Appendix A and B) on f r e e and c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g ( f o u r samples) was given
t o t h e same s t u d e n t s a f t e r 15 f i f t y minute c l a s s meetings of i n s t r u c t i o n .
Both th e pre and p o s t t e s t s were a d m i n i s t e r e d by th e classroom t e a c h e r
who was t r a i n e d by th e r e s e a r c h e r in t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
The w r i t i n g examined on t h e pre and p o s t t e s t was of two t y p e s :
one
maximally c o n t r o l l e d ( c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g ) by having a l l w r i t e r s expand
t h e same s h o r t kernel s e n t e n c e s ; and one minimally c o n t r o l l e d ( f r e e
w r i t i n g ) where t h e w r i t e r had, w i t h i n a d e s ig n a te d framework, a choice
of s ti m ul us t o p i c s ( t h e s t u d e n t s were asked t o s e l e c t one t o p i c from
f o u r su gge st ed t o p i c s ) .
Both c o n t r o l l e d and f r e e w r i t i n g t e s t s were,
used because i n s t r u c t i o n was d i r e c t e d , f i r s t , to a very s t r u c t u r e d
s i t u a t i o n where t h e s t u d e n t followed s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n s .
In t h e second
i n s t a n c e , i t was s p e c u l a t e d t h a t th e c o n t r o l l e d p r a c t i c e would t r a n s f e r
to a f r e e r s i t u a t i o n .
52
There were s p e c i f i c reasons f o r using t h i s procedure t o c o l l e c t
w r i t i n g samples.
Maimon and Nodine (1978) que st i o n ed whether t h e r e
would be d i f f e r e n c e s in s y n t a c t i c s k i l l a t t r i b u t a b l e t o d i f f e r e n c e s in
types of w r i t i n g a ss ig nm e nts .
While they found t h a t i n c r e a s e s in sco res
on both H u n t' s S y n t a c t i c M at ur ity T e s t and Free Writing essa ys were s i g ­
n i f i c a n t , c o l l e g e freshmen wrote lo n g e r T - u n i t s on th e Free Writing than
they did on t h e C o n t r o l l e d W r it in g .
Concurring with Maimon and Nodine
(197 8) , the r e s e a r c h e r f e l t i t was n e ce s sa ry to t e s t both types of
w r i t i n g wit h grade s i x s t u d e n t s .
RATERS
Two independent r a t e r s scor ed t h e p r e and p o s t t e s t s in t h i s s tu dy.
The r a t e r s were language a r t s t e a c h e r s who were given s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c ­
t i o n in t h e s c o r i n g procedures r e q u e s t e d by t h e r e s e a r c h e r .
The r a t e r s
were given m a t e r i a l s to stu dy r e g a r d i n g t h e s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s o f compo­
s i t i o n s , a s c o r i n g guide prepa red by t h e r e s e a r c h e r , sample paragraphs
scor ed by t h e r e s e a r c h e r , a l i s t of d e f i n i t i o n s r e l e v a n t t o t h e s co r in g
procedures and a supply o f f e l t pens t o be used to c o l o r code the
s y n t a c t i c f a c t o r s found in t h e w r i t i n g samples.
The s c o r i n g guide is
p r e s e n t e d in Appendix C.
I n i t i a l l y , one r a t e r scor ed a l l t h e p r e and p o s t t e s t w r i t i n g
samples.
To e n su r e t h e accuracy of t h e s y n t a c t i c a l a n a l y s i s , th e second
r a t e r checked every s i x t e e n t h w r i t i n g sample.
These papers were randomly
s e l e c t e d from t h e 368 pre and po s t w r i t i n g samples.
Each r a t e r did a
cumulative count o f t h e t o t a l number o f words, number o f T - u n i t s and
number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s which inc lud ed nominal, r e l a t i v e and
53
a d v e r b ia l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .
Between r a t e r I and r a t e r 2 t h e r e was a
product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t o f 1.000 on a l l m e a s u re s .
SCORING
The w r i t i n g was Scored by r a t e r s in terms of s e l e c t e d s y n t a c t i c
factors.
Scores were obt a in e d f o r T - u n i t l e n g th and number o f sen te nc e
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r each o f th e f o u r w r i t i n g samples.
This procedure
ensured t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l number o f words was w r i t t e n by each s t u d e n t
<
so t h a t a thorough ass e ss m e nt could be made of the w r i t i n g .
The w r i t i n g samples underwent a q u a n t i t a t i v e asse ssm en t performed
by t h e same independent r a t e r s .
The w r i t i n g was segmented acc ording to
th e methods d e s c r i b e d in Indexes o f S y n t a c t i c M atu ri ty (Dixon, 1970a).
The f o ll o w i n g s y n t a c t i c f a c t o r s were measured:
I.
.______ Mean Length o f T - u n i t s
A. __________Tot al Number o f Words
B. __________Number of T - u n i t s
II.
'
Number o f Sentence Tr ans for m atio ns
A. ________ _ Number of Nominal Tr ans for m atio ns
1 . ______ Noun
+ A d je c ti v e
2. ______ Noun
+ Possessive '
" 3. ______ Noun
+ R e l a t i v e Clause
4. _______Noun + P r e p o s i t i o n Phrase
5. _______Noun
+ I n f i n i t i v e Phrase
6 . _______ Noun + P a r t i c i p l e Phrase
7. _____ _ Noun + Adverbial
B.
Number of
R e l a t i v e Tr ans for m atio ns
54
I.
A d je c ti v e o f s i z e
2.
A d je c ti v e o f c o l o r
3.
A d je c ti v e o f shape
4.
A d je c ti v e of fe e l ( t e x t u r e )
5.
A d je c ti v e o f f e e l i n g s
6.
A d je c ti v e of c o n d i t i o n ( o l d , t i r e d )
7.
A d je c ti v e o f motion
Number of Adverbial Trans for ma tio ns
I.
Adverb of Time
2.
Adverb o f Plac e
3.
Adverb of Manner
4.
Adverb o f Cause
5.
Adverb of Condition
6.
Adverb of Comparison
The f i r s t independent r a t e r did a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f each compo­
sition.
A count was done of t h e number o f words and t h e segmenting of
T - u n i t s ig n o ri n g a l l p u n c tu a t io n and us in g a l l th e words w r i t t e n in th e
sample.
In a d d i t i o n , a t a l l y was made of t h e frequency o f oc currence of
each o f seven nominal t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , seven r e l a t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s and
s i x a d v e r b ia l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .
These t a l l i e s and counts were e n te r e d on
t h e S y n t a c t i c M at ur ity An alysis Sheet (Appendix C).
In t h e a n a l y s i s r e f e r r e d t o a b o v e , t h e fol lo wi ng kinds of word
c o u n ti n g , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and segmentation procedures were used:
I.
A T - u n i t was co n si d e re d to c o n s i s t of one independent
c l a u s e with a l l t h e s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s a t t a c h e d t o i t .
Segmenting i n t o T - u n i t s c uts each compound s e n te n c e or
55
compound-complex sen te nc e i n t o two o r more T - u m ' t s .
T - u n i t s were marked by p l a c i n g b r a c k e t s around them.
2.
Sentence fr a g m e n ts , i f they were i n t e l l i g i b l e and
s y n t a c t i c a l l y r e l a t e d to a n o th e r T - u n i t were inc luded
as p a r t o f t h a t T - u n i t .
3.
U n i n t e l l i g i b l e word g r o u p i n g s , words, o r una tta ch e d
f r ag m e nts , t h a t Hunt (1965) r e f e r r e d to as " g a r b l e s , "
were omi tte d from t h e word count and t h e a n a l y s i s .
4.
C o n tr a c t io n s were counted as two words
( e . g . , do n ’t ) .
5.
Pr op er names were counted as one word
( e . g . , McMahon Stadium).
6.
Dates were counted as one word, as were times
( e . g . , June 21, 8:00 a . m . ) .
I f days were in c lu de d with a d a t e , they were counted
separately
( e . g . , S a tu r d a y , June 9 [two w ord s ]) .
7.
Compound nouns w r i t t e n as one word were counted as one
word
( e . g . , storehouse).
Compound nouns w r i t t e n as two words and hyphenated word
p a i r s were counted as two words
( e . g . , i c e cream [two w o r d s ] ) ;
( e . g . , j a c k - k n i f e [hy phenated word p a i r ] ) .
56
8.
Adverbs o f n e g a t i o n , f i l l e r s , such as now and well and
exclamatory words t h a t in t r o d u c e lo n g e r e x p r e s s i o n s
were in c lu d e d in th e word cou nt.
9.
L i s t s s e t o u t in a numbered o r l i s t e d format were
c o n s id e re d as though they were items in a s e r i e s
s e p a r a t e d by commas in a T - u n i t .
10.
A d i r e c t q u o t a t i o n which was p a r t of a sen te nc e
c o n t a i n i n g a sp e a k e r tag was inc lud ed along with
th e s pea ke r tag as p a r t o f t h e same T - u n i t .
D i r e c t q u o t a t i o n s which had no s peak er tag o r which
oc cu rr ed in s en te nc es d e p ar at e d from t h e i r s peak er
tag were co n si d e re d as s e p a r a t e T - u n i t s .
11.
When th e c o n ju n c t io n "so" was used t o j o i n two
o th e rw is e independent c l a u s e s , and when i t was
c l e a r t h a t t h e r e was a causal r e l a t i o n s h i p between
t h e two c l a u s e s o r t h a t "so" was e q u i v a l e n t to
" i n o r d e r t h a t , " i t was co n si d e re d to be a sub­
o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n and t h e two c l a u s e s i t
j o i n e d were c ons id e re d t o be one T - u n i t .
( e . g . , Tie up t h e canoe so i t s t a y s c l o s e
to s h o r e . ) .
TIME SCHEDULE
The school guidance c o u n s e l l o r a d m i n i s t e r e d th e Canadian Te st s of
Basic S k i l l s in February 1983 over a p e r i o d of t h r e e weeks and analyzed
t h e Language B a t t e r y ( T e s t L ) .
This t e s t y i e l d e d a measurement of growth
57
in t h e mechanics o f w r i t i n g .
High, middle and low achievement groups
were a t t a i n e d by ranking th e experimental and c o n tr o l groups by t h i r d s .
The classroom t e a c h e r a d m i n i s t e r e d t h e p r e t e s t wT.ich involved the
c o l l e c t i n g o f f o u r w r i t i n g samples in f o u r s e s s i o n s , two s e s s i o n s per
week f o r a t o t a l o f two weeks.
these e x e rc is e s.
St u d e n ts were not t o l d th e purpose of
P r e t e s t i n g was begun d uri ng th e t h i r d week o f March
and was completed by t h e f i r s t week in A p r i l .
These papers were c o l l e c ­
te d and given t o th e r a t e r s in random o r d e r f o r s c o r i n g .
The experimental program was conducted f o r t h r e e weeks beginning
t h e second week of A p r i l .
The r e s e a r c h e r was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r th e de sign and p r e p a r a t i o n of a l l
l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s as well as t h e classroom i n s t r u c t i o n duri ng the e n t i r e
pe ri o d o f t h e s tu d y ;
These le s s o n s were used in the p r e s e n t a t i o n to both
t h e experimental and c o n t r o l g r o u p s .
One o f t h e s e groups ( t h e e x p e r i ­
mental) had a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n with p i c t o r i a l i zing by producing
drawings p r i o r to th e changes in s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .
At th e c o n c lu s io n o f the experimental program, t h e classroom
t e a c h e r once ag ain c o l l e c t e d f o u r w r i t i n g samples in f o u r s e s s i o n s , two
s e s s i o n s p e r week f o r a t o t a l o f two weeks.
P o s t t e s t i n g began th e f i r s t
week in May and proceeded u n t i l a l l samples were c o l l e c t e d by the
begin ning o f t h e t h i r d week (See Table 2).
Al I w r i t i n g samples were
given to t h e r a t e r who was i n s t r u c t e d t o mark th e samples in th e same way
t h a t she had marked t h e p r e t e s t sample and to complete t h e d a t a s h ee ts
in t h e same f a s h i o n as p r e v i o u s l y i n s t r u c t e d .
Thus, a pe ri o d of f o u r months e la p s e d between th e a d m i n i s t e r i n g of
t h e achievement t e s t and th e c o l l e c t i n g o f th e p o s t t e s t w r i t i n g samples.
58
Table 2
TESTING AND INSTRUCTION TIME SCHEDULE
DATE
TIME IN
CLASS HOURS
(50min/week)
F e b .I -25
4
March 21April I
4
GROUPS
CONTROL
EXPERIMENTAL
Canadian T e s t of Basic S k i l l s P r e t e s t
S y n t a c t i c M atu ri ty Tes t
Ex posi to ry C o n tr o ll e d W riting
N a r r a t i v e C o n t r o l l e d Writing
N a r r a t i v e Free Writing
Exp os ito ry Free Writing
INSTRUCTION
April 11
I
Lesson one:
coordination
April 12
I
Lesson two:
subordination
April 13
I
Lesson t h r e e :
April 14
I
Lesson f o u r :
r e l a t i v e clauses
April 15
I
Lesson f i v e :
modification
April 18
I
Lesson s i x :
April 19
I
Lesson seven:
adjectives
April 20
I
Lesson e i g h t :
im pe ra tiv e s en te nc es
April 21
' I
April 22
I
Lesson t e n :
April 25
I
Lesson e l e v e n :
appositives
April 26
I
Lesson twel ve:
W5 + how
April 27
I
Lesson t h i r t e e n :
p o s s e s s iv e s
April 28
I
Lesson f o u r t e e n :
f i g u r a t i v e language
April 29
I
Lesson f i f t e e n :
May 2May 13
4
Posttest
same as P r e t e s t
rearrangement
rewrite
Lesson nin e :
alliteration
participles
X
a dver bia l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s
59
Figu re 4 o u t l i n e s sch ed ul in g and a n a l y s i s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to
answering th e r e s e a r c h hypothe ses .
Classroom
Analysis and Outcome
February 1983
Canadian T e s ts of
Basic S k i l l s
*•
March 1983
P r e t e s t Experimental
and Control Groups with
S y n t a c t i c M atu ri ty Test
i—
►
Determination of high,
medium and low language
achievement l e v e l s
Analysis o f S y n t a c t i c
M atu ri ty P r e t e s t to
establish base-line
s co r es and t o determine
group equi val enc y______
April 1983
I n s t r u c t i o n and P r a c t i c e
with Experimental and
Control Groups
▼
May 1983
P o s t t e s t Experimental
and Control Groups with
S y n t a c t i c M at ur ity T e s t
Comparative Anal ysi s of
Pre and Post T e s ts of
S y n t a c t i c M at ur ity
Answer to Nul I
Hypotheses I - 56
Figure 4
SCHEDULING AND ANALYSIS
60
STATISTICAL HYPOTHESES
Hq
=
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s cor e in
e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex of t h e s t u d e n t and
method o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
Hq
2
=
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e
i n s t r u c t i o n in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i zing and s t u ­
dents who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s e n te n c e expansion.
Hq
3
=
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain s co re in
e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between male and female s t u d e n t s .
Hq
4
=
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between p r i o r achievement and
method o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
H
=
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex o f th e s t u d e n t and '
p r i o r achievement.
=
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain score, in
e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g among hig h , medium and low a c h ie v e ­
ment groups.
Hq
7
=
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s cor e in
e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g among method o f i n s t r u c t i o n , sex
o f s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
H
0S
=
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s co re in
n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex of t h e s t u d e n t and
method o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
H
°9
=
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain s cor e in
n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s who re c e iv e d
i n s t r u c t i o n in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z i n g and s t u ­
de nts who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s en te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
H
=
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain s cor e in
n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between male and female s t u d e n t s .
1
5
H0
6
-10
H
=
011
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between p r i o r achievement and
method o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
H
=
012
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex of th e s t u d e n t and p r i o r
achievement.
61
H
=
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d , w r i t i n g among high , medium and Tow a c h ie v e ­
ment groups.
^
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s c o r e in
n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g among method of i n s t r u c t i o n , sex
o f s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
H
=
0IB
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between sex of th e s t u d e n t and method of
instruction.
H
=
016
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n
in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z i n g and s t u d e n t s who
r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s en te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
H
=
017
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between male and female s t u d e n t s .
H
=
018
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between p r i o r achievement and method of
instruction.
H
=
019
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s co re in
n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between sex o f th e s t u d e n t and p r i o r
achievement. 1
H
=
°20
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain scor e in
n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g among h i g h , medium and low achievement
groups.
H
=
°21
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g among method of i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of
s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
H
=
°22
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain scor e in
e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between sex of th e s t u d e n t and method of
instruction.
H
=
°23
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T-Unit gain s cor e in
e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n
in se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n with p i c t o r i a l i z i n g and s t u d e n t s who
r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s e n t e n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
H
=
°24
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t ga in s co re in
e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between male and female s t u d e n t s .
H
=
°25
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s co re in
e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between p r i o r achievement and method of
instruction.
13
H
14
62
H
=
°26
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between sex of t h e s t u d e n t and p r i o r
achievement.
H
=
°27
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t ga in s co r e in
e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g among, h i g h , medium and low achievement
groups.
H
=
°28
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g among method o f i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of
s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
H
=
°29
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number of s en te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex of th e
s t u d e n t and method of i n s t r u c t i o n .
H
=
050
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm ati ons in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s who
r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z i n g
and s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
H
=
051
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between male and
female s t u d e n t s .
H
=
°32
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s en te n c e t r a n s fo rm ati ons in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between p r i o r
achievement and method of i n s t r u c t i o n .
H
=
°33
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number of sen te nc e t r a n s fo rm ati ons i n e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex of the
s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s °34
fo rm at io ns in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g among h ig h , medium
■ and low achievement groups.
H
=
°35
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s en te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g among method of
i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
H
=
°36
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number of s en te n c e t r a n S fo rm at io ns in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex of the
s t u d e n t and method of i n s t r u c t i o n .
H
=
°37
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm ati ons in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s who
r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n in se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n with p i c t o r i a l i z i n g
and s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
63
H
=
°38
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm ati ons in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between male and
female s t u d e n t s .
H
=
°39
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm ati ons in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between p r i o r
achievement and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
H
=
°40
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n i n number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex of the
s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
H
=
°41
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g among h i g h , medium
and low achievement groups.
H
=
°42
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number of sen te nc e t r a n s fo r m at i ons in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g among method of
i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
H
=
°43.
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between sex of th e s t u d e n t
and method of i n s t r u c t i o n .
H
=
°44
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e
i n s t r u c t i o n in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i zing and s t u ­
de nts who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
H
=
ms
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number of s en te n c e t r a n s f o r ­
mations in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between male and female s t u d e n t s .
H
=
°46
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between p r i o r achievement
and method of i n s t r u c t i o n .
H
=
°47
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between sex of th e s t u d e n t
and p r i o r achievement.
H
=
°48
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g among h ig h , medium and low
achievement g r o u p s .
H
=
°49
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g among method of i n s t r u c ­
t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
H
=
0 BO
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm ati ons in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between sex of th e s t u d e n t
and method of i n s t r u c t i o n .
64
H
=
°51
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm ati ons in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s who
r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z i n g
and s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
H
=
°52
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s - .
fo rm ati on in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between male and female
students.
H
=
°53
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between p r i o r achievement
and method o f . i n s t r u c t i o n .
H
=
°54
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between sex o f t h e s t u d e n t
and p r i o r achievement.
H
=
°55
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in e x p o s i t o r y ,free w r i t i n g among hi;gh, medium and low
achievement groups.
H
=
°56
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g among method o f i n s t r u c ­
t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n , * main e f f e c t
rows, columns and l a y e r s hypotheses were not c onsid ered f o r a n a l y s i s in
t h a t s p e c i f i c t h r e e way d e s i g n .
Al I hypotheses were t e s t e d a t the .01
le v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
ANALYSIS OF DATA
R at ers a s s e s s e d s t u d e n t w r i t i n g f o r s e l e c t e d s y n t a c t i c f a c t o r s .
The d a ta from t h i s study were analyzed in th e follo wing ways:
th e means f o r T - u n i t le ngt h were c a l c u l a t e d .
First,
Then, a one way a n a l y s i s of
v a r i a n c e was used t o det ermi ne whether i n i t i a l performance between th e two
groups was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t .
The t e s t was used to compare the
p r e t e s t mean sc or es of t h e two groups.
Next, t h r e e way a n a ly s e s of v a r -
I
ia nc e were completed t o determine s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s t e s t i n g 56 null
65
hy po th e se s .
F r a t i o s were t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e s e t a t t h e .01 level
o f co nf id e nce th ro ugho ut .
To answer q u e s t i o n s one through t w e n t y - e i g h t (H
-H
), t h r e e way
0I
°28
a n a ly s e s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s were used t o determine t h e mean T - u n i t gain
s co r e in both t h e n a r r a t i v e and e x p o s i t o r y f r e e and c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g
of grade s i x s t u d e n t s .
To answer q u e s t i o n s tw en ty -n in e t o f i f t y - s i x (H
-H
), three
°29
°56
way a n a ly s e s of v a r i a n c e t e s t s were used t o determine t h e gain in number
of sen te nc e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s (n o m i n a l, r e l a t i v e and a d v e r b i a l ) in both t h e
n a r r a t i v e and e x p o s i t o r y f r e e and c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g o f grade s i x s t u ­
dents.
All c o l l e c t e d d a t a were key-punched on 80-column c a r d s , processed and
stored fo r analysis of data.
Each s t u d e n t was i d e n t i f i e d by number,
group, sex and p r i o r achievement.
There was one card coded f o r each
s t u d e n t , which co n ta i n ed mean T - u n i t s c o r e s and number o f sen te nc e t r a n s ­
fo rm ati ons f o r t h e p r e t e s t and f o r t h e p o s t t e s t .
The a n a ly s e s were done a t t h e U n i v e r s i ty of C al gar y, A l b e r t a , Canada,
using t h e SPSS program ( S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e Social S c ie n c e ).
PRECAUTIONS TAKEN FOR ACCURACY
An independent r a t e r , who had no p r i o r knowledge of t h e re s ea rc h
method or t h e m a t e r i a l s used, t a l l i e d t h e pre and p o s t t e s t s c o r e s .
To
en sur e t h e accuracy of t h e grammatical a n a l y s i s , a second r a t e r , a l a n ­
guage i n s t r u c t o r from t h e Calgary Board of Education,checked every six^
t e e n t h w r i t i n g sample.
These papers were randomly s e l e c t e d from th e 368
pre and p o s t w r i t i n g samples.
66
Chapter IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The major purpose o f t h i s stu dy was to determine whether grade s i x
s t u d e n t s who p r a c t i c e d s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n would
expand kernel se n te n c e s and w r i t e compositions t h a t could be de sc ri b e d
as s y n t a c t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from th os e w r i t t e n by grade s i x s t u d e n t s
exposed t o only se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n p r a c t i c e .
A d d i t i o n a l l y , the s e l e c t e d
v a r i a b l e s o f p r i o r achievement, sex and method of i n s t r u c t i o n were
analyzed to deter mine i f t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t le vel o f i n t e r a c t i o n .
The stu dy focused on t h e fo ll o w i n g q u e s t i o n s :
1.
Is t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in the le ngth of T - u n i t s
in grade s i x s t u d e n t s ' c o n t r o l l e d and f r e e w r i t i n g (both
e x p o s i t o r y and n a r r a t i v e modes) a f t e r s en te n c e- ex p a n si o n
with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n e x e r c i s e s ?
2.
Is t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in the number of se nte nc e
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s (nominal, r e l a t i v e and a d v e r b i a l ) in grade
s i x s t u d e n t s c o n t r o l l e d and f r e e w r i t i n g (both e x p o s i t o r y
and n a r r a t i v e modes) a f t e r s en te n c e- ex p a n si o n with p i c t o r ­
ial ization exercises?
In a d d i t i o n , th e fo ll o w i n g s i x s u b -q u e s t i o n s were co n si d e re d in a s s o c i a ­
t i o n with each of t h e pre ced ing major r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s ;
3.
Is t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between the method of
i n s t r u c t i o n and sex?
67
4.
Is t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between method of
i n s t r u c t i o n and p r i o r achievement?
.5.
Is t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among h ig h , medium
and low achievement?
6.
Is t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between male and
female s t u d e n t s ?
7.
Is t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between sex of the
s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement?
8.
Is t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n among method of
i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of t h e s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement?
To i n v e s t i g a t e t h e comparative r e l a t i o n s h i p o f two te ch niq ue s f o r
i n c r e a s i n g s e n te n c e m a t u r i t y in grade s i x w r i t e r s , 56 null hypotheses
were f o r m u la t e d .
A t h r e e way a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n c e was used t o determine
i f t h e r e were any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the mean gain s cor e of
t h e v a r io u s s y n t a c t i c f a c t o r s :
transform ations.
words p e r T - u n i t and number o f sen te nc e
In t h i s a n a l y s i s d i f f e r e n c e s were looked f o r in mean
change between t h e two groups.
The l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e was s e t a t
p <(.01.
Before det ermi nin g whether s i g n i f i c a n t s y n t a c t i c changes occurred in
t h e s u b j e c t ' s w r i t i n g , i t was ne ce s sa ry to determine whether the random
s e l e c t i o n pro ce ss had been s u c c e s s f u l l y used to p la ce s t u d e n t s of equal
s y n t a c t i c a b i l i t y i n t o the experimental and c o nt ro l grou ps .
To do t h i s ,
a one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was used t o compare th e p r e t e s t mean
s c o r e s o f t h e two gro ups.
In t h e a n a ly s e s s t u d e n t w r i t i n g v a r i a b l e s
were c o n s id e re d in comparing the p r e t e s t mean s co r es on each of th e e i g h t
dependent v a r i a b l e s f o r both groups.
In Table 3 the r e s u l t s o f t h i s t e s t
68
Table 3
Comparison o f P r e t e s t Mean Scores on th e V a ri a ble s o f S y n t a c t i c Develop­
ment f o r C o n t r o l l e d and Free W rit in g: Experimental and Control Groups
(One Way ANOVA)
V a r ia b le s
Experimental Control
p
n=23
n=23_____ F______ df_____ Val ue
Means
Means
expository controlled
5.765
5.652
0.18
I , 44
0.6743
NS
n arrative controlled
5.570
5.326
1 .65
I , 44
0.2063
NS
narrative free
7.452
7.583
0.10
I , 44
0.7478
NS
expository free
7.534
7.875
0.48
I , 44
0.4934
NS
S y n t a c t i c F a c to rs
Mean T - u n i t l e n g t h s :
Number o f Sentence
Transformations:
expository controlled
12.13
11.35
0.50
I , 44
0.4846
NS
narrative controlled
13.26
10.83
7.11
1 , 44
0.0107
NS
narrative free
21.52
20.83
0.06
I , 44
0.8137
■NS
expository free
24.83
14.78
17.78
I , 44
0.0001
*
* = s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 level
NS = not s i g n i f i c a n t
69
i l l u s t r a t e d t h a t t h e two groups were s u f f i c i e n t l y s i m i l a r to be c o n si d ­
ere d e q u a l .
However, in th e a n a l y s i s o f one o f th e e i g h t dependent
v a r i a b l e s , t h e number o f s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e
w r i t i n g , i t was demonstrated t h a t t h e experimental group scor ed s i g n i f i ­
c a n t l y b e t t e r than t h e c o n tr o l group.
The experimental group, those
s t u d e n t s who a t a l a t e r time r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e in
s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n , had a p r e t e s t mean of 24.83.
The c o n tr o l group, t h o s e who a t a l a t e r time only r e c e iv e d i n s t r u c t i o n
and p r a c t i c e in s e n te n c e ex pan si on, had a p r e t e s t mean of 14.78.
In th e
one way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e an F r a t i o of 17.78, a s t a t i s t i c t h a t was
s i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e .01 le v el (p = .0001) was y i e l d e d (Table 3).
RELEVANT DATA AND FINDINGS
In o r d e r t o deter mine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of th e t r e a t m e n t s , the
s t u d e n t s ' w r i t i n g samples b e f o r e t r e a t m e n t s and th os e w r i t t e n foll owing
t r e a t m e n t s were an al yz e d.
T a b u la ti o n s o f s p e c i f i c s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s
w i t h i n t h e compositions were made, and ga in sco res were c a l c u l a t e d f o r
each s t u d e n t on t h e s e v a r i a b l e s :
1.
Mean le n g t h of T - u n i t s
2.
Number of s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s which was a
cumulative s c o r e of:
a.
Number of nominal t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s ( e . g . ,
noun plus a d j e c t i v e , p o s s e s s i v e , r e l a t i v e
clause, prepositional phrase, i n f i n i t i v e
p h r a s e , p a r t i c i p l e ,phr a s e, and a d v e r b i a l ) ;
70
b.
Number o f r e l a t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s ( e . g . ,
a d j e c t i v e s o f s i z e , c o l o r , shape, f e e l
( t e x t u r e ) , f e e l i n g s , c o n d i t i o n (o ld ) and
motio n);
c.
Number o f a d v e r b ia l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s ( e . g . ,
adverbs o f ti m e , p l a c e , manner, cause,
c o n d i t i o n and comparison).
In a n a ly z in g s y n t a c t i c development, hypotheses were org an iz ed
acc or di ng to s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s and modes o f w r i t i n g .
MEAN T-UNIT AND MODE OF WRITING
Question one:
Is t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e le ngth of
T - u n i t s in grade s i x s t u d e n t s ' c o n t r o l l e d and f r e e w r i t i n g (both
e x p o s i t o r y and n a r r a t i v e modes) a f t e r se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n with p i c t o r ­
ial izatio n exercises?
T w en ty- ei ght hypotheses were t e s t e d using a t h r e e way a n a l y s i s of
v a r i a n c e t o de ter mi ne t h e e f f e c t s of t r e a t m e n t , s e x , p r i o r achievement
and t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s .
a n a l y s i s and r e s u l t s of hypotheses H
0I
In t h i s s e c t i o n a r e r e p o r t e d t h e
to H
°28
Expo sitory C o n tr o ll e d Writing
H
0I
=
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
expository, c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex of t h e s t u d e n t and
method o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
The comparison o f t h e sex of a s t u d e n t with method of i n s t r u c t i o n
was used t o determine i f males or females could achiev e s i g n i f i c a n t l y
h i g h e r gain s c o r e s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The da ta
71
Table 4
Means and Standard Dev iatio n f o r Gain Scores f o r Mean T - u n i t Length f o r
Free and C o n t r o l l e d Writi ng ( E xp osi to ry and N a r r a t i v e )
mean
N gain
s cor e
GROUP
S.D.
mean
N gain
s co r e
EXPERIMENTAL
S.D.
23
1.265
1.124
23
0.752
1 .447
narrative
controlled
23
2.435
1.352
23
2.135
1.186
narrative
free
23
1.187
1 .392
23
1.087
2.539
expository
free
23
1.452
1.271
23
0.830
2.617
FEMALES
MALES
expository
controlled
18
0.900
1 .324
28
1.079
1.316
narrative
c o n tr o l Ied
18
2:150
1 .333
28
2.371
1.239
narrative
free
18
0.833
1 .608
28
1,414
2.252
expository
free
18
1 .489
2.128
28
0.918
2.020
LOW
MIDDLE
HIGH
ACHIEVEMENT
S.D.
CONTROL
expository
controlled
SEX
mean
N gain
s co re
expository
controlled
15
1.107
1 .180
16
1 .513
1.489
15
0.373
0.999
n a r r a t i ve
controlled
15
2.527
1 .261
16
2.656
1.471
15
1 .647
0.769
narrative
free
15
1.513
1 .830
16
1.106
2.836
15
0.947
1.017
expository
free
15
0.653
1.760
16
1.163
I .994
15
1 ,607
2.404
72
o b ta in e d by t h i s a n a ly s e s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between
sex and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n (Table 5).
This f i n d i n g led t o the
r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p oth e se s , Hq .
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t ga in s cor e in
°2
e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e
i n s t r u c t i o n i n s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z i n g and s tu d e n t s
who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s e n te n c e expansion.
The mean T - u n i t gain s c o r e f o r t h e experimental group in s e n te n c e expansion with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n was 1.265 with a s ta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of
1.124.
The mean T - u n i t gain s co r e o f t h e co n tr o l group in s e n te n c e -
expansion was 0.752 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 1.447 (T able 4 ) .
The
t h r e e way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o of 1 .2 7 , a s t a t i s t i c
t h a t was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .01 l e v e l (p = 0.2668) ( f a b l e 5).
This f i n d i n g led t o t h e r e t e n t i o n of t h e null hy poth e se s , H
.
°2
H = There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain s cor e in
°3
e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between male and female s t u d e n t s .
The mean T - u n i t gain s c o r e f o r male s t u d e n t s in e x p o s i t o r y con­
t r o l l e d w r i t i n g was 0.900 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 1.324.
The mean
T - u n i t ga in s c o r e f o r female s t u d e n t s in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g
was 1 .079 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 1.316 (Table 4 ) .
The t h r e e way
a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o of 0 . 1 0 , a s t a t i s t i c t h a t was
not s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .01 le vel (p = 0.7573) (Table 5 ) .
This
f i n d i n g le d t o th e r e t e n t i o n of t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , Hq .
H
= T h e r e . i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n i n mean T - u n i t ga in s cor e in
°4
e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between p r i o r achievement and method
of in s tru c tio n . ,
The comparison o f p r i o r achievement with method o f i n s t r u c t i o n was
used t o de ter mi ne i f h i g h , middle or low a c h ie v e r s could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i
c a n t l y h i g h e r gain s c o r e s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The
73
d a ta o b ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n
between p r i o r achievement and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n (Table 5 ) .
This
f i n d i n g led t o t h e r e t e n t i o n of t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H .
°4
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t ga in s cor e in
5
e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex o f t h e s t u d e n t and
p r i o r achievement.
The comparison o f t h e sex of a s t u d e n t with p r i o r achievement was
used t o de ter mi ne i f males or females could achiev e s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r
gain s c o r e s when analyzed by h ig h , middle o r low achievement groups.
The d a t a o b ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no S i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n
between sex and p r i o r achievement (T abl e 5 ) .
This f i n d i n g led to the
r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H .
°5
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain s cor e in
D
e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g among h ig h , medium and low
achievement gro ups.
The mean T - u n i t gain s co r e f o r high a c h i e v e r s in e x p o s i t o r y con­
t r o l l e d w r i t i n g was 1.107 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 1.180.
The mean
T - u n i t ga in s c o r e o f middle a c h i e v e r s was 1.513 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n
o f 1.489.
While t h e mean T - u n i t gain s cor e of low a c h i e v e r s was 0.373
with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 0.999 (Table 4 ) .
The t h r e e way a n a l y s i s of
v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o of 1. 6 6 , a s t a t i s t i c t h a t was not s i g n i f i c a n t
beyond t h e .01 le vel (p = 0.2056) (Table 5 ) .
This f i n d i n g led to the
r e t e n t i o n of t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H .
°6
H
= There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain scor e in
°7
e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g among method of i n s t r u c t i o n , sex
o f s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
The comparison of t h e method of i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and
p r i o r achievement was used t o deter mine i f male or female s t u d e n t s as
h ig h , middle o r low a c h i e v e r s could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r gain
74
Table 5
Three-way ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores f o r Mean T - u n i t Length in Exposi­
t o r y C o n tr o ll e d Writing
Mean
Squares
Source
Sum of
Squares
Group
2.306
I , 34
2.306
Sex
0.176
I , 34
Achievement
5.998
Group x
Sex'
F
P
1.27
0.2668
NS
0.176
0.10
0.7573
NS
2, 34
2.999
1.66
0.2056
NS
0.105
I , 34
0.105
0.06
0.8111
NS
Group x
Achievement
0.574
2, 34
0.287
0.16
0.8540
NS
Sex x
Achievement
1 .454
2, 34
0.727
0.40
0.6721
NS
Group x Sex
x Achievement
0.208
2, 34
0.104
0.00
0.9990
NS
61.509
34
1 .809
E r ro r
*
= s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .01 le vel
NS = not s i g n i f i c a n t
df
.
75
s c o r e s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The d a ta ob ta in e d by
t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between method of
i n s t r u c t i o n , sex o f s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement (Table 5).
ing led t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
This f i n d ­
.
'N a r r a ti v e C o n tr o ll e d Writing
H = There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s cor e in
°8
n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex of t h e s t u d e n t and
method o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
The comparison o f t h e sex o f a s t u d e n t and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n
was used to deter mine i f males o r females could achiev e s i g n i f i c a n t l y
h i g h e r gain s co r e when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The da ta
ob ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between
sex and method of i n s t r u c t i o n (Table 6 ) .
This f i n d i n g le d t o the
r e t e n t i o n of t h e nu ll h y p o t h e s i s , H .
°8
H = There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t ga in s co r e in
°9
n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c ­
t i o n in s en te n c e- ex p a n si o n with p i c t o r i a l i zing and s t u d e n t s who
r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
The mean T - u n i t ga in s co r e f o r t h e experimental group in se n te n c e expansion w it h p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n was 2.435 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of
1.352.
The mean T - u n i t ga in s co r e o f t h e co ntro l group in se n te n c e -
expansion was 2.135 with a s ta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 1.186 (Table 4 ) .
The
t h r e e way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o of 0 . 3 9 , a s t a t i s t i c
t h a t was not s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .01 l e v e l (p = 0.5390) (Table 6).
This f i n d i n g le d t o t h e r e t e n t i o n of t h e null hy poth e se s , Hq .
H = There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain score in
0IO n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between male and female s t u d e n t s .
76
The mean T - u n i t gain s co re f o r male s t u d e n t s in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d
w r i t i n g was 2.150 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 1.333.
The mean T - u n i t
gain s c o r e f o r female s t u d e n t s in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g was
2.371 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 1.239 (Table 4 ) .
The t h r e e way
a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o of 1.4 1 , a s t a t i s t i c t h a t was
not s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .01 l e v e l (p = 0.2428) (Table 6 ) .
This
f i n d i n g led t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
010
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain score in
011
n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between p r i o r achievement and method
of instruction.
The comparison o f p r i o r achievement with method of i n s t r u c t i o n was
used t o de ter mi ne i f h i g h , middle o r low a c h i e v e r s could achiev e s i g n i f i ­
c a n t l y h i g h e r gain s c o r e s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The
d a t a o b ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n
between p r i o r achievement and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n (T able 6 ) .
This
f i n d i n g le d t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
011
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain scor e in
012
n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex of th e s t u d e n t and p r i o r
achievement.
The comparison o f t h e sex of a s t u d e n t with p r i o r achievement was
used t o deter mine i f males o r females could achiev e s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r
gain s c o r e s when an alyzed by h ig h , middle o r low achievement groups.
The
d a ta o b ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n
between sex and p r i o r achievement (T able 6 ) .
This f i n d i n g le d to the
r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
012
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t g a in s co re in
°13
n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g among h ig h , medium and low a c h ie v e ­
ment, groups.
77
Table 6
Three-way ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores f o r Mean T - u n i t Length in N a r r a t i v e
C o n tr o ll e d Writing
Source
Sum of
Squares
Group
0.557 '
I , 34
0.557
0.39
0.5390
NS
Sex
2.045
I , 34
2.045
I .41
0.2428
NS
Achievement
9.221
2, 34
4.611
3.19
0.0539
NS
Group x
Sex
0.130
0.130
0.09
0.7664
NS
Group x
Achievement
6.159
2, 34
3.080
2.13
0.1346
NS
Sex x
Achievement
I .018
2, 34
0.509 ■ 0.35
0.7061
NS
Group x Sex
x Achievement
5.465
2, 34
2.733
0.1669
NS
49.204
34
1 .447
Error
Mean
Squares
df
* = s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 le v el
NS = not s i g n i f i c a n t
-
F .
1.89
P
78
The mean T - u n i t gain s c o r e f o r high a c h i e v e r s in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l ­
le d w r i t i n g was 2.527 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 1.261.
The mean
T - u n i t gain s co r e o f middle a c h i e v e r s was 2.656 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a ­
t i o n of 1.471.
While t h e mean T - u n i t gain s co r e of low a c h i e v e r s was
1.647 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 0.769 (Table 4 ) .
The t h r e e way
a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o of 3 . 1 9 , a s t a t i s t i c t h a t was
no t s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .01 le vel (p = 0.0539) (Table 6 ) .
This f i n d ­
ing le d t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
'
°13
H
= There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s cor e in
0I 4
n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g among method o f i n s t r u c t i o n , sex
o f s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
, The comparison of t h e method of i n s t r u c t i o n , sex o f s t u d e n t and
p r i o r achievement was used t o det ermi ne i f male or female s t u d e n t s as
h i g h , middle o r low a c h i e v e r s could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r gain
s c o r e s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The d a ta obta in e d by
t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n among method of
i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement (T able 6 ) .
This f i n d ­
ing led to t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , Hq .
14
N a r r a t i v e Free Writing
H
=
®15
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s cor e
in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between sex of the s t u d e n t and method
of i n s t r u c t i o n .
The comparison o f t h e sex of a s t u d e n t with method o f i n s t r u c t i o n
was used t o determine i f males or females could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i c a n t l y
h i g h e r gain s c o r e s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The da ta
ob ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between
sex and method of i n s t r u c t i o n (Table 7 ) .
This f i n d i n g le d to the
79
r e t e n t i o n o f t h e nu ll h y p o t h e s i s , H
015
H
= There is no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
016
n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n
in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z i n g and s t u d e n t s who
r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
The mean T - u n i t gain s co r e f o r t h e experimental group in se n te n c e expansion with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n was 1.187 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of '
1.392.
The mean T - u n i t gain s co r e of t h e co n tr o l group in s e n te n c e -
expansion was 1.087 with a s ta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 2.539 (Table 4 ) . , The
t h r e e way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o of 0 . 3 1 , a s t a t i s t i c
t h a t was not s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .01 le v el (p = 0.5822) (Table 7 ) .
This f i n d i n g le d t o t h e r e t e n t i o n of t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
016
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain s cor e in
017
n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between male and female s t u d e n t s .
The mean T - u n i t gain s c o r e f o r male s t u d e n t s in n a r r a t i v e f r e e
w r i t i n g was 0.833 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 1.608.
The mean T - u n i t
gain s co r e f o r female s t u d e n t s in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g was 2.371 with
a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 1.239 (Table 4 ) .
The t h r e e way a n a l y s i s of
v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o of 0 . 7 3 , a s t a t i s t i c t h a t was not s i g n i f i c a n t
beyond t h e .01 l e v e l (p = 0.3980) (Table 8 ) .
This f i n d i n g led t o th e
r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
017
H
= There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n i n mean T - u n i t gain score in
0IS
n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between p r i o r achievement and method of
instruction.
The comparison o f p r i o r achievement with method o f i n s t r u c t i o n was
used t o de te rm in e i f h ig h , middle or low a c h ie v e rs could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i ­
c a n t l y h i g h e r gain sc or es when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The
d a ta ob ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n
between p r i o r achievement and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n (Table 7 ) .
This le d
80'
t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
018
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s cor e in
0I 9
n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between sex of the s t u d e n t and p r i o r
achievement.
The comparison of th e sex of a s t u d e n t with p r i o r achievement was
used t o de ter mi ne i f males o r females could achiev e s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r
gain s c o r e s when analyzed by h ig h , middle o r low achievement groups.
The d a t a ob ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n
between sex and p r i o r achievement (Table 7 ) .
This f i n d i n g led to the
r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
°19
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain s cor e in
°20
n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g among h ig h , medium and low achievement
groups.
The mean T - u n i t g a in s c o r e f o r high a c h i e v e r s in n a r r a t i v e . f r e e
w r i t i n g was I !513 w ith a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 1.830.
The mean T - u n i t
gain s c o r e o f middle a c h i e v e r s was 1.106 with a s ta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of
2.836.
While t h e mean T - u n i t gain s c o r e o f low a c h i e v e r s was 0.947 with
a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 1.017 (Table 4 ) .
The t h r e e way a n a l y s i s of
v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o o f 0 . 7 7 , a s t a t i s t i c t h a t was not s i g n i f i c a n t
beyond t h e .01 l e v e l (p = 0.4731) (Table 7 ) .
This f i n d i n g le d t o the
r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H.
'
.
°20
H
=
°21
There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s cor e in
n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t ing among 'method o f i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of s t u ­
d e n t and p r i o r achievement. :
:
JV1V:-
X
The comparison of t h e method o f i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and
'
'
'
j x
- x ' : .
.
'
p r i o r achievement was used to determine i f male or female s t u d e n t as
h ig h , middle o r low a c h i e v e r s could a ch ie v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r gain
s c o r e s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The d a t a ob ta in e d by
t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i hte ra.ct io n among method of
81
Table 7
Three-way ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores f o r Mean T - u n i t Length in N a r r a t i v e
Free Writing .
Source
Sum o f
Squares
Group
df
Mean
Squares
F
P
1.515
I , 34
1.515
0.31
0.5822
NS
Sex
3.597
I , 34
3.597
0.73
0.3980
NS
Achievement
7.515
2, 34
3.758
0.77
0.4731
NS
Group x
Sex
1.230
I , 34
1.230
0.25
0.6199
NS
Group x
Achievement
3.013
2, 34
1.507
0.31
0.7378
NS .
Sex x
Achievement
10.284
2, 34
5.142
I .05
0.3620
NS
2.431
2, 34
1.216
0.25
0.7821
NS
166.949
34
4.910
Group x Sex
x Achievement
E r ro r
* = s i g n i f i c a n t a t the
NS = n o t s i g n i f i c a n t
.01 l e v e l
82
i n s t r u c t i o n , sex o f s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement (Table 7 ) .
This
f i n d i n g le d to t h e r e t e n t i o n o f th e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
O21
Exp os ito ry Free Writing
H
= There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t ga in s cor e in
°22 . e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between sex of the s t u d e n t and method of
instruction.
The comparison o f t h e sex of a s t u d e n t with method o f i n s t r u c t i o n
was used to det ermi ne i f males or females could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i c a n t l y
h i g h e r gain s co r es when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The data
o b ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between
sex and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n (Table 8 ) .
t i o n of t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
This f i n d i n g le d to t h e r e t e n ­
.
°22
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t ga in s co r e in
°23
e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n
in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z i n g and s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e
i n s t r u c t i o n only in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
The mean T - u n i t gain s co r e f o r t h e experimental group in s e n te n c e expansion with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n was 1.452 with a s ta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of
1.271.
The mean T - u n i t ga in score o f t h e co n tr o l group in se n te n c e -
expansion was 0.830 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 2.617 (Table 4 ) .
The
t h r e e way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o of 0 . 0 2 , a s t a t i s t i c
t h a t was not s i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e .01 l e v e l (p = .8967) (Table 8).
This f i n d i n g led t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
°23
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n mean T - u n i t gain score in
°24
e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between male and female s t u d e n t s .
The mean T - u n i t gain s co r e f o r male s t u d e n t s in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e
w r i t i n g was 1.489 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 2.128.
The mean T - u n i t
gain s co r e f o r female s t u d e n t s in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g was 0.918 with
83
a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 2.020 (Table 4 ) .
The t h r e e way a n a l y s i s of
v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o of 0 . 4 4 , a s t a t i s t i c t h a t was not s i g n i f i c a n t
beyond t h e .01 le v el (p = 0.5119) (Table 8 ) .
This f i n d i n g led to the
r e t e n t i o n o f th e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
°24
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain s co r e in
°25
e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between p r i o r achievement and method of
instruction.
The comparison o f p r i o r achievement with method o f i n s t r u c t i o n was
used t o de ter mi ne i f h ig h , middle or low a c h i e v e r s could a ch ie v e s i g n i f i ­
c a n t l y h i g h e r gain s c o r e s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The
d a ta o b ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n
between p r i o r achievement and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n (T able 8 ) .
This
f i n d i n g le d t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e nu ll h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
°25
H
= There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t ga in score in
°26
e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between sex of the s t u d e n t and p r i o r
achievement.
The comparison o f t h e sex of a s t u d e n t with p r i o r achievement was .
used to de ter mi ne i f males o r females could achieve s i g n i f i c a n t l y hig he r
gain s c o r e s when analyze d by hig h , middle or low achievement groups. The
d a ta o b ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n
between sex and p r i o r achievement (Table 8 ) .
This f i n d i n g led to the
r e t e n t i o n of the null h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
°26
H
= There is no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t ga in s cor e in
°27
e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g among h i g h , medium and low achievement
groups.
The mean T - u n i t gain s cor e f o r high a c h ie v e rs in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e
w r i t i n g was 0.653 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 1.760.
The mean T - u n i t
gain s c o r e o f middle a c h i e v e r s was 1.163 with a s ta n d a rd d e v i a t i o n of
1.994.
While t h e mean T - u n i t gain s c o r e o f low a c h i e v e r s was 1.607 with
84
Table 8
Three-way
ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores f o r Mean T - u n i t Length in Exposi­
t o r y Free Writing
Source
Sum o f
Squares
Group
0.608
I,
34
0.608
0.02
0.8967
NS
Sex
1.561
I,
34
1 .561
0.44
0.5119
NS
Achievement
4.969
2,
34
2.484
0.70
0.5040
NS
Group x
Sex
9.468
I,
34
9.468
2.66
0.1118
NS
Group x
Achievement
6.797
2,
34
3.399
0.96
0.3943
NS
Sex x .
Achievement
17.636
2,
34
8.818
2.48
0.0986
NS
1 .872
2,
34
0.936
0.26
0.7700
NS
34
3.553
Group x Sex
x Achievement
E r ro r
.
120.798
* = s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l
NS = n o t s i g n i f i c a n t
Mean
Squares
F
p
85
a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 2.404 (Table 4 ) .
The t h r e e way a n a l y s i s of
v a r ia n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o o f 0 . 7 0 , a s t a t i s t i c t h a t was not s i g n i f i ­
c a n t beyond t h e .01 l e v e l (p = 0.5040) (Table 8 ) .
This f i n d i n g led to
t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e nu ll h y p o t h e s i s , H
°27
H
= There is no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in mean T - u n i t gain score
°28
in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g among method o f i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of
s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
The comparison o f t h e method o f i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and
p r i o r achievement was used t o deter mine i f male or female s t u d e n t s as
h ig h , middle o r low a c h i e v e r s could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r gain
sco res when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The d a t a obta in e d by
t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n among method of
i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement (Table 8 ) .
f i n d i n g le d t o t h e r e t e n t i o n of th e nu ll h y p o t h e s i s , H
This
.
°28
NUMBER OF SENTENCE TRANSFORMATIONS AND MODE OF WRITING
Question two:
Is t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in t h e number o f
s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s (nominal, r e l a t i v e and a d v e r b i a l ) in grade s i x
s t u d e n t s ' c o n t r o l l e d and f r e e w r i t i n g (both e x p o s i t o r y and n a r r a t i v e
modes) a f t e r s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n e x e r c i s e s ?
T w en ty- ei ght hypotheses were t e s t e d usi ng a t h r e e way a n a l y s i s of
v a r i a n c e t o determine t h e e f f e c t s of t r e a t m e n t , s ex , p r i o r achievement
and t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of t h e s e v a r i a b l e s .
In t h i s s e c t i o n a r e r e p o r t e d the
a n a l y s i s and r e s u l t s o f hypotheses Hq
t o Hq
.
86
Table 9
Means and Standard D eviation f o r Gain Scores f o r Number o f Sentence Tr an s ­
fo rm ati ons f o r Free and C o n t r o l l e d W rit in g (E xposi to ry and N a r r a ti v e )
mean
N gain
s cor e
GROUP
S.D. ■
mean
N gain
score
EXPERIMENTAL
S.D.
23
11.57
15.16
23
narrative
controlled
23
26.65
14.86
23
20.48
14.86
narrative
free
23
26.13
14,33
23
19.87
13.02
expository
free
23
14.87
18.88
23
14.78
18.33
MALES
7.043
5.261
FEMALES
expository
controlled
18
9.500
16.31
28
narrative
controlled
18
20.89.
12.63
28
25.29
15.36
narrative
free
18
21.39
15.03
28: 24.04
13.31
expository
free
18
12.61
10.97
28
16.25
16.09
7.149
LOW
15
25.38
16.59
15
18.40
11.51
16
24.94
14.81
15
21.27
11.25
16
18.44
17.44
15
14.20
15
7.306 16
narrative
controlled
15
26.80
13.89 . 16
narrative
free .
15
22.67
15.87
expository
free
15
11.60.
14.57
9.267
17.97
9.000 ' 6.47
expository
controlled
9.667
9.179
MIDDLE
HIGH
ACHIEVEMENT
S.D.
CONTROL
expository
controlled
SEX
mean
N gain
s cor e
9.526
87
Ex po si to ry C o n t r o l l e d Writing
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s °29
fo rm ati ons in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex of the
s t u d e n t and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
The comparison o f t h e sex o f a s t u d e n t with method o f i n s t r u c t i o n
was used t o determine i f males or females could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i c a n t l y
g r e a t e r number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i ­
c u l a r method.
The d a t a obt a in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i ­
c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and method of i n s t r u c t i o n (Table 10).
-
This
f
f i n d i n g le d t o t h e r e t e n t i o n of th e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
°29
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e when using number o f sentenc e
°30
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s
who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n in se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n with p i c t o r i a l i zing
and s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
The mean gain s co r e f o r number o f s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r th e
experimental group in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n was 11.57
with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 15.16.
The mean gain s c o r e f o r number of
s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r t h e c o n tr o l group in s en te n c e- ex p a n si o n was
7.043 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 5.261 (Table 9 ) .
The t h r e e way
a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o o f 0 . 5 4 , a s t a t i s t i c beyond the
.01 l e v e l (p = 0.4690) (Table 10).
This f i n d i n g led t o t h e r e t e n t i o n of
t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
°30
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r ­
ms!
n a t i o n s in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between male and female
students.
The mean gain s c o r e f o r number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r male
s t u d e n t s in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g was 9.500 with a s ta n d a rd
d e v i a t i o n of 16.31.
The mean gain s c o r e f o r number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r ­
mations f o r female s t u d e n t s in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g was 9.179
88
w ith a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 7.149 (Table 9 ) .
The t h r e e way a n a l y s i s of
v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o of 0 . 1 7 , a s t a t i s t i c beyond t h e .01 le vel
(p = 0.6808) (Table 10).
This f i n d i n g led to th e r e t e n t i o n of the null
hypothesis, H
.
0Sl
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s en te n c e t r a n s °32
fo rm at io ns in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between p r i o r a c h i e v e ­
ment and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
The comparison o f p r i o r achievement with method o f i n s t r u c t i o n was
used t o de te rm in e i f h ig h , middle o r low a c h i e v e r s could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i ­
c a n t l y g r e a t e r number o f sen te nc e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when i n s t r u c t e d with a
p a r t i c u l a r method.
The d a ta ob ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no
s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between p r i o r achievement and method of i n s t r u c ­
t i o n (Table 10).
This f i n d i n g led t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null hypo­
thesis, H
.
°32
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s °33
fo rm ati ons in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex of th e . .
s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
The comparison of t h e sex of a s t u d e n t with p r i o r achievement was
used t o de ter mi ne i f males or females could achiev e s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r
number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when analyzed by h ig h , middle or low
achievement groups .
The d a ta o b ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no
s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and p r i o r achievement (T able 10).
This f i n d i n g le d t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f th e nu ll h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
°33
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r °34
mations in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g among h ig h , medium and
low achievement groups.
The mean gain s c o r e f o r number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r high
a c h i e v e r s in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g was 9.667 with a s ta nda rd
d e v i a t i o n o f 7.306.
The mean gain s co r e f o r number of sen te nc e
89
T a b l e 10
Three-way ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores f o r Number of Sentence Transforma­
t i o n s in Exp os ito ry C o n t r o l l e d Writing
Source
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Squares
df
F
P
79.470
0.54
0.4690
NS
25.5189
0.17
0.6808
NS
Group
79.470
I » 34
Sex
25.5189
I
Achievement
17.516
2, 34
8.758
0.06
0.9427
NS
0.199
I , 34
0.199
0.00
0.9710
NS
Group x
Achievement
207.933
2, 34
103.967
0.70
0.5028
NS
Sex x
Achievement
15.533
2, 34
7.771
0.05
0.9490
NS
182.980
2, 34
91.490
0.62
0.5453
NS
5038.500
34
148.191
Group x
Sex
Group x Sex
x Achievement
Error'
* = s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l
NS = n o t s i g n i f i c a n t
5
34
90
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r middle a c h i e v e r s was 9.000 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n
of 6 .4 7 .
While t h e mean gain s co r e f o r number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a ­
t i o n s o f low a c h i e v e r s Was 9.267 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 17.97
(Table 9 ) .
The t h r e e way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o of
0 . 0 6 , a s t a t i s t i c t h a t was no t s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .01 l e v e l (p =
0.9427) (Table 10).
H
=
°35
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number of s en te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g among method of
i n s t r u c t i o n , sex o f s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
The comparison of t h e method o f i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and
p r i o r achievement was used to det ermi ne i f male o r female s t u d e n t s as
h ig h , middle o r low a c h ie v e r s could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r number
o f sen te nc e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The d a t a obt a in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n
among method o f i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement
(Table 10).
This f i n d i n g led t o t h e r e t e n t i o n of th e null h y p o t h e s i s ,
H
.
°35
N a r r a t i v e C o n t r o l l e d Writi ng
H
=
°36
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f sen te nc e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex of the
s t u d e n t and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
The comparison of t h e sex of a s t u d e n t with method of i n s t r u c t i o n
was used t o det ermi ne i f males o r females could achiev e s i g n i f i c a n t l y
g r e a t e r number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r­
t i c u l a r method.
The d a t a ob ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i
c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n (Table 11).
f i n d i n g led t o th e r e t e n t i o n of t h e nu ll h y p o t h e s i s , Hq
.
This
91
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e when using number of sen te nc e
°37
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s
who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n in se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n w ith p i c t o r i a l i z i n g
and s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
The mean gain s co r e f o r number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r the
experimental group in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n w ith p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n was 26.65
with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 14.86.
The mean gain s c o r e f o r number of
s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r th e c o n tr o l group in s e n t e n c e - e x p a n s i o n ,
was 20.48 with a s ta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 14.86 (Table 9 ) .
The t h r e e way
a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o o f 2 .5 6 , a s t a t i s t i c beyond the
.01 le v e l (p = 0.1192) (T able 11).
This f i n d i n g led t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f .
th e nu ll h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
°37
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r ­
ms
mations in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between male and female
students.
The mean gain s co r e f o r number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r male
s t u d e n t s in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g was 20.89 with a s ta n d a rd
d e v i a t i o n o f 12.63.
The mean gain s c o r e f o r number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r ­
mations f o r female s t u d e n t s in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g was 25.29
with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 15.36 (Table 9 ) .
The t h r e e way a n a l y s i s of
v a r ia n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o o f 0 . 0 6 , a s t a t i s t i c beyond t h e .01 level
(p = 0.8149) (Table 11).
This f i n d i n g le d t o th e r e t e n t i o n of th e null
hypothesis, H
°38
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s en te n c e t r a n s f o r °39
mations in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between p r i o r achievement
and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
The comparison o f p r i o r achievement with method o f i n s t r u c t i o n was
used t o de ter mi ne i f h ig h , middle o r low a c h i e v e r s could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i ­
c a n t l y g r e a t e r number o f sen te nc e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when i n s t r u c t e d with a
92
p a r t i c u l a r method.
The d a t a o b ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g ­
n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between p r i o r achievement and method of i n s t r u c t i o n
(T able 11).
H
.
°39
Hq
=
40
This f i n d i n g le d t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e nu ll h y p o t h e s i s ,
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm ati ons in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g between sex of th e
s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
The comparison o f t h e sex o f a s t u d e n t with p r i o r achievement was
used to de te rm in e i f males o r females could achieve s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r
number o f s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when analyzed by h i g h , middle or low
achievement groups.
The d a ta obta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no
s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and p r i o r achievement (Table 11).
These f i n d i n g s le d t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
°40
H
= There is no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number o f s en te n c e t r a n s °41
fo rm at io ns in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g among h i g h , medium
and low. achievement g r o u p s .
The mean gain s cor e f o r number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r high
a c h i e v e r s in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g was 26.80 with a s ta n d a rd
d e v i a t i o n o f 13.89.
The mean gain s co r e f o r number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r ­
mations f o r middle a c h i e v e r s was 25.38 with a s ta n d a rd d e v i a t i o n of 16.59.
While t h e mean gain s c o r e f o r number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s of low
a c h i e v e r s was 18.40 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 11.57 (T able 9 ) .
The
t h r e e way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o of 1 .7 3 , a s t a t i s t i c
t h a t was not s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .01 le v e l (p = 0.1924 (T able 11).
This f i n d i n g le d t o th e r e t e n t i o n of t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
°41
H
=
°42
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g among method of
i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
The comparison of t h e method o f i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and
93
T a b l e 11
Three-way ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores f o r Number of Sentence Transforma­
t i o n s in N a r r a t i v e C o n t r o l l e d Writing
Source
Group
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Squares
df
F
P
486.149
I , 34
486.149
2.56
0.1192
NS
10.587
I , 34
10.587
0.06
0.8149
NS
658.586
2, 34
329.293
I .73
0.1924 ■ NS
5.033
I , 34
5.033
0.03
0.8718
NS
Group x
Achievement
622.596
2, 34
.311.2 98
1 .60
0.2160
NS
Sex x
Achievement
150.123
2, 34
75.061
0.39
0.6770
NS
Group x Sex
x Achievement
934.251
2, 34
467,125
2.46
0.1009
NS
6468.633
34
190.254
Sex
Achievement
Group x
Sex
Error
* = s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l
NS = n o t s i g n i f i c a n t
94
p r i o r achievement was used to deter mine i f male o r female s t u d e n t s as
h i g h , middle o r low a c h i e v e r s could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r number
of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The d a ta o b ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n
among method o f i n s t r u c t i o n , sex o f s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement
(Table 11).
This f i n d i n g le d to th e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s .
N a r r a t i v e Free W riting
H
=
°43
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between sex o f th e s t u d e n t
and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
The comparison o f t h e sex of a s t u d e n t with method of i n s t r u c t i o n
was used to deter mine i f males o r females could achiev e s i g n i f i c a n t l y
g r e a t e r number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i ­
c u l a r method.
The d a ta obt a in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i ­
c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and method of i n s t r u c t i o n (Table 13).
This
f i n d i n g led to th e r e t e n t i o n o f th e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
°43
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e when using number of sen te nc e
°44
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s who
r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n in se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n with p i c t o r i a l i zing
and s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
The mean gain s c o r e f o r number of s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r the
experimental group in s en te n c e- ex p a n si o n with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n was 26.13
with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 14.33.
The mean gain s co r e f o r number of
s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r the c o n t r o l group in s en te n c e- ex p a n si o n was
19.87 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 13.02 (Table 9 ) .
The t h r e e way
a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o o f 8 .8 9 , a s t a t i s t i c beyond the
95
.01 l e v e l ( p - 0.0053) (Table 13).
This f i n d i n g led t o t h e r e j e c t i o n of
t h e nu ll hy p o th e si s H. There is a d i f f e r e n c e in number o f sen te nc e
. °44
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e
i n s t r u c t i o n in se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n and s t u d e n t s who
r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
Hq
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number o f s e n t e n c e t r a n s 45
fo rm ati ons in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between male and female
students.
The mean gain s c o r e f o r number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r male
s t u d e n t s in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g was 21.39 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n
of 15.03.
The mean ga in s co r e f o r number o f s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s
f o r female s t u d e n t s in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g was 24.04 with a s ta n d a rd
d e v i a t i o n of 13.31 (Table 9 ) .
The t h r e e way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d
an F r a t i o of 0 . 0 0 , a s t a t i s t i c beyond t h e .01 le v el (p = 0.9528) (Table
13).
This f i n d i n g led t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
°45
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s °46
fo rm at io ns in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between p r i o r achievement
and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
The comparison of p r i o r achievement with method o f i n s t r u c t i o n was
used t o de ter mi ne i f h i g h , middle or low achievers, could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i - .
c a n t l y g r e a t e r number o f s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when i n s t r u c t e d with a
p a r t i c u l a r method.
The d a ta obt a in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no
s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between p r i o r achievement and method of i n s t r u c ­
t i o n (Table 13).
This f i n d i n g led t o t h e r e t e n t i o n of t h e null hypo­
thesis, H
.
°46
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s °47
fo rm ati ons in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g between sex o f t h e s t u d e n t
and p r i o r achievement.
96
The comparison of t h e sex of a s t u d e n t with p r i o r achievement was
used t o de ter mi ne i f males or females could achiev e s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r
number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when analyzed by h ig h , middle or low
achievement groups.
The d a ta obta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h e r e
was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and p r i o r achievement (Table
12).
The t h r e e way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o of 4 . 7 5 , a
s t a t i s t i c beyond t h e .01 l e v e l (p = 0.0052) (Table 13).
This f i n d i n g led
to t h e r e j e c t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
. Males t h a t were high
°47
a c h i e v e r s performed b e t t e r than middle o r low a c h i e v e r s , male or females.
The mean ga in s c o r e f o r number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r high
achievement males was 40.34 .
Females t h a t were middle and low a c h ie v e r s
performed b e t t e r than middle or low ac h ie v in g males (Table 12).
Table 12
Means f o r Number of Sentence T rans fo rm atio ns f o r t h e I n t e r a c t i o n of Sex
and Achievement in N a r r a t i v e Free Writing
Achievement
Males
Females
H
ms
N
High
Mean
N•
Middle
Mean
N
4
40.34
4
17.50
10
11
19.7
12
25.50
5
Low
Mean
17.00
30.5
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r ­
mations in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g among hig h , medium and low
achievement groups.
The mean gain s cor e f o r number of sen te nc e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r high
a c h i e v e r s in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g was 22.67 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n
97
T a b l e 13
Three-way ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores f o r Number o f Sentence Transforma­
t i o n s in N a r r a t i v e Free Writing
Sum o f
Squares
Source
Mean
Squares
df
F
P
1489.980
I , 34
1489.980
8.89
0.0053
*
0.597
I , 34
■ 0.597
0.00
0.9528
NS
Achievement
369.374
2, 34
184.687
I .10
0.3439
NS
Group x
Sex
580.769
I , 34
580.769
3.46
0.0714
NS
Group x
Achievement
622.596
2, 34
311.298
1 .86
0.1716
NS
2, 34
795.713
4.75
0.0052
*
355.546
2, 34
177,773
1.06
0.3575
NS
5699.533
34
167.633
Group
Sex
Sex x
Achievement
Group x Sex
x Achievement
Er ror
1591.43
* = s ig n i f ic a n t a t the
NS = n o t s i g n i f i c a n t .
.01 l e v e l
98
o f 15.87.
.
The mean gain s co r e f o r number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s
f o r middle a c h i e v e r s was 24.94 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 14.81.
While t h e mean gain s c o r e f o r number o f s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s of low
a c h i e v e r s was 21.27 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 11.25 (Table 9 ) .
The
t h r e e way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o of 1.1 0 , a s t a t i s t i c
t h a t was not s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .01 l e v e l (p = 0.3439 (Table 13).
This f i n d i n g led t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
°48
Hq
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s 49
fo rm ati ons in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g among method o f i n s t r u c t i o n ,
sex o f s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
The comparison o f t h e method o f i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and
p r i o r achievement was used t o determine i f male o r female s t u d e n t s as
h ig h , middle or low a c h i e v e r s could a c h ie v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r number
o f s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The d a t a o b ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n
among method o f i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement
(Table 13).
This f i n d i n g led to th e r e t e n t i o n o f th e null h y p o t h e s i s ,
H
.
°49
Ex po si to ry Free Writing
H
=
°50
There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s fo rm at io ns in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between sex o f th e s t u d e n t
and method of i n s t r u c t i o n .
The comparison o f t h e sex o f a s t u d e n t with method o f i n s t r u c t i o n
was used t o de ter mi ne i f males o r females could achiev e s i g n i f i c a n t l y
g r e a t e r number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r­
t i c u l a r method.
The d a ta obt a in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i ­
c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n (Table 14).
This
99
f i n d i n g le d t o t h e r e t e n t i o n of th e nu ll h y p o t h e s i s , H
°50
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e when using number of sen te nc e
°51
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between s t u d e n t s who
r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n in s e n te n c e - e x p a n si o n with p i c t o r i a l i z i n g and
s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n only in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
The mean ga in s co r e f o r number o f s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r the
experimental
group
in s en te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n was 14.87
with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 18.88.
The mean gain s co r e f o r number of
s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r t h e c o n t r o l group in se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n was
14.78 w ith a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 18.33 (Table 9 ) .
The t h r e e way
a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o o f 0 . 5 8 , a s t a t i s t i c beyond th e
.01 le v el (p = 0.4517) (Table 14).
This f i n d i n g led t o t h e r e t e n t i o n of
t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
°51
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r °52
mations in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between male and female s t u ­
de nts .
The mean gain s co r e f o r number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r male
s t u d e n t s in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g was 12.61 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n .
of 10.97.
The mean gain s co r e f o r number of s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r
female s t u d e n t s i n e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g was 16.25 with a s ta n d a rd
d e v i a t i o n of 16.09 (Table 9 ) .
The t h r e e way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d
an F r a t i o o f 1 . 2 1 , a s t a t i s t i c beyond t h e .01 le vel (p = 0.2786) (Table
14).
This f i n d i n g le d t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , Hq .
52
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s °53 . fo rm at io ns in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between p r i o r achievement
and method o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
The comparison of p r i o r achievement with method o f i n s t r u c t i o n was
used t o de te rm in e i f h ig h , middle o r low a c h ie v e r s could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i ­
c a n t l y g r e a t e r number o f s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when i n s t r u c t e d with a
I
100
.
p a r t i c u l a r method.
The d a ta ob ta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no
s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between p r i o r achievement and method o f i n s t r u c ­
t i o n (Table 14).
This f i n d i n g led to t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null hypo­
thesis, H
°53
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number o f s en te n c e t r a n s °54
fo rm at io ns in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g between sex o f th e s t u d e n t
and p r i o r achievement.
The comparison of t h e sex of a s t u d e n t with p r i o r achievement was
used t o deter mine i f males o r females could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r
number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when analyze d by h i g h , middle or low
achievement gro ups.
The d a t a obta in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no
s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and p r i o r achievement (Table 14).
This f i n d i n g led to t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
. °54
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s °55
fo rm ati ons in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g among h i g h , medium and
low achievement groups.
The mean gain s co r e f o r number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r high
a c h i e v e r s in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g was 11.60 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n
o f 14.57.
The mean gain s c o r e f o r number of s ent en ce t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r
middle a c h i e v e r s was 18.44 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 17.44.
While t h e
mean gain s co r e f o r number of s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s o f low a c h ie v e rs
was 14.20 with a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 9.526 (Table 9 ) .
The t h r e e way
a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d an F r a t i o o f 1.41, a s t a t i s t i c t h a t was not
s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .01 le v el (p = 0.2582) (Table 14).
This fi n d i n g
le d t o t h e r e t e n t i o n of t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
°55
H
= There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s °56
fo rm at io ns in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g among method o f i n s t r u c ­
t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement.
101
T a b l e 14
Three-way ANOVA Comparing Gain Scores f o r Number of Sentence Transforma­
t i o n in Exp os ito ry Free Writing
Source
. Sum o f
Squares
Mean
Squares
df
F
P
I , 34
113.485
0.58
0.4517
NS
Sex
237.388
I , 34
237.388
I .21
0.2786
' NS
Achievement
552.002
2, 34
276.001
1 .41
0.2582
NS
Group x
Sex
410.104
I , 34
410.104
2.09
0.1570
NS
Group x
Achievement
887;328
2, 34
443.664
2.27
0.1192
NS
Sex x
Achievement
340.234
2, 34
170.117
0.87
0.4286
NS
44.080
0.23
0.7996 . NS
Group x Sex
x Achievement
Error
88.161
6657.867
* = s ig n if ic a n t a t the
NS = n o t s i g n i f i c a n t
.01 l e v e l
*3CO
113.485
CM
Group
34
195.819
10,2
The comparison of t h e method o f i n s t r u c t i o n , sex o f s t u d e n t and
p r i o r achievement was used t o deter mine i f male Or female s t u d e n t s as
h i g h , middle o r low a c h i e v e r s could a ch ie ve s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r number
o f s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s when i n s t r u c t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r method.
The d a t a obt a in e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n
among method of i n s t r u c t i o n , sex of s t u d e n t and p r i o r achievement (Table
14).
This f i n d i n g led t o t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e null h y p o t h e s i s , H
.
°56
RELATED OBSERVATIONS
In t h i s s t u d y , T - u n i t le ngth was used as one measure o f the depen­
dent v a ria b le , s y n ta c tic m aturity.
Exp os ito ry f r e e w r i t i n g produced the
l o n g e s t T - u n i t s , n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g produced th e nex t l o n g e s t ,
n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g t h e nex t l o n g e s t and e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d
w riting the s h o rte s t.
From examination o f Table 15, i t appea rs t h a t
p o s i t i v e changes occu rr ed in t h e w r i t i n g o f both experimental and con­
tro l groups.
The p r e t e s t mean T - u n i t le n g th f o r th e experimental group
was 6.58 words and t h e p o s t t e s t mean T - u n i t length was 8.17 words.
The
p r e t e s t mean T - u n i t l e n g th f o r t h e c o n t r o l group was 6.60 words and t h e
p o s t t e s t mean T - u n i t le ngt h was 7.79.
103
T a b l e 15
Summary of Mean T - u n i t Length
mean T - u n i t le ngth
p r e t e s t _______
Experimental
expository controlled
n arrative controlled
narrative free
expository free
Gain Score
1.265
2.435
1.187
1 .452
5.765
5.570
7.452
7.534
0.7522
2.135
1.087
0.8304
7.03
. 8.01
8.64
8.99
x = 8.17
6.40
7.46
8.57
8.71
k
II
X = 6.60
X
I
5.652
5.326
7.583
7.875
CO
UO
II
Control
expository controlled
narrative controlled
narrative free
expository free
IX
X = 6.58
mean T - u n i t length
p o s t t e s t ______
x = 7.79
Number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s was used as a second measure o f
t h e dependent v a r i a b l e , s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y .
■■
.
;
Children produced the g r e a t -
e s t number of s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g , the
nex t g r e a t e s t in n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g , t h e next g r e a t e s t in
ex po sit or y, f r e e w r i t i n g and c h i l d r e n produced t h e l e a s t in e x p o s i t o r y
controlled w riting.
Thus c h i l d r e n produced a g r e a t e r number of s ent en ce
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in n a r r a t i v e w r i t i n g than they did in e x p o s i t o r y w r i t i n g .
For t h e exper imen ta l group, t h e p r e t e s t o v e r a l l mean number of sentence
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s was 17.94 words and t h e p o s t t e s t o v e r a l l mean was 37.74
words, w hi le t h e c o n t r o l g ro u p ' s o v e r a l l p r e t e s t mean was 14.44 and th e
p o s t t e s t mean was 29.99.
From examination of Table 16, i t appears t h a t
p o s i t i v e changes occu rr ed in t h e n a r r a t i v e and e x p o s i t o r y f r e e and con­
tro lle d writing.
104
T a b l e 16
Summary of Number of Sentence T rans for m atio ns
Mean Number of
Sentence
Tr ans for m atio ns
Pretest
Experimental
expository controlled
n arrative controlled
n a r r a t i v e free,
expository free
Control
expository controlled
narrative controlled;
narrative free
expository fre e
Gain Score
12.13
13.26
21.52
24.83
11.57
26.65
26.13
14.87
X = 17.94
x = 19.80
11.35
10.83
20.83
14.78
7.04
20.48
19.87
14.78
X = 14.44
x = 15.04
Mean Number of
Sentence
Tr ans for m atio ns
Posttest
23.70
39.91
47.65
■ 39.70 .
x = 37.74
■
18.393
31.31
40.70
29.56
x = 29.99
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The r e s e a r c h e r has r e p o r t e d t h e f i n d i n g s r e l a t e d t o t h e r e l a t i o n ­
sh ip of t h e independent v a r i a b l e s o f s e x , p r i o r achievement, and group
on t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s of mean T - u n i t le ngth and number of s ent en ce
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in n a r r a t i v e and e x p o s i t o r y f r e e and c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g .
The fo ll o w i n g summarizes t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
1.
Both ex perimental and c o n t r o l groups made gai ns on s e l e c t e d
syntactic factors.
2.
There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t gain s cor es
between t h e f o u r modes of w r i t i n g , b u t o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e means showed
t h a t th o s e s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e in s e n te n c e -
105
expansion w it h p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n had h ig h e r gai ns than t h o s e s t u d e n t s who
r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e in only s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
3.
There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number of s e n te n c e t r a n s ­
fo rm ati ons and n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g .
Stu de nt s who r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c ­
t i o n and p r a c t i c e in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n and p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n were s i g n i ­
f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than th o s e s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n and p ra c ­
t i c e in only s e n t e n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
4.
There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in number o f sen te nc e t r a n s ­
fo rm at io ns and t h e t h r e e o t h e r modes o f w r i t i n g but t h e observed number
o f s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s was h i g h e r f o r t h e experimental group.
5.
There were few s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s ; t h e ga ins made
by t h e s t u d e n t s were n o t i n f l u e n c e d by whether th e s t u d e n t s were in one
group or t h e o t h e r , wh ether they were male o r fe ma le, o r t h e i r p r i o r
achievement.
There was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and p r i o r
achievement in n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g . , High a ch ie vin g males performed
b e t t e r than middle o r low ac h ie v in g males o r fem al es.
6.
Child ren produced t h e g r e a t e s t number of s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a ­
t i o n s in n a r r a t i v e w r i t i n g .
7.
Child ren produced t h e l e a s t s y n t a c t i c ga ins in e x p o s i t o r y
controlled w riting.
8.
The mean l e n g th o f T - u n i t s was a f f e c t e d by the mode of w r i t i n g .
The d i r e c t i o n o f t h e e f f e c t was as f o l l o w s :
Expository F r e e > N a r r a ti v e
F r e e > N a r r a t i v e C o n t r o l l e d > Expo sitory C o n t r o l l e d .
9.
The number o f s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s was a f f e c t e d by the mode
of w r i t i n g .
The d i r e c t i o n of t h e e f f e c t was as f o ll o w s :
Narrative
F r e e > N a r r a t i v e C o n t r o l l e d > Expo sitory F r e e > Expository C o n t r o l l e d .
106
Chapter V
IMPLICATIONS AND.RECOMMENDATIONS
This stud y was designed t o . d e t e r m i n e th e r e l a t i o n s h i p of i n s t r u c t i o n
and p r a c t i c e o f se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n on t h e s y n t a c t i c
m a t u r i t y o f grade s i x students;.:.,.The w r i t t e n .compositions o f t h e s e s t u de n ts were compared with w r i t t e n compositions o f grade s i x s t u d e n t s who
had r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e in only s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
Of
i n t e r e s t to t h i s stu dy was t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f sex and p r i o r achievement
. 1 . .y - .' ’
■ "
'
to determine whether t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s in th e i n s t r u c t i o n a l te chn iq ues
were b e n e f i c i a l to a p a r t i c u l a r group.
As a r e s u l t of t h e a n a l y s i s Of t h e d a t a p r e s e n te d in Chapter IV,
s e v e ra l c on c lu s io n s were reached in. terms o f s en te nce- exp an din g programs,
p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n and s t u d e n t w r i t i n g .
CONCLUSIONS
I.
A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between t h e two s e n te n c e i
•
.
expansion te c h n i q u e s in only one mode, n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g .
Students
who r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e in se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n and p i c t o r ­
i a l i z a t i o n produced more sen te nc e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s than t h o s e . s t u d e n t s
who r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e in only s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in th e number o f sen te nc e t r a n s ­
fo rm ati ons in t h e o t h e r t h r e e modes o f w r i t i n g : n a r r a t i v e c o n t r o l l e d ^
107
e x p o s i t o r y f r e e and c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g .
However, t h e observed number of
s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s was h i g h e r f o r t h e experimental group.
There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean T - u n i t ga in s c o r e s in
t h e f o u r modes o f w r i t i n g , but th o s e s t u d e n t s who re c e iv e d i n s t r u c t i o n and
p r a c t i c e in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n had h i g h e r gains
than t h o s e s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e in only
s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n .
The main o b s e r v a t i o n emerging from t h e f i n d i n g s was t h a t both t e c h ­
niques were e f f e c t i v e in i n c r e a s i n g s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y as r e p r e s e n t e d by
s e l e c t e d s y n t a c t i c f a c t o r s , mean T - u n i t le n g th and number of sen te nc e
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in a l l w r i t i n g modes.
Thus, i t may be concluded t h a t
both te c h n i q u e s a re a p p r o p r i a t e f o r elem ent ary language a r t s programs.
2.
In t h i s s t u d y , T - u n i t le ngth was used as one measure of s y n t a c ­
t i c m aturity.
scores.
Data from o t h e r s t u d i e s were used to compare mean T - u n i t
Although both groups in t h i s s tu dy made gains ( p o s t t e s t minus
p r e t e s t ) , i t appea rs t h a t s t u d e n t s in t h i s st ud y wrote s h o r t e r T - u n i t s in
f r e e w r i t i n g than did s t u d e n t s in o t h e r s t u d i e s .
In Hu nt' s (1965) s tu d y ,
grade f o u r s t u d e n t s averaged 8.60 words per T - u n i t .
Perron (1976) found
t h a t grade f o u r s t u d e n t s averaged 8.15 words pe r T - u n i t .
Grade seven
s t u d e n t s in O 'H a re 's (1973) i n v e s t i g a t i o n averaged 9.66 words per T - u n i t .
These d i f f e r e n c e s may be accounted f o r by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s e t h r e e
s t u d i e s developed a y e a r long i n s t r u c t i o n a l program o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l
grammar a c t i v i t i e s , w hil e i t appeared t h a t s t u d e n t s in the p r e s e n t study
were a b le t o a p p r o p r i a t e l y i n c r e a s e t h e i r s y n t a c t i c performance as measured
by T - u n i t l e n g t h i n a r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t i n s t r u c t i o n a l p e r i o d .
Further,: in
108
pre vio us s t u d i e s o f s e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g , r e s e a r c h e r s u t i l i z e d a combina­
t i o n o f s en te n c e m an ip u la ti o n programs which include d s en te nc e-com bin in g,
se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n and s e n t e n c e - s u b s t i t u t i o n while t h i s s tu dy was l i m i t e d
t o only s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n t e c h n i q u e s .
An o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e r e s u l t s r e v e a l e d . t h a t s t u d e n t s who p r a c t i c e d
s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n and p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n had higher.mean T - u n i t gain
.
s co r es in c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g than t h o s e s t u d e n t s who p r a c t i c e d only
sentence-expansion.
differentiated.
However, t h e d i f f e r e n c e s could n o t be s t a t i s t i c a l l y
In comparing d a ta from Hunt's' (1970) stu dy o f c o n t r o l ­
le d r e w r i t i n g , i t was found t h a t grade s i x s t u d e n t s averaged 6.84 words
pe r T - u n i t .
I t appeared t h a t t h e experimental group in t h i s study wrote
lo n g e r T - u n i t s , 8.17 words per T - u n i t , th a n s t u d e n t s in th e Hunt (1970)
s t u d y ; while t h e c o n t r o l group in t h i s stu dy scored about th e same,
7.79 words per T - u n i t , as Hunt's grade s i x s t u d e n t s .
3.
An a d d i t i o n a l measure of s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y was t h e number of
s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s .
Overall o b s e r v a t i o n s demonstrated t h a t s t u ­
de nts in both the experimental and c o n t r o l groups almost doubled the
number o f s en te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in both c o n t r o l l e d and f r e e w r i t i n g
from p r e t e s t t o t h e p o s t t e s t (Table 16).
Both Hunt (1965) and O'Donnell (1967) i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e number of
sentence-combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s and dis co v e re d t h a t t h e number of
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in c r e a s e d as s u b j e c t s grew o l d e r .
Hunt (1965) r e p o r t e d
t h a t t h e most im p o r ta n t developmental t r e n d was an i n c r e a s e in a d j e c t i v e
c l a u s e s (a fo u r f o l d i n c r e a s e from grade f o u r to grade t w e l v e ) .
He
109
f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e nominal and a d v e r b ia l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s a l s o
increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y .
In examining t h e d a t a f o r s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i t appeared t h a t
s t u d e n t s could be helped t o w r i t e l o n g e r , more mature and i n t e r e s t i n g
se n te n c e s in t h e i r composition through i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e in
sentence-expansion.
I t i s beyond t h e scope o f t h i s s tu dy t o for mu lat e
which ty pe o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n (nom inal, r e l a t i v e and a d v e r b i a l ) produced
the highest gain.
on ly.
The d a ta were analyzed f o r cumulative t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s
I t may be t h a t f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s o f t h e s e d a ta could demonstrate
which type of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s were a f f e c t e d by th e s e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g .
programs.
4.
Researchers have i n d i c a t e d t h e need t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e r e l a t i o n ­
sh ip o f v a ry in g types of w r i t i n g to s y n t a c t i c complexity.
Braddock
(1963) s t a t e d t h a t v a r i a t i o n s in modes of d i s c o u r s e may have more e f f e c t
than v a r i a t i o n s in t o p i c s .
San J o s e (1972) found t h a t d i f f e r e n t modes d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y
in T - u n i t measures.
She found t h a t c h i l d r e n produced more mature l a n ­
guage in e x p o s i t o r y w r i t i n g than in n a r r a t i v e w r i t i n g and t h a t th e mode
was t h e s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d to s y n t a c t i c complexity
r a t h e r than o t h e r v a r i a b l e s such as s e x , i n t e l l i g e n c e , o r rea din g s c o r e s .
C o n s i s t e n t with San J o s e ' s f i n d i n g s (197 2) , t h i s stu dy confirms t h a t
w r i t i n g mode i s t h e v a r i a b l e t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d to s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y in
th e two s e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g programs.
In t h i s s tu d y , c h i l d r e n produced
t h e h i g h e s t mean T - u n i t gain s co r es in e x p o s i t o r y f r e e w r i t i n g and
produced t h e g r e a t e s t number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in n a r r a t i v e
no
w r i t i n g , both f r e e and c o n t r o l l e d .
Ch ild ren produced th e l e a s t s y n t a c ­
t i c m a t u r i t y in e x p o s i t o r y c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g , as measured by mean
T - u n i t gain s c o r e s and number of s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s ,
These f i n d ­
ings a l s o s u b s t a n t i a t e r e s e a r c h by Maimon and Nodine (1978) who conclu­
ded t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s in s y n t a c t i c s k i l l could be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o types
of w ritin g .
5.
Since t h e expansion and drawing a c t i v i t i e s were s e q u e n t i a l in
n a t u r e , they g e n e r a l l y followed a n a r r a t i v e f r e e w r i t i n g mode; each com­
p l e t e d s e t o f expansions t o l d a s t o r y .
This may have been a f a c t o r t h a t
c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e found in the number o f s ent en ce
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s between t h e two s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n programs in n a r r a t i v e
free writing.
A second f a c t o r
as M o f f e tt (1968) apd Perron (1976) su ggested was
t h a t elem ent ary school s t u d e n t s were most f l u e n t in n a r r a t i v e w r i t i n g
because t h a t was th e mode in which they have had most p r a c t i c e , both in
w r i t i n g and in r e a d i n g .
(Examples o f se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n with p i c t o r i a l -
i z a t i o n ap pe a r in Appendix E).
6.
This study was an e x p l o r a t i o n i n t o th e r e l a t i o n s h i p of vis u al
and verbal a s s o c i a t i o n s .
Language
acc ord in g t o Bruner (1967) p r e d i s ­
posed t h e mind to c e r t a i n modes of th o u g h t.
Drawings, however, augmented
and e m be ll is he d t h e s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n t s t h a t go beyond words.
In t h i s
'
s t u d y , o b s e r v a t i o n s s u g g e s t t h a t p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n embodied a vie w poi nt,
a way o f looking a t r e a l i t y ; by encoding id e as in drawing, t h e s tu d e n t s
in t h e experimental group were able, t o r e p r e s e n t an id ea more com ple tely.
St u d e n ts were a b l e t o a c q u i r e a language f l e x i b i l i t y , by usi ng p i c t o r i a l
Ill
symbols t o move th i n k i n g and e x p r e s s io n from a b s t r a c t t o c o n c r e t e mean­
i n g s ; c o n s t r u c t i n g drawings t h a t were d e l i b e r a t e , d e t a i l e d and sequen­
tial .
Thus , t h e le a r n e r - p r o d u c e d drawings s t i m u l a t e d expansions and
in c r e a s e d t h e number of embedded s t r u c t u r e s .
(Examples of s e n t e n c e -
expansion and s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n a r e found in
Appendix E ) .
P i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n not only r e v e a l e d in fo r m a t io n about the s t u d e n t
b u t a l s o t h e n a t u r e o f thoug ht and pro b le m -s o lv in g .
Stu de nt s in the
experimental group, t h o s e who r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e in
s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n used drawing as a p r e - w r i t i n g
a c t i v i t y , a kind o f rough map or ide a s k e t c h i n g o f what they intende d to
say in words.
P i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n was t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of an i d e a ; l a n ­
guage gave i t i t s e x p l i c i t meaning.
language s yst em s, ve rbal and v i s u a l .
Thus, s t u d e n t s had a c c e ss t o two
I f one language did no t f a c i l i t a t e
t h e i r t h i n k i n g , they could use th e o t h e r .
I n i t i a l l y s t u d e n t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o draw t h e i r id e a and then w r i t e
a. kernel s e n te n c e t o d e s c r i b e t h e i d e a .
Stu de nts were t o co ntin ue draw­
ing p i c t u r e s to develop t h e i n i t i a l ide a and g e n e r a t e s e n t e n c e e x p an s io ns .
However, o b s e r v a t i o n s d urin g t h e p r a c t i c e a c t i v i t i e s demon­
s t r a t e d t h a t some s t u d e n t s began with a d ra w in g -w ri t in g sequence but
would o f t e n r e v e r s e t h e p r o c e s s , w r i t i n g f i r s t then drawing as expansions
began t o flow.
Whenever ide as began t o s t a g n a t e o r "they were s tuc k" f o r
new e x p a n s io n s , t h e s e s t u d e n t s would r e t u r n t o a drawing f i r s t sequence.
Stu de nts were using p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n t o c o n ce iv e , n u r t u r e and expand
ideas.
In o t h e r words, s t u d e n t s were v i s u a l l y t a l k i n g t o themselves in
o r d e r t o d i s c o v e r and develop an idea worth communicating.
Stu de nt s used
112
drawing as a b r a i n s t o r m i n g a c t i v i t y .
Although b r a in s to r m in g was u s u a l l y
a ve rbal i d e a - g e n e r a t i n g a c t i v i t y , i t could a l s o ta k e a v i s u a l form.
According t o McKim (1980) v is u a l b r a i n s t o r m i n g was a b a s i c s t r a t e g y f o r
e x p l o r a t o r y g ra p h ic i d e a t i o n and a remedial s t r a t e g y whenever t h i n k in g
had become s t a l e .
Thus, s t u d e n t s in t h e experimental group t r a n s l a t e d
th i n k i n g i n t o both g r a p h i c and ve rba l language and were fo r c e d t o con­
s i d e r and expand t h e i r concept in both modes.
Therefore, p i c t o r i a l i z a -
t i o n i s recommended as a problem -solving a c t i v i t y , t o help " get ideas
o f f t h e ground."
7.
The n a t u r e o f . t h e le ss o n s was a unique f e a t u r e o f t h i s study in
t h a t a m u l t i p l i c i t y of methods, m a t e r i a l s ( i n c l u d i n g puppets) and e x e r ­
c i s e s were used .
S i m i l a r to P e r r o n ' s (1976) c o n c l u s i o n , i t appeared
t h a t t h e s e a c t i v i t y - o r i e n t a t e d le s s o n s were n o t only s u c c e s s f u l in
encouraging s y n t a c t i c growth, b u t they were a l s o s u c c e s s f u l in motiva­
t i n g th e s t u d e n t s t o manipul at e language in an e n jo y a b l e f a s h i o n .
The
ga ins achieved by both groups demonstrated th e value of s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d
m a t e r i a l s and games f o r a language a r t s c u rr ic u lu m .
The informal n a t u r e
of t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s combined with t h e s t r u c t u r a l e x e r c i s e s allowed f o r
e x p e r i e n t i a l language m a n ip u la ti o n .
The e x p e r i e n t i a l e x e r c i s e s t o g e t h e r
with d i s c u s s i o n co ncerning t h e rea son s f o r and ways of m a nip ula tin g
s e n t e n c e s , phrases and p a r t s of s t o r i e s appeared t o c o n t r i b u t e to the
overall gains.
In summary, t h e program seems t o have been s u c c e s s f u l in the a p p l i ­
c a t i o n o f t h e p o i n t t h a t "grammar needs t o be combined w ith r h e t o r i c "
(Weaver, 1979, p. 87 ).
Stude nts need not only to p r a c t i c e ways of
113
b u i l d i n g s e n te n c e s b u t to d i s c u s s which ways a r e more e f f e c t i v e and the
rea son s why.
Thus, i t can be concluded t h a t an i n t e g r a t e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l
program in s e n te n c e b u i l d i n g which invol ve d the use of o ra l p r a c t i c e ,
cued and uncued l i n g u i s t i c approaches and a m u l t i p l i c i t y o f methods,
m a t e r i a l s and e x e r c i s e s was s u c c e s s f u l in i n c r e a s i n g s y n t a c t i c flu e nc y
in t h e w r i t i n g of grade s i x s t u d e n t s .
8.
Although t h e stu dy did not measure a t t i t u d e o f t h e s t u d e n t s
toward t h e two se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs, o b s e r v a t i o n of
t h e e x p e r i e n t i a l a c t i v i t i e s demonstrated t h a t both programs were s u c c e s s ­
ful in m o ti v a ti n g t h e s t u d e n t s to manip ula te language.
All grade s i x
s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e study were always eager t o p r a c t i c e
s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n s or se nt e n c e - e x p a n si o n s with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n .
St u ­
de nt s were keen to expand kernel s e n t e n c e s , add more s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s ,
and embed s t r u c t u r e s as well as o r a l l y s h ar e e f f o r t s with c la s s m a t e s .
The classroom t e a c h e r i d e n t i f i e d f o u r low ac h ie v in g s t u d e n t s (3 male, I
female) in t h e exper imen ta l group who had p r e v i o u s l y been r e l u c t a n t to
p a r t i c i p a t e in any oral o r w r i t t e n language a c t i v i t i e s and as a r e s u l t
of o v e r a l l low grade s i x performance were being r e t a i n e d f o r an a d d i ­
t i o n a l y e a r o f remedial i n s t r u c t i o n .
These f o u r r e l u c t a n t s t u d e n t s
p a r t i c i p a t e d w i l l i n g l y , v o l u n t e e r i n g t o s h ar e t h e i r se nte n c e - e x p a n si o n s
and made ga in s in a l l measures of s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y .
A f t e r t h r e e weeks
of i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs, s t u d e n t s in both groups wrote a c o l l a b o r a t i v e
l e t t e r t o t h e r e s e a r c h e r , which demonstrated the general s t u d e n t a t t i ­
tude toward t h e program.
A sample i s in c lu de d in Appendix F.
"
114
9.
These d a ta concerning th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t u d e n t s ' sex
and o t h e r v a r i a b l e s le d t o th e c o n c lu s io n t h a t sex was a f a c t o r in n a r ­
ra tiv e free w riting.
High ac h ie v in g males performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y
b e t t e r than any of t h e o t h e r groups in t h e number o f s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r ­
m a tio ns .
This f i n d i n g confirms t h e r e s e a r c h o f Young (1971) who sugges­
t e d t h a t a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l tec hn iq ues might be a d v i s a b l e
f o r male s t u d e n t s in w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n .
High a c h ie v in g males can
a p p a r e n t l y be helped t o w r i t e l o n g e r , more mature and i n t e r e s t i n g s en ­
te n c e s in t h e i r n a r r a t i v e compositions through i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e
in s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n t e c h n i q u e s .
10.
C o r r e l a t i o n s between p r i o r language achievement s c o r e s and
s y n t a c t i c f a c t o r s found in f r e e w r i t i n g and c o n t r o l l e d r e w r i t i n g i n d i c a ­
te d t h a t ga ins were found a t a l l a b i l i t y l e v e l s .
St u d e n ts who scored low
on p r i o r achievement appeared to have an equal chance of ga in in g in
s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y with both sen te nc e b u i l d i n g t e c h n i q u e s .
I t may be
concluded t h a t such tec hni qu es were u s ef u l f o r improving s t u d e n t w r i t i n g
a t any a b i l i t y l e v e l .
The Canadian T e s t of Basic S k i l l s does not p r e ­
d i c t which s t u d e n t s w i l l make gains in s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y .
The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study s ugges te d t h a t s e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g t e c h ­
niques a r e e f f e c t i v e and v a l u a b l e during p r e w r it in g ,, w r i t i n g , and r e w r i t ­
ing s t a g e s , s i n c e they encourage w r i t i n g t h a t c o n ta i n s in c r e a s e d number
of m o d i f i e r s and embedded s t r u c t u r e s , as well as more s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s .
115
IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTION
R e s u lt s of t h i s st udy have added f u r t h e r su pp ort t h a t t h e r e is val ue
in having s t u d e n t s p r a c t i c e s e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g t e c h n i q u e s .
Since both
s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n programs were demonstrated to be e f f e c t i v e , e duca to rs
could f i n d t h e s e programs b e n e f i c i a l f o r implementation in elementary
language a r t s c urr ic u lu m .
As noted e a r l i e r , p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n should be c o n s id e re d an impor tan t
p a r t of t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s .
Educators need to be c o g n iz a n t t h a t a g r e a t
deal o f t h i n k i n g and communicating ta k e s p la ce v i s u a l l y .
Drawing helps
t o s k et c h i d e a s , t o b r i n g vague images i n t o focus and t o fo r m u la t e the
w r i t t e n word.
The n a t u r e of th e i n s t r u c t i o n a l program which u t i l i z e s a range of
m u l t i - s e n s o r y approaches had i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r m o ti v a ti n g s t u d e n t s to
w r i t e e f f e c t i v e l y as well as to improve t h e i r w r i t i n g s k i l l s .
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
1.
There was s y n t a c t i c growth produced by both se n te n c e - e x p a n si o n
treatm ents.
F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h should det ermi ne whether gai ns made pos­
s i b l e by t h i s s e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g program remain with th e s t u d e n t s over a
lo n g e r pe rio d of tim e.
Longi tudin al s t u d i e s a r e n e ce s sa ry i n t h i s
regard.
2.
F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e b e n e f i t s of using s en te n c e- ex p a n si o n
with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n a t t h e p r e w r i t i n g s t a g e would be u s e f u l .
I t would
be r e l e v a n t t o d i s c o v e r i f younger s t u d e n t s in th e e a r l y s t a g e s of the
w r i t i n g proc ess respond s i m i l a r l y t o s e n te n c e b u i l d i n g t r e a t m e n t s .
116
3.
F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h should be undertaken to de ter mi ne t h e b e n e f i t s
o f using s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n a t the r e w r i t i n g s t a g e .
4.
o f tim e.
The t h r e e week pe ri o d u t i l i z e d by t h i s study was a s h o r t period
Would s i m i l a r r e s u l t s occur i f t h e stu dy took p l a c e over a
fo rt y- w ee k p e ri o d ( t h e normal pe ri o d of i n s t r u c t i o n , f o r s t u d e n t s to
p ro g r e s s from one grade le v e l t o t h e n e x t ) ?
5.
F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h should be conducted t o a naly ze which type of
s e n te n c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s (n o m i n a l, r e l a t i v e or a d v e r b i a l ) a r e a f f e c t e d
by i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e in s en te nc e^ exp an si on with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n .
6.
A f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n of i n t e r e s t r e l a t e s to measuring s t u d e n t
a t t i t u d e towards language ma nip ula tin g a c t i v i t i e s i n c l u d i n g s e n te n c e expansion with p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n .
7.
Resear che rs have confirmed t h a t s y n t a c t i c counts change from one
w r i t i n g mode t o a n o t h e r .
F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s ne ce s sa ry t o determine i f
pure modes occur t o such an e x t e n t t h a t s y n t a c t i c development measures
can have p r e d i c t a b l e l e v e l s of a t t a i n m e n t ov$r th e g r a d e s .
8.
F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h needs to be unde rtaken to det ermi ne th e e f f e c t
of p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n as a p r e - w r i t i n g a c t i v i t y in lon ge r modes of d i s ­
c o u r s e , such as in s t o r i e s .
9.
C a s t a l l a n o s (1980) demonstrated t h a t p i c t u r e s compensated f o r
language d i f f i c u l t i e s .
F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed t o de ter mi ne i f
s e n te n c e - e x p a n si o n w ith p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n would be of b e n e f i t t o English
as a second language s t u d e n t s .
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
118
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, C.C.
A bility."
"The New STEP Essay T e s t as a measure o f Composition
Child Development, 8 (March, I 9 6 0 ) , 62-68.
Arnheim, Rudolf. Visual T h i n k i n g .'
P r e s s , 1969.
Ber keley:
University of C alifornia
Bateman, D. R. and F. J . Z i d o n i s . The E f f e c t of a Study o f T r a n s f o r ­
mational Grammar on t h e Writ ing o f Ninth and Tenth G ra d er s ^
Research Report No. 6, Urbana, I’l l . :
National Council of Teachers
of E n g l i s h , 1966.
Boyd, G e rt ru d e . Teaching Communication S k i l l s in t h e Elementary S c h o o l.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1970.
Braddock, R ., Lloyd-Jones and L. S c h o e r . Research in W rit te n Composi­
t i o n . Urbana, 111. : National Council o f Teachers o f E n g l i s h , 1963.
B u t t e r w o r t h , George. The C h i l d ' s P e r c e p ti o n of th e World.
Plenum P r e s s , 1977.
New York:
C a s t a l l a n o s , G lo r ia G. "Mathematics and t h e Spanish-Speaking S tu d e n t . "
A ri t h m e t i c T e a c h e r , 28:3 (November, 1980) 16.
C h i l d e r s , Perr y and James Ross. "The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Viewing T e l e ­
v i s i o n and St u d e n t Achievement." J ourna l of Education Research
(March, 1973): 317-19.
Chomsky, Norman. Aspects o f t h e Theory o f S y n ta x .
MIT P r e s s , 1965.
________________ .
C h r i s t e n s e n / F.
S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s . The Hague:
Cambridge, Mass.:
Mouton P u b l i s h e r s , 1957
Notes Toward a New R h e t o r i c . New York: Harper and Row, 1967
Comer, R. T. The Development o f Language and Co gnition: The Cognition
H yp o th e si s , in Fos s, B. e d . , New P e r s p e c t i v e s in Child Development.
New York: Penguin, 1974.
C o s s i t t , Mary, ed, Curriculum Guide f o r Elementary Language A r t s .
Edmonton: A lb e r t a Department o f Edu ca tio n, 1982.
Davis, M. "A Comparative Analysis o f Sentences W ri tt e n by Eighth Grade
Stu de nt s I n s t r u c t e d in T r an s fo rm at io na l Grammar and T r a d i t i o n a l
Grammar." D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 28:213-A, 1967.
Dimondstein, G e r a l d i n e . Exploring t h e Arts with C h i l d r e n .
MacMillan P u b li s h in g Company, 1974.
New York:
D ir k e s , M. Ann. "Say i t with Pi c tu re s'. " A r i t h m e t i c T e a c h e r , 28:3
(November, 1980) 10-12.
E i s n e r , E l l i o t W. and David W. E c k e r. Readings in Art E d u c a t i o n .
Toronto: B l a i s d e l l P u b li s h in g Company, 1966.
F i s h e r , K. D. "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n t o Determine i f S e l e c t e d E x e rc is e s in
Sentence-Combining Can Improve Reading and W r i t i n g . " D i s s e r t a t i o n
A b s t r a c t s , 34:4556-A, 1974.
Freeman, Norman H. "Process and Product in C h i l d r e n ' s Drawing."
P e r c e p t i o n , I , 1972, pp. 123-140.
F r ie n d , J . H. An I n t r o d u c t i o n to English L i n g u i s t i c s .
World P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1967.
Cleveland:
The
Gale, I . F. "An Experimental Study o f Two F if th -G ra de Language Arts Pro
grams: An A na ly sis o f t h e W riting o f Children Taught L i n g u i s t i c
Grammar Compared to Those Taught Tr an s fo rm at io na l Grammar."
D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 28:4156-A, 1968.
Golub, L e s t e r , and Wayne C. F r e d e r i c k . " L i n g u i s t i c S t r u c t u r e and Devia­
t i o n s in C h i l d r e n ' s W ri tt e n Sentences." Technical Report from the
Wisconsin Research and Development Center f o r Co gniti ve Learning.
The U n i v e r s i t y o f Wisconsin, No. 152, 1970.
Golub, L e s t e r , Wayne C. F r e d e r i c k , and Richard Bar gen t. " L i n g u i s t i c
S t r u c t u r e s in t h e Discourse of Fourth and Si xt h Graders." Technical
Report from t h e Wisconsin Research and Development Center f o r Cogni
t i v e Lea rning. The U n i v e r s i t y o f Wisconsin, No. 154, 1971.
Goodnow, J a c q u e l i n e .
P r e s s , 1969.
Children Drawing.
Cambridge:
Harvard U niv e rs it y
Goodnow, J a c q u e l i n e J . " V i s i b l e Thinking: Cog nit ive Aspects o f Change
in Drawing." Child Development, 49, 1978, 637-641.
Graves, Donald. "A S ix - Y e a r - O l d 's Writ ing P ro ces s: The F i r s t Half of
F i r s t Grade." Language A r t s , 56 (O c to be r, 1979) 835.
Green, E. A. "An Experimental Study o f Sentence-Combining t o Improve
W r it te n S y n t a c t i c Fluency in F if th - G r a d e Children."
Dissertation
A b s t r a c t s , 33:4056-A, 1973.
G r i f f i t h s , Dennis. " Is i t Necessary to Mark Art in Order t o Teach Art?"
A Symposium in The Study of Education and A r t , e d i t e d by Dick F ie ld
and John Newickl London: Routledge and Keagan P a u l , 1973.
Hawke, David. V e r b a l i z a t i o n E f f e c t on Child P e r c e p t i o n .
Masters T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f C al gar y, 1973.
Unpublished
120
Haynes, E l i z a b e t h .
"Using Research in P r e p a ri n g to Teach W r i t i n g . "
English J o u r n a l , ( J a n u a r y , 1978) 82-83.
Hewes, Gordon W. "Primate Communication and th e Ge stural O rig in o f
Language." C urr en t A nth rop olo gy, 14, 1973, p. 5-24.
H i l l , Edward. The Language of Drawing.
P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1966.
Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . :
Hunt, Kellog W. Grammatical S t r u c t u r e s W ri tt e n a t Three Grade L e v e l s .
Research Report No. 3. llrbana, 111.: National Council o f Teachers
o f E n g l i s h , 1965.
_______.. "Syntax, Scie nce and S t y l e . " A Forum f o r Focus, Urbana,
F m
National Council o f Teachers o f E n g l i s h , 1973, 111-125.
Jameson, Kenneth.
1964.
Art and t h e Young C h i l d .
New York:
Viking P r e s s ,
J e n s e n , D e l o r e s . A Comparison o f Two Technigues f o r I n c r e a s i n g Sentence
M a t u r i t y in Elementary St u d e n t W r i t e r s . Unpublished Masters T h e s i s ,
U n i v e r s i t y o f C al gary, 1983.
Ko ssl yn, Steven Michael.
s i t y Press,, 1980.
Images and Mind.
L e a v i t t , H art Day. The W r i t e r ' s Eye.
E d i t i o n , 3rd P r i n t i n g , 1969.
Cambridge:
New York:
Harvard Univer­
Bantam P a t h f i n d e r
Loban, Walter D. Language A b i l i t y in th e Middle Grades o f Elementary
School. U.S. O f f i c e of Education Coop erati ve Research P r o j e c t
SAE 7287, 1961.
________________ . The Language o f Elementary School C h i l d r e n . Research
Report No. I , Urbana, 111.: National Council o f Teachers of E n g l is h ,
1963.
Maimon, E. and B. Nodine. Measuring s y n t a c t i c gro wth: E r r o r s and
E x pe c ta ti on s in sentence-combining p r a c t i c e with c o l l e g e freshmen.
Research in t h e Teaching o f E n g l i s h , NCTE B u l l e t i n , 1978, 12, 3,
233-243.
M ar tin , John. " P a i n t i n g s and S t o r i e s I d e n t i f y i n g Signs o f Growth in the
P i c t o r i a l - N a r r a t i v e Statements o f K in de rga rte n C h i l d r e n , " Canadian .
Review o f Art Research in E d u c a t i o n , 7, 1981, p. 157-168.
McCullough, Martin. "Mass Media Curriculum: Fantasy o r R e a l i t y ? " In
Readings f o r Teaching English Secondary S c h o o l s , e d i t e d by Theodore
H ip p ie , New York: MacMillan, 1973, p. 234.
McKim, Robert H. Experiences in Visual T h i n k i n g .
Brooks/Cole P u b li s h in g Company, 1980.
Monterey, C a l i f o r n i a :
121
Mellon, John. Tr an s fo rm at io na l Sentence-Combining: A Method f o r Enhanc­
ing th e Development o f S y n t a c t i c Fluency in English Composition.
Research Report No. 10, Urbana, 111.: National Council o f Teachers
o f E n g l is h , 1969.
M i l l e r , B. and J . W. Ney. "The E f f e c t o f Sy st e ma tic Oral E x e rc is e s on
t h e W riting of Fourth Grade S t u d e n t s . " Research in t h e Teaching of
E n g l i s h , 2 (Summer, 1968), 44-61.
M o f f e t , J . Teaching t h e Universe of D is cou rs e.
Mif f I i n , 1968.
Boston:
Houghton
Mulder, J . E. E f f e c t s o f Sentence-Combining P r a c t i c e . Unpublished M.A.
t h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y o f C al gary, 1975.
Murray, Donald M. "Teaching Writing as a P r o c e s s . "
B u l l e t i n , 1973, 15-18.
I l l i n o i s English
-------
National Assessment of Educational P r o g r e s s . "Writing Mechanics 19691974." Denver: Colorado, National Assessment of Educational
P r o g r e s s , 1975.
Ney, James W. "Applied L i n g u i s t i c s in t h e Seventh G r a d e . "
J o u r n a l , 55, 1966, 895-897.
English
O'Hare, F. Sentence-Combining: Improving St u d e n t W riting Without
Formal Grammar I n s t r u c t i o n . Research Report No. 15. Urbana, 111.:
National Council o f Teachers o f E n g l i s h , 1973.
Pav io, Alan. Imagery and Verbal P r o c e s s e s .
and Winston, 1971.
New York:
P a vi o, Alan and Ian Begg. Psychology o f Language.
New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1981.
H o l t , R in e ha rt
Englewood C l i f f s ,
P e rr o n , J a c k . "Beginning W ri ti ng : I t ' s Al I in t h e Mind."
A r t s , (September, 1976) 652-657.
P o r t e r , J a n e . "Research R e p o r t. "
1972) 863-866.
Language
Elementary E n g l is h , 49, (October,
Raub, D. K. The Audio-Lingual D r i l l Tec hn iq ue : An Approach to Teaching
Composition. Unpublished M.A. t h e s i s , George Peabody College f o r
Te a c h e rs , 1966.
Read, H e r b e r t .
Education Through A r t .
London:
Faber and Faber, 1945.
R e g e l e s k i , T. A. Art Education and Brain Re se ar ch .
A l l i a n c e f o r A rts Edu ca tio n, 1978!
Washington:
Rohman, D. Gordon. " P r e - w r i t i n g : t h e Stage o f Discovery in the Writing
P r o c e s s . " College Composition and Communication, 1965, 106-112.
122
S a p i r , Edward.
New York:
Language: An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e Study of Speech.
H a r c o u r t , Brace and World, 1949.
S i n a t r a , Richard. "Using V is ua ls in t h e Composing P r o c e s s . " Paper
p r e s e n t e d a t t h e annual meeting o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading
A s s o c i a t i o n , April 23-27, 1979.
___________ . "Visual L i t e r a c y :
A c o n c r e t e Language f o r th e Learning D i s a b l e d . " Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e Conference on t h e A s s o c ia ti o n
f o r Ch ild ren with Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , Milwaukee, W is ., 1980.
Sohn, David. P i c t u r e s f o r W ri ti n g .
E d i t i o n , 1969.
S t e v e n i , Michael.
Art and E d u c a ti o n .
New York:
New York:
Bantam P a t h f i n d e r
A the rto n P r e s s , 1968.
S t o t s k y , Sandra. "Sentence-Combining as a C u r r i c u l a r A c t i v i t y ; I t s
E f f e c t on W r it te n Language Development and Reading Comprehension."
Research in t h e Teaching o f English ( S p r i n g , 1975), 30-71.
S t r o n g , W.
Sentence Combining.
New York:
Random House, 1973.
S t u l l , E l i z a b e t h Crosby. "Drawing a S to r y and L i s t e n i n g to a P i c t u r e . "
A rts and A c t i v i t i e s , 90, 1982, p. 46-48.
T u t t l e , F r e d e r ic k B. Composition: A Media Approach.
National Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1978.
Vygotsky, L.
Thought and Language.
Weaver, Constance.
Urbana, 111.:
Cambridge:
Washington, D.C.:
The M.I.T. Press., 1964.
Grammar f o r T e a c h e rs , P e r s p e c t i v e s and D e f i n i t i o n s .
National Council o f Teachers o f E n g l i s h , 1979.
W i l l i s , S . , G. Wheatley and 0. M i t c h e l l .
S p a t i a l and Verbal A n a l y t i c a l Tasks:
• I o g i a , 17, (1979) 473-484.
"Cerebral P r o c e s s in g of
An EEG s t u d y . " Neuropsycho-
Winn, B i l l , Rose Berkebor and Andy Ja c ks on. "The Relevance of Brain
Research to I n s t r u c t i o n and Design." Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the Annual
Convention f o r Educational Communication and Technology, New O rl e a n s ,
J a n u a r y , 1983.
Young, Evelyn. "The D i f f e r e n t i a l I n f l u e n c e of Three Methods of Sentence
Expansion I n s t r u c t i o n on t h e W ri tt e n Compositions o f Second Grade
Boys and G i r l s . " Dis s e r t a t i on A b s t r a c t s , 33:1032-A, 1972.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TEST INSTRUMENTS FOR CONTROLLED WRITING
125
WRITING EXERCISE
Read the f o ll o w i n g passage a l l t h e way through with y o u r i n s t r u c t o r
and be s u r e to ask q u e s t i o n s i f you want anything e x p la i n e d f u r t h e r .
w i l l n o t i c e t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e s a re s h o r t and choppy.
and then r e w r i t e i t in a b e t t e r way.
You
Study th e pass ag e,
You may combine s e n t e n c e s , change
t h e o r d e r o f words, and omit words t h a t a r e r e p e a te d too many t im e s , but
t r y no t to le av e out any o f the in f o r m a t i o n .
and o r g a n iz e y o u r i d e a s .
Use rough paper to j o t down
You have u n t i l t h e end of the p e r io d to complete
th e e x e r c i s e .
Aluminum
Aluminum i s a m e t a l .
from b a u x i t e .
I t i s abundant.
Bauxite i s an o r e .
c o n t a i n s aluminum.
Bauxite looks l i k e c l a y .
I t contains several other substances.
t h e s e o t h e r su b st a n c e s from th e b a u x i t e .
pu t i t in t a n k s .
mass.
The chemical i s powdery.
I t is white.
I t c o n t a i n s aluminum.
A l i q u i d remains.
The chemical i s alumina.
I t c o n t a i n s oxygen.
They use e l e c t r i c i t y .
a metal.
I t has a l u s t e r .
The l u s t e r i s s i l v e r y .
They
They
I t f i n a l l y y i e l d s a chemical.
t h e aluminum from t h e oxygen.
The metal i s l i g h t .
Workmen e x t r a c t
The o t h e r s u b s ta n c e s form a
They use f i l t e r s .
pu t i t through s e v e r a l o t h e r p r o c e s s e s .
I t comes
Bauxite
They gri n d the b a u x i t e .
P r e s s u r e i s in t h e t a n k s .
They remove th e mass.
m ix tu r e .
I t has many u s e s .
Workmen
I t is a
separate
They f i n a l l y produce
The l u s t e r i s b r i g h t .
This metal comes in many forms.
126
WRITING EXERCISE
Read t h e f o ll o w i n g passage a l l th e way through with y o u r i n s t r u c t o r
and be s u r e to ask q u e s t i o n s i f you want anything ex p la i n ed f u r t h e r .
w i l l n o t i c e t h a t th e s e n te n c e s a r e s h o r t and choppy.
and then r e w r i t e i t in a b e t t e r way.
You
Study t h e pa ssa ge,
You may combine s e n t e n c e s , change
th e o r d e r o f words, and omit words t h a t a r e re p e a te d too many t im e s , but
t r y n o t to le av e o u t any o f th e i n f o r m a t i o n .
and or g a n iz e y o u r i d e a s .
Use rough paper t o j o t down
You have u n t i l th e end of th e pe ri o d to complete
the e x ercise.
A Fis hin g T ri p
John went f i s h i n g .
They l e f t Calgary a t 6 a.m.
took lunch.
I t was c o o l .
A pla ne flew overhead.
wind began t o blow.
They saw a p l a n e .
John jumped i n t o t h e b o a t .
His b r o t h e r a l s o went.
They took t h e i r b o a t .
At noon they landed on an i s l a n d .
were in t h e w e st .
appeared.
He went to Ghost Dam.
Storm clouds formed.
The sky became cloudy.
I t flew near th e w a t e r .
He s t a r t e d th e motor.
Large waves r o l l e d .
John s p o t t e d t h e p l a n e .
clung to t h e wing.
John g o t c l o s e r .
One man had a bloody f a c e .
th e plane wing.
s p o t t e d them.
He p u l l e d t h e men from the w a t e r .
Five hours pass ed .
They lowered a rope.
The
It dis­
Two men
John
They clung to
A h e l i c o p t e r flew overhead.
They were rescu ed .
They
He headed
toward t h e p la n e .
jumped i n t o th e w a t e r .
They
It
127
APPENDIX B
TEST INSTRUMENTS FOR FREE WRITING
128 :
A
WRITING EXERCISE
■
:
Plan you r w r i t i n g so t h a t i t i s as c l e a r as p o s s i b l e .
paper t o j o t down and o r g a n iz e y o u r i d e a s .
th e l i n e d paper s u p p l i e d .
Use rough
Write your f i n i s h e d copy on
You have u n t i l th e end o f th e pe ri o d to complete
the exercise.
Read t h e fo ll ow in g passage a l l th e way through with your i n s t r u c t o r
and be s u r e to ask q u e s t i o n s i f you want anything e xpla in ed f u r t h e r .
A man l i k e Daniel Boone was an e x p e r t on t r a n s p o r t a t i o n in his
day.
He knew a l l about h o r s e s , coaches, canal boats and s h i p s - and mostly
his f e e t . .
Pretend t h a t a time machine i s b ri n g i n g Daniel Boone back to
v i s i t t h e modern age.
Your t a s k i s to b r i n g him u p - t o - d a t e on developments
in t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s i n c e his time.
Write a r e p o r t t h a t you could give him,
t e l l i n g him about s e v e r a l means o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t h a t have been invented
between h i s day and our own.
Tell, him how they work, what they can do,
where they g o . - - e v e r y th in g you t h i n k he would want to know.
129
A
WRITING EXERCISE .
Plan your w r i t i n g so t h a t i t i s as c l e a r as p o s s i b l e .
paper t o j o t down and org a n iz e your i d e a s .
t h e l i n e d paper s u p p l i e d .
Use rough
Write your f i n i s h e d copy on
You have u n t i l t h e end o f t h e pe rio d to complete
the e x ercise.
Read t h e f o ll o w i n g passage a l l th e way through with your i n s t r u c t o r
and be s u r e to ask q u e s t i o n s i f you want an ything ex p la i n ed f u r t h e r .
We a l l enjoy an unusual s t o r y , e s p e c i a l l y t h e kind which holds
our i n t e r e s t and makes us wonder what w i l l happen n e x t.
four t i t l e s .
Below a r e l i s t e d
Choose t h e one which seems most i n t e r e s t i n g , to you, and w r i t e
a sto ry t h a t f i t s the t i t l e .
Use your ima gin at io n to f i l l in th e d e t a i l s ,
and make s u r e you t e l l the complete s t o r y , from beginning t o end.
make i t sound as i f i t r e a l l y happened.
Str anded in a Ghost Town
Winning th e Olympic L o t te r y
Trapped on a Roof
The S t r a n g e s t Day Ever
Try to
130
B
WRITING EXERCISE
Plan you r w r i t i n g so t h a t i t i s as c l e a r as p o s s i b l e .
paper t o j o t down and o r g a n iz e your i d e a s .
th e l i n e d paper s u p p l i e d .
Use rough
Write y o u r f i n i s h e d copy on
You have u n t i l t h e end o f th e p e r io d t o complete
th e e x e r c i s e .
Read t h e f o ll o w i n g passage a l l th e way through with y o u r i n s t r u c t o r
and be s u r e t o ask q u e s t i o n s i f you want anyt hin g ex p la i n ed fu rt her ..
A man l i k e Benjamin F r a n k li n was an e x p e r t on gadg ets and a p p l i ­
ances f o r t h e home in hi$ day.
He even in ve nte d a few new a p p li a n c e s
h i m s e l f , such as th e famous F r a n k li n s t o v e .
Pretend t h a t a time machine
i s b r i n g i n g Benjamin F r a n k l i n back to v i s i t th e modern age.
Your t a s k i s
t o b r i n g him up to d a t e on developments in the home s i n c e h i s time. Write
a r e p o r t t h a t you could g iv e him, t e l l i n g about s e v e r a l home a p p li a n c e s
and gadgets t h a t have been in ve nte d between h i s day and our own. Tell him
how they work and what they can do - and e ve r y th in g e l s e a bout them t h a t
you t h i n k he might want to know abo ut.
131
B
WRITING EXERCISE
Plan your w r i t i n g so t h a t i t i s as c l e a r as p o s s i b l e .
paper to j o t down and o rg a n iz e your i d e a s .
th e l i n e d paper s u p p l i e d .
Use rough
Write yo ur f i n i s h e d copy on
You have u n t i l th e end o f th e p e r io d to complete
the e x ercise.
Read t h e f o ll o w i n g passage a l l t h e way through with your i n s t r u c t o r
and be s u r e t o ask q u e s t i o n s i f you want an ything e x p la i n e d f u r t h e r .
Unusual s t o r i e s a r e e n j o y a b l e .
We a l l l i k e s t o r i e s which hold
our a t t e n t i o n and make us wonder what i s coming n e x t.
Choose one t i t l e
from t h e f o u r l i s t e d below, th e one which i s most i n t e r e s t i n g to you.
F i l l in th e d e t a i l s from your own i m a g i n a t i o n , and be s u r e to t e l l the
whole s t o r y , from s t a r t to f i n i s h .
Try to make i t sound as i f i t r e a l l y
happened.
A M i l l i o n D o ll a r S u r p r i s e
Caught in an E l e v a t o r
What an Unusual Day
Lost on Evil I s l a n d
132
APPENDIX C
SYNTACTIC MATURITY ANALYSIS SHEET
133
SCORING GUIDE
SYNTACTIC MATURITY ANALYSIS
Analyze t h e s t u d e n t w r i t i n g samples by d i v i d i n g them i n t o T - u n i t s .
ig n o r i n g a l l p u n c t u a t i o n and using a l l words w r i t t e n in t h e sample.
A
T - u n i t i s a main c l a u s e plus any s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e o r non -c la u sa l
s t r u c t u r e t h a t i s a t t a c h e d t o o r embedded w i t h i n i t .
Use P e r r o n ' s
(1974) r u l e s f o r t h e T - u n i t seg me nta tio n.
In a d d i t i o n , t a k e t h e fo ll ow in g fr equency counts t o provid e a more
thorough s y n t a c t i c a n a l y s i s .
Frequency Counts
1.
Total number o f words
2.
Total number o f T - u n i t s - - s e g m e n t with red b r a c k e t s
3.
Mean T - u n i t le ngth (number o f words p e r T - u n i t )
4.
Total number of nominal t r a n s f o r m a t t o n s - - u n d e r l i n e with
green pen
5.
Tot al number o f r e l a t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s - - u n d e r l in e with
b lu e pen
6.
Total number o f a d v e r b ia l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s - - u n d e r l ine with
organe pen
7.
Tot al number o f Sentence T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s —by adding 4 , 5
and 6.
Put each t o t a l on t h e s c o r e s h e e t in t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e a f t e r com­
p l e t i n g t h e above frequ en cy c o un ts .
134
NAME OF STUDENT_______________________ NAME OF WRITING
SYNTACTIC MATURITY ANALYSIS SHEET
I.
_________ _
Mean Length o f T - u n i t s
A. __________ Total Number o f Words
B.
Number o f T - u n i t s
II.
Number of Sentence Trans for ma tio ns
A. __________Number of Nominal T rans for m atio ns
1. ______ Noun
+ A d je c ti v e
2. ______ Noun
+ P o s s es si v e
3. ______ Noun
+ R e l a t i v e Clause
4. ______ Noun
+ P r e p o s i t i o n Phrase
5. ______ Noun
+ I n f i n i t i v e Phrase
6. ______ Noun
+ P a r t i c i p l e Phrase
7. ______ Noun
+ Adverbial
B. __________Number of R e l a t i v e Trans for ma tio ns
1. ______ A d j e c t i v e
of s i z e
2. ______ A d je c ti v e
of c o l o r
3. ______ A d je c ti v e
o f shape
4. ______ A d j e c t i v e
of f e e l ( t e x t u r e )
5. ______ A d je c ti v e
of feelings
6. ______ A d je c ti v e o f c o n d i t i o n
(old, tir e d )
7. ______ A d je c ti v e of motion
C. __________Number of Adverbial Tr ansform ations
1. ______ Adverb o f Time
2. _____ ^ Adverb o f Place
3. ______ Adverb of Manner
4. ______ Adverb of Cause
5. ______ Adverb o f Condition
6.
Adverb of Comparison
APPENDIX D
FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM
136
FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM
I.
Both cued and uncued problems were developed in t h e i n s t r u c ­
tional lessons.
Cued problems r e q u i r e d t h e s t u d e n t s t o perform s p e c i f i c
grammatical t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , w hile uncued problems allowed t h e s tu d e n t s
t o de cide on t h e s p e c i f i c t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s to be used.
Stu de nt s ma nipulated s en te n c e frames* adding words from t h e i r own
voc abulary in s p e c i f i c grammatical s t r u c t u r e s as s i g n a l l e d in t h e e x e r ­
c i s e s as well as in p o s i t i o n s o f t h e i r ch oice in the s e n t e n c e .
example from t h e program i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s p o i n t :
(I)
CUED:
The Hippo ran along th e p a t h .
The
I
The
I
2
Hippo ran along th e pa th .
(add a 2nd d e s c r i p t i v e word)
The
I
2
Hippo
3
along the p a th .
(use a b e t t e r a c t i o n word)
The
I
The
I
5
.
5
.
3
4
along t h e path
2
Hippo
(add a word t o d e s c r i b e h is a c t i o n )
2
Hippo
3
4
(where i s t h e path?
near)
I
The
Hippo ran loneI th e p a th , (add a des c r i p t i v e word)
2
Hippo
3
along the path
Next t o , b e s i d e ,
4
along t h e path
6
(when?)
7
(why?)
8
(what happened next?)
An
137
R ea rr an ge :
'
Using t h i s model
6
7
T h e __ I_____ 2__ Hippo
path
(
2)
5 •
8
3
4 . along the
.
The g o r i l l a t r i p p e d on t h e t r a p e z e w i r e .
Add:
- t h a t t h e g o r i l l a was a t t h e c i r c u s .
- t h a t t h e r e was a l a r g e aud ienc e.
- t h a t th e g o r i l l a was wearing a pink t u - t u .
The g o r i l l a , wearing a pink t u - t u , t r i p p e d on th e
t r a p e z e wire in f r o n t of a l a r g e audience a t t h e
circus.
(2a)
Another cued a c t i v i t y was b u i l d i n g s en te nc es by adding
s en so ry words.
impressions:
Sensory words a r e words t h a t convey sensory
sound, s m e l l , s i g h t ( c o l o r and a c t i o n ) , touch
and t a s t e .
(3)
UNCUED:
Word
Sensory Expansion
Add a
Add a
Add a
color
sight
size
shape
condition
touch
texture
. Add a
sound
.
Make a
s en te n c e
Example:
alligator
green
gargantuan
prickly
snorting
The gargantuan green a l l i g a t o r who was p r i c k l y and
s n o r t i n g r o l l e r s k at e d down t h e sidewalk.
138
2.
Problems were p r e s e n t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y as well as in whole
discourse s e t s .
E x e rc is e s were given where s t u d e n t s were r e q u i r e d to
add t o a s e r i e s of b a s i c kernel se n te n c e s in o r d e r to c r e a t e e f f e c t i v e
pa ragraphs and s h o r t s t o r i e s .
Examples a r e p r e s e n te d below:
I n d iv i d u a l Problems:
The ghost f l o a t e d l i g h t l y ,
(expand ke rnel sen te nc e)
Whole Discourse S e t s :
In t h e e a r l y morning, they walked q u i e t l y l i k e a
p a n t h e r through th e woods s e a r c h i n g f o r e x t r a - t e r r e s t r i a l
Suddenly a s l e e p i n g
v i s i t o r s when
(expand s en te nc e)
jumped out from
green g i a n t who
(expand s en te nc e)
behind a t r e e
They s h i v e r e d in
(expand s en te nc e)
f e a r and
(expand sent en ce)
3.
Rewriting e x e r c i s e s r e q u i r e d s p e c i f i c s t r u c t u r e s t o be used
in o r d e r to improve a given s e n t e n c e , paragraph or lo n g e r u n i t s of d i s ­
c o u r s e , as demonstrated:
139
Rewriting E x e rc is e :
Can you r e w r i t e t h i s s t o r y by expanding t h e s h o r t and
choppy s e n t e n c e s .
. The Dog and His R e f l e c t i o n I
A dog s t o l e a lamb chop.
t e r 's table.
He took i t from h i s mas­
He rushed ou t o f t h e house.
he reached t h e woods.
He ran u n t i l
He c a r r i e d th e chop over a b r i d g e .
The dog looked i n t o th e stream. He saw h i s r e f l e c t i o n .
I t looked l i k e a n o t h e r dog.
lamb chop.
He was greedy.
The dog made a loud growl.
t r i e d t o grab t h e lamb chop.
t h e w a te r .
The o t h e r dog had a b i g g e r
He wanted t h a t lamb chop.
He opened h is mouth.
He
The lamb chop f e l l i n t o
I t sank out of s i g h t .
I n s te a d of two lamb
c h o p s , t h e dog had n o th in g.
CAN YOU WRITE A MORAL TO THIS TALE
I - adapted from Aesop's F a ble s.
4.
The use of grammatical term ino log y was minimized and a l l
terms were c a r e f u l l y d e fi n e d in simple terms accompanied by i l l u s t r a t i v e
examples.
This a s p e c t of t h e program i s demonstrated below: .
Bears b i c y c l e .
Where?
Bears b i c y c l e t o Banff.
When?
140
On Tu es day s, bear s b i c y c l e t o Banff.
Describe b e a r s .
On Tuesdays, big brown b e a r s b i c y c l e t o Banf f.
Why?
On Tuesdays, big brown b e ar s b i c y c l e to Banff
lookin g f o r b l u e b e r r y bus hes .
Can we r e a r r a n g e th e s e n te n c e
giv in g a l l th e p a r t s ?
Big brown b e ar s b i c y c l e t o Banff on Tuesdays
looking f o r b l u e b e r r y b u s h e s .
Add a new be gi nn in g.
Slowly b u t s u r e l y big brown b e ar s b i c y c l e to
Banff on Tuesdays looking f o r b l u e b e r r y b u s h e s .
5.
A c t i v i t i e s were developed which were e x p e r i e n t i a l as well as
s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d . . These a c t i v i t i e s r e p r e s e n t e d an a tt e m p t to put the
p r a c t i c i n g o f i s o l a t e d s e n te n c e problems i n t o c o n t e x t so t h a t s tu d e n t s
could be shown when and where t o use them in meaningful s i t u a t i o n s , thus
d e a l i n g with M o f f e t t ' s (1968) c once rns .
For example, t h e game "Grab Bag"
was adapted from h i s I n t e r a c t i o n (1973) program, f o r use in t h e s e n te n c e expansion component o f t h i s program.
The t a s k involved s t u d e n t s reaching
i n t o t h e bag, grabbing an o b j e c t and d e s c r i b i n g what they f e l t .
were then asked t o add more d e t a i l s t o t h e i r i n i t i a l s t a t e m e n t s .
Stu dents
This
.approach s a t i s f i e d in p a r t s , t h e re quire m e nt s f o r c o n t e n t - o r i e n t a t e d ,
n a t u r a l use o f language.
Another approach was the d i s t r i b u t i o n of an
animal hand puppet t o each s t u d e n t and having them g e n e r a t e an a l l i t e r a ­
t i v e kernel s e n te n c e d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r animal such as:
B ro n ta sa u ra u ru s bakes
141
St u d e n ts then added more a l l i t e r a t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s :
Big b e a u t i f u l b r o n t o s a u r a u r u s e s from Balzac
bake b i s c u i t s f o r b r e a k f a s t
Throughout t h e program, th e focus was on a c t i v e involvement in
t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s , e i t h e r through s t u d e n t ' s w r i t i n g th e b e s t combina­
t i o n s or d i s c u s s i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s .
An example of s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d t r a n s ­
parency a c t i v i t y is p r e s e n te d he re :
Se m i- S tr u c tu re d A c t i v i t y
Write a s en te n c e about t h i s cowboy.
y o u r s en te n c e t o d e s c r i b e th e cowboy.
What kind of a cowboy i s i t ?
What i s t h i s cowboy doing?
Then add d e t a i l s to
142
Who i s he r i d i n g ?
Where do cowboys u s u a l l y r i d e ?
When i s t h e cowboy r i d i n g ?
How i s t h e cowboy r i d i n g ?
6.
Sys te ma tic oral e x e r c i s e s were provided which involved s t u ­
de nts in t h e d i s c u s s i o n of o ptio ns f o r w r i t i n g .
Concepts were r e i n f o r c e d
through r e c i t i n g s en te n c e s o l u t i o n s , l i s t e n i n g to o p ti o n s a v a i l a b l e , and
making judgments and s e l e c t i o n s a f t e r d i s c u s s i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s p r e s e n t e d .
This a s p e c t o f t h e program i s e x e m p l if ie d below:
Sentence S t r i p
The c l a s s w i l l be d iv id e d i n t o groups of f o u r s t u ­
den ts in each row.
The f i r s t s t u d e n t w i l l begin by
w r i t i n g a kernel s en te n c e and pass ing th e s en te n c e
s t r i p t o t h e next s t u d e n t in t h e row.
w i l l add an expansion.
Each s t u d e n t
When f i n i s h e d , s t u d e n t s w i l l
s hare t h e i r s e n t e n c e s .
7.
A m u l t i p l i c i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods and m a t e r i a l s were
used t o develop t h e c on c e p ts .
Poems, games, s l i d e s , t a p e s , overhead
t r a n s p a r e n c i e s , p i c t u r e s , word c a r d s , and c o n c r e te o b j e c t s were used in
143
a s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d manner.
Examples o f t h i s a r e l i s t e d below:
Poem:____________________________________________________
I l i k e colors The green o f th e g r a s s a f t e r a warm
s p r i n g shower.
The b lu e o f t h e sky on a cool summer day
The brown l i k e a beach on a scor chin g
afternoon.
The orange of t h e f i r e as i t s p i t s on
th e h e a r th
I lik e colors.
Make a new poem:
Try
I l i k e sounds I l i k e shapes I l i k e hockey -
Game:____________________ ____ ______________________________ _
Sentence C l o t h e s l i n e
Object of t h e Game:
The s t u d e n t s w il l expand kernel
s en te nc es making t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s a t t h e b e g i n ­
n i n g , middle and end.
Number of P l a y e r s :
M a t e r i a l s Needed:
whole c l a s s
C l o t h e s l i n e , blank c a r d s , f e l t
pen s, c l o t h e s p i n s
144
D i r e c t i o n s f o r Play:
Each p l a y e r is given a blank
c a r d , f e l t pen and c l o t h e s p i n .
A clothesline
is s t r u n g a c r o s s th e room c o n t a i n i n g a kernel
s e n te n c e such as:
IT h e | I m oto r b ik e ] s t a l l e d . ]
P la y e r s w i l l expand t h e kernel s en te n c e by
ta k i n g t u r n s pinning on t h e i r word, a r r a n g i n g
and r e a r r a n g i n g each and every expansion.
Dverhead Transparency sample:
W ri te rs use i n t e r e s t i n g comparisons to make.
t h e i r w r i t i n g more c o l o r f u l .
use s i m i l e s
to
Sometimes they
su g g es t t h a t two th in g s a r e
a l i k e in some way.
S i m i l i e s o f t e n use the
words l i k e o r a s .
Eyes l i k e diamonds
A voic e as loud as th unde r
Sim iles
As cold as _____ What i s t h e c o l d e s t t h i n g
you know?
As s o f t as _____
As shar p as ____
As big as ______
145
As rough as _____
As d i r t y as _____
As j u i c y as _____
As sneaky as ____
Write an expansion using a s i m i l e .
S t o r i e s : __________________________________________
L i s t e n to t h e s t o r y o f P e g a su s , The winged H o r s e ,
on th e t a p e .
Write one s e n te n c e t e l l i n g what
happens in t h e s t o r y .
Add t o your o r i g i n a l
s e n te n c e using s e n te n c e - e x p a n s i o n t e c h n i q u e s .
Be
prepared to s h ar e your s e n te n c e with your c l a s s ­
mates.
Use of Concrete O b je c ts :
_______
.____________
Popcorn
Teacher pops f r e s h popcorn in t h e c l a s s .
Each s t u d e n t i s given s ome .f resh popcorn and t o l d
to observe i t c l o s e l y .
Start.w ith sight.
Write a Sensory d e s c r i p t i o n o f what i s obs erved .
The popcorn looks Tike l i t t l e p i l l o w s .
Now, touch i t .
Write a s en so ry d e s c r i p t i o n of what i s obser ved .
146
Popcorn f e e l s l i k e s o f t bed s h e e t s .
Now t a s t e i t .
Write a sensory d e s c r i p t i o n of what i s observed.
Popcorn t a s t e s l i k e mountains of b u t t e r .
Now smell i t .
Write a sens ory d e s c r i p t i o n of what i s observed.
Popcorn sm ells l i k e a c i r c u s .
Now l i s t e n to i t as you crunch i t .
Write a sens ory d e s c r i p t i o n of what is observed.
Popcorn sounds l i k e loud cannons.
Stu de nts then make popcorn shaped bo o k le ts to
write th e ir observations.
SEQUENCE OF THE LESSONS
In g e n e r a l , s e n t e n c e - b u i l d i n g programs tend to p r e s e n t the
v a ri o u s s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n s to be t a u g h t in sev e ra l d i f f e r e n t ways
and s e q u e n c e s .
The r e s e a r c h e r developed a sequence of i n s t r u c t i o n a l
le s s o n s which ad dressed nominal, r e l a t i v e and a dver bia l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s
as well as i n tr o d u c in g co nj u n ct io n s and co n n ec to rs .
APPENDIX E
STUDENTS 1 WRITING SAMPLES
<
?
- '
3
149
Cars OjUZZic CL Lot oF gcu o n -the. buSL^ S t r e e i s Clartnc.
-
U
^
"
%
n
; ;
150
LdUU-M*-
Ttru). G o r ' iia r a n .
The.
^
r o ^r i Q / L a ^ A i M ^ - .
Vy t«
) h e o / g C L n t 'C g r e e n ^or
'Ih r a . n
151
Y
T h e
gr e e n
Q o r z ^ ct
ra
n g r a c - ^ - f u l ^ u / J n , / d-
g o r g c o u 2 . ^ o ^ \ g \ c x n h i c g t - e e n ( T c r i I ( n ra n g ^ c c f u / ,
(^ h .'le
g q rg / / ^
'
%
.
/ld s Y ls
3
'^ U ^
|
^
> d ^ y<DXU<^Y
A ^rv
/O ^ u A jd ^
Adu«x
G
(C L U M ^ ^ ty
r ^ y ^ y ^
c L ^ - U
oL
^uJ ^ M
jl,
c U -W ^ s
^
^
J tU ,
d |tL v
' I
a
, cJ
x ^u
^
l
J .
o f x ,
.
f u jc i
^
-yyW -txW x .
c
J
vclxx^
L
CL CUU> vrv AoO /T mxxlX L
X
XX
-l x
o L v ^ v
U M -K ;
P ^ jJ lS
- i L ^
J L ,
X %
o jlL
4 u y -rr^
a jJ j^ y
P ^ t L
h4^>vy U A x t ^
lCLLx*xixX
^ nJ
CL,
( L j s r J JL
^L -K vX lV •
153
T he. d o ^ a n d
Wis r e f l ^ + i o n
An evA Wu-V beau+Tu! d o g
lc. a Ju'icij,m oui-lUU^Venna ltimb<3ko]p, Y^e. <3r4bbe^ doe.
Ci^ui l<Unbc h o p by hi>5 ro- 2-or sK a rp pearl-LUkttc. ~hz&r/-h , S p o r k y ,
4k^ dooy
-44r«augh -t-he Cflorn a n d OcAim /n t
-tAc.
W San. Ht busW Q thoas -Hit O p sn -P'^W
b u s y "ponof 4kj4Overpoptl Ui-ed uOl'-hh
bloocf -Wuns^vj nno s o Uitft**. TTnajIy Sparky refcJ^-d.
4-V»t ViaanftfW ivood'k ^ 3 0 UzsVt^wing QnaL dec.£i v i n j .
H o Iran LuvtVi a \ \ W a YTnghf +» +Vo b ria /g o
U;K'ch O ressta/ OvtATf sSfrouw. T h s g Io uj>iny S u n
m a d o "Hs. t3"Vre4m <,p4.rK.lt Uks 4-^is b /a t. erf
4 f t OC-e^vr. LU i f f S ilu sr b u b b le ^
c l a n c ^ ™ , T f O.
C uriou s d o a lo o k e d
In -H it a+re^m
etncl Su Jd^ dy
^ L U d n o + h t r d o o j^ a o i U k s Him Ctirrym^ 4 Id^tbcdAf
Buf QjlKh I Thtf- Si 3tf Lue s QarQCnfu-An Compared Hu hn
and loo Ktftfj Iu SCTous .1 M en S p a r k y sa-tJ T . S n£
btairnt Vtra Qrtftfdy
Luan-W b tfff LtmiiCAopo +or
Lim U l P
Htf. opt.tfd hiam ou++ QnV hrjadp * . W m ^
^^,■W cring ^roujl buf d ro p p e d h i t Itm b chop zrrto The
3+htfam ntf!utf> +»
aepr/n b g f h t dtf^ O r
h \ s 'fYVZsGtr b u t <9nllj b u +V tpvaW .
sVorcd into +he- sbenm
nav Taa r \0
all.
J
(T lora I: Mcver w e n t
m o re- -fk a n
V oui^ park^
IdmloC-Vops <?+
^ o U r is C c f
154
APPENDIX F
STUDENTS' LETTERS
155
O eav
O vS
T k c ir v Y \x /o a
u 5T s
(Xzrve-v^-
LOcxSOnS o < C o ra\rK \^ o 4 6 acK
Voeev, a v e v ^ €.Vxx^o y Q uf
HWope fha4- y o u
D vueB K s
Con4\nv€L
V-O mov Ke. k \ o s a s happy
y o u /r a cle VfNfi- ^e e l .
OoceX j n
Thanks
for k e l p m e
\ KNpfON/e,
^
O nd^
SVxe\V\*2>'
Ty
uuritx vxg .
1% , n k u o u j o r - / e o c / . n g t v s
QnA Z T ^ o p &.
^our pMVP€H. e s p e c l l y
-VavanVa'o ■
^
-*<
M ONTA NA
U N IV E R SIT Y L IB R A R IE S
3 1762 100 1 1671 2