The effects of reading achievement and sex upon self-esteem of achievers and low-achievers in grades
two through six in Billings, Montana
by Judith Tasset Starr
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF
EDUCATION
Montana State University
© Copyright by Judith Tasset Starr (1979)
Abstract:
The purposes of this investigation were as follows: to deter- mine the effect of factors, namely, reading
achievement, grade level, and sex upon self-esteem scores at the beginning of students' academic year
and after five months of reading instruction, and to determine the effect of these factors upon change in
self-esteem scores.
Hypotheses were formulated around three categories: First Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI) Scores; Second
SEI Scores; Change in SEI Scores.
Two groups of students were drawn from the population of second through sixth grade children who
attended the nine Title I-designated public schools in Billings, Montana during the 1978-79 academic
year. Achievers were students who were not enrolled in the Title I labs for supplemental reading
instruction. Low-achievers were students who were enrolled in Title I labs for supplemental reading
instruction. Participants were grouped according to grade level and sex. The resultant population
consisted of 142 achievers and 142 low-achievers in grades two through six.
Subjects were given the SEI during the first week of the 1978-79 academic year, and again after five
months of reading instruction. Two textbook-related reading test scores were recorded for each subject.
All hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of significance, using either the Student's t-test, two-way
analysis of variance, or stepwise multiple regression.
Analyses of the data indicated that on both SEI administrations, the self-esteem scores of achievers
were significantly higher than those of low-achievers when the subjects were examined as two groups
without regard to grade level. When grade level was considered, however, achievers' SEI scores were
significantly higher only in grade six on the first SEI, and in grades five and six on the second SEI.
Neither sex nor the interaction between achievement and sex was significant on either of the SEI
administrations when achievers and low-achievers were examined as two groups. The change in
self-esteem scores was not significant when achievers and low-achievers were examined as two groups
nor when they were examined by grade level. Sex was not a significant factor in the change in
self-esteem scores for the two groups nor was the interaction between sex and achievement significant.
There was no linear relationship between change in self-esteem scores and other factors such as reading
achievement scores, grade level, and sex.
For Nathan and Joshua
My Sonshines
THE EFFECTS OF READING ACHIEVEMENT AND SEX UPON
SELF-ESTEEM OF ACHIEVERS AND LOW-ACHIEVERS IN
GRADES TWO THROUGH SIX IN BILLINGS, MONTANA
by
JUDITH TASSET STARR
A t h e s i s s u b m itte d in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t
o f. th e re q u ire m e n ts f o r . t h e degree
of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Approved:
C h a irp e rs o n , Graduate CommftEee
;
U-'
^HjeXd, I j p j o r Department
Graduate %an
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
•. A u g u st, 1979
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
,
S p e c ia l acknowledgment i s made to Dr. E lnora A.. Old Coyote, my
a d v i s e r , my m e n to r, my f r i e n d ,
f o r th e p a s t s ix t e e n y e a r s .
•Acknowledgment i s made t o my re a d in g com m ittee. Dr. Lawrence
E l le r b r u c h and Mr. Don H o lz , and t o . o t h e r members o f my com m ittee.
Dr. A l b e r t Suvak and ,Dr. R ichard Horswi 11.
To Mr. W alt L a i r d ,
D i r e c t o r o f S p e c ia l S e r v ic e s , B i l l i n g s
School D i s t r i c t #2, t o Ms. Becky N i c k l i n . T i t l e
and t o Ms. Mary M erten, T i t l e
I Program C o n s u lta n t,
I la b t e a c h e r , my c o n t in u in g g r a t i t u d e .
I a ls o wish t o thank th e p r i n c i p a l s and te a ch e rs i n th e n in e T i t l e
I
schoo ls f o r t h e i r a s s is ta n c e and f o r t h e i r s u g g e s tio n s .
I wish t o extend my a p p r e c ia t io n t o my f r i e n d ,
Dennis Weems,
f o r h is i n v a lu a b le a s s is ta n c e and f o r h i s rem a rkab le p a t ie n c e .
Appre­
c i a t i o n i s a ls o extended t o Ms. Susie C o lb re s e , computer programmer a t
E astern Montana C o lle g e , f o r e f f i c i e n t l y — and c h e e r f u l l y — ru n n in g my
data th ro u g h th e com puter.
To my husband, B i l l ,
and my f r i e n d s . Skip Sherman and Linda
U t le y , my thanks f o r h e lp in g w i t h th e tire s o m e task o f cod in g and
v e r i f y i n g th e d a ta .
F i n a l l y , and s p e c i a l l y , my s in c e r e thanks t o a l l
:
o f the
c h i l d r e n who f a i t h f u l l y made t h e i r c o u n tle s s " x " marks on my response
s h e e ts .
You have been my i n s p i r a t i o n .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
L IS T OF T A B L E S ............................................................................................ ........................v i i i
A B S T R A C T ..............................................................
. .
....................................
ix
Chapter
1.
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM........................................ ....
STATEMENT OF THE PURPOSES...........................' . .
QUESTIONS INVESTIGATED
NEED FOR THE STUDY
. . . .
I'
..................
2
................................... ....
2
. . . ' ..................................................... ' . .
RESEARCH PROCEDURES ............................................
6
LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS ■............................... • ...................
8
■ DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
. . . ' .................. .......................................
SUMMARY.............................................................. ■.....................................
2.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
...................... ....
INTRODUCTION............................... ....
. . .
IO
H
13
.................. ' .........................■
13
IMPLICATIONS
OF READINGACHIEVEMENT . ..........................
15
IMPLICATIONS
FOR S E LF-ES TEE M ...................................................
18
SELF-ESTEEM AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
. . . . . . . . .
TEACHING PRACTICES AS THEY RELATE .
TO SE LF-ES TEE M .............................................................. ....
3.
4
PROCEDURES
' 21
>
. . .
................................................. .... .................................. ; -.
24
29
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 29
POPULATION DESCRIPTION AND SAMPLING PROCEDURE .
29
vi
C h a p te r
Page
■READING INSTRUCTIONAL PROCEDURES
................................................30
.METHODS OF COLLECTING D A T A ..........................................................
31
Reading Achievement Data ..........................................................
S e lf-E s te e m D a t a ...........................■ .............................................
31
34
METHODS OF ORGANIZING D A T A ..........................................................
37
STATISTICAL HYPOTHESES...................... ............................................
37
Hypotheses R e lated to F i r s t SEI Scores
..............................
Hypotheses R e lated to Second SEl Scores ............................
Hypotheses R e la te d t o Change i n . SEI Scores
. . . . .
38
39
39
ANALYSIS OF D A T A .............................
.
.
40
PRECAUTIONS
.
.
41
TAKEN FORACCURACY
SUMMARY............................................
4.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION............................... .......................... '.
41
. .
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................
44
.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION..................................................... ....
46 '
F i r s t SEI Scores
. . ........................................................... . .
Second SEI S c o r e s .................................................................. . .
Change i n SEI Scores
...............................
. . .
SUMMARY............................................................................................
5.
46
52
59
67
D IS C U S S IO N ............................................
INTRODUCTION
44
69
. . ' .........................................................
69
CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................
71
F i r s t SEI Scores
...........................................................................
Second SEI S c o r e s ...........................................................................
• Change in SEI S c o r e s .........................
. .
71
72
73
I
vi T
C h a p te r
Page
INFERENCES
. ....................................
. . . . . . .
..................
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . .................................... . . ........................... •
Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research
Recommendations f o r School Personnel
.................................
................................
74
76
76
78
SUMMARY...................... ..........................' ................................................... ■ 79
APPENDICES
.................. ’..........................................................................
A.
COMPOSITE TEST SCORE LETTERS
B.
EXPLANATION OF READING ACHIEVEMENTSCORES ....................
C.
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN LETTER-TEST VALIDATION
D.
COOPERSMITH LETTER
E.
SELF-ESTEEM INVENTORY (SEI)
REFERENCES
...........................
. . . . . .
83
. . .
85
. . . . . . . . .
. ■..................... ............................................ ....
82
86
.
88
...........................■.................................
89
92
v iii
L IS T OF TABLES
T a b le
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Page
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P o p u la tio n by Grade Level
and S e x ......................................................................................................
45
Summary o f S t u d e n t's t - T e s t R e s u lts f o r A ch ie v e rs
and Low -A chievers on th e F i r s t A d m i n is t r a t i o n
o f th e S E I .........................................................
47
Summary o f S tu d e n ts ' t - T e s t R e s u lts f o r A ch ie v e rs
and L o w -A c h ie v e rs , by Grade L e v e l, on the
■ F i r s t A d m i n is t r a t i o n
o f th e S E I .................................................
48
A n a ly s is o f V a ria n ce R e s u lts f o r Achievement
and Sex on th e F i r s t SEI S c o r e s ................................... ....
51
. .
Comparison o f S tu d e n ts ' t - T e s t R e s u lts f o r
A c h ie v e rs and Low -Achievers on th e F i r s t
and Second A d m i n is t r a t i o n s o f th e S E I .....................................
53
Comparison o f S tu d e n ts ' t - T e s t R e s u lts o f
F i r s t and Second SEI A d m i n is t r a t i o n s f o r
A c h ie v e rs and L o w -A c h ie v e rs , When Examined
by Grade L e v e l ............................................
55
A n a ly s is o f V a ria n ce R e s u lts f o r Achievement
and Sex on th e Second SEI Scores . . . ....................................
57
Summary o f S tude nts': t R e su lts f o r A c h ie v e rs
and Low -A chievers on th e Change i n SEI S c o r e s ..................
59
Summary o f S tu d e n ts ' t R e s u lts f o r Change in
S e lf-E s te e m Scores o f A c h ie v e rs and L o w -A ch ie ve rs,
When Examined by Grade L e v e l ..........................................................
61
A n a ly s is o f V a ria n ce R e su lts f o r Achievement and
Sex on th e Change in SEI S c o r e s .................................................
63
Summary o f Analyses o f V a ria n ce f o r Stepwise
M u l t i p l e Regression on th e Dependent
V a r i a b l e , Change in SEI Scores . . .............................................
65
M u l t i p l e R egression Summary
x
. . . .................................................
65
ix
ABSTRACT
The purposes o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n were as f o l l o w s :
to d e te r­
mine th e e f f e c t o f f a c t o r s , namely, re a d in g achievem ent, grade l e v e l ,
and sex upon s e lf - e s t e e m scores a t th e b e g in n in g o f s t u d e n t s ' academic
y e a r and a f t e r f i v e months o f r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n , and t o determ ine
th e e f f e c t o f these f a c t o r s upon change in s e lf- e s t e e m s c o re s .
Hypotheses were f o rm u la te d around th r e e c a t e g o r ie s :
F irs t
S e lf-E s te e m I n v e n t o r y (SEI) Scores; Second SEl Scores; Change in SEI
S c o re s .
Two groups o f s tu d e n ts were drawn from th e p o p u la t io n o f second
th ro u g h s i x t h grade c h i l d r e n who a tte n d e d th e n in e T i t l e ! - d e s ig n a te d
p u b l i c sch o o ls i n B i l l i n g s , Montana d u r in g th e 1978-79 academic y e a r .
A c h ie v e rs were s tu d e n ts who were n o t e n r o l l e d in the T i t l e I la bs f o r
supplem ental re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n .
L o w -a chie vers were s tu d e n ts who ■
were e n r o l l e d i n T i t l e I la b s f o r supplem ental re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n .
P a r t i c i p a n t s were grouped a c c o rd in g t o grade le v e l and sex.
The
r e s u l t a n t p o p u la t io n c o n s is te d o f 142 a c h ie v e rs and 142 lo w - a c h ie v e r s
in grades two thro ugh s ix .
S u b je c ts were g iv e n th e SEI d u r in g the f i r s t week o f the
1978-79 academic y e a r , and aga in a f t e r f i v e months o f r e a d in g i n s t r u c ­
tio n .
Two t e x t b o o k - r e l a t e d re a d in g t e s t scores were re c o rd e d f o r each
s u b je c t.
Al I hypotheses were t e s te d a t th e .05 le v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ,
u s in g e i t h e r th e S t u d e n t's t - t e s t , two-way a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e , o r
s te p w is e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s io n .
Analyses o f th e data i n d ic a t e d t h a t on both SEI a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s ,
th e s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e rs were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r than those
o f lo w - a c h ie v e r s when th e s u b je c t s were examined as two groups w i t h o u t
re g a rd t o grade l e v e l .
When grade le v e l was c o n s id e re d , however,
a c h ie v e r s ' SEI scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r o n ly i n grade s i x on
th e f i r s t S E I, and i n grades f i v e and s i x on the second S E I. N e ith e r
sex n o r th e i n t e r a c t i o n between achievem ent and sex was s i g n i f i c a n t
on e i t h e r o f th e SEI a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s when a c h ie v e rs and lo w -a c h ie v e rs
were examined as two groups.
y
The change in s e lf- e s t e e m scores was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t when
a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s were examined as two groups n o r when th e y ■
were examined by grade l e v e l .
Sex was n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r in
th e change in s e lf- e s t e e m scores f o r th e two groups n o r was th e i n t e r ­
a c t io n between sex and achievem ent s i g n i f i c a n t .
There was no l i n e a r
r e l a t i o n s h i p between change in s e lf - e s t e e m scores and o t h e r f a c t o r s
such as re a d in g achievem ent s c o r e s , grade l e v e l , and sex.
Chapter I '
•INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM
A lth o u g h many s t u d ie s have been conducted r e l a t i v e to s e l f ­
esteem and academic a chievem ent, i n v e s t i g a t o r s have f a i l e d t o concur
on th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between these v a r i a b l e s .
t u r e in d i c a t e d a need f o r a d d i t i o n a l
A re v ie w o f th e l i t e r a ­
re s e a rc h in t h i s a re a .
F u rth e r,
th e re v ie w showed a need f o r s t u d ie s r e l a t i v e to s e lf- e s t e e m in lo w a c h ie v e r s , and r e l a t i v e t o th e e f f e c t s o f re a d in g achievem ent upon
s e lf- e s t e e m .
T h is i n v e s t i g a t i o n was concerned w i t h s e lf- e s t e e m and re a d in g
achievem ent in a c h ie v in g and lo w - a c h ie v in g s tu d e n ts in grades two
th ro u g h s i x .
S e lf-e s te e m was examined a t the b e g in n in g o f s t u d e n t s '
academic y e a r , and aga in a f t e r f i v e months o f re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n .
Change in s e lf- e s t e e m as a f u n c t i o n o f r e a d in g achievem ent, grade
l e v e l , and sex was a ls o c o n s id e re d .
The purposes o f t h i s s tu d y and th e procedures w hich were
f o llo w e d in t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n are p re s e n te d in t h i s c h a p te r .
q u e s tio n s which were c o n s id e re d are d e l in e a t e d .
i s d is c u s s e d .
.
S p e c ific
The need f o r the stu d y
L i m i t a t i o n s and d e l i m i t a t i o n s o f th e re s e a rc h are n o te d ,
and terms are d e fin e d as necessary.
2
STATEMENT OF THE PURPOSES
The purposes o f t h i s
i n v e s t i g a t i o n were as f o l l o w s :
to d e t e r ­
mine th e e f f e c t o f f a c t o r s , namely, r e a d in g achievem ent, grade l e v e l ,
and sex upon s e lf- e s t e e m scores a t th e b e g in n in g o f s t u d e n t s ' academic
y e a r and a f t e r f i v e months o f re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n , and t o determ ine
th e e f f e c t o f these f a c t o r s upon change in s e lf- e s t e e m scores.
The re s e a rc h was conducted d u r in g th e 1978-79 academic y e a r
i n B i l l i n g s , Montana.
Two groups o f s tu d e n ts were in v o lv e d .
were s tu d e n ts who d id n o t a tte n d th e n in e T i t l e
A ch ieve rs
I la b s w i t h i n the
p u b li c school system f o r supplem ental i n s t r u c t i o n in r e a d in g .
Low-
a c h ie v e r s were s tu d e n ts fro m the same n in e schoo ls who d i d a t te n d the
T itle
I la b s f o r supplem ental i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d in g .
. QUESTIONS INVESTIGATED
Several q u e s tio n s r e l a t e d t o th e purposes o f t h i s s tu d y were
developed:
1.
Is t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f
a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s b e fo re th e y a re s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g
i n s t r u c t i o n a l program?
2.
Is t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e between the s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f
a c h ie v e rs and l o w - a c h i e v e r s w h e n examined by grade. l e v e l , b e fo re they
are s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program?
3
3.
When c o n s id e r in g the i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and a c h ie v e ­
m ent, i s t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e rs
and I o w -a c ie v e rs b e fo r e th e y a re s u b je c te d to a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l
■program?
4.
Is t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f
a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s a f t e r th e y have been s u b je c te d to a re a d in g
i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months?
5.
Is t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e between the s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f
a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , when examined by grade l e v e l , a f t e r th e y
have been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months?
4
6. When c o n s id e r in g the i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and a c h ie v e ­
ment, i s t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e rs
and lo w - a c h ie v e r s a f t e r th e y have been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c ­
t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months?
7.
Is t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e i n th e
change
between a c h ie v e rs ' and lo w - a c h ie v e r s as a r e s u l t
j e c t e d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l
8.
i n s e lf- e s t e e m scores
o f havin g been sub­
program f o r f i v e
Is t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e in th e
change
months?
in s e lf - e s t e e m scores
between a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s when examined by grade l e v e l as a
r e s u l t o f h a vin g been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l
f i v e months?
program f o r
4
9.
When c o n s id e r in g th e i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and a c h i e v e - .
ment, i s t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e between th e change in s e lf - e s t e e m scores
f o r a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s as a r e s u l t o f having been s u b je c te d
t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months?
10.
Is th e r e a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between change i n s e l f ­
esteem scores and o t h e r f a c t o r s such as r e a d in g achievem ent s c o r e s ,
grade l e v e l , and sex?
\
■
NEED FOR THE STUDY
The re v ie w o f th e l i t e r a t u r e in d i c a t e d c o n f l i c t i n g f i n d i n g s
r e l a t i v e t o th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e lf- e s t e e m and achievem ent in
re a d in g and i n o t h e r academic a re a s.
N o tin g th e f a i l u r e o f re s e a rc h e rs
to concu r on t h i s is s u e , F in k suggested t h a t " .
. . th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n
i n t o th e development o f adequate and in a d e q u a te s e l f - c o n c e p t remains
a fru itfu l
area f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a rc h "
,
(1 9 6 5 :4 9 1 ).
Burg suggested t h a t our t e c h n o lo g ic a l o r i e n t a t i o n has been a
s u b t l e d e t e r r e n t t o th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f th e a f f e c t i v e v a r ia b le s t h a t ,
in flu e n c e in d iv id u a ls .
One such v a r i a b l e i s s e lf- e s t e e m .
F u rth e rm o re ,
th e study, o f these v a r ia b le s
. . . demands an e x p l o r a t i o n o f th e growth and d e v e lo p ­
ment o f u n iq u e ly human a t t i t u d e s and r e a c t io n s .
I t i s an
■area o f s tu d y le s s w e ll u n d e rs to o d , more t h r e a t e n in g f o r
some, and w i t h few er r e a d i l y a p p a re n t remedies (1 9 7 5 :3 6 1 ).
5
In ' o r d e r t o c o n t r i b u t e t o th e u n d e rs ta n d in g o f these a f f e c t i v e dimen­
s io n s o f c h i l d r e n and in. o r d e r t o propose methods which m ig h t more
e f f e c t i v e l y enhance t h e i r developm ent, i t
i s im p o r t a n t t h a t research
p r o j e c t s , such as th e one d is cu sse d h e r e i n , be conducted.
A lth o u g h re s e a rc h e rs have g r a d u a ll y v e n tu re d i n t o th e a f f e c t i v e
re a lm , few have concerned them selves p r i m a r i l y o r e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h lo w a c h ie v in g s t u d e n t s .
T h is was. v e r i f i e d by Opie and L e m a s te r1 survey
o f th e l i t e r a t u r e from I960 th ro u g h 1975.
In t h e i r summary o f the
l i t e r a t u r e r e v ie w , th e i n v e s t i g a t o r s s t a t e d t h a t " i n s p i t e o f a- ■
grow ing i n t e r e s t i n th e v a r i e t y o f l e a r n i n g problem s, th e lo w -average
c h i l d remains an enigma
and
i s th e f o r g o t t e n c h i l d "
(1 9 7 5 :3 7 9 ).
The
p re s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n was addressed t o th e " f o r g o t t e n c h i l d " o f whom
Opie and Lemasters speak.
Perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t i n d i c a t i o n o f th e need f o r t h i s
re s e a rc h was p ro v id e d by th e f r e q u e n t l y - c i t e d s tu d y by Jean W illia m s
o f Colorado S ta te U n i v e r s i t y .
In her c o n c lu d in g r e m a rk s , W illia m s
noted t h a t
Much remains t o be done t o f a c i l i t a t e u n d e rs ta n d in g
o f th e complex r e l a t i o n s h i p between p s y c h o lo g ic a l f a c t o r s
such as th e s e l f - c o n c e p t and academic achievem ent.
F u tu re
i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f th e s e l f - c o n c e p t and young c h i l d r e n m ig h t
[ a l s o ] p r o f i t a b l y examine i t s change . . . (1 9 7 3 :3 7 9 ).
L ik e many sc h o o ls th r o u g h o u t th e n a t io n , th e sc h o o ls used in
th is
i n v e s t i g a t i o n have adopted th e p r a c t i c e o f p e r i o d i c a l l y t e s t i n g
the e le m e n ta ry s tu d e n ts on s p e c i f i c r e a d in g s k i l l s .
The t e s t s were
6
developed by th e p u b l i s h e r o f th e basal re a d in g t e x t and are e s s e n t ia l
f o r th e p ro p e r use o f th e basal r e a d e r s .
Most c h i l d r e n are t e s te d f i v e
o r more tim es d u r in g th e school y e a r .
A f t e r each t e s t , th e te a ch e r
in fo rm s t h e c h i l d o f, h is perform ance.
S te n n e r and Katzenmeyer noted
th e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f s e lf- e s t e e m and th e p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t on s e l f ­
esteem o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r a c t ic e s such as t h i s .
They emphasized the
im p o rta n ce o f p e r i o d i c e x a m in a tio n o*f e d u c a tio n a l p r a c t i c e s ,
. . n o t o n ly i n l i g h t o f how th e y a f f e c t academic development b u t
a ls o i n th e way th e y c o n t r i b u t e t o th e development o f a p o s i t i v e con­
c e p t o f th e s e l f "
(1 9 7 6 :3 5 7 ).
RESEARCH PROCEDURES
In o r d e r t o g a in in f o r m a t i o n c o n c e rn in g s e lf - e s t e e m , re a d in g
achievem ent, and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between these f a c t o r s , th e i n v e s t i ­
g a t o r conducted a re v ie w o f th e r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e o f th e p a s t ten
years.
The m a jo r sources o f th e l i t e r a t u r e were th e l i b r a r i e s o f
Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Bozeman, and E a stern Montana C o lle g e ,
B illin g s .
The f o l l o w i n g procedures were then f o llo w e d i n o r d e r to
answer th e q u e s tio n s w hich r e l a t e d t o th e broad purposes o f the
in v e s tig a tio n .
•D u rin g the f i r s t week o f th e school y e a r , b e fo r e b e in g exposed
t o th e fo rm a l i n s t r u c t i o n and t e s t i n g i n th e re a d in g program , a l l
c h i l d r e n i n grades two th ro u g h s i x i n th e n in e T i t l e
! - d e s ig n a te d
7
p u b l i c sc h o o ls in B i l l i n g s , . Montana were g ive n Coopersmit h ' s S e l f Esteem I n v e n t o r y (SEI) by t h e i r r e g u l a r re a d in g te a c h e r s .
S in c e ,th is
was the f i r s t w e e k -o f s c h o o l, th e f i r s t s e lf- e s t e e m t e s t p r o v id e d a
b a s e lin e measure o f s e lf- e s t e e m which was t h e r e f o r e u n in flu e n c e d by
academic e x p e rie n c e s o f th e c u r r e n t school y e a r .
A p p ro x im a te ly f i v e months la p s e d .
During t h a t t im e , a l l .
s tu d e n ts were exposed t o re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n from th e 1974 e d i t i o n
o f th e Houghton M i f f l i n
Company basal r e a d e rs .
.
In a d d i t i o n t o c la s s ­
room r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n , lo w - a c h ie v e r s r e c e iv e d supplem ental
i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d in g fro m th e T i t l e
I la b te a c h e r s .
t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n was a ls o th e Houghton M i f f l i n
The b a s is f o r
basal s e r i e s .
A ch ie ve rs
r e c e iv e d t h e i r r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n fro m t h e i r r e g u l a r r e a d in g te a c h e rs .
The re a d in g ,a c h ie v e m e n t o f a l l
s tu d e n ts was measured a t l e a s t tw ic e
on th e t e s t s p u b lis h e d by Houghton M i f f l i n
basal s e r i e s .
Company to accompany the
A f t e r each re a d in g t e s t , th e s tu d e n ts were i n d i v i d u a l l y
in fo rm e d o f t h e i r perform ance on th e t e s t .
Al I s tu d e n ts were again
g iv e n th e SEI a f t e r h a ving taken a t l e a s t tw o , i n some cases more,
o f th e t e x t b o o k - r e l a t e d re a d in g t e s t s .
From th e n in e T i t l e
drawn.
I s c h o o ls , two groups o f c h i l d r e n were
L ow -a chie vers were s tu d e n ts who a tte n d e d th e T i t l e
and Math Labs f o r supplem ental i n s t r u c t i o n in re a d in g .
I re a d in g
They were
" e d u c a t i o n a l l y d isadvan tag ed i n r e a d i n g , " as d e fin e d on p a g e .8.
8
An e d u c a t i o n a l l y disa d va n ta g e d s t u d e n t i s a s t u d e n t
who i s p e r fo rm in g a t l e a s t s i x (6) months below grade le v e l
in re a d in g (language a r t s ) o r math.
An e d u c a t i o n a l l y d isadvan tag ed s t u d e n t i s a s t u d e n t who
dem onstrates poor work h a b i t s , has a s h o r t a t t e n t i o n span,
has poor s e lf - im a g e and shows a n e g a tiv e a t t i t u d e toward
school ( T i t l e I P r o j e c t P r o p o s a l) .
A c h ie v e rs were s tu d e n ts who were n o t " e d u c a t i o n a l l y d is a d v a n ta g e d " in
r e a d in g and d id n o t a t te n d the T i t l e
t i o n i n r e a d in g .
I la bs f o r supplem ental i n s t r u c ­
Each group c o n s is te d o f 142 c h i l d r e n i n grades two
th ro u g h s ix , s e le c te d as d e s c rib e d l a t e r on page 30.
A f t e r th e two groups o f s tu d e n ts were i d e n t i f i e d , th e i n v e s t i ­
g a t o r reco rd e d t h e i r scores from the two t e x t b o o k - r e l a t e d re a d in g t e s t s
th e y had taken d u r in g th e 1978-79 academic y e a r .
The d ata c o l l e c t e d
on th e two groups o f s u b je c t s in c lu d e d t h e i r grade l e v e l , sex, two
SEI s c o r e s , and two r e a d in g t e s t s c o r e s .
T h is body o f data was
s t a t i s t i c a l l y ana lyzed i n o r d e r t o answer th e q u e s tio n s which r e la t e d
t o th e broad purposes o f th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS
The f o l l o w i n g were l i m i t a t i o n s
1.
o f th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n :
S p e c i f i c t e a c h in g t e c h n iq u e s , which m ig h t have in flu e n c e d
r e a d in g achievem ent, were n o t c o n t r o l l e d by th e i n v e s t i g a t o r .
2.
C o n tro l o f o t h e r s p e c i f i c t e a c h e r - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s , such
/
as y e a rs o f e x p e rie n c e and classroom management te c h n iq u e s , was beyond
th e scope o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
9
3.
C o n tro l o f e xtra neou s v a r i a b l e s which m ig h t a f f e c t a c h ie v e ­
ment, such as i n t e l l i g e n c e and home e n v iro n m e n t, was beyond th e scope
o f t h is in v e s tig a tio n .
4.
No' p r o v i s i o n was made t o d e te rm in e w h eth er any o f th e
I.
s tu d e n ts were r e p e a tin g t h e i r c u r r e n t grade le v e l o r p r e v io u s grade
le v e ls .
5..
and i n T i t l e
..
.
.
I la b s was n o t c o n t r o l l e d by th e i n v e s t i g a t o r .
The f o l l o w i n g were d e l i m i t a t i o n s o f th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n :
vI .
.T itle
Length o f d a i l y re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l p e r io d s in classrooms
The i n v e s t i g a t i o n in c lu d e d c h i l d r e n who a tte n d e d th e n in e
! - d e s ig n a t e d schoo ls i n B i l l i n g s ,
Montana d u r in g th e 1978-79'
academic y e a r and whose fo rm a l r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n was based e x c lu ­
s i v e l y upon th e '1974 e d i t i o n o f th e Houghton-M if f l in Company basal
re a d in g s e r ie s .
.2.
The I o w -a c h ie v in g group in c lu d e d th e c h i l d r e n in grades
two th ro u g h s i x who a tte n d e d T i t l e
I Reading and Math Labs f o r s u p p le ­
mental i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d in g .
3.
The a c h ie v in g group d u p li c a t e d th e lo w - a c h ie v in g group i n
s iz e and was drawn from th e c h i l d r e n i n grades two th ro u g h s i x who d id
n o t a t te n d th e T i t l e
4.
A ll
I la bs i n t h e i r s c h o o ls .
re a d in g t e s t s and S e lf-E s te e m I n v e n t o r ie s were given
by th e r e g u l a r re a d in g te a ch e rs o f th e s u b j e c t s .
#
10
5.
Measurement, o f s e lf- e s t e e m was l i m i t e d t o Coopersmit h ' s
S e lf-E s te e m I n v e n t o r y .
6. ■Measurement o f re a d in g achievem ent was l i m i t e d to the
Ba sic Reading T e s t s , p u b lis h e d by Houghton-M if f l in Company, to accom­
pany t h e i r 1974 basal re a d in g s e r i e s .
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
The terms l i s t e d here were used th ro u g h o u t th e study and are
d e fin e d as f o l l o w s :
A c h ie v e r .
An a c h ie v e r is. a s t u d e n t who i s n o t - " e d u c a t i o n a l l y
d is a d v a n ta g e d " in re a d in g and does' n o t a t te n d a T i t l e
I Reading and
Math Lab f o r supplem ental i n s t r u c t i o n i n re a d in g .
L o w -a c h ie v e r .
A lo w - a c h ie v e r i s a s tu d e n t who i s
t i o n a l l y d is a d v a n ta g e d " in re a d in g and a tte n d s a T i t l e
"educa­
I Lab f o r
supplem ental i n s t r u c t i o n i n re a d in g because he/she meets both o f the
f o l l o w i n g gen e ra l c r i t e r i a :
An e d u c a t i o n a l l y d isadv an tag ed s t u d e n t i s a s t u d e n t who
i s p e r fo rm in g a t l e a s t s i x (6) months below grade le v e l in
-reading (lang uage a r t s ) o r math.
An e d u c a t i o n a l l y d isadvan tag ed s t u d e n t i s a s t u d e n t who
dem onstrates poor work h a b i t s , has a s h o r t a t t e n t i o n span,
has poor s e lf - im a g e and shows a n e g a tiv e a t t i t u d e toward
school ( T i t l e I P r o j e c t P r o p o s a l, 1 9 7 7 -7 8 :2 ). .
Reading Ach ieve m en t.
<
Reading achievem ent is t h e . t o t a l o f the
scores r e c e iv e d on-tw o t e x t b o o k - r e l a t e d re a d in g t e s t s .
11
S e lf - e s t e e m .
S e lf-e s te e m i s th e sco re r e c e iv e d on
C o o p e rs m ith 1s S e lf-E s te e m I n v e n t o r y .
As noted in Chapter 2, the term
" s e l f - c o n c e p t " i s f r e q u e n t l y used synonymously w i t h s e lf- e s t e e m in
research and in th e l i t e r a t u r e .
' Supplemental Reading I n s t r u c t i o n .
Supplemental re a d in g
i n s t r u c t i o n i s th e d a i l y i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d in g r e c e iv e d by low a c h ie v e rs i n T i t l e
I la b s in a d d i t i o n t o classroom re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n .
Each lo w - a c h ie v e r a tte n d e d th e T i t l e
I la b in h i s / h e r school f o r t h i r t y
to f o r t y m inutes p e r day.
T e x t b o o k - r e la t e d re a d in g t e s t s .
T e x t b o o k - r e la te d re a d in g t e s t s
are th e B a sic Reading Tests p u b lis h e d by Houghton M i f f l i n
Company to
accompany t h e i r 1974 basal re a d in g s e r i e s .
T itle
! - d e s ig n a te d s c h o o ls .
T itle
! - d e s ig n a t e d sch o o ls are
schoo ls which meet f e d e r a l g u i d e l in e s f o r th e r e c e i p t o f monies under
T itle
I o f th e E lem entary and Secondary Education A c t .
In B i l l i n g s 5
Montana5 a minimum o f 13.9 p e r c e n t o f s tu d e n ts in a p a r t i c u l a r school
must come from homes which q u a l i f y f o r f r e e lunch under f e d e r a l g u id e ­
l i n e s in o r d e r f o r t h a t school t o r e c e iv e th e T i t l e
I d e s ig n a tio n .
SUMMARY
In this Chapter5 the investigator stated that the purposes of
this investigation were as follows:
to determine the e ffe c t of fa cto rs5
12
namely, re a d in g achievem ent, grade l e v e l , and.sex upon s e lf- e s t e e m
scores a t th e b e g in n in g o f s t u d e n t s ' academic y e a r and a f t e r f i v e
months o f re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n , and t o d e te rm in e th e e f f e c t o f these
f a c t o r s upon change i n s e lf - e s t e e m s c o r e s .
was documented.
The need f o r th e s tu d y
The i n v e s t i g a t o r enumerated q u e s tio n s which were
c o n s id e re d .as th e y r e l a t e d t o th e broad purposes o f th e re s e a rc h .
The gen eral procedures f o r th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n were d is c u s s e d , and
l i m i t a t i o n s and d e l i m i t a t i o n s were n o te d .
f o r th e re s e a rc h were d e f in e d .
Terms used s p e c i f i c a l l y
C h a p te r 2
'
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
INTRODUCTION
A p p ro x im a te ly o n e - t h i r d o f th e c h i l d r e n i n American classrooms
c
fa il
to become competent reade rs
(Gunderson, 197 6:3 70).
Many
r e s e a rc h e rs have o f f e r e d e x p la n a tio n s f o r underachievem ent i n re a d in g
and in o t h e r academic a re a s .
In h is summary o f th e re s e a rc h r e l a t i v e
to academic underachie vem e nt, Fink (1 9 6 5 :4 8 6 -7 ) noted t h a t la c k o f
p e rse ve ra n ce , a s o c ia l t e n d e n c ie s , su b m is s io n -a g g re s s io n - c o n f l i c t ,
h o s tility ,
o r g a n ic b r a in damage, poor t e a c h in g , low socioeconomic
l e v e l , poor home background, and in a d e q u a te school f a c i l i t i e s
have a l l
been documented as f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o academic u n d e ra c h ie v e m e n t.,
In h is d is c u s s io n o f th e r e s e a r c h , F in k s a id t h a t many o f th e
e x p la n a tio n s f o r academic underachievem ent are s u p e r f i c i a l o r f r a g ­
m entary.
He s u g g e ste d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t
.
. th e problem i s based on a c e n t r a l r a t h e r than a
p e r ip h e r a l m o t i v a t in g f o r c e and f u r t h e r t h a t t h i s f o r c e i s
e s s e n t i a l l y m o la r r a t h e r than m o le c u la r .
The c o n c e p t u a li­
z a t io n t h a t .a p p e a r s t o s a t i s f y b e s t th e above re q u ire m e n ts
i s t h a t o f th e co n ce p t o f s e l f ( F i n k , 1965:487).
In th e f o l l o w i n g re v ie w o f th e l i t e r a t u r e ,
f o r re a d in g achievem ent and f o r s e lf- e s t e e m w i l l
dence w i l l
im p lic a tio n s
be d is c u s s e d .
E v i­
then be c i t e d o f th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e se two f a c t o r s
14
C o n s id e ra tio n w i l l
be g iv e n t o t e a c h in g p r a c t i c e s as th e y r e l a t e t o
re a d in g achievem ent and s e lf- e s t e e m .
A lth o u g h th e terms used t h ro u g h o u t th e s tu d y were
d e fin e d in Chapter I ,
th e i n v e s t i g a t o r f e e l s t h a t th e re v ie w o f th e
l i t e r a t u r e must be p re fa c e d by th e c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f two t e r m s .
For
purposes o f th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , th e terms s e l f - c o n c e p t and s e lf- e s t e e m
were used in te r c h a n g e a b ly .
lite ra tu r e ,
W illia m s
The r e s e a r c h e r n o te d , in exam ining the
t h a t o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t o r s have used th e terms synonymously.
( 1 9 7 3 :3 7 8 ), f o r example, e n t i t l e d her s tu d y The R e la t io n s h ip
o f S elfr-Concept and Reading Achievement in F i r s t Grade C h i l d r e n .
The in s tr u m e n t she used to measure s e l f - c o n c e p t was C o o p e rs m ith 's
S e lf-E s te e m In v e n to r y .
C o n v e rs e ly , Opie and Lemasters (1975 :38 1) used
th e term s e lf- e s t e e m in th e t i t l e
o f t h e i r s tu d y b u t used th e term
s e l f - c o n c e p t i n t h e i r d is c u s s io n o f th e re se a rch problem and the
fin d in g s .
F u r t h e r , M c I n t i r e and Drummond (1976 :52 9) c i t e th e S e l f - .
Esteem I n v e n t o r y as one o f two " . . .
s e l f - c o n c e p t measures commonly
used w i t h e le m e n ta ry school age c h i l d r e n . "
I t must a ls o be noted t h a t in d ic e s r e l a t e d t o th e t o p i c
in v e s t i g a t e d use th e terms s e l f - c o n c e p t and s e lf- e s t e e m in te r c h a n g e a b ly
The E d ucation In d e x , f o r example, has as one o f i t s
to p ic s s e lf-c o n c e p t
The re a d e r i s then r e f e r r e d t o th e heading o f s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n . • Under
t h a t p a r t i c u l a r h e a d in g , some a r t i c l e s
s e l f - c o n c e p t appears in th e t i t l e .
are l i s t e d i n which th e term
Others in th e same s e c t io n have
15
th e term s e lf- e s t e e m in t h e i r t i t l e s .
esteem precedes t i t l e s
S i m i l a r l y , th e heading s e l f ­
u s in g both te rm s —- s e lf - c o n c e p t and s e lf- e s te e m .
. The i n v e s t i g a t o r noted t h a t P s y c h o lo g ic a l A b s t r a c t s ,
B i b l i o g r a p h i c In d e x , and D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s tr a c t s a ls o use th e terms
s e l f - c o n c e p t and s e lf- e s t e e m in te r c h a n g e a b ly .
The same a r t i c l e
is
f r e q u e n t l y l i s t e d under both hea dings.
IMPLICATIONS OF READING ACHIEVEMENT
As e a r l y as 1936, th e em otion al and personal problems o f
r e ta rd e d reade rs were bein g s t u d ie d .
C a r t e r contended t h a t a c h i l d ' s
f a i l u r e t o I earn th e m a t e r i a ls p re se n te d to him m ig h t lead' t o f r u s t r a ­
t i o n o r f e a r w h ic h , i n i t s
em o tio n a l r e s p o n s e ."
in h ib ite d
extre m e, m ig h t cause a " d is o r g a n iz e d
.
The l e a r n in g process would then be f u r t h e r
•
(R obinson, 194 6 :7 7 ).
■ Ten years l a t e r ,
o f t h a t p e r io d .
Robinson summarized th e s i g n i f i c a n t re search
L ik e C a r t e r , she a llu d e d t o th e e f f e c t s o f f a i l u r e .
Robinson in d ic a t e d t h a t a lth o u g h t h e r e were r e l a t i v e l y few s tu d ie s
r e l a t e d t o academic achievem ent, th e y agreed t h a t p le a s a n t s t i m u l i ,
p r i o r academic success, and p r a is e f a c i l i t a t e
a s s o c i a t io n s , f a i l u r e ,
le a r n i n g .
and f r u s t r a t i o n n o t o n ly i n h i b i t l e a r n i n g ; th e y
a ls o p o t e n t i a l l y r e s u l t i n f e e l i n g s o f shame and r e p r o v a l
1 9 4 6 :7 7 ).
Unpleasant
(Robinson,
16
A lth ough Robinson d id n o t r e f e r d i r e c t l y t o s e l f - c o n c e p t ,
she d is cu s se d th e f r u s t r a t i o n and f a i l u r e c y c le in much th e same way
t h a t c u r r e n t re s e a rc h e rs d is c u s s th e low s e lf- e s t e e m and r e a d in g fa ilu r e c y c le .■
I t seems e v id e n t t h a t e m o tio n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s may cause
r e a d in g d i s a b i l i t y in th e b e g in n in g and t h a t t h i s d i s a b i l i t y
may, in t u r n , r e s u l t in f r u s t r a t i o n , which f u r t h e r b lo cks
le a r n i n g and aga in i n t e n s i f i e s th e f r u s t r a t i o n .
The i n t e r ­
a c t io n and i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n become a v ic i o u s c i r c l e , le a d in g
t o in te n s e em otion al m alad justm ents and com plete f a i l u r e to
p ro g re ss in re a d in g ( 1 9 4 6 :7 8 ).
Robinson concluded t h a t th e e m otion al m a la d ju s tm e n t o f a r e ta rd e d
re a d e r may be e i t h e r th e cause o r th e r e s u l t o f " .
. . th e i n t e r a c t i o n
o f re a d in g f a i l u r e and em otion al m a la d ju s tm e n ts " ( 1 9 4 6 :7 8 ).
I n v e s t i g a t o r s have c o n tin u e d to examine th e e f f e c t s o f underachievem ent i n re a d in g .
Camp and Zim et (1975:109) s t u d ie d f o r t y - f i v e
f i r s t - g r a d e c h i l d r e n who had been d i v id e d i n t o h ig h , m id d le , and low
re a d in g groups on th e b a s is o f t h e i r s k i l l s .
c h i l d r e n ' s b e h a v io r in t h i r t y - n i n e c a t e g o r i e s .
Observers reco rd e d th e
In t h e i r d is c u s s io n
o f th e s t u d y , th e r e s e a rc h e rs noted t h a t d e c re a s in g re a d in g s k i l l was
a s s o c ia te d w ith .m o r e tim e samples i n which d e v ia n t b e h a v io r and i n t e r ­
r u p t io n s o c c u r r e d .
T h is c o r r o b o r a te s G ra u b a rd 's (1971) f i n d i n g t h a t
as r e a d in g le v e l d e crea ses, b e h a v io r problems in c r e a s e .
G la v in and
Annesley (1971) a ls o found a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between b e h a v io r
problems and re a d in g underachievem ent.
17
A lth o u g h te a c h e rs c o n tin u e t o be p r i m a r i l y in t e r e s t e d , in how
w e ll each c h i l d can re a d , and i n the e x t e n t t o which he uses re a d in g
s k i l l s ' in o t h e r academic a re a s , th e y a r e , a c c o rd in g to A u s tin (1 9 5 8 :2 4 ),
becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y concerned w i t h c h i l d r e n ' s f e e l i n g s abo ut r e a d i n g .
What does a c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y
t o r e a d - - o r th e la c k o f it - - m e a n to him?
What needs a re being s a t i s f i e d , o r f r u s t r a t e d , . a s a r e s u l t o f h is le v e l
o f re a d in g s k i l l ?
What i s th e process o f l e a r n in g to read doing to
him?
When d i f f i c u l t y in r e a d in g does o c c u r , th e accompanying,
f e e l i n g s o f f a i l u r e and f r u s t r a t i o n o f t e n le a d t o em otionalc o n flic ts .
N e g a tive a t t i t u d e s develop toward r e a d in g , and
th e p u p il expresses h i s d i s l i k e o f th e process in a v a r i e t y
o f ways . . . .
Depending upon h i s b a s ic temperament, the
c h i l d may become d e f i a n t l y u n c o o p e r a t iv e , w ith d ra w in g and
i n a t t e n t i v e , o r o v e r - a n x io u s and te n se ( A u s t i n , 1 9 5 8 :2 4 ).
F a i l u r e i n re a d in g has been c i t e d by te a ch e rs as a problem
common t o th e d r o p o u t, th e u n d e r a c h ie v e r, and to s tu d e n ts e r ro n e o u s ly
la b e le d as " r e t a r d e d "
(E a rp , 197 4:5 62).
O ther s e r io u s consequences
o f re a d in g f a i l u r e were found i n f o u r s e p a ra te s t u d i e s , w hich con­
cluded t h a t .
. . .
i n c e r t a i n in s ta n c e s , f a i l u r e in re a d in g tends
t o c o n t r i b u t e to j u v e n i l e d e lin q u e n c y .
In g e n e r a l, th e
evidence in d ic a t e s t h a t th e person w i t h a re a d in g
[ d i f f i c u l t y ] tends a ls o t o be th e person w it h o t h e r a d j u s t ­
ment problems (Bond and T i n k e r , 1 9 6 7 :7 ).
18
The p r o g n o s is , however, i s e n c o u ra g in g .
C o r r e c t io n o f a
s t u d e n t 's d i s a b i l i t y a c t u a l l y tends to im prove h is p e rso n a l and s o c ia l
a d ju s tm e n t (Bond and T i n k e r , 1 9 6 7 :7 ).
A c c o rd in g t o A u s t in ( 1 9 5 8 :2 6 ),
when a p p r o p r ia t e methods and m a t e r i a ls a re employed by a com petent,
c a r in g t e a c h e r , th e c h i l d w i l l
g r a d u a l l y e xp e rie n c e success i n re a d in g .
Improved e m o tio n a l h e a lt h r e s u l t s .
When f e e l i n g s o f achievem ent and s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e
a re r e s t o r e d , th e em o tio n a l h e a lt h o f th e i n d i v i d u a l can
be expected t o show improvement a ls o .
Indeed, success
i n le a r n i n g t o read a f t e r a lo ng p e r io d o f f a i l u r e may
be o f g r e a t e r im p o rta n ce t o the i n d i v i d u a l than th e a c tu a l
use o f th e a b i l i t y i t s e l f ( A u s t i n , 1 9 5 8 :2 6 ).
The f o r e g o in g s e c t io n has summarized th e re s e a rc h r e l a t i v e to
•the im p o r t a n c e . o f achievem ent i n r e a d in g .
Reading f a i l u r e has been
c i t e d as a cause o f n e g a tiv e b e h a v io r , i n c l u d i n g j u v e n i l e d e lin q u e n c y .
IMPLICATIONS FOR SELF-ESTEEM
A lth o u g h many d e f i n i t i o n s f o r s e lf- e s t e e m have been advanced,
most o f them c e n t e r upon an i n d i v i d u a l ' s vie w o f h i m s e l f .
s e lf-c o n c e p t is
For F in k ,
. . th e a t t i t u d e s and f e e l i n g s t h a t a person has
r e g a r d in g h i m s e l f " (1 9 6 5 :4 8 7 ).
He noted t h a t
I t i s i m p l i c i t in t h i s d e f i n i t i o n t h a t these a t t i t u d e s
and f e e l i n g s .lead to a tte m p ts on th e p a r t o f th e i n d i v i d u a l
th ro u g h v a r io u s a c t io n s to enhance o r defend h i m s e l f
(1 9 6 5 :4 8 7 ).
Vv
19
V i r g i n i a S a t i r (1972:2.1) used th e word " p o t " t o mean s e l f w o r th , s e l f - c o n c e p t , o r s e lf- e s t e e m .
in d iv id u a l's
p o t has as i t s
A c c o rd in g t o S a t i r 5 an
source n o t o n ly th e i n d i v i d u a l h i m s e l f ,
b u t a ls o th e i n t e r a c t i o n o f th e i n d i v i d u a l w i t h o t h e r p eo ple .
A. Jackson S te n n e r, p r e s id e n t o f N a tio n a l T e s t in g S e r v ic e ,
I n c . , and W il li a m G. Katzenmeyer, p r o f e s s o r o f e d u c a tio n and a s s o c ia te
dean o f th e Graduate S ch o o l, Duke U n i v e r s i t y , c o lla b o r a t e d on a stu d y
o f th e .d e v e lo p m e n t o f s e l f - c o n c e p t ' i n young c h i l d r e n .
Based upon
t h e i r r e s e a r c h , th e y d e s c rib e d c h i l d r e n w i t h p o s i t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t s
and c h i l d r e n w i t h poor concepts o f them selve s.
C h ild r e n . . . w i t h p o s i t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t s are con­
f i d e n t o f t h e i r a b i l i t y to meet everyday problems and
demands and are a t ease in t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w it h
o t h e r p e o p le .
They compare them selves f a v o r a b l y w i t h
t h e i r peers and f e e l t h a t a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e s are supp or­
t i v e and i n t e r e s t e d in them as i n d i v i d u a l s .
These
c h i l d r e n tend t o be c o m p a r a tiv e ly in depe nden t and r e l i a b l e
and a re r e l a t i v e l y f r e e fro m a n x i e t y , nervousness, and
e x c e s s iv e w o r r y , t ir e d n e s s , and l o n e l i n e s s .
They are
seldom c o n s id e re d b e h a v io r problem s.
As f o r t h e i r s c h o o lw o rk, th e s e c h i l d r e n tend to be above average in re a d in g
and m athem atics.
They g e n e r a ll y a t t a i n h ig h e r scores on
s t a n d a r d iz e d achievem ent t e s t s than would be p r e d i c t e d
from a b i l i t y t e s t s .
They vie w s c h o o l as a happy, w o r t h ­
w h il e p la c e t o be (1 9 7 6 :3 5 6 ).
A c c o rd in g to th e a u t h o r s , c h i l d r e n having poor s e lf - c o n c e p t s e x h i b i t
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w hich a re o p p o s ite t o th o se mentioned above.
The im portance o f s e lf- e s t e e m f o r both academic and personal
achievem ent has been r e p e a te d ly d is cu sse d i n the l i t e r a t u r e .
be shown in th e n e x t s e c t io n o f t h i s
As w i l l
l i t e r a t u r e r e v ie w , a p o s i t i v e
20
s e lf - im a g e may be im p o r t a n t f o r success i n l e a r n i n g .
t o f u t u r e achievem ent.
I t is e s s e n tia l
A c c o rd in g t o Ryan (1 9 7 5 :1 3 2 ), c h i l d r e n w ith
p o s i t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t s are l i k e l y t o vie w th e f u t u r e in a p o s i t i v e
way.
They e x p e c t t o succeed.
■
C o n v e rs e ly , c h i l d r e n who have
e xp e rie n c e d f a i l u r e and who h o ld n e g a tiv e s e l f - c o n c e p t s vie w the
f u t u r e as c o n t a i n in g y e t more o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r f a i l u r e .
,
.
Because s e lf - e s t e e m , more than any o t h e r f a c t o r , a f f e c t s an
in d iv id u a l's
c h ild re n w i l l
b e h a v io r- (R y a n , 1 9 7 5 :1 3 2 -3 ), i t
becomes p o s s i b l e t h a t
e x h i b i t n e g a tiv e b e h a v io r w hich i s r e f l e c t i v e o f nega­
t i v e a t t i t u d e s tow ard s e l f .
As a r e s u l t , th e y o f t e n f a i l
t o reach
t h e i r t r u e p o t e n t i a l f o r academic and perso n a l achievem ent.
This
phenomenon can be observed i n v e r y young c h i l d r e n :
Even by f i r s t g rade , many c a n ' t s e p a ra te " I 'm n o t
v e ry good a t r e a d in g " ( o r w r i t i n g , o r a r i t h m e t i c ) from
" I ' m n o t v e r y - g o o d . " And then so much o f what th e y do
grows o u t o f n e g a tiv e s e lf- e s t e e m and c o n tin u e s t o prove
t o them how bad th e y r e a l l y are (Simon and O 'Rourke,
197 5:4 6).
In many cases, th e n e g a tiv e b e h a v io r r e s u l t i n g from the
f e e l i n g s o f " I ' m n o t v e r y good" c o n tin u e s i n t o a d u lth o o d .
T h is was
dem onstrated by B a le s t e r in a s tu d y o f th e s e l f - c o n c e p t s o f d e lin q u e n ts .
He found t h a t
. . . a d u lt s had more p o s i t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t s than j u v e ­
n i l e n o n d e lin q u e n t s , n o n d e lin q u e n ts p e rc e iv e d themselves
more p o s i t i v e l y than f i r s t - o f f e n d e r d e lin q u e n t s , and these
l a t t e r , in t u r n , possess more p o s i t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t s ' t h a n
" r e p e a t e r s " (Combs, 1959:267).
21
H u n t e r 's i n t e r v i e w s w i t h s c h o o l-a g e d c h i l d r e n have y i e l d e d
i n f o r m a t i o n w hich r e l a t e s good b e h a v io r t o good f e e l i n g s ab o u t th e
s e l f , r e s u l t i n g fro m p o s i t i v e e n co u n te rs w i t h te a c h e r s .
The.comments
o f a group o f c h i l d r e n who had been b e h a v io r problems th r o u g h o u t most
o f t h e i r school y e a rs i n d i c a t e d t h a t most o f t h e i r te a c h e rs had made
them f e e l d e va lu e d .
The c h i l d r e n g e n e r a l l y agreed t h a t th e y had
behaved w e ll i n th e cla ssroo m s o f te a c h e rs who had encouraged them
by s a y in g p o s i t i v e t h in g s abo ut them ( 1 9 7 5 :1 5 ).
In summary, a lth o u g h many d e f i n i t i o n s o f s e l f - e s t e e m , o r
s e l f - c o n c e p t , have been advanced, th e l i t e r a t u r e
i n d i c a t e s t h a t th e y
g e n e r a l l y c e n t e r around th e i n d i v i d u a l ' s vie w o f h i m s e l f .
is tic s
C h a ra c te r ­
o f i n d i v i d u a l s h a v in g p o s i t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t s , and th o s e having
n e g a t iv e s e l f - c o n c e p t s have been d is c u s s e d .
Evidence has been c i t e d
w hich sugg ests th e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f s e lf - e s t e e m f o r b e h a v io r p a t t e r n s .
■ .SELF-ESTEEM AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
E d u c a to rs , p s y c h o l o g i s t s , and o t h e r re s e a r c h e r s have d is c u s s e d
th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e lf - e s t e e m and academic a chievem ent.
Both
Burg (1 9 7 5 :3 6 2 ) and Goodlad (1 9 6 4 :1 2 ) contended t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m is
r e l a t e d t o achievem ent in a c y c l i c a l manner.
Poor achievem ent r e s u l t s
i n a lo w ered s e l f - i m a g e , w hich p e r p e tu a te s th e poor achievem ent.
F u rth e rm o re ,
".
. . th e problem s r e s u l t i n g from f a i l u r e
th e e f f o r t t o teach th e c h i l d t o re a d "
t o read b lo c k
(Good!ad, 1 9 6 4 :1 2 ).
For th e .
22
d is a b le d r e a d e r, th e school e xp e rie n c e may r e i n f o r c e t h e n e g a tiv e
s e l f - c o n c e p t and th e academic f a i l u r e .
"Every school day i n n e a r ly
e v e ry classroom s e t t i n g he i s reminded t h a t he i s an in a d e q u a te human
b e in g .
He i s em barrassed, r i d i c u l e d , and p a t r o n i z e d "
(Sawyer,
197 4 :5 5 9 -6 0 ).
Pine (1978 :41 2) review ed th e f i n d i n g s o f ele ve n s tu d ie s in
which measures o f s e l f - c o n c e p t were r e l a t e d t o measures o f re a d in g
achievem ent.
The re se a rch w i t h c h i l d r e n in grades t h r e e th ro u g h nine
i n d i c a t e s t h a t s u c c e s s fu l reade rs g e n e r a ll y have p o s i t i v e s e l f - .
c o n c e p ts ; th e o p p o s ite i s g e n e r a ll y t r u e o f u n s u c c e s s fu l■re a d e rs .
Burg (1975 :36 2) r e p o r t s t h a t s e lf- e s t e e m i s s i g n i f i c a n t even
i n th e e a r l i e s t y e a rs o f a c h i l d ' s
fo rm a l e d u c a tio n .
been shown t o have a f u n c t i o n a l u t i l i t y
S e lf-e s te e m has
a t th e k in d e r g a r te n l e v e l .
At
th e end o f grade tw o , s e lf- e s t e e m has proven t o be a b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r
o f achievem ent in. r e a d in g than e i t h e r i n t e l l i g e n c e o r re a d in e s s t e s t s .
The f i n d i n g s o f o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s , however, r e f u t e the ones
r e p o r te d above.
W illia m s examined o b j e c t i v e scores o f young c h i l d r e n ' s
s e l f - c o n c e p t s and t h e i r f i r s t and second grade re a d in g achievement
scores.
"There was e s s e n t i a l l y no r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e c h i l d r e n ' s
s e l f - c o n c e p t s and t h e i r f i r s t and second grade re a d in g achievem ent"
(1 9 7 3 :3 7 9 ).
S i m i l a r l y , two s t u d ie s o f f i r s t and second g r a d e rs ,
r e p o r te d by P in e , " . . .
f a ile d to f in d a s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e
23
between th e s e l f - c o n c e p t scores o f s u c c e s s fu l and u n s u c c e s s fu l
r e a d e rs " (1 9 7 8 :4 1 3 ).
A s tu d y o f 198 p u p il s from f o u r t h , f i f t h ,
and s i x t h grades
examined n o t o n ly s e l f - c o n c e p t and achievem ent b u t a ls o te a c h e r r a t i n g s
o f s tu d e n ts ' s e lf-c o n c e p ts .
No s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found
between s e l f - c o n c e p t and re a d in g o r m athematics achievem ent s c o re s .
I n t e r e s t i n g l y , however, " t e a c h e r 's r a t i n g o f th e c h i l d ' s s e l f - c o n c e p t
was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o achievem ent in re a d in g and m athem atics"
(Chang, 1 97 6:1 12).
The f i n d i n g s o f a s tu d y o f e le m e n ta ry and j u n i o r h ig h male
u n d e ra c h ie v e rs a ls o q u e s tio n e d th e w i d e l y r e p o r te d r e l a t i o n s h i p
between s e l f - c o n c e p t and achievem ent.
When both groups o f boys were
combined, a lo w s e l f - c o n c e p t was r e l a t e d t o academic underachievem ent
i n a p p ro x im a te ly h a l f o f th e s u b je c t s
•Although l i t t l e
(Opie and L e m a s te rs , 1975:384).
re s e a rc h has been conducted r e l a t i v e to s e l f -
c o n c e p t, achievem ent, and i n t e l l i g e n c e ,
it
i s im p o r t a n t to n ote t h a t
c h i ld r e n w i t h average o r above average i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t scores are
o f t e n academic u n d e r a c h ie v e r s .
grade c h i l d r e n , W illia m s
In her s tu d y o f 133 f i r s t and second
(1973:379) h y p o th e s iz e d a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a ­
t i o n between s e l f - c o n c e p t scores and re a d in g achievement scores in
grades one and two.
She a ls o h y p o th e s iz e d t h a t s e l f - c o n c e p t scores
a re b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r s o f re a d in g achievem ent scores than are i n t e l l i ­
gence s c o r e s .
The i n v e s t i g a t o r f a i l e d t o f i n d s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s
between s e l f - c o n c e p t and f i r s t o r second grade re a d in g achievem ent.
S e lf - c o n c e p t scores were n o t found t o be b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r s o f re a d in g
achievem ent than i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s c o r e s .
Moreover, a c c o rd in g to
W il li a m s , t h e r e was n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - c o n c e p t
and i n t e l l i g e n c e .
The l i t e r a t u r e review ed h e r e in in d i c a t e d c o n f l i c t i n g f i n d i n g s
r e l a t i v e t o th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e lf- e s t e e m and re a d in g a c h ie v e ­
ment.
In g e n e r a l, however, these two f a c t o r s seem t o be more c l o s e l y
r e l a t e d i n th e e a r l y years o f a c h i l d ' s
fo rm a l I d u c a t i on.
Researchers
have f a i l e d t o f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between s e l f - c o n c e p t
and i n t e l l i g e n c e .
TEACHING PRACTICES AS THEY RELATE TO SELF-ESTEEM
A lth o u g h i t
i s g e n e r a ll y assumed t h a t te a c h e rs want t o employ
t e a c h in g s t r a t e g i e s and m a t e r i a ls t h a t w i l l
te a c h e rs are f r e q u e n t l y unaware o f p o t e n t i a l
in some o f t h e i r methods.
b e n e fit t h e i r stu d e n ts,
n e g a tiv e e f f e c t s
in h e r e n t
For example, r e g a r d le s s o f classroom o r g a n i­
z a t i o n , c h i l d r e n a re f r e q u e n t l y grouped by a b i l i t y f o r re a d in g
in s tr u c tio n .
The stage i s s e t f o r s u b t l e forms o f c o m p e t it io n between
re a d in g g ro u p s, o f t e n noted as e a r l y as f i r s t grade.
Camp and Zimet
a llu d e d t o th e p o t e n t i a l consequences o f classroom c o m p e t it io n .
. . . a c o m p e t it iv e classroom m i l i e u may . . . h e ig h te n
th e le s s s u c c e s s fu l s t u d e n t s ' d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith , t h e i r
own perform ance w i t h a r e s u l t i n g in c re a s e in I n a t t e n t i v e n e s s
and a t t e n t i o n - g e t t i n g b e h a v io r (1 9 7 5 :1 1 0 ).
25
In t h e i r d is c u s s io n o f a b i l i t y g r o u p in g , a n o th e r team o f
i n v e s t i g a t o r s noted t h a t a lth o u g h t h e r e i s
little
s i g n i f i c a n t research
r e l a t i v e t o t h e . e f f e c t s o f a b i l i t y g ro u p in g f o r re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n ,
"Some [r e s e a r c h e r s ] s u sp e ct t h a t a c o n c o m ita n t o f a b i l i t y
r e a d in g i s th e development o f th e c h i l d ' s
s e lf-c o n c e p t"
g ro u p in g in
( M i l l e r and
.B e r in g , 1 97 5:3 89).
A lth o u g h most te a c h e rs e m p h a t i c a ll y deny showing f a v o r i t i s m
t o p a r t i c u l a r s tu d e n ts o r groups o f s t u d e n t s , th e re s e a rc h f i n d i n g s
o f M i l l e r and B e rin g (1975 :39 1) p o in te d t o one p o s s ib le source o f
.lo w e r s e lf- e s t e e m in u n d e ra c h ie v in g s t u d e n t s .
The re s e a rc h e rs found
t h a t many te a c h e rs p r e f e r t o work w i t h c h i l d r e n in th e h i g h e s t re a d in g
group.
The p r e fe re n c e f o r g i v i n g th e most i n s t r u c t i o n to th e c h i l d r e n
who need i t
th e l e a s t i s n o t o n ly i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a b a s ic purpose
f o r g ro u p in g by re a d in g a b i l i t y .
A c c o rd in g to th e i n v e s t i g a t o r s , i t
a ls o p re s e n ts an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r u n d e ra c h ie v in g re ade rs t o p e rc e iv e
n e g a tiv e te a c h e r a t t i t u d e s toward them as l e a r n e r s , and p o s s i b l y as
pe o p le .
The r e s e a rc h e rs c a u tio n e d te a c h e r s , t h e r e f o r e , t o " .
. .
guard a g a in s t any n e g a tiv e e f f e c t s t h a t may be f o s t e r e d th ro u g h such
g ro u p in g p r a c t ic e s w i t h c h i l d r e n in r e a d in g " (1 9 7 5 :3 9 1 ).
Davidson and Lang (1965:437) dem onstrated t h a t c h i l d r e n do,
in d e e d , p e r c e iv e how t h e i r tea ch e rs f e e l abo ut them.
In t h e i r study
o f c h i l d r e n ' s p e r c e p tio n s o f t h e i r te a c h e r s ' f e e l i n g s , th e i n v e s t i ­
g a to r s found a p o s i t i v e a n d ' s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between c h i l d r e n ' s
26
s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s and c h i l d r e n ' s p e r c e p tio n s o f t h e i r t e a c h e r s ' f e e l i n g s
toward them.
C h ild r e n w i t h more f a v o r a b l e s e lf- im a g e s g e n e r a ll y p e r­
c e iv e d t h e i r t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e s toward them more f a v o r a b l y .
As shown above, c o m p e t it io n i s a s u b t l e v a r i a b l e which
p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t s s e lf- e s t e e m and success in l e a r n in g t o read.
may be seen i n th e e a r l i e s t years o f a c h i l d ' s e d u c a tio n .
tru e o f pressure.
It
The same i s
Earp commented on th e presence o f p re s s u re in c l a s s ­
rooms, and noted th e r e s u l t s o f p re s s u re upon th e n a t u r a l le a r n in g
p ro c e s s .
She suggested t h a t s tro n g em otio n a l o ve rto n e s accompany
th e process o f l e a r n i n g t o . r e a d .
For th e c h i l d who i s havin g d i f f i ­
c u l t y w i t h t h i s p r o c e s s , th e p re s s u re c o n t r i b u t e s t o h is f a i l u r e
(1 9 7 4 :5 6 2 ).
Many s u b t le forms o f p re s s u re are p r e s e n t w i t h i n th e classroom
and w i t h i n th e c h i l d h i m s e l f .
te s tin g .
A more obvious form o f p re s s u re l i e s
A c c o rd in g t o Sawyer, te a c h e rs o f t e n assume t h a t th e c h i l d
can le a r n s p e c i f i c s k i l l s ,
b u t s im p ly h a s n ' t .
This assum ption leads
t o r e p e t i t i v e t e a c h in g , and u l t i m a t e l y , t o f a i l u r e f o r th e c h i l d .
Diagnoses tend t o be conducted w i t h i n a s p e c i f i c conceptual
fram ew ork.
Reading te a ch e rs tend t o focus on an assessment
o f r e a d in g s k i l l s m astered and those i n which th e c h i l d is
d e f i c i e n t . . C l e a r l y , any c h i l d e x p e r ie n c in g d i f f i c u l t y in
r e a d in g w i l l e x h i b i t a p r o f i l e o f s k i l l d e f i c i e n c i e s , and the
i n a b i l i t y t o use the se s k i l l s w i l l d i r e c t l y i n h i b i t re a d in g
perform ance.
A p r e s c r i p t i o n c e n t e r in g on i n s t r u c t i o n i n the
s k i l l d e f i c i e n t areas would seem re a s o n a b le .
The assum ption
would be t h a t th e c h i l d i s capable o f le a r n in g these s k i l l s
b u t f o r some unknown reason has n o t y e t le a rn e d them.
Most
in
27
i f n o t a l l s p e c ia l r e a d in g c la s s i n s t r u c t i o n in our p u b l i c
sc h o o ls i s p r e d ic a t e d upon t h i s assum ptio n.
For some
c h i l d r e n acceptance o f t h i s assum ption and the r e s u l t i n g
recommendation f o r "more o f th e same" i s art a u to m a tic p r e ­
s c r i p t i o n f o r f r u s t r a t i o n and f a i l u r e (Sawyer, 1 9 7 5 :6 2 0 -1 ).
Diagnoses and rem e d ia l s u g g e s tio n s which focus o n ly upon a c h i l d ' s
f a i l u r e s doom him t o f u r t h e r f a i l u r e and p e r p e tu a te th e low achievem ent,
low s e lf - e s t e e m c y c le (Sawyer, 1 97 5:6 21).
Teaching m a t e r i a ls must a ls o be c o n s id e re d as th e y r e l a t e to
s e l f - c o n c e p t and success i n l e a r n in g t o read.
D e spite th e a tte m p ts
o f e d u c a to rs , r e s e a r c h e r s , and p u b lis h e r s t o c r e a te a v a r i e t y o f
m a t e r i a ls f o r th e te a c h in g o f r e a d in g , basal re a d e rs predo m inate.
Indeed, " i n 95 p e r c e n t o f o u r s c h o o ls , th e basal re a d e r ij5_ th e
r e a d in g program" (Gunderson, 19 7 6 :3 7 1 ).
One can o n ly s p e c u la te upon
th e consequences f o r th e c h i l d who does n o t " f i t "
th e program.
I m p l i c a t i o n s o f te a c h in g s t r a t e g i e s f o r s t u d e n t s ' s e lf- e s t e e m
have been d is c u s s e d .
G rouping f o r r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n , w i t h i t s
c o n c o m ita n t c o m p e t it io n , has been examined as i t
ment o f s e lf - e s t e e m .
r e l a t e s t o th e d e v e lo p ­
Teacher p r e fe re n c e f o r p a r t i c u l a r r e a d in g group s,
p r e s s u r e , and te a c h in g m a t e r i a ls have a ls o been discu sse d as f a c t o r s
r e l a t i n g t o s e lf- e s t e e m .
11 Jl
28
The fo r e g o in g re v ie w o f th e l i t e r a t u r e examined the . im p li c a ­
t i o n s o f re a d in g achievem ent and o f s e l f- e s t e e m .
o f th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between these two f a c t o r s .
Evidence was c i t e d
C o n s id e ra tio n was
g iv e n t o te a c h in g p r a c t ic e s as th e y r e l a t e t o re a d in g achievem ent and
s e lf-c o n c e p t.
C h a p te r 3
PROCEDURES
INTRODUCTION
The purposes o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n were as f o l l o w s :
to d e t e r ­
mine th e e f f e c t o f f a c t o r s , namely, r e a d in g achievem ent, grade l e v e l ,
and sex upon s e lf- e s t e e m scores a t th e b e g in n in g o f s t u d e n t s ' academic
y e a r and a f t e r f i v e months o f r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n , and t o determ ine
th e e f f e c t o f these f a c t o r s upon change i n s e lf- e s t e e m s c o r e s .
In t h i s c h a p te r , th e i n v e s t i g a t o r w i l l
procedures o f th e s tu d y .
fo llo w s :
d is c u s s in d e t a i l the
S e c tio n s in c lu d e d in t h i s c h a p te r are as
( I ) p o p u la t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n and sam pling p r o c e d u re s ,
(2) r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l
p ro c e d u re ,
(4 ) methods o f o r g a n iz in g d a ta ,
(3 ) methods o f c o l l e c t i n g d a ta ,
(5 ) s t a t i s t i c a l
hyp o th e se s,
(6 ) a n a ly s is o f th e d a t a , and (7 ) p r e c a u tio n s taken . f o r a ccu ra cy.
POPULATION DESCRIPTION AND SAMPLING PROCEDURE
P r i o r t o th e f a l l
opening o f s c h o o l, th e i n v e s t i g a t o r met w i t h
a p p r o p r ia t e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c i a l s
Montana.
o f School D i s t r i c t #2, B i l l i n g s ,
The purposes o f th e re se a rch and th e procedures, t o be
employed in th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n were d is c u s s e d .
The i n v e s t i g a t o r
\
requ e ste d th e c o o p e r a tio n o f th e p r i n c i p a l s o f th e n in e T i t l e
s c h o o ls .
I
A lth o u g h th e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h whom th e i n v e s t i g a t o r
30
d is cu sse d th e re s e a rc h in d ic a t e d t h a t th e y b e lie v e d a l l
n in e p r in c i p a l 's
would c o o p e ra te , p a r t i c i p a t i o n on th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n was v o l u n t a r y .
Indeed, a l l
n in e p r i n c i p a l s d id c o o p e ra te in th e re s e a rc h .
Two groups o f 142 s tu d e n ts each were taken from th e p o p u la tio n
o f second th ro u g h s i x t h grade c h i l d r e n who a tte n d e d th e n in e T i t l e
I-
d e sig n a te d p u b l i c sch o o ls i n B i l l i n g s , Montana d u r in g th e 1978-79
academic y e a r .
L ow -a chie vers were a l l
s tu d e n ts e n r o l l e d i n T i t l e
la b s f o r supplem ental r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n .
I
A ch ie v e rs were s e le c te d
from th e re m a in in g s t u d e n t p o p u la tio n a c c o r d in g t o th e judgm ent o f
th e i n v e s t i g a t o r .
P a r t i c i p a n t s were grouped a c c o rd in g t o grade le v e l
and sex.
READING INSTRUCTIONAL PROCEDURES
Procedures f o r th e a c h ie v e r group c o n s is te d o f th e re a d in g
i n s t r u c t i o n a l program based upon th e Houghton M i f f l i n
1974 e d i t i o n .
Reading S e r i e s ,
The i n s t r u c t i o n was implemented by th e s u b j e c t s '
r e g u l a r r e a d in g te a c h e r s .
In a d d i t i o n t o classroom r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n ,
th e lo w - a c h ie v e r g r o u p .r e c e iv e d supplem ental re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n in th e
T itle
I la b s .
M ifflin
The b a sis f o r t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n was a ls o th e Houghton
Reading Ser i e s .
A f t e r c o m p le tio n o f each s e c t i o n , o r
"m a g a z in e ," o f th e basal t e x t s , s u b je c t s were given a B a sic Reading
31
T e s t, developed by Houghton M i f f l i n
p a r t i c u l a r s e c t io n o f th e t e x t .
Company, t o accompany t h a t
A f t e r each t e s t , s u b je c t s were
i n d i v i d u a l l y in fo rm e d o f t h e i r perform ance on t h a t t e s t .
o f th is
For purposes
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , each s u b j e c t to o k two Ba sic Reading T e s ts .
C o n tro l o f te a c h in g s t y l e , m a t e r i a l s , and classroom management
te c h n iq u e s was beyond th e scope o f t h i s
'
in v e s tig a tio n .
METHODS OF COLLECTING DATA
Reading Achievement Data
S tudents were c l a s s i f i e d as " lo w - a c h ie v e r s " o r " a c h ie v e r s "
based upon t h e i r a tte n d a n c e o r n o n -a tte n d a n c e i n th e T i t l e
t h e i r schoo ls f o r supplem ental i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d in g .
I la bs in
S p e c ific i n f o r ­
m ation r e l a t i v e t o achievem ent i n r e a d in g , used in th e a n a ly s i s o f
h y p o th e s is t e n , was c o l l e c t e d from an e xa m in a tio n o f s t u d e n t s ' scores
on th e f i r s t two B a sic Reading Tests take n d u r in g th e 1978-79 academic
year.
Each o f th e r e a d in g t e s t s f o r . g r a d e s two th ro u g h s i x c o n s is ts
o f a t e s t b o o k le t in which th e s t u d e n t works in d e p e n d e n tly .
s k ill
The f o u r
areas and t h e i r components are as f o l l o w s :
Decoding S k i l l s :
P r o n u n c ia tio n .
W o r d -a tta c k , E x p re s s io n a l S k i l l s ,
Comprehension S k i l l s :
L ite ra l
I n t e r p r e t i v e T h in k in g , M e a n in g - A c q u is itio n .
Study S k i l l s :
In fo rm a tio n -L o c a tin g ,
Comprehension,
Reference.and
I n f o r m a t io n - A p p r a is i n g ,
32
I n f o r m a t io n - O r g a n iz i n g .
L ite ra ry S k ills :
C la s s ific a tio n ,
Elem entary I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Q u a l i t y E v a lu a tio n .
Separate scores are achieved f o r each component a re a .
Composite scores a re c a l c u l a t e d f o r each o f th e f o u r m a jo r s k i l l
and f o r th e t o t a l t e s t .
For purposes o f t h i s
in v e s tig a tio n , to ta l
t e s t scores were used as th e m e a s u re .o f r e a d in g achievem ent.
i n v e s t i g a t o r d is c u s s e d use o f th e t o t a l
areas
The
t e s t s c o re s , as opposed to
use o f th e com posite scores f o r th e f o u r s k i l l
a r e a s , w i t h Mr. Roland
F ly n n , fo rm e r Reading C o n s u lta n t f o r School D i s t r i c t #2, and w it h
Ms. RuthAnn G reen, a r e p r e s e n t a t iv e o f Houghton M i f f l i n
Both Mr.
Flynn and Ms. Green in d i c a t e d t h a t use o f t o t a l
Company.
t e s t scores
was l e g i t i m a t e f o r purposes o f th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . . L e t t e r s from
Mr. Flynn and Ms. Green r e l a t i v e t o t h a t is s u e appear i n Appendix A and
an e x p la n a tio n . o f th e r e a d in g achievem ent scores appears i n Appendix B.
I n f o r m a t io n co n c e rn in g th e r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y o f the
B a sic Reading T ests does n o t accompany th e m a t e r i a ls d i s t r i b u t e d by
Houghton M i f f l i n
Company f o r use in th e s c h o o ls .
T h e r e f o r e , th e
i n v e s t i g a t o r tele p h o n e d Ms. RuthAnn G reen, a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . o f the
re a d in g dep a rtm e n t a t Houghton M i f f l i n , and asked f o r th e necessary
in f o r m a t i o n .
In h e r w r i t t e n r e p l y t o th e i n v e s t i g a t o r , Ms. Green
i n d ic a t e d t h a t " i t
i s Houghton M i f f l i n
d i s t r i b u t e t e s t d ata on i t s
C o m p a n y 's .p o lic y n o t to
v a r io u s p ro g ra m s ."
The f o l l o w i n g i n f o r ­
m a tio n ,. however, was p ro v id e d t o th e i n v e s t i g a t o r :
33
Al I t e s t s are v a l i d a t e d th ro u g h a v a r i e t y o f measures,
however; I e a rn e r v e r i f i c a t i o n s t u d i e s , f i e l d t e s t i n g ,
te a c h e r a t t i t u d e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , and ite m a n a ly s is s t u d i e s '
by a s t a f f - c o n s u l t a n t on t e s t i n g who r e g u l a r l y screens th e
r e a d in g t e s t i n g program.
The most r e c e n t r e a d in g le a r n e r v e r i f i c a t i o n s tu d y was
in 1976-77 f o r THE HOUGHTON MIFFLIN READING SERIES, 1976
E d itio n .
The b a s ic purpose o f t h i s s tu d y was t o o b t a in
feedback on th e le a r n in g - t e a c h i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f th e
HMRS program t h a t can be used t o enhance th e i n s t r u c t i o n a l
q u a lity o f fu tu re e d itio n s .
The two types o f data c o l l e c t e d
in t h i s stu d y^w e re :
L e a rn e r T e s t D a ta : Data on th e HMRS Tests o f B a sic
Reading S k i l l s were c o l l e c t e d from a n a t io n a l c r o s s - s e c t i o n
o f some 1,000 s tu d e n ts in s i x e le m e n ta ry schoo ls u s in g th e
program , grades K-6.
The sample i s r e p r e s e n t a t iv e o f a
c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f f i v e m ajor c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
g eo graphic
d i v e r s i t y , co m m u nity-type d i v e r s i t y , s o cio -e co n o m ic
d i v e r s i t y , r a c i a l and e t h n i c d i v e r s i t y , and d i v e r s i t y o f
a b i l i t y le v e ls .
The s e le c te d c la s s e s were s u p p lie d w i t h
complementary s e ts o f th e t e s t m a t e r i a l s .
The te a c h e rs
o f the se c la s s e s were asked t o teach th e program in t h e i r
normal way and t o a d m in is t e r th e p r o p e r t e s t s a t th e
a p p r o p r i a t e tim e as th e y went a lo n g .
P e r io d ic a lly th ro u g h ­
o u t th e school y e a r , th e te a c h e rs forw a rd e d t e s t data t o
Houghton M i f f l i n f o r p ro c e s s in g and a n a l y s i s .
E s s e n tia lly ,,
th e t e s t r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t most p u p il s can a d e q u a te ly
p e rfo rm most o f th e s k i l l s i n th e HOUGHTON MIFFLIN READING
SERIES a f t e r i n s t r u c t i o n .
The sample c l e a r l y meets th e
"8 0 /8 0 m astery c r i t e r i o n " — t h a t i s more than 80 p e r c e n t
o f th e t im e , th e sample dem onstrated m astery a t o r above
th e 8 0 .0 " d i f f i c u l t y " l e v e l .
( " D i f f i c u l t y " i s th e p e r c e n t
o f s tu d e n ts who answered a t e s t ite m c o r r e c t l y . )
Teacher A t t i t u d e D a ta: Teacher in p u t was g a th e r e d .b y
a d i r e c t m a il a t t i t u d i n a l q u e s t i o n n a ir e se n t t o te a c h e rs
in a c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f schoo ls u s in g th e program i n t h e i r
c la s s ro o m s , grades K-6 . . . .
The t e s t and q u e s t io n n a ir e r e s u l t s o f these two s t u d ie s
w i l l be used t o e l i m i n a t e o r r e w r i t e item s where t e s t p r e ­
c i s i o n was n o t o b ta in e d .
I t may a ls o be used in r e o r g a n iz in g
th e t e s t s o r , p e rh a p s , t o r e v is e c e r t a i n areas o f th e program
'3 4
A copy o f Ms. G reen's response t o th e i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s r e q u e s t f o r
in f o r m a t i o n c o n c e rn in g r e l i a b i l i t y
and v a l i d i t y o f th e B a sic Reading
T ests appears i n Appendix C. .
.
S e lf-E s te e m Data
S ta n le y Coopersmit h ' s S e lf-E s te e m I n v e n t o r y (S E I) was used in
o r d e r t o c o l l e c t s e lf- e s t e e m data on th e s u b j e c t s .
The S E I5 which has '
been w i d e l y used w i t h s u b je c t s ra n g in g in age from e i g h t th ro u g h
a d u l t , i s comprised o f f i v e s u b s c a le s :
General s e l f ; s o c i a l s e l f ­
p e e rs ; Hom e-parents; L ie s c a le ; S ch ool-aca dem ic.
W ith th e e x c e p tio n
o f th e L ie s c a le , th e subsca les do n o t have t o be scored s e p a r a t e ly ,
For purposes o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , a l l
r e fe re n c e s t o s e l f ­
esteem were based upon th e com posite s c o re .
The f i f t y - e i g h t item s on th e SEI were read t o th e c h i l d r e n by
t h e i r t e a c h e r s , a proced ure w h ic h , a c c o rd in g t o Coopersmit h , i s
a c c e p ta b le ( Coopersrnit h ,
1960).
a p p r o x im a te ly tw e n ty m in u te s .
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n tim e f o r th e SEI was
Appendix D-p re s e n ts a copy o f
Dr. Coopersmit h ‘ s l e t t e r g r a n t in g p e rm is s io n t o reproduce th e S E I,
a copy o f w hich appears in Appendix E.
o r h ig h s e lf - e s t e e m , responses.
Check marks i n d i c a t e c o r r e c t ,
Because th e d i r e c t i o n s were given
o r a l l y , th e d i r e c t i o n s which appear a t th e top o f th e SEI were o m it te d .
S c o rin g i n f o r m a t i o n , which appears in th e to p r i g h t c o r n e r , was o m itte d
from the forms p repa red f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
35
Im m e d ia te ly p re c e d in g th e f i r s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f th e S E I,
each te a c h e r had a b r i e f d is c u s s io n w i t h h i s / h e r s tu d e n ts t e l l i n g
them
t h a t a c o l le g e s tu d e n t was i n t e r e s t e d i n le a r n i n g how c h i l d r e n f e e l
about th e m s e lv e s .
s iz e d .
\
The im portance o f t e l l i n g t r u e f e e l i n g s was empha­
S tude nts were assured t h a t t h e i r answers were " p r i v a t e " because
t h e i r response sheets would be im m e d ia te ly p la ce d in a stamped,
addressed envelope ( p ro v id e d by th e i n v e s t i g a t o r ) and m a ile d t o th e
c o l le g e s t u d e n t .
The te a c h e r then e x p la in e d t h a t some sentences would be read ■
t o th e c h i l d r e n .
Showing them the response s h e e t, th e te a c h e r s a id :
. I f th e sentence t e l l s how you u s u a l l y f e e l , . p u t an " x "
i n th e column " L i k e me."
I f th e s ta te m e n t does n o t t e l l
how you u s u a l l y f e e l , p u t an " x " i n th e column marked "Not
I i k e m e."
A f t e r re m in d in g th e c h i l d r e n t h a t t h e i r answers would be " p r i v a t e , "
th e te a c h e r gave th e S E I.
Upon c o m p le tio n o f th e fo rm , th e answer
sheets were c o l l e c t e d and p la c e d i n th e envelope,
* w atched, th e envelope was s e a le d .
As th e c h i l d r e n
A c h i l d was d e s ig n a te d t o ta ke
th e envelope t o th e school o f f i c e , fro m w hich i t was m a ile d t o the
in v e s tig a to r .
A f t e r a p p ro x im a te ly f i v e m onths, and a f t e r th e c h i l d r e n had
take n a t l e a s t two o f th e Ba sic Reading Tests and had been in form ed
o f t h e i r perform ance on those t e s t s , th e SEI was g ive n aga in f o l l o w i n g
the p roced ure d is cu sse d above.
36
Coopersmith r e p o r te d t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y ,
week i n t e r v a l , t o be .88 { C o o p e rsm ith , 1 9 6 7 :1 ).
a fte r a fiv e -
F o llo w in g i s a summary,
p ro v id e d by Coopersmith upon r e q u e s t, o f v a l i d i t y f i n d i n g s o f th e S E I.
C o n ve rg e n t: C ra n d a ll (Shaver and Robinson, 1973). has
found c o r r e l a t i o n s o f .59 and .60 between the s h o r t form and
th e Rosenberg s c a le f o r c o l le g e s tu d e n ts (N about 300).
Weinberg (p e rs o n a l com m unication) r e p o r t s a c o r r e l a t i o n
o f .63 between th e Soares s c a le and th e lo n g e r Coopersmith
s c a le and .60 between a d e r iv e d p i c t u r e t e s t and th e lo ng
s c a le ( G e t s in g e r , e t a l . , 1972).
T a y lo r and R e itz (1968)
r e p o r t a c o r r e l a t i o n o f .45 between th e CPI s e lf- a c c e p ta n c e
s c a le and th e lo n g e r Coopersmith s c a l e , and c o r r e l a t i o n s
o f .42 t o .66 w i t h o t h e r s c a l e s „ Z i l l e r , e t a l . , (1969)
found c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r males o f .46 w i t h th e B i l l ' s s c a le ,
.37 w i t h the C u tic k s c a le , and .02 w i t h the Z i l l e r s c a le ;
f o r fem ales, th e c o r r e l a t i o n s were . 1 7 , .23 and .0 4 .
D is c r i m i n a n t : T a y lo r and R e itz (1968) found c o r r e l a ­
t i o n s o f .75 and .44 w i t h th e Edwards and th e Marlowe-Crowne
s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y s c a le s .
P r e d i c t i v e : Coopersmith (1967) b u i ld s a n o m o lo g ical nets u g g e s tin g how p o s i t i v e s e lf- e s t e e m m ig h t d e v e lo p .
B r ie fly ,
he found t h a t p a re n ts o f h ig h esteem c h i l d r e n r e p o r t h ig h
acceptance o f th e c h i l d , s e t t i n g c l e a r and e x p l ic a t e d r u l e s ,
s e t t i n g p o s i t i v e examples, and p r o v id in g an o v e r a l l le v e l
. o f q u a l i t y s t i m u l a t i o n and i n t e r a c t i o n .
The e n t i r e book
b u i ld s an o u t l i n e o f how p a re n ts m ig h t c o n s t r u c t i v e l y a f f e c t
c h i l d r e n ' s s e lf - e s t e e m .
On th e b a s is o f s t u d ie s conducted and r e p o r te d t o him,
Coopersmith r e p o r t s t h a t SEI scores are s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e la t e d
t o c r e a t i v i t y , academic a chievem ent, r e s is t a n c e t o group
p r e s s u r e s , w i l l i n g n e s s t o express u n p o p u la r o p i n i o n s , p e r ­
c e p tu a l constancy ( a l l Coopersmit h , 196 7); p e rc e iv e d
r e c i p r o c a l l i k i n g (Simon and B e r n s t e i n , 1971); p e rc e iv e d
p o p u l a r i t y (Simon, 1972); a n x i e t y (g e n e ra l and t e s t ) (Many,
1973); s e l e c t i o n o f d i f f i c u l t ta s k s ( Goodstadt and K i p i n i s,
1971); e f f e c t i v e communication between p a re n ts and y o u th
(M a tte s o n , 1973); f a m i l y a d ju s tm e n t (M a tte so n , 1973)
( Coopersmit h , 1 9 6 7 :2 ).
J.
37
By agreement w i t h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel in School D i s t r i c t
#2, B i l l i n g s , Montana, th e anonym ity o f i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n was
guaranteed by a s s ig n in g t o each c h i l d a number d e s ig n a tin g him, h is
s c h o o l, sex, grade l e v e l , and a c h ie v e r o r lo w - a c h ie v e r c a te g o r y .
METHODS OF ORGANIZING DATA
Data were c o l l e c t e d from two a d m in is t r a t i o n s o f th e SEI and
from two Ba sic Reading T e s ts .
f i c a t io n number.
Each p a r t i c i p a n t was a ssigned an i d e n t i - .
A f t e r data were hand-coded and checked, th e y were
e n te re d i n t o a data f i l e
and v e r i f i e d .
E r r o r s in cod in g were then
c o r r e c t e d . . Data were s u b je c te d , t o computer a n a ly s is u s in g th e
.S ta tis tic a l
Packages f o r S o c ia l Sciences ( N i e . e t a l . ,
1975).
The
r e s u l t s o f th e study, were then p re se n te d under th r e e c a t e g o r ie s :
F i r s t SEI S cores; Second SEI S cores; Change i n SEI Scores.
A f t e r each
n u l l h y p o th e s is was s t a t e d , a t a b le was c o n s t r u c te d t o summarize the
d a ta .
A d is c u s s io n o f t h e f i n d i n g s r e l a t i v e t o t h a t h y p o th e s is fo llo w e d .
. ‘
STATISTICAL HYPOTHESES
The.purposes o f . t h i s
in v e s t i g a t i o n - w e r e as f o l l o w s :
to d e te r­
mine th e e f f e c t o f f a c t o r s , namely, r e a d in g achievem ent, grade l e v e l ,
and. sex upon s e lf- e s t e e m scores a t th e b e g in n in g o f s t u d e n t s ' academic
y e a r and a f t e r f i v e months o f re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n , and t o determ ine
th e e f f e c t o f these f a c t o r s upon change in s e lf- e s t e e m s c o re s .
38
In o r d e r t o draw c o n c lu s io n s r e l a t i v e t o th e q u e s tio n s
2 -4 ) which r e l a t e t o th e broad purposes o f t h i s
hypotheses were p o s t u l a t e d .
(page's
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , ten
For purposes o f c l a r i t y ,
th e hypotheses
are grouped a c c o r d in g t o F i r s t . SEI Scores (fro m b e g in n in g o f s t u d e n t s '
academic y e a r ) , . Second SEI Scores ( a f t e r f i v e months o f re a d in g
i n s t r u c t i o n ) , and Change in SEI Scores.
a t th e .05 le v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
A ll
hypotheses were t e s te d
I f an e r r o r were made i n t h i s
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t o commit a Type I e r r o r and r e j e c t a t r u e n u l l
h y p o th e s is would be le s s s e r io u s than t o commit a Type I I e r r o r and
thus n o t r e j e c t a f a l s e n u l l h y p o th e s is .
b ility
In o t h e r w o rds, th e p o s s i­
o f s a y in g t h a t a d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d when no such d i f f e r e n c e d id
e x i s t was o f r e l a t i v e l y le s s im p o rta n ce than n o t r e c o g n iz in g a d i f ­
fe re n c e t h a t a c t u a l l y d i d e x i s t (F erguson , 1976).
The hypotheses fo rm u la te d f o r t h i s s tu d y f o l l o w .
Hypotheses R e lated t o F i r s t SEI Scores
. N u ll H yp o th e sis I .
There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e l f ­
esteem scores o f a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s b e fo re th e y are s u b je c te d
t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program.
N u ll H yp oth esis 2 .
There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e l f ­
esteem scores o f a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , when examined by grade
l e v e l , b e fo r e th e y are s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program.
39
N u ll H y p o th e sis 3 .
There i s no i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and
achievem ent on s e lf - e s t e e m scores b e fo r e s tu d e n ts are s u b je c te d t o a
r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. .
-
Hypotheses R e lated t o Second SEI Scores
N u ll H yp o th e sis 4 .
There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e l f ­
esteem sco re s o f a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s a f t e r th e y have been
s u b je c te d t o a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months.
' N u ll H yp o th e sis 5 .
There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e l f ­
esteem scores o f a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , when examined by grade
l e v e l , a f t e r th e y have been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l
program f o r f i v e months.
N u ll H yp oth esis 6 .
There i s no i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and
achievem ent on s e lf- e s t e e m scores a f t e r s tu d e n ts have been s u b je c te d
t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months.
Hypotheses R elated t o Change in SEI Scores
N u ll H yp o th e sis 7 .
There i s no d i f f e r e n c e i n th e change in
s e lf- e s t e e m scores between a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s as a r e s u l t o f
h a v in g been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e
months.
. .
N u ll H yp oth esis 8 .
There i s no d i f f e r e n c e in th e change in
th e s e lf- e s t e e m scores between a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , when
40
examined by grade l e v e l , as a r e s u l t o f h a ving been s u b je c te d t o a
re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e m onths.
N u ll H yp oth esis 9 .
There i s no i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and
achievem ent on change in s e lf- e s t e e m scores as a r e s u l t o f having been
s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months.
N u ll H yp oth esis 10.
There i s no l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between
change i n s e lf- e s t e e m scores and o t h e r f a c t o r s . such as re a d in g
achievem ent s c o r e s , grade l e v e l , and sex.
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The te n h yp o the ses, as l i s t e d i n th e p re v io u s s e c t i o n , were
r e l a t e d t o F i r s t SEI Scores (hypotheses 1 - 3 ) , Second SEI Scores
(hypotheses 4 - 6 ) , and Change in SEI Scores (hypotheses 7 -1 0 ).
In
e a c h .o f these t h r e e gen eral a re a s , th e f i r s t two hypotheses were
a n a lyzed u s in g th e s t u d e n t 's t - t e s t i n o r d e r t o d e te rm in e w hether
d i f f e r e n c e s , e x i s t e d between s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e r s and. lo w a c h ie v e r s , when examined as two g ro u p s , and when examined by grade
le v e l.
The t h i r d h y p o th e s is i n each s e c t io n was ana lyzed u sin g two-
way a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e in o r d e r t o dete rm in e w hether t h e r e was an
i n t e r a c t i o n between achievem ent and sex on s e lf- e s t e e m s c o re s .
The t e n t h h y p o th e s is was analyzed u sin g s te p w is e m u l t i p l e
r e g r e s s io n i n o r d e r t o d e te rm in e w h e th e r a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p e x is te d
41
between change i n s e lf- e s t e e m scores and o t h e r f a c t o r s , such as re a d in g
achievem ent s c o r e s , grade l e v e l , and sex.
PRECAUTIONS TAKEN FOR ACCURACY
A l l c o l l e c t e d d a ta were hand-coded and checked by th e i n v e s t i ­
g a t o r w i t h th e a s s is ta n c e o f a q u a l i f i e d ,
d ata were then e n te re d i n t o a d a ta f i l e
in dependent so u rc e .
and were v e r i f i e d .
The
A fte r­
e r r o r s in . c o d i n g were c o r r e c t e d , data were s u b je c te d t o computer
a n a ly s is u s in g th e S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r S o c ia l Sciences (SPSS).
The SPSS program was implemented on th e ' Xerox Sigma 7 com puter a t
Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Bozeman, and on th e DEC System 10 computer
a t E astern Montana C o lle g e , B i l l i n g s .
SUMMARY
The purposes o f t h i s
i n v e s t i g a t i o n were as f o l l o w s : . t o d e t e r ­
mine th e e f f e c t o f. f a c t o r s , nam ely, ' re a d in g achievem ent, grade l e v e l ,
and sex upon s e lf - e s t e e m scores a t th e b e g in n in g o f s t u d e n t s ' academic
y e a r and a f t e r f i v e months o f r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n , and t o determ ine
th e e f f e c t o f these f a c t o r s upon change i n s e lf- e s t e e m scores.
The re s e a rc h was conducted d u r in g th e 1978-79 academic y e a r
i n th e n in e T i t l e
! - d e s ig n a t e d p u b l i c sch o o ls in B i l l i n g s , Montana.
Two groups o f s tu d e n ts were in v o lv e d . ' The 142 a c h ie v e rs d id n o t a tte n d
T itle
I la b s f o r supplem ental i n s t r u c t i o n i n re a d in g .
The 142
I
42
lo w - a c h ie v e r s d id a t te n d th e T i t l e
I la bs f o r supplem ental i n s t r u c t i o n
i n r e a d in g .
Treatm ent f o r both groups c o n s is te d o f th e reading, i n s t r u c ­
t i o n a l program , based upon th e 1974 e d i t i o n o f th e Houghton M i f f l i n
Company basal r e a d e r s .
In a d d i t i o n t o classroom re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n ,
lo w - a c h ie v e r s r e c e iv e d supplem ental r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n
I la b s in t h e i r s c h o o ls .
i n th e T i t l e
The b a s is f o r t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n was a ls o the
1974 e d i t i o n o f th e Houghton M i f f l i n
Company basal re a d e rs .
" L o w -a c h ie v e r" and " a c h ie v e r " c a t e g o r ie s were .based upon
a tte n d a n ce o r n o n -a tte n d a n ce i n T i t l e
in s tr u c tio n .
I la b s f o r supp lem ental re a d in g
S p e c i f i c data r e l a t i v e t o r e a d in g achievem ent were
/
c o l l e c t e d f o r each s t u d e n t from two Basal Reading T e s ts , p u b lis h e d
by Houghton M i f f l i n
t o accompany t h e i r basal re a d e rs .
S e lf-e s te e m
d a ta were c o l l e c t e d f o r each s t u d e n t from two a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s o f the
S e lf-E s te e m I n v e n t o r y .
Al I data were t a b u la t e d and s t a t i s t i c a l l y .a n a ly z e d .
r e s u l t s o f th e s tu d y were p re s e n te d under t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s :
The
F irs t
SEI Scores; Second SEI S cores; Change i n SEI Scores.
Ten hyp o th e se s, which r e l a t e t o th e problem o f th e s t u d y , were
p o s t u la t e d .
fie d .
A f t e r data were hand-coded and checked, th e y were v e r i ­
E r r o r s i n coding were c o r r e c t e d .
The hypotheses were then
t e s te d u s in g th e s t u d e n t 's t - t e s t , two-way a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e , o r
m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s io n .
The SPSS programs used f o r t h i s
in v e s tig a tio n
were implemented on th e Xerox Sigma 7 computer a t Montana S ta te
U n i v e r s i t y , Bozeman, and on the DEC.System 10 computer a t Eastern
Montana C o lle g e , B i l l i n g s .
C h a p te r 4
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
During th e f i r s t week o f th e 1978-79 academic y e a r , s tu d e n ts
in grades two thro ugh s i x i n the n in e T i t l e
! - d e s ig n a te d schools in
B i l l i n g s , Montana were g ive n th e S e lf-E s te e m I n v e n t o r y ( S E I) .
having been s u b je c te d t o t h e Houghton M i f f l i n
A fte r
re a d in g program f o r
a p p r o x im a te ly f i v e m onths, and a f t e r havin g taken two t e x t b o o k - r e l a t e d
re a d in g t e s t s , th e s tu d e n ts were again g iv e n th e SEL
A com plete s e t o f d ata f o r each s t u d e n t in c lu d e d two SEI score
and .tw o r e a d in g t e s t scores.
S tu d e n ts f o r whom com plete d ata were
a v a i l a b l e were d iv id e d i n t o two groups.
were n o t e n r o l l e d in T i t l e
r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n .
in T i t l e
A c h ie v e rs were s tu d e n ts who
I Reading and Math Labs f o r supplem ental
L o w -a chie vers were s tu d e n ts who were e n r o l le d
I la bs f o r supplem ental r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n .
were grouped a c c o rd in g to grade le v e l and sex.
P a rtic ip a n ts
The r e s u l t a n t popu­
l a t i o n c o n s is te d o f 142 a c h ie v e rs and 142 lo w - a c h ie v e r s i n grades
two th ro u g h s i x .
The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f th e p o p u la tio n a c c o rd in g to
grade le v e l and sex i s p re se n te d in T ab le I .
45
T a b le
I
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P o p u la tio n by
Grade Level and Sex •
Males
G'ade
A c h ie v e rs
Females
Low -A chievers , A c h ie v e rs
2
21
21
3
19
4
11
5
T o ta l
8
8
58
17
13
15
64
13
14
13
51
14
14
11
11
50
6
19
16
12
14
61
T o ta l
84
81
58
61
284
.
.
Low -A chievers
Data o b ta in e d fro m th e 284 p a r t i c i p a n t s re s p o n d in g t o two
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s o f t h e SEI were c o m p u te r.s c o re d .
These s c o re s ,
t o g e t h e r w i t h scores o b ta in e d from the two t e x t b o o k - r e l a t e d re a d in g
t e s t s , were then computer a n a ly z e d .
Hypotheses one th ro u g h n in e were
t e s te d by u s in g e i t h e r th e s t u d e n t 's t - t e s t o r a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e .
M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s io n was used t o gen e ra te a p r e d i c t i o n e q u a tio n to p r o ­
v id e a b a s is upon w hich h y p o th e s is te n m ig h t be r e j e c t e d o r n o t
re je c te d .
The re a d e r i s reminded t h a t ,
f o r purposes o f th e p re s e n t
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , th e s i g n i f i c a n c e le v e l was .05.
The a n a ly s is and r e s u l t s o f t h i s
c h a p te r under t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s :
Change in SEI Sco res.
In a l l
s tu d y are p re s e n te d in t h i s
F i r s t SEI S co res■, Second SEI Scores;
t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s , s e lf- e s t e e m scores
46
a re examined as th e y r e l a t e t o achievem ent o r lo w -a ch ie ve m e n t in .
r e a d in g .
A d d i t i o n a l l y , in th e t h i r d c a te g o r y (Change in SEI S c o re s ),
r e a d in g t e s t s c o r e s , grade l e v e l , sex, and change in s e lf- e s t e e m scores
are examined t o d e te rm in e w h eth er a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between
these v a r ia b le s and change in s e lf - e s t e e m s c o r e s .
A f t e r each n u l l
h y p o th e s is i s p re s e n te d , a t a b l e i s g iv e n t o summarize th e d a ta .
A
d is c u s s io n o f th e f i n d i n g s r e l a t i v e t o t h a t h y p o th e s is f o l l o w s .
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
F i r s t SEI Scores
•In t h i s s e c t i o n , th e f i n d i n g s r e l a t i v e t o scores f o r a c h ie v e rs
and lo w - a c h ie v e r s on th e f i r s t S E I, a d m in is te r e d d u r in g th e f i r s t week
o f th e 1978-79 academic y e a r , are p re s e n te d .
Three hypotheses are
d is c u s s e d , as f o l l o w s :
N u ll H yp oth esis I .
There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e l f ­
esteem scores o f a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s b e fo re th e y are s u b je c te d
t o a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program.
S t u d e n t's t - t e s t r e s u l t s f o r a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s on
th e f i r s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f th e SEI are p resen ted in T a b le 2.
47
T a b le 2
Summary o f S t u d e n t's t - T e s t R e su lts f o r
A ch ie v e rs and Low -A chievers on th e
F i r s t A d m in is t r a t io n - o f th e SEI
Degrees o f
Freedom
Mean f o r
A c h ievers
30.75
282
Mean f o r
Low -Achievers
P r o b a b ility
Value
t Value
27.74
3.29
.0 0 1 *
^ S i g n i f i c a n t a t .05 l e v e l .
Since th e c a l c u la t e d p r o b a b i l i t y v a lu e was le s s th a n .0 5 , th e
n u l l h y p o th e s is t h a t t h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e lf- e s t e e m
scores o f a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s b e fo r e th e y are s u b je c te d to a
re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program was r e j e c t e d .
T h e re fo re , i t
i s accepted
t h a t t h i s i s a d i f f e r e n c e between s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e rs and
lo w - a c h ie v e r s b e fo re th e y are s u b je c te d t o a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l
program.
As i l l u s t r a t e d
i n Table 2, th e mean sco re on th e f i r s t
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f th e SEI was h i g h e r f o r a c h ie v e rs than f o r lo w a c h ie v e r s .
The c a l c u la t e d p r o b a b i l i t y , v a lu e was .001.
Because, the
SEI was a d m in is te r e d d u r in g th e f i r s t week o f the academic y e a r ,
b e fo r e i n i t i a t i o n
o f th e re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program, t h i s d i f f e r e n c e
between a c h ie v e rs and low a c h ie v e rs i n s e lf- e s t e e m scores may have been
in f lu e n c e d by f a c t o r s o t h e r than success le v e l
in re a d in g d u r in g t h a t
48
academic y e a r .
I t i s c l e a r , however, t h a t th e two groups o f s t u d e n t s —
a c h ie v e rs and I o w -a ch ie ve rs-~ w e re s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i n a t l e a s t
one v a r i a b l e a t th e b e g in n in g o f th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n :
le v e l o f s e l f ­
esteem as measured by th e SEL
N u ll H yp oth esis 2 .
There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e l f ­
esteem scores o f a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , when examined by grade
l e v e l , b e fo r e th e y are s u b je c te d t o a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program.
The S tu d e n ts ' t - t e s t r e s u l t s f o r a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s ,
i n grades two th ro u g h s i x , on th e f i r s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the S E I,
a re p re s e n te d i n T ab le 3.
T ab le 3
■
Summary o f S tu d e n ts ' t - T e s t R e s u lts f o r A c h ie v e rs
and L o w -A c h ie v e rs , by Grade L e v e l, on th e
F i r s t A d m i n is t r a t i o n o f th e SEI .
Grade
Degrees o f
Freedom
Mean f o r
A c h ievers
Mean f o r
Low -A chievers
t
Value
P r o b a b ility
Value
2
56
28.0
26.3
3
62
28.2
2 5.8
4
49
29.0
29.3
-.1 6
5
48
3 3.8
2 9 .4
1.99
.052
6
59
34.8
28.4
3.26
. 002*
.33
1.47
.15
CO
^ S i g n i f i c a n t a t .05 l e v e l .
.
.98
.
49
Since th e c a l c u la t e d p r o b a b i l i t y value,w as g r e a t e r than .05
f o r grades two th ro u g h f i v e ,
f o r those grades th e n u l l h y p o th e s is t h a t
th e r e is no d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e rs and
lo w - a c h ie v e r s , when examined by grade l e v e l , b e fo re th e y are s u b je c te d
t o a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program, was n o t r e je c t e d .
T h e re fo re , i f
a d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s between th e s e lf - e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e rs and
lo w - a c h ie v e r s i n grades two th ro u g h f i v e , b e fo re th e y are s u b je c te d
to a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program , i t
has n o t been dem onstrated in
t h i s s tu d y .
Since th e c a l c u l a t e d p r o b a b i l i t y was le s s than .05 f o r grade
s i x , f o r t h a t grade th e n u l l h y p o th e s is t h a t t h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e
between th e s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , when
examined by grade l e v e l , b e fo r e th e y a re s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g
i n s t r u c t i o n a l program , was r e j e c t e d .
T h e re fo re , i t
i s accepted t h a t
th e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e between the s e lf - e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e rs and
lo w - a c h ie v e r s , i n grade s i x , b e fo r e th e y are s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g
i n s t r u c t i o n a l program.
W ith th e e x c e p tio n o f grade t h r e e , in which lo w - a c h ie v e r s
scored s l i g h t l y h ig h e r than a c h ie v e r s , th e mean scores on the f i r s t
SEI a d m i n i s t r a t i o n were h i g h e r f o r a c h ie v e r s than f o r lo w - a c h ie v e r s .
However, a s i g n i f i c a n c e le v e l o f .05 was found o n ly f o r grade s i x ,
a t which t h e p r o b a b i l i t y v a lu e was .002.
50
Because th e f i r s t SEI was a d m in is te r e d d u r in g th e f i r s t week
o f th e academic y e a r , i t
i s u n l i k e l y t h a t th e d i f f e r e n c e s between
a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s in s e lf - e s t e e m scores can be a t t r i tubed t o
le v e l o f success in r e a d in g d u r in g t h a t academic y e a r .
F u r t h e r , w hat­
e v e r f a c t o r s in f lu e n c e d th e f i r s t s e lf - e s t e e m score o f s i x t h - g r a d e r s ,
seem in gly were n o n -o p e ra n t f o r c h i l d r e n i n grades two th ro u g h f i v e .
N u ll H yp o th e sis 3 .
There i s no i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and
achievem ent on s e lf- e s t e e m scores b e fo r e s tu d e n ts are s u b je c te d to a
re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program.
The a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e r e s u l t s f o r th e v a r ia b le s o f sex and
achievem ent on th e f i r s t SEI scores are p re s e n te d i n T ab le 4.
Since th e c a l c u l a t e d p r o b a b i l i t y v a lu e f o r F f o r th e i n t e r ­
a c t io n between sex and achievem ent was g r e a t e r than .0 5 , th e n u l l
h y p o th e s is t h a t th e r e i s no i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and achievem ent
on s e lf - e s t e e m scores b e fo r e s tu d e n ts a re s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g
i n s t r u c t i o n a l program , was n o t r e j e c t e d .
T h e re fo re , i f
t h e r e is an
i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and achievem ent on SEI scores b e fo r e s tu d e n ts
have been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program , i t
been dem onstrated i n t h i s s tu d y .
has n o t .
However, th e main e f f e c t o f a c h ie v e ­
ment was s i g n i f i c a n t , as shown i n th e d is c u s s io n r e l a t i v e t o Hypothesis
I.
The main e f f e c t o f sex was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , as shown in Table 4.
S p e c i f i c a l l y , th e two-way a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e r e v e a le d t h a t
when th e main e f f e c t s o f achievem ent and sex were c o n s id e re d t o g e t h e r
51
T a b le 4
A n a ly s is o f V a ria n ce R e s u lts ' f o r A chievem ent'
and Sex on th e F i r s t SEI Scores
Source
Main e f f e c t s
Achievement
Sex
In te ra c tio n s
(A chievem ent/S ex) .
E x p lained
Residual
Degrees o f
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F
S ig n if.
of F
689.68
634.24
47.68
2
I
I
344.84
634.24
47.68
5.82
10.70
.81
.0 0 3 *
.0 0 1 *
.370
54.90
I
54.90
744.58
3
248.20
16,585.65
280
59.23
Sum o f
■Squares
.927
4 .20
.337
.0 0 6 *
^ S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .05 l e v e l .
th e y had a s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e
s c o re s .
( .0 0 3 ) on s t u d e n t s ' s e lf- e s t e e m
When these two v a r ia b le s were c o n s id e re d s e p a r a t e l y , a c h ie v e ­
ment had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t ( .0 0 1 ) on s e lf - e s t e e m , w h il e th e e f f e c t
o f sex was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ( . 3 7 0 ) .
The i n t e r a c t i o n between a c h ie v e ­
ment and sex was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ( .3 3 7 ) i n i n f l u e n c i n g s t u d e n t s '
s e lf- e s t e e m d u r in g th e f i r s t week o f th e academic y e a r .
Summary o f f i r s t SEI s c o r e s .
The f i n d i n g s r e l a t i v e t o scores
f o r a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s on th e f i r s t SEI, a d m in is te r e d d u rin g
th e f i r s t week o f th e 1978-79 academic y e a r , have been p re s e n te d in
52
t h i s s e c t io n .
When c o n s id e re d as two g ro u p s , a c h ie v e rs had s i g n i f i ­
c a n t l y h i g h e r SEI scores than d id lo w - a c h ie v e r s .
When c o n s id e re d by
grade l e v e l , however, a c h ie v e r s ' SEI scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r
than lo w - a c h ie v e r s ' SEI scores o n ly i n grade s i x .
N e it h e r sex, nor
th e i n t e r a c t i o n between achievement and -sex on f i r s t SEI scores was
s ig n ific a n t.
Second SEI Scores
The f i n d i n g s r e l a t i v e t o scores f o r a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s
on th e second SEI are p re s e n te d in, t h i s s e c t io n .
The t h r e e hypotheses
d is cu sse d i n t h i s s e c t io n p a r a l l e l th e t h r e e hypotheses which were
r e l a t e d t o th e f i r s t S E I.
However, whereas f i r s t SEI scores were
o b ta in e d d u r in g th e f i r s t week o f th e 1978-79 academic y e a r , the
second SEI scores were o b ta in e d a f t e r s u b je c t s had been s u b je c te d to
a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months.
N u ll H yp oth esis 4 .
There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e l f ­
esteem scores o f a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s a f t e r th e y have been
s u b je c te d to a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months.
The r e s u l t s o f th e S tu d e n ts ' t - t e s t f o r a c h ie v e r s and lo w a c h ie v e rs on th e second a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f th e SEI are p re s e n te d in
Table 5.
53
T a b le 5
Comparison o f S tu d e n ts ' t - T e s t R e su lts f o r
A c h ie v e rs and Low -A chievers on the F i r s t
and Second A d m i n is t r a t i o n s o f th e SEI
Degrees
. of
Freedom
Mean f o r
A c h ievers
Mean f o r
LowA c h ie v e rs
t
Value
P r o b a b ility
Value
F rrs t
A d m i n is t r a t i o n
282
30.75
27.74
3 .29
.001*
Second
A d m i n is t r a t i o n
282
32.58
28.34
4 .0 9
. 000*
^ S i g n i f i c a n t a t .05 l e v e l .
The c a l c u l a t e d p r o b a b i l i t y v a lu e was le s s than .0 5 .
T h e re fo re ,
th e n u l l h y p o th e s is t h a t t h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e l f ­
esteem scores o f a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s a f t e r h a v in g been
s u b je c te d t o a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l
re je c te d .
T h e re fo re , i t
program f o r f i v e months was
i s accepted t h a t t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e between
th e s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s a f t e r th e y have
been s u b je c te d to a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e m onths.
As was d i s c u s s e d . in th e s e c t io n d e a lin g w i t h f i r s t . SEI s c o re s ,
a c h ie v e r s ' mean score on th e second SEI was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r than
lo w - a c h ie v e r s ' mean s c o re .
A lth o u g h th e change in s e lf- e s t e e m scores
i s d is cu sse d in r e l a t i o n t o H yp oth esis 7 (p . 3 9 ) , i t
sh o u ld be noted
54
here t h a t th e mean sc o re in c re a s e d s l i g h t l y from f i r s t t o second
SEI a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s f o r lo w - a c h ie v e r s as w e ll as f o r a c h ie v e r s .
N u ll H yp oth esis 5 .
There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e l f ­
esteem scores o f a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , when examined by grade
l e v e l , a f t e r th e y have been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o ­
gram f o r f i v e months.
The r e s u l t s o f th e S tu d e n ts ' t - t e s t f o r a c h ie v e rs and lo w a c h ie v e r s , i n grades two th ro u g h s i x , on th e second a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f
th e SEI are prese n te d in Table 6.
S ince th e c a l c u la t e d p r o b a b i l i t y v a lu e was g r e a t e r than .05
f o r grades two th ro u g h f o u r , f o r tho se grades th e n u l l h y p o th e s is
t h a t t h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e rs
and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , when examined by g r a d e . l e v e l , a f t e r th e y have been
s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l
r e je c te d .
program f o r f i v e m onths, was n o t
T h e r e f o r e , i f a d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s between th e s e lf- e s t e e m
scores o f a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , i n grades two th ro u g h f o u r ,
a f t e r th e y have been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program .
f o r f i v e m onths, i t
has n o t been dem onstrated i n t h i s s tu d y .
S ince th e c a l c u la t e d p r o b a b i l i t y le v e l was le s s than .05 f o r
grades f i v e and s i x , f o r those grades th e n u l l h y p o th e s is t h a t th e r e
i s no d i f f e r e n c e between th e s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e r s and
lo w - a c h ie v e r s , when examined by grade l e v e l , a f t e r th e y have been
s u b je c te d t o a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e m onths, was
Table 6
Comparison o f S tu d e n ts ' t - T e s t R e su lts o f
F i r s t and Second SEI A d m in is t r a t io n s
f o r A ch ie v e rs and L o w -A ch ie ve rs,
When Examined by Grade Level
Mean f o r
A c h ievers
Mean f o r
Low -A chievers
t Value
Degrees o f
Freedom
Fi r s t
Adm.
Second
Adm.
F irs t
Adm.
Second
Adm.
2 .
56
28.0
28,4
26.3
28.2
.98
.46
3
62
28.2
32.8
25.8
29.3
1.47
4
49
29.0
28.6
29.3
27.5
5
48
33.8
35.1
29.4
6
59
34,8
28.4
Grade
.
37.6
■ ^ S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .05 le v e l
•
F irs t
Admi
Second
Adm.
P r o b a b ility
Value
F irs t
Adm.
Second
Adm.
.33.
.96 ■
1.77
.15
.08
-.1 6
.45
.87
.66
26.9
1.99
3.18
.052
.003*
29.4
3.26
3.97
. 002*
.000*
56
re je c te d .
T h e re fo re , i t
i s accepted t h a t t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e between
th e s e lf- e s t e e m sc o re o f a c h ie v e rs a n d - lo w - a c h ie v e r s , in grades f i v e
and s i x , a f t e r th e y have been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l
■
program f o r f i v e m onths.
On th e second SEI a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , th e mean scores f o r a c h ie v e rs
were h ig h e r than mean scores f o r lo w - a c h ie v e r s a t a l l
grade l e v e l s .
The d i f f e r e n c e between a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s i n s e lf- e s t e e m
scores was s i g n i f i c a n t o n ly i n grades f i v e and s i x .
I t seems t h a t
in grades two th ro u g h f o u r , achievem ent d u r in g f i v e months o f the
re a d in g program d id n o t a f f e c t s t u d e n t s ' s e lf- e s t e e m s c o re s .
F o r.
grades f i v e and s i x , i t m ig h t appear t h a t achievem ent d u r in g f i v e
months o f th e re a d in g program in f l u e n c e d s e lf- e s t e e m s c o re s .
However,
)
as w i l l
be re v e a le d i n th e s e c t io n d e a lin g w i t h change i n s e lf- e s t e e m
scores (p . 5 9 ), such was n o t th e case.
N u ll H yp oth esis 6 .
There i s no i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and
achievem ent on s e lf- e s t e e m s c o r e s , a f t e r s tu d e n ts have been s u b je c te d
t o a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months.
The a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e r e s u l t s f o r th e v a r i a b l e s o f sex and
achievem ent on th e second SEI scores are pre se n te d i n Table 7. '
57
T a b le 7
A n a ly s is o f V a ria n ce R e s u lts f o r Achievement
and Sex on th e Second SEI Scores
Sum o f
Squares
Source
Main e f f e c t s
Achievement
Sex
1 ,3 0 6 .4 8
1 ,2 7 1 .9 0
26.16
In te ra c tio n s
(A chievem ent/S ex)
S ig n if.
of F
F
■ 8 .50
16.54
.34
I
1 8 .3 2
.24
5.74
6 5 3 .2 4
1 ,3 2 4 .8 0
3
4 4 1 .6 0
2 1 ,5 3 1 .7 8
280
76.90
. 000*
.0 0 0 *
.560
.6 3 0
*
I
I
1 ,271.90
26.16
i—H
Residual
2
Mean
Squares
O
O
E xp la in e d
18.32
Degrees o f
Freedom
^ S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .05 l e v e l .
Since th e c a l c u l a t e d p r o b a b i l i t y v a lu e o f F f o r th e i n t e r ­
a c t i o n between sex and achievem ent was g r e a t e r than .0 5 , th e n u l l
h y p o th e s is t h a t t h e r e i s no i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and achievement
on s e lf- e s t e e m s c o r e s , a f t e r s tu d e n ts have been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g
in s tru c tio n a l
if
program f o r f i v e m onths, was n o t r e j e c t e d .
T h e re fo r e ,
t h e r e i s an i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and achievem ent on SEI s c o re s ,
a f t e r s tu d e n ts have been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program
f o r f i v e m onths, i t has n o t been dem onstrated in t h i s s t u d y .
However,
th e main e f f e c t o f achievem ent was s i g n i f i c a n t , as shown in the
58
d is c u s s io n r e l a t i v e t o H yp oth esis 4.
The main e f f e c t o f sex was n o t
s i g n i f i c a n t , as shown i n Table 7.
•
■ S p e c i f i c a l l y , two-way a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e re v e a le d t h a t , when
th e main e f f e c t s o f achievem ent and sex were c o n s id e re d t o g e t h e r , th e y
had a s i g n i f i c a n t in f l u e n c e ( .0 0 0 ) on s t u d e n t s ' s e lf- e s t e e m scores.
When th e se two v a r ia b le s were c o n s id e re d s e p a r a t e l y , achievement had
)
a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t ( .0 0 0 ) on s e lf- e s t e e m s c o re s , w h il e th e e f f e c t
o f sex was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ( . 5 6 0 ) .
The i n t e r a c t i o n between achievement
and sex was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ( .6 3 0 ) i n i n f l u e n c i n g s t u d e n t s ' s e lf- e s t e e m
a f t e r f i v e months o f re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n .
Summary o f second SEI s c o r e s .
The f i n d i n g s r e l a t i v e t o scores
f o r a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s on th e second S E I, a d m in is te r e d a f t e r
s u b je c t s had been s u b je c te d t o f i v e months o f th e r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l
program, have been p re s e n te d in t h i s s e c t i o n .
When c o n s id e re d as two
g ro u p s, a c h ie v e rs had s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r SEI scores than d id lo w a c h ie v e r s .
When c o n s id e re d by grade l e v e l , however, a c h ie v e r s '
scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r than lo w - a c h ie v e r s '
in grades f i v e and s i x .
SEI
SEI scores o n ly
N e it h e r sex n o r th e i n t e r a c t i o n between
achievem ent and sex on second SEI scores was s i g n i f i c a n t .
59
Change in SEI Scores
The f i n d i n g s r e l a t i v e t o change in. scores from th e f i r s t t o
th e second SEI f o r a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s are p re se n te d in t h i s
s e c tio n .
The same o r d e r w i l l
Three hypotheses w i l l
t-te s t,
be f o llo w e d as i n the f i r s t two s e c t i o n s .
be examined, th e f i r s t two by th e s t u d e n t 's
th e t h i r d by a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e .
m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s io n w i l l
A d d i t i o n a l l y , ste p w is e
be used to d e te rm in e w h eth er a l i n e a r r e l a ­
t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between change in s e lf- e s t e e m scores and th e
\
1
in d e p e n d e n t v a r ia b le s o f re a d in g s c o r e s , grade l e v e l , and sex.
N u ll H yp o th e sis 7 .
There i s no d i f f e r e n c e in th e change i n
s e lf- e s t e e m scores between a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , as a r e s u l t
o f h a ving been s u b je c te d t o a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e
m onths.
The S tu d e n ts ' t r e s u l t s f o r th e change i n s e lf- e s t e e m scores,
f o r a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s are p re s e n te d in T ab le 8.
Table 8
Summary o f S tude nts', t R e s u lts f o r A c h ie v e rs and
Low -A chievers on th e Change in SEI Scores
Degrees o f
■Freedom ■
282
Mean Change f o r
A c h ie v e rs
1.9
Mean Change f o r
Low-rAchievers
.60
t
Value
1.36
P r o b a b ility
Value
.174
60
Since th e c a l c u la t e d p r o b a b i l i t y v a lu e was g r e a t e r than .0 5 ,
th e n u l l h y p o th e s is t h a t t h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e in th e change in s e l f ­
esteem scores between a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , as a r e s u l t o f
having been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e
months, was n o t r e j e c t e d .
T h e r e f o r e , i f a d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s i n th e
change i n s e lf - e s t e e m scores between a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , a f t e r
s tu d e n ts have been s u b je c te d t o a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r
f i v e m onths, i t was n o t dem onstrated i n t h i s s tu d y .
For a c h ie v e rs and f o r l o w - a c h i e v e r s , th e change i n mean SEI
scores was p o s i t i v e .
A lth o u g h th e mean f o r th e change i n SEi scores
was h ig h e r f o r a c h ie v e rs than f o r lo w - a c h ie v e r s , th e p r o b a b i l i t y va lu e
o f .174 was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t .
T h e r e f o r e , f o r a c h ie v e rs and f o r lo w -
a c h ie v e r s , s e lf- e s t e e m remained r e l a t i v e l y s t a b le d u r in g th e fiv e - m o n th
p e r io d .
I t was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by achievem ent i n the
re a d in g program , n o r by o t h e r e xtra n e o u s v a r i a b l e s .
N u ll H yp oth esis 8 .
There i s no d i f f e r e n c e in th e change in
s e lf- e s t e e m scores between a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , when examined
by grade l e v e l , as a r e s u l t o f havin g been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g
i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months.
The S tu d e n ts ' t r e s u l t s f o r th e change in s e lf- e s t e e m scores
f o r a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s in grades two th ro u g h s i x are presen ted
i n Table 9.
61
T a b le 9
Summary o f S t u d e n ts ’ t R e s u lts f o r Change in S e lf-E s te e m
Scores o f A ch ie ve rs and L o w -A ch ie ve rs, When
Examined by Grade Level
Grade
Degrees o f
Freedom
Mean Change
f o r A ch ie v e rs
Mean Change f o r
Low -Achievers
t
P r o b a b ility
T o ta l
Value
2
56
.38
. 2 .0
-.7 0
.49
3
62
4 .60
3 .5
.56
.58
4
49
-.4 0
-1 .9
.74
.47
5
48
1.20
-2 .5
1.59
.11
6
59
2.70
1.0
1.26
.21
S ince th e c a l c u l a t e d p r o b a b i l i t y v a lu e was g r e a t e r than .05
f o r grades two th ro u g h s i x , th e n u l l h y p o th e s is t h a t t h e r e i s no d i f ­
fe re n c e i n th e change i n s e lf- e s t e e m scores between a c h ie v e rs and
lo w - a c h ie v e r s , when examined by grade l e v e l , as a r e s u l t o f having been
s u b je c te d t o a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e m onths, was n o t
■ re je cte d .
T h e re fo re , i f
a d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s in th e change in s e l f ­
esteem scores between a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , when examined by
grade l e v e l , as a r e s u l t o f having been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g
i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e m onths, i t
has n o t been dem onstrated
in t h i s s tu d y .
Mean scores f o r a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s i n grades two
■
th ro u g h s i x , f o r both SEI a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s , were p re se n te d i n Table 6,
62
page 55.
As shown in Table 9, th e change in mean SEI scores was
p o s itiv e in a l l
grades e xce p t f o u r t h f o r a c h i e v e r s .
For lo w - a c h ie v e r s ,
th e change i n mean SEI scores was p o s i t i v e in a l l grades e xce p t f o u r t h
and f i f t h .
However, th e change was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t any grade le v e l
f o r a c h ie v e rs o r f o r lo w - a c h ie v e r s .
On th e f i r s t SEI a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a c h ie v e rs scored s i g n i f i ­
c a n t l y h i g h e r than lo w - a c h ie v e r s i n grade s i x .
On .the second SEI,
a c h ie v e rs scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than lo w - a c h ie v e r s i n grades
f i v e and s i x .
However, s in c e th e change i n SEI scores from f i r s t
t o second a d m i n i s t r a t i o n was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t any grade l e v e l ,
it
appears t h a t , on th e second SE I, th e h ig h e r scores earned by f i f t h
and s i x t h grade a c h ie v e rs m ig h t be a t t r i b u t e d to f a c t o r s o t h e r than
achievem ent d u r in g th e f i v e months o f th e re a d in g program.
N u ll H yp oth esis 9 .
There i s no i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and
achievem ent on change i n s e lf- e s t e e m s c o r e s , as a r e s u l t o f having
been s u b je c te d to a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months.
A n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e r e s u l t s f o r th e v a r ia b le s o f achievement
and. sex on th e change in SEI scores a re p re se n te d in T ab le 10.
63
T a b le
10
A n a ly s is o f V a ria n ce R e s u lt s . f o r Achievement,
and Sex on the-Change i n SEI Scores
Source
Main e f f e c t s . •
A c h ievement
S ex
In te ra c tio n s
(Achievem ent/S ex)
E xp la in e d
Residual
Degrees o f
Freedom
Mean
Squares
56.14
109.82
3 .2 0
2
I
I
9 .8 0
I
Sum o f
Squares
112.28
■109.82
3 .2 0
F
S ig n if.
of F
.91 • .404
1.78
.1 8 3
.05 •
.8 2 0
9 .8 0
.1 6
.691
.66
.577
1 2 2 .0 7
3
40.69
17,268 .4 0
280
6 1 .6 7
Since th e c a l c u la t e d p r o b a b i l i t y v a lu e o f F f o r th e i n t e r ­
a c t io n between sex and achievem ent was g r e a t e r than .0 5 , th e n u l l
h y p o th e s is t h a t t h e r e i s no i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and achievement
on change i n s e lf- e s t e e m s c o r e s , as a r e s u l t o f having been s u b je c te d
t o a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e m onths, was n o t r e je c t e d .
T h e r e f o r e , i f t h e r e i s an i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and achievem ent on
change in s e lf- e s t e e m s c o r e s , as a r e s u l t o f having been s u b je c te d
t o a r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months, i t was n o t
dem onstrated in t h i s s tu d y .
As re v e a le d by th e f i n d i n g s r e l a t i v e t o Hypotheses 7 and 8, .
t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in the. change 'in s e lf- e s t e e m
64
sco re s between a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , when examined as two
g ro u p s , o r when examined by grade l e v e l .
Two-way a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e
r e v e a le d t h a t , when th e main e f f e c t s . o f achievem ent and sex. were con­
s id e re d t o g e t h e r , th e y d id n o t have a s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e
change in s t u d e n t s '
s e lf- e s t e e m s c o r e s .
(.4 0 4 ) on
F u r t h e r a n a ly s is showed t h a t ,
when achievem ent and sex were c o n s id e re d s e p a r a t e l y , t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e
l e v e ls were .183 and .820 r e s p e c t i v e l y .
The i n t e r a c t i o n between
achievem ent and sex was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ( .6 9 1 ) in i n f l u e n c i n g change
in s e lf- e s t e e m s c o re s .
N u ll H yp oth esis 10.
There i s no l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between"
change in s e lf- e s t e e m scores and o t h e r f a c t o r s , such as r e a d in g
achievem ent s c o r e s , grade l e v e l i and sex.
The r e s u l t s o f th e a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e f o r s te p w is e m u l t i p l e
r e g r e s s io n on th e dependent v a r i a b l e , change in SEI s c o r e s , are p r e ­
sented i n Table 11.
The m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s io n summary i s p re se n te d in
T ab le 12.
The re a d e r i s r e f e r r e d t o Appendix B f o r an e x p la n a tio n , o f th e
re a d in g achievem ent s c o r e s .
65
Table 11
Summary o f Analyses o f V a ria n ce f o r Stepw ise
M u l t i p l e Regression on th e Dependent
V a r i a b l e , Change in SEI Scores
V a ria b le s
Sum o f
Squares
Degrees o f
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F
- C r itic a l
Value o f F
-
Reading Achmt.
Regressi on
Residual
206.49
1 0,422 .4 4
I
141
2 0 6 .4 9 ’
7 3 .9 2
2 .7 9
3.91
Reading A c h m t./
Grade Level
Regressi on
Residual
223.10
1 0,405 .8 4
2
140
111.55
74.33
1.50
3 .0 6
Reading A c h m t./
Grade L e v e l/S e x
Regressi on
Residual
230.46
10,398.47
3
139
7 6 .8 2
1 .0 3
2 .6 7
74.81
T ab le 12
M u ltip le
R egression Summary
V a r ia b le
M u ltip le R
R Square
RSQ Change
Simple R
Reading Scores
.13938
.01943
.01943
.1 3 9 3 8
Grade Level
.14488
.02099
.00156
.03507
Sex
.14725
.02168
.00069
.00063
66
Since th e computed F va lu e o f 1.63 f o r th e in dependent
v a r ia b le s o f re a d in g achievem ent s c o r e s , grade l e v e l , and sex was le s s
than th e c r i t i c a l
v a lu e o f 2 .6 7 , th e n u l l h y p o th e s is t h a t th e r e i s no
l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between change i n s e lf- e s t e e m scores and o t h e r
f a c t o r s , such as re a d in g achievem ent s c o r e s , grade l e v e l , and sex was
not r e je c te d .
T h e re fo re , i f
t h e r e i s a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between
change i n s e lf- e s t e e m scores and o t h e r f a c t o r s , such as re a d in g
achievem ent scores', grade l e v e l , and s e x , i t was n o t dem onstrated in
t h i s s tu d y .
'
A lth o u g h t o le r a n c e l e v e l s were c a l c u la t e d as p a r t o f the
r e g r e s s io n a n a l y s i s , th e y were n o t used t o d i s c r i m i n a t e v a r ia b le s f o r
i n c l u s i o n i n th e s te p w is e mode o f a n a ly s is because th e number o f
v a r ia b le s under c o n s i d e r a t io n was s m a ll.
The r e s u l t s o f th e a n a ly s is
o f th e th r e e in depe nden t v a r ia b le s showed no l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p
between re a d in g s c o r e s , re a d in g scores and grade l e v e l , o r re a d in g
s c o r e s , grade l e v e l , and sex and th e dependent v a r i a b l e o f change in
s e lf- e s t e e m s c o re s .
Indeed, as each in depe nden t v a r i a b l e was added ■
t o th e ste p w is e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s io n a n a l y s i s , th e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f F
was decrea sed, as f o l l o w s :
F was 2 .7 0 , c r i t i c a l
Step one, r e a d in g achievem ent s c o re s ,
v a lu e was 3 .9 1 ; Step tw o, re a d in g achievement
scores and grade l e v e l ,
F was 1 .5 0 , c r i t i c a l
va lu e was 3 .0 6 ; Step
t h r e e , re a d in g achievem ent s c o re s , grade le v e l and se x , F was 1 .0 3 , •
c r itic a l
v a lu e was 2 .6 7 .
T h e r e f o r e , none o f th e in d e p e n d e n t v a r ia b le s
V
67
may be used t o p r e d i c t change in s t u d e n t s '
s e lf- e s t e e m scores from the
f i r s t week o f th e academic y e a r t o th e end o f a fiv e - m o n th p e r io d o f
re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n .
Summary o f change in SEI s c o r e s .
The f i n d i n g s r e l a t i v e to
change in s e lf- e s t e e m scores from th e f i r s t t o th e second SEI
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s f o r a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s have been" prese n te d
in t h i s s e c t io n .
Change i n s e lf- e s t e e m score was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t when
a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s were examined as two g ro u p s , o r when th e y
were examined by grade l e v e l .
N e it h e r sex, nor th e i n t e r a c t i o n between
achievem ent and sex was s i g n i f i c a n t i n th e change i n s e lf- e s t e e m f o r
•the two groups.
There was no l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between change i n
s e lf - e s t e e m scores and o t h e r f a c t o r s , such as re a d in g achievem ent
s c o r e s , grade l e v e l , and sex.
SUMMARY
The a n a ly s is and r e s u l t s o f t h i s s tu d y were p re s e n te d under
th re e c a te g o rie s :
S c o re s .
In a l l
F i r s t SEI Scores; Second SEI Scores; Change in SEI
t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s , s e lf- e s t e e m scores were examined
as th e y r e l a t e t o achievem ent o r lo w -a ch ie ve m e n t i n r e a d in g .
A d d itio n a lly ,
in th e t h i r d c a t e g o r y ,
(Change i n SEI S c o re s ) , re a d in g
achievem ent scores, grade l e v e l , and sex were examined t o determ ine
68
w h eth er a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between these in dependent
v a r ia b le s and th e dependent v a r i a b l e o f change in SEI s c o re s .
One hundred f o r t y - t w o a c h ie v e r s and 142 lo w - a c h ie v e r s in
grades two th ro u g h s i x were grouped a c c o rd in g t o grade le v e l and sex.
S u b je c ts were g iv e n th e S e lf-E s te e m I n v e n t o r y d u r in g th e f i r s t week
o f th e 1978-79 academic y e a r , and again a f t e r f i v e months o f re a d in g
in s tr u c tio n .
Two t e x t b o o k - r e l a t e d re a d in g t e s t scores were recorded
f o r each s t u d e n t .
Analyses o f th e d ata i n d i c a t e d t h a t on both SEI a d m in is t r a ­
t i o n s , th e s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e rs were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r
than th o s e o f lo w - a c h ie v e r s when th e s u b je c t s were examined as two
g ro u p s, w i t h o u t re g a rd t o grade l e v e l .
When grade le v e l was con­
s id e r e d , . however, achievem ent was s i g n i f i c a n t o n ly in grade s i x on
th e f i r s t S E I, and i n grades f i v e and s i x on th e second S E I.
N e ith e r
se x , n o r th e i n t e r a c t i o n between achievem ent and sex was s i g n i f i c a n t
when a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s were examined as two g r o u p s .
The change i n s e lf- e s t e e m scores was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t when
a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s were examined as two g r o u p s , n o r when
th e y were examined by grade l e v e l .
Sex was n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r
in th e change i n s e lf- e s t e e m scores f o r th e two group s, n o r was the
i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and achievem ent s i g n i f i c a n t .
There was no
l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between change i n s e lf- e s t e e m scores and o t h e r
f a c t o r s , such as r e a d in g achievem ent s c o r e s , grade l e v e l , and sex.
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
A p p ro x im a te ly o n e - t h i r d o f th e c h i l d r e n in American classrooms
fa il
t o become competent reade rs (Gunderson, 1976:370).
Many e x p la n a ­
t i o n s have been o f f e r e d f o r underachievem ent i n re a d in g arid in o t h e r
academic a re a s.
In h is d is c u s s io n o f th e r e s e a r c h , F in k suggests t h a t
many o f th e e x p la n a tio n s f o r academic underachievem ent are s u p e r f i c i a l
o r fr a g m e n ta r y , and concludes t h a t th e "co n ce p t o f s e l f "
ce n tra l
i s the
f a c t o r i n academic underachievem ent ( F in k , 1 96 5:4 87).
As e a r l y as 1936, th e e m o tio n a l and perso n a l problems o f
r e ta r d e d readers were bein g s t u d ie d .
Since th e n , i n v e s t i g a t o r s have
c o n tin u e d t o com p ile evidence which suggests t h a t re a d in g und eracfiievem ent i s a c o n c o m ita n t w i t h d e v ia n t classroom b e h a v io r , poor
s e l f - im a g e , e m otion al c o n f l i c t s , school d r o p o u t, and j u v e n i l e
d e lin q u e n c y .
A lth o u g h many d e f i n i t i o n s f o r s e lf- e s t e e m have been o f f e r e d ,
most o f them c e n t e r upon an i n d i v i d u a l ' s vie w o f h i m s e l f .
E d uca to rs,
p s y c h o lo g is t s , and o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s , however, have been unable to
reach a consensus on th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e lf- e s t e e m and academic
achievem ent.
Both Burg (1975:362) and Goodlad (1964 :12 ) contend t h a t
s e lf- e s t e e m i s r e l a t e d t o achievem ent i n a c y c l i c a l manner.
Poor
70
achievem ent r e s u l t s in lowered s e lf - e s t e e m , which p e rp e tu a te s poor
achievem ent.
P in e 's re v ie w (1978 :41 2) o f th e f i n d i n g s o f eleven
s t u d i e s , i n which measures o f s e lf- e s t e e m were r e l a t e d t o measures o f
re a d in g achievem ent, i n d ic a t e d t h a t s u c c e s s fu l re a d e rs have p o s i t i v e
s e lf - e s t e e m ; th e o p p o s it e i s t r u e o f u n s u c c e s s fu l r e a d e rs . .
O the r r e s e a r c h e r s , however, have found t h a t no r e l a t i o n s h i p ,
e x i s t s between s e lf- e s t e e m and re a d in g achievem ent.
• In two se p a ra te
s t u d i e s , W illia m s (1973 :37 9) and Pine (1978:413/) found no r e l a t i o n ­
s h ip between s e lf- e s t e e m and reading, achievem ent f o r c h i l d r e n in
grades one and two.
S i m i l a r l y , Chang (1976 :11 2). found no s i g n i f i c a n t -
r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e lf- e s t e e m f o r c h i l d r e n in grades f o u r thro ugh
s ix .
The purposes o f t h i s
i n v e s t i g a t i o n were as f o l l o w s :
to d e te r­
mine th e e f f e c t o f f a c t o r s , nam ely, r e a d in g achievem ent, grade l e v e l ,
and sex upon s e lf - e s t e e m scores a t th e b e g in n in g o f s t u d e n t s ' academic
y e a r and a f t e r f i v e months o f re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n , and t o determ ine
•the e f f e c t o f these f a c t o r s upon change i n s e lf- e s t e e m s c o re s .
A c c o r d i n g l y , th e S e lf-E s te e m I n v e n t o r y (SEI) was a d m in is te re d
t w ic e t o a t o t a l o f 142 a c h ie v e rs and t o 142 lo w - a c h ie v e r s , f o r a t o t a l
p o p u la t io n o f 284.
s ix .
The s tu d e n ts were e n r o l l e d in grades two thro ugh
The f i r s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n was d u r in g th e f i r s t week o f the
1978-79 academic y e a r .
The second a d m i n i s t r a t i o n was a f t e r stu d e n ts
had been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months
71
and had taken two t e x t b o o k - r e l a t e d r e a d in g t e s t s . ,
scores were com piled f o r a l l s t u d e n t s .
Reading t e s t
C o lle c te d d a ta , i n c lu d in g
s e l f - e s t e e n s c o r e s , re a d in g achievem ent s c o re s , grade l e v e l , and sex,
were computer a n a lyze d .
o f c o n fid e n c e .
The hypotheses were t e s te d a t th e .05 le v e l
C o nclu sions which m ig h t be drawn from t h i s
t i o n a re p resen ted i n th e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n .
in v e s tig a ­
In fe r e n c e s ,
recommendations, and summary are p r e s e n te d in subsequent s e c t io n s .
v.
CONCLUSIONS
■
. The c o n c lu s io n s w hich m ig h t be drawn from t h i s
w ill
be prese n te d in t h r e e s e c t io n s :
in v e s tig a tio n
F i r s t SEI Scores; Second SEI
Scores; Change i n SEI Scores.
F i r s t SEI Scores
Based upon a n a ly s i s o f th e data r e l a t i v e t o th e f i r s t S E I,
a d m in is te r e d d u r in g th e f i r s t week o f th e 1978-79 academic y e a r , th e
f o l l o w i n g c o n c lu s io n s were drawn:
1.
When a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s were examined as two
g roup s, a c h ie v e rs e x h i b i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r s e lf- e s t e e m scores
than d id lo w - a c h ie v e r s .
2.
In grades two thro ugh f i v e ,
t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ­
fe re n c e between th e s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s .
72
In grade s i x , a c h ie v e rs e x h i b i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r s e lf- e s t e e m
scores than d id lo w - a c h ie v e r s .
3.
Sex as a main e f f e c t was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t in i n f l u e n c i n g
s t u d e n t s ' s e lf- e s t e e m s c o re s .
There was no i n t e r a c t i o n between
achievem ent and sex on s t u d e n t s ' s e lf - e s t e e m s c o re s .
Second SEI Scores
■Based upon a n a ly s is o f th e data r e l a t i v e to th e second S E I,
a d m in is te r e d a f t e r s tu d e n ts had been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months, th e f o l l o w i n g c o n c lu s io n s were drawn:
I.
When a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s were examined as two
group s, a c h ie v e rs e x h i b i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r s e lf- e s t e e m scores
than d id lo w - a c h ie v e r s .
.2.
In grades two. th ro u g h f o u r , t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ­
fe re n c e between th e s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s .
In grades f i v e and s i x , a c h ie v e rs e x h i b i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r s e l f ­
esteem scores than d id low a c h ie v e r s .
3.
Sex as a main e f f e c t was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t i n i n f l u e n c i n g
s t u d e n t s ' s e lf- e s t e e m scores.
There was no i n t e r a c t i o n between achieve^
ment and sex on s t u d e n t s ' s e lf- e s t e e m s c o re s .
73
Change in SEI S c o r e s .
Based upon an e x a m in a tio n o f th e change in scores from f i r s t
SEI t o second SEI f o r achievers, and lo w - a c h i e v e r s $ th e f o l l o w i n g con­
c lu s io n s were drawn:
1.
No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was dem onstrated i n th e change
i n s e lf- e s t e e m scores between a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , as a r e s u l t
o f h a ving been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e
months.
2.
At a ll
grade l e v e l s , no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was demon­
s t r a t e d in th e change in s e lf - e s t e e m scores between a c h ie v e rs and
lo w - a c h ie v e r s , as a r e s u l t o f havin g been s u b je c te d t o a re a d in g
in s tr u c tio n a l
3.
program f o r f i v e months.
N e it h e r o f th e main e f f e c t s , sex and achievem ent, was
s i g n i f i c a n t in i n f l u e n c i n g change i n s t u d e n t s ' s e lf- e s t e e m s c o re s .
There was no i n t e r a c t i o n between achievem ent and sex on change in
s t u d e n t s ' s e lf- e s t e e m s c o r e s .
4.
There was no l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between change in s e l f ­
esteem scores and th e f a c t o r s o f r e a d in g achievem ent s c o r e s , grade
l e v e l , and" sex.
C o nclu sions r e l a t i v e t o th e p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n were drawn.
In fe re n c e s from th e f i n d i n g s and p o s s i b l e recommendations w i l l . b e
d is c u s s e d in th e f o l l o w i n g s e c t io n s .
74
INFERENCES
In t h i s
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , no p r o v i s i o n was made f o r the examina­
t i o n o r c o n t r o l o f extra n e o u s v a r ia b le s which m ig h t acco u n t f o r some
o f th e d i f f e r e n c e s fo u n d .
For exam ple, on both th e f i r s t and second
SEI a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s , when a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s were examined
as two g ro u p s , a c h ie v e rs e x h i b i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r s e lf- e s t e e m
scores than d id lo w - a c h ie v e r s .
When examined by grade l e v e l , the
d i f f e r e n c e between a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s in SEI scores was
s i g n i f i c a n t o n ly i n grade s i x on th e f i r s t SEI and in grades f i v e
and s i x on th e second SEI.
However, th e r e a d e r i s reminded t h a t the
change in SEI scores was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t f o r a c h ie v e rs o r lo w a c h ie v e rs a t any grade l e v e l , as a r e s u l t o f having been s u b je c te d
t o a re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r f i v e months.
appears t h a t a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s , a t a l l
T h e re fo re , i t
grade l e v e l s , were
b a s i c a l l y unchanged in s e lf- e s t e e m scores from the f i r s t week o f th e
•academic y e a r u n t i l
a f t e r f i v e months o f re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n .
I t now appears t h a t th e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s noted a t
s p e c i f i c grade l e v e l s on both SEI a d m in is t r a t i o n s must be accounted
f o r by f a c t o r s o t h e r than success in th e re a d in g program.
Perhaps,
as th e emphasis i n re a d in g tu rn s from phonics and b a s ic s k i l l s
p r im a r y grades t o comprehension and usage o f re a d in g s k i l l s
in
in o th e r
c u r r i c u l a r areas in in t e r m e d i a t e g rade s, n o n -a c h ie v e rs i n re a d in g
75
become morg a c u t e ly aware o f t h e i r . i n a b i l i t i e s , w i t h r e s u l t a n t lo w e r
s e lf - e s t e e m .
In c o n t r a s t , t h e i r a c h ie v in g peers g a in new confid ence,
from t h e i r dem onstrated s k i l l s . .
Hence, re a d in g may s t i l l
be an
im p o r t a n t f a c t o r .
On the o t h e r hand, i t
i s a ls o p o s s ib le t h a t , as c h i l d r e n
m a tu re , th e y become more concerned w i t h t e s t achievem ent s c o re s ,
cla ssroo m p e rform an ce, and o t h e r s u b t le types o f c o m p e t it io n .
A
s t u d e n t 's awareness o f h is perform ance m ig h t account f o r th e
a c h ie v e m e n t/s e lf-im a g e /a c h ie v e m e n t c y c l e , as d is cu sse d by Burg
(1975 :36 2) and Goodlad (1 9 6 4 :1 2 ).
The p o s s ib le e f f e c t s o f tim e must a ls o be c o n s id e r e d .
c e r t a i n v a r ia b le s
Perhaps
(u n d e fin e d in t h i s s t u d y ) , such as m a t u r i t y , c la s s ­
room pe rfo rm a n ce , and feedback from te a c h e rs andzp e e rs , have a
c u m u la tiv e e f f e c t upon s tu d e n ts and f i n a l l y
become s i g n i f i c a n t in-
i n f l u e n c i n g s e lf- e s t e e m s c o re s .
A lth o u g h s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were noted between s e l f ­
esteem scores o f a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s a t s p e c i f i c grade l e v e l s ,
th e change in s e lf- e s t e e m was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t any grade le v e l f o r
a c h ie v e rs o r lo w - a c h ie v e r s .
S e lf-e s te e m m ig h t be a human dimension
which i s n o t s u s c e p t i b le t o change o v e r a tim e span as b r i e f as f i v e
months.
Indeed , in a te le p h o n e c o n v e r s a tio n w i t h t h i s
in v e s tig a to r ,
Dr. S ta n le y Coopersmit h , a u th o r o f th e SEI, expressed th e o p in io n t h a t
no change would be found even a f t e r one y e a r .
Perhaps, in o r d e r f o r
76
s e lf- e s t e e m to change, i t
must be in f lu e n c e d by v a r ia b le s w h ic h ,
o b v i o u s l y , were n o t accounted f o r in th e p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
In summary, s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were noted between the
s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e r s and lo w - a c h ie v e r s in grade s i x on th e
f i r s t SEI and i n grades f i v e and s i x on th e second S E I.
However, th e
d i f f e r e n c e i n change i n SEI scores between a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s ,
from f i r s t t o second a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s o f th e t e s t , was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t
a t any grade l e v e l .
T h e r e f o r e , i t seems t h a t th e d i f f e r e n c e s noted
must be accounted f o r by f a c t o r s o t h e r than success d u r in g f i v e months
o f re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n .
RECOMMENDATIONS
■ -
Based upon th e s t a t i s t i c a l
r e s u l t s and. th e c o n c lu s io n s o f t h i s
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , s e v e ra l recommendations emerge as a p p r o p r ia t e areas f o r
f u r t h e r re s e a rc h and as a p p r o p r i a t e f o r c o n s i d e r a t io n by school
p e r s o n n e l.
'
Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research I.
I.
T h is i n v e s t i g a t i o n , as i t
r e l a t e s t o achievem ent and
s e lf - e s t e e m , sho u ld be r e p l i c a t e d in o t h e r schoo ls w i t h i n th e re search
c ity .
Al I s u b je c t s f o r t h i s
s c h o o ls .
I t is
i n v e s t i g a t i o n a tte n d e d T i t l e
!- d e s ig n a te d
im p o r t a n t t o know w h e th e r the se f i n d i n g s can be
77
a p p lie d t o s tu d e n ts who do n o t a tte n d T i t l e
I schoo ls w i t h i n the
re s e a rc h c i t y .
2.
T h is in v e s t i g a t i o n , shou ld be r e p l i c a t e d in T i t l e
d e sig n a te d sc h o o ls i n o t h e r c i t i e s ,
I-
i n o r d e r to d e te rm in e w h eth er these
f i n d i n g s can be a p p lie d to a l a r g e r p o p u la t i o n .
3.
A s i m i l a r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h o u ld be conducted on a l o n g i ­
t u d i n a l b a s is .
T h is ty p e o f s t u d y , w i t h one p o p u la tio n o v e r a p e r io d
o f y e a r s , would h e lp to d e te rm in e th e s t a b i l i t y o f s e lf - e s t e e m .
It
m ig h t re v e a l p a t t e r n s o f change i n s e lf - e s t e e m which would enable te a c h e rs t o p la n e xp e rie n ce s w hich would enhance s t u d e n t s ' views o f
them se lve s.
4.
An i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h i s one shou ld be.conducted
u s in g SEI subsca le scores which m ig h t h e lp i d e n t i f y areas o f s e l f ­
esteem, s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o re a d in g achievem ent.
5.
An i n v e s t i g a t i o n sh o u ld be made o f th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between
s e lf- e s t e e m scores and o t h e r s e le c te d v a r i a b l e s , such as i n t e l l i g e n c e ,
f a m i l y background, s o c i a l a d ju s tm e n t, and school r e t e n t i o n .
o f th is
S tu d ie s
k in d would h e lp t o dete rm in e f a c t o r s which a f f e c t s e lf- e s te e m
and would p r o v id e i n f o r m a t i o n which would be h e l p f u l t o te a c h e rs and
p a re n ts as th e y i n t e r a c t w i t h c h i l d r e n .
6.
Research shou ld be conducted c o n c e rn in g th e improvement
o f s e lf- e s t e e m . ■ T h is would h e lp t o d e te rm in e w hether s e lf- e s t e e m
can be m o d ifie d th ro u g h e x t e r n a l
in f l u e n c e and m ig h t sugg est some
78
p o s s ib le ways by which i t
can be done.
T h is would a ls o h e lp t o
d e te rm in e w h e th e r te a c h e rs and o t h e r s can enhance th e s e lf- e s t e e m o f
s tu d e n ts and thus b oo st s t u d e n t s ' success i n th e s e lf - e s t e e m , a c h ie v e ­
ment, s e lf- e s t e e m c y c l e , as d is c u s s e d i n th e re v ie w o f th e l i t e r a t u r e .
Recommendations f o r School Personnel
1.
The r e s u l t s o f th e p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n re v e a le d t h a t
th e d i f f e r e n c e between s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e rs and lo w a c h ie v e rs was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t in grades two th ro u g h f o u r .
F u rth e r, '
th e change in s e lf- e s t e e m scores from f i r s t t o second SEI a d m in is t r a ­
t i o n s was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , e i t h e r f o r a c h ie v e r s o r lo w - a c h ie v e r s , a t
any grade l e v e l .
in f l u e n c e d ,
r e a d in g .
I t seems, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t i f s e lf- e s t e e m can be
i t must be in f lu e n c e d by f a c t o r s o t h e r than success in
Teachers s h o u ld be in fo rm e d o f t h i s and sho u ld be s e n s i t i v e
t o s e e kin g o t h e r f a c t o r s which m ig h t in f l u e n c e th e s e lf - e s t e e m o f
t h e i r stu d e n ts.
2.
The r e s u l t s o f s t u d ie s i n v e s t i g a t i n g s e lf- e s t e e m and
r e a d in g achievem ent have been i n c o n c l u s i v e , as shown i n th e re vie w
o f th e l i t e r a t u r e .
I t i s th e o p in io n o f th e i n v e s t i g a t o r , however,
t h a t te a c h e rs sho u ld make conscious e f f o r t s t o enhance s t u d e n t s ' s e l f ­
esteem and t o a v o id comments and t e a c h in g p r a c t ic e s w hich m ig h t damage
s t u d e n t s ' s e lf - e s t e e m .
SUMMARY
As shown by a re v ie w o f th e l i t e r a t u r e , re s e a rc h f i n d i n g s
r e l a t i v e t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e a d in g achievem ent and s e l f ­
esteem have been i n c o n c l u s iv e .
o f th a t r e la tio n s h ip ,
In o r d e r t o com pile f u r t h e r evidence
th e p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n was conducted.
purposes o f th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n were as f o l l o w s :
The
t o d e te rm in e th e e f f e c t
o f f a c t o r s , namely, re a d in g achievem ent, grade l e v e l , and sex upon
s e lf- e s t e e m scores a t the b e g in n in g o f s t u d e n t s ' academic y e a r , and
a f t e r f i v e months o f re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n ;
and t o d e te rm in e th e e f f e c t
o f these f a c t o r s upon change in s e lf - e s t e e m s c o re s .
A f t e r r e v ie w in g th e l i t e r a t u r e o f th e p a s t ten y e a rs r e l a t i v e
t o r e a d in g achievem ent and s e lf - e s t e e m , th e i n v e s t i g a t o r developed
te n hypotheses.
They were g r o u p e d . in t o t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s :
F i r s t SEI ,
Scores; Second SEI S cores; Change i n SEI Scores.
Two groups o f s tu d e n ts were drawn from th e p o p u la t i o n o f
second th ro u g h s i x t h grade c h i l d r e n who a tte n d e d th e n in e T i t l e
! - d e s ig n a te d p u b l i c sc h o o ls i n B i l l i n g s , Montana d u r in g th e 1978-79
academic y e a r .
T itle
A c h ie v e rs were s tu d e n ts who were n o t e n r o l l e d i n the
I la b s f o r supplem ental re a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n .
s tu d e n ts who were e n r o l l e d in T i t l e
in s tr u c tio n .
L ow -a chie vers were
I la b s f o r supplem ental re a d in g
P a r t i c i p a n t s were grouped a c c o rd in g t o grade le v e l and
80
sex. . The r e s u l t a n t p o p u la t io n c o n s is te d o f 142 a c h ie v e rs and 142 lo w a c h ie v e rs in grades two th ro u g h s i x .
S u b je c ts were g iv e n th e S e lf-E s te e m I n v e n t o r y (S E I) d u r in g th e
f i r s t week o f th e 1978-79 academic y e a r , and again a f t e r f i v e months
o f r e a d in g i n s t r u c t i o n .
Two t e x t b o o k - r e l a t e d re a d in g t e s t scores were
recorded f o r each s u b j e c t .
A ll
hypotheses were t e s t e d a t th e .05 le v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ,
u s in g e i t h e r th e s t u d e n t 's t - t e s t ,
two-way a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e , o r
s te p w is e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s io n .
Analyses o f th e data in d i c a t e d t h a t on both SE! a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s ,
th e s e lf- e s t e e m scores o f a c h ie v e rs were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r than those
o f lo w - a c h ie v e r s when th e s u b je c t s were examined as two groups w i t h o u t
re g a rd t o grade l e v e l .
When grade le v e l was. c o n s id e r e d , however,
a c h ie v e r s ' SEI scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r o n ly in grade s i x on
th e f i r s t S E I, and i n grades f i v e and s i x on th e second S E I.
N e it h e r
sex, n o r th e i n t e r a c t i o n between achievem ent and sex, was s i g n i f i c a n t
on e i t h e r o f th e SEI a d m in is t r a t i o n s when a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s '
were examined as two groups.
The change in s e lfr e s t e e m scores was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t when
a c h ie v e rs and lo w - a c h ie v e r s were examined as two g ro u p s , n o r when th e y
were examined by grade l e v e l .
Sex was n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r in th e
change in s e lf- e s t e e m scores f o r th e two groups, now was th e i n t e r ­
a c t io n between sex and achievem ent s i g n i f i c a n t . . There was no l i n e a r
81
r e l a t i o n s h i p between change in s e lf- e s t e e m scores and o t h e r f a c t o r s ,
such as r e a d in g achievem ent s c o r e s , , g r a d e l e v e l , and sex.
C o nclu sions w hich m ig h t be drawn, as a r e s u l t o f d ata a n a l y s i s ,
were p r e s e n te d .
I n f e r e n c e s , o r p o t e n t i a l e x p la n a tio n s f o r th e f i n d i n g s ,
were d is c u s s e d .
Recommendations were made f o r f u r t h e r re s e a rc h and
f o r c o n s i d e r a t io n by school p e rs o n n e l.
.APPENDICES
I
83
APPENDIX A
COMPOSITE TEST SCORE LETTERS
M i l e s Avenue E l e m e n t a r y School
1601 M i l e s Avenue
B i l l i n g s , M ontana
59102
Ju ne
11,
1979
Ms. J u d i t h L. S t a r r
R u r a l R o u te I
P. 0 . Box 281
L a u r e l , M ontana
5 9 044
Dear Judy,
T h i s l e t t e r i s in r e p l y t o y o u r r e q u e s t f o r i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i v e t o
t h e use o f a s t u d e n t ' s t o t a l r e a d i n g s c o r e f o r t h e as s e s s m e n t o f h i s
a c h i e v e m e n t on an y c o m p l e t e m a g a z i n e , o r s e c t i o n , o f one o f t h e
H o u g h t o n - M i f f l e n Company r e a d i n g t e x t s .
•
I
■j,
As you know, t h e f o u r g e n e r a l a r e a s m easu re d a r e D e c o d i n g , Compre­
h e n s i o n , R e f e r e n c e , and L i t e r a r y s k i l l s .
D iv is io n o f th e t e s t s in to
th ese fo u r ge n eral a re a s a llo w s th e te a c h e r to re -e m p h a s ize , i f necess­
a r y , t h e a r e a ( s ) o f w ea kn e ss f o r a p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d o r gr o u p o f
c h ild re n .
A t some l e v e l s , h o w e v e r , c e r t a i n a r e a s a r e n o t t e s t e d ,
b e c a u s e t h e y h a ve n o t been t h e f o c u s o f i n s t r u c t i o n . I
As I e x p l a i n e d t o you d u r i n g o u r r e c e n t d i s c u s s i o n , c o m b in in g t h e
c o m p o s i t e s c o r e s f o r e a ch o f t h e a r e a s t e s t e d p r o v i d e s a t o t a l s c o r e
and g i v e s t h e t e a c h e r a b a s i s upon w h i c h t o e v a l u a t e t h e c h i l d ' s
p r o g r e s s in t h e t o t a l r e a d i n g p r o c e s s .
I t i s my f e e l i n g t h e r e f o r e ,
t h a t f o r p u r p o s e s o f y o u r r e s e a r c h , t h e us e o f a c h i l d ' s t o t a l s c o r e
w o u ld be e n t i r e l y l e g i t i m a t e .
R o la n d F l y n n
P rin c ip a l
M i l e s Avenue E l e m e n t a r y School
Fo rm erly:
R e a d in g C o n s u l t a n t
School D i s t r i c t #2
B i l l i n g s , Montana
I
84
j
Houghton Mifflin Company
One Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02107
(617) 725-5000 Cable H o u g h t o n
School Division
June 13, 1979
Ms. Judy S ta rr
R.R. #T Box 281
L aurel, Montana 59044
•
Dear Judy:
I spoke with our s t a f f consultant in te s tin g , Mr. John Sommer,
to make c e rta in th a t what I had to ld you over the phone yesterday was
c o rre c t. He concurred.
We f e e l , th e re fo re , th a t i t is p e rfe c tly le g itim a te to use the
composite Test o f Basic Reading S k ills scores in your research study
so long as you f u ll y describe the to ta l score you are using fo r each
student. Further, you probably should l i s t a ll subscores comprising
your composite scores as an appendix.
RAG/jjg
cc C. Wingert
Atlanta / Dallas / Geneva, Illinois / Hopewell, New Jersey / Palo Alto / Toronto
85
APPENDIX B
EXPLANATION OF READING ACHIEVEMENT SCORES
For purposes o f t h i s
in v e s tig a tio n ,, s p e c i f i c a l l y re la te d to
H yp oth esis 10, r e a d in g achievem ent score f o r each s t u d e n t was a
summation sc o re comprised o f th e t o t a l
r e a d in g t e s t s .
scores earned on two b a s ic
86
APPENDIX C
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN LETTER-TEST VALIDATION
Houghton Mifflin Company *I
One Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02107
(617) 725-5000 Cable Houghton
School Division
May 14, 1979
Ms. Judy S ta rr
R.R. #1, Box 281
L au rel, Montana 59044
Dear Judy:
I enjoyed ta lk in g w ith you the other day, and hope th a t t h e - f o l­
lowing inform ation w ill be helpful as you develop your doctoral d is ­
s e rta tio n .
■It is Houghton M if f lin Company's p olicy not to d is trib u te te s t
data on it s various programs. Al I tests are valid ated through a
v a rie ty o f measures, however: learn er v e r ific a tio n studies, f ie ld
te s tin g , teacher a ttitu d e questionnaires, and item analysis studies
by a s ta ff-c o n s u lta n t on testin g who re g u la rly screens the reading
testin g program.
The most recent reading learn er v e r ific a tio n study was in 1976-77
fo r The HOUGHTON MIFFLIN READING SERIES, 1976 E ditio n . The basic
purpose o f th is study was to obtain feedback on the learning-teaching
effectiveness o f the HMRS program th a t can be used to enhance the in ­
stru c tio n a l q u a lity o f fu tu re e d itio n s . The two types o f data collected
in th is study were:
Learner Test Data: Data on the HMRS Tests o f Basic Reading S k ills
were co llected from a national cross section o f some 1,000 students
in six elementary schools using the program, grades K-6. The
sample is representative of a cross-section of fiv e major character­
is t ic s : geographic d iv e rs ity , community-type d iv e rs ity , socio-economic
d iv e rs ity , ra c ia l and ethnic d iv e rs ity , and d iv e rs ity of a b i l i t y le v e ls .
The selected classes were supplied with complementary sets of the
te s t m a te ria ls . The teachers o f these classes were asked to teach the
program in th e ir normal way and to adm inister the proper tests a t the
appropriate time as they went along. P e rio d ic a lly throughout the school
Atlanta / Dallas / Geneva, Illinois / Hopewell, New Jersey / Palo Alto / Toronto
87
Hs. Judy S tarr
May 14, 1979
Page 2
y e ar, the teachers forwarded te s t data to Houghton M if f lin fo r processing
and analysis. E s s e n tia lly , the te s t re s u lts in d icate th a t most pupils
can adequately perform most o f the s k ills in The HOUGHTON MIFFLIN
READING SERIES a fte r in s tru c tio n . The sample c le a rly meets the "80/80
mastery c rite rio n " — th a t is more than 80 percent o f the tim e, the
sample demonstrated mastery a t or above the 80.0 " d iffic u lty " le v e l.
(" D iffic u lty " is the percent o f students who answered a te s t item cor­
r e c t ly .)
Teacher A ttitu d e Data: Teacher input was gathered by a d ire c t mail
a ttitu d in a l questionnaire sent to teachers in a cross section o f schools
using the program in th e ir classrooms, grades K-6. What follows is a
summary o f 423 v a lid questionnaire returns.
**Tw o-thirds o f the teachers responding to the survey say the amount o f
vocabulary re p e titio n in the HMRS program is s u ffic ie n t fo r in s ta n t
recognition.
**E ig h t out o f ten teachers s ta te the number o f new words introduced in
the le v e l(s ) o f the program they use is appropriate.
**N ine out o f ten teachers using the pre-reading level o f the program,
Level A, GETTING READY TO READ, say the number o f high frequency words
introduced is appropriate. And four out of fiv e say the te x t provides
adequate provision fo r the teaching o f the high frequency words.
**The m a jo rity o f respondents say the number o f s k ills in the le v e l(s)
o f the program they use is appropriate.
**Most o f the teachers responding in d icate th e ir students had no major
problem with re a d a b ility .
**Nine out of ten teachers say the HMRS management .system is e ffe c tiv e .
The te s t and questionnaire res u lts o f these two studies w ill be
used to elim inate or re w rite items where te s t precision was not obtained.
I t may also be used in reorganizing the tests o r, perhaps, to revise c e r­
ta in areas o f the program.
This type o f I earner v e rific a tio n is ongoing fo r HMCO reading
m a te ria ls , Judy. Hope th is gives you some fe e lin g fo r the research
th at goes into developing the c rite rio n -re fe re n c e d tests th a t are p art
o f The HOUGHTON MIFFLIN READING SERIES.
RAG/jjg
cc C. Wingert
88
APPENDIX D
COOPERSMITH LETTER
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
n r .U K K L V Y • D A V IS • H U T N E • L O S A N G E L E S • lllV U H S ID K « S A N M L G O • R A N E H A N C IS C O *I
D A V IS , C A L lV O H N T A
D EV A H TN tEN T O F PSVCIIOLOGY
Thank you
a n d B e h a v io r
p ro c e d u re s
fo r
S a tin g
we h a v e
your
re c e n t
F o rm .
do
not
d e v e lo p e d
have
in q u ir y
i E n c lo s e d
a d m i n is t r a t i o n , s c o r in g a nd
i n m y b o o k , T h e A n te c e d e n ts
I
S A N T A H A R H A llA . ‘ S A N T A C H U Z
c o p ie s
fo r
r e g a r d in g
you w il l
a s s e s s in g
fin d
th e
.0 5 6 1 6
S e lf - E s t e e m
s e lf - e s t e e m
and
th e
m e th o d s
in t e r p r e ta tio n .
F u r th e r in fo r m a tio n
o f S e l f - E s t e e m (W . H . F r e e m a n ) .
o f
th e
In v e n to ry
a m e m o ra n d u m d e s c r i b i n g
I n v e n t o r y a n d R a t in g
F o rm
fo r
is
th e
of
c o n t a in e d
s a le
b u t m ake
th e m a v a i l a b l e f o r r e s e a r c h p u r p o s e s . . I f y o u r s t u d y i s i n t e n d e d a s a n i n v e s t i ­
g a t io n o f s e lf - e s t e e m , y o u h a v e m y p e r m is s io n t o r e p ro d u c e a nd d u p lic a t e th e
e n c lo s e d
fo r
in
th e
o f
th e
te s ts .
o f
your
y o u r w r it e - u p
o f
th e
I
can
c o p ie s
p u rp o s e s
be
s h o u ld
o f
s tu d y
h a v e m y p e r m is s io n
as
lo n g
as
th e
le a r n in g
a s s is t a n c e ,
le t
th e
r e s u lts
me kn o w .
of
th e
te s ts
n o te d
s tu d y
S t a n l e y ■C o o p e r s m it h
SC: I p
th e
a re
B e s t w is h e s .
S in c e r e ly ,
E n c lo s u r e
m o d ify
m o d ific a tio n s
to
r e s u lts .
a p p r e c ia te
fu rth e r
You a ls o
s p e c ific
you
c o n d u c t.
If
I
89
APPENDIX E
ITEMS 6, 13, 20, 27, 34, 41, 48, 55 are
LIE DEFENSIVE SCALE (8 ite m s )
MAXIMUM TOTAL SCORE - 50
8 LIE ITEMS
SELF-ESTEEM INVENTORY (SEI)
Please mark each s ta te m e n t in th e f o l l o w i n g way:
I f th e s ta te m e n t d e s c rib e s how you u s u a l l y f e e l , p u t an " x " in
th e column "LIKE ME."
I f th e s ta te m e n t does n o t d e s c r ib e how you u s u a ll y f e e l , p u t an
" x " . in th e column "UNLIKE ME"
There a re no r i g h t o r wrong answers.
LIKE ME
I.
I spend a l o t o f tim e daydreaming.
2.
I 'm p r e t t y su re o f m y s e lf.
3.
I o f t e n w ish I were someone e ls e .
4.
I'm easy t o l i k e .
5. • My p a re n ts and I have a l o t o f fun
to g e th e r
UNLIKE ME
X
X
X
X
X
X
6.
I neve r w o rry abo ut a n y t h in g .
(L IE )
7.
I f i n d i t v e r y hard t o t a l k in f r o n t
o f th e c la s s .
X
8.
I w ish I were youn ger.
X
9.
There are l o t s o f t h in g s about m y s e lf
1 1d change i f I c o u ld .
X
10.
I can make up my mind w i t h o u t to o
much t r o u b l e .
X
11.
I 'm a l o t o f fu n t o be w i t h .
X
12.
I g e t upse t e a s i l y a t home.
X
90
LIKE ME
13.
I always do th e r i g h t t h i n g ;
( L IE )
14.
I 'm proud o f my school work.
15.
Someone always has t o t e l l
t o do.
16.
UNLIKE ME
X
X
me what
X
I t takes me a lo n g tim e t o g e t used
t o a n y th in g new.
X
17.
I 'm o f t e n s o r r y f o r th e t h in g s I do.
X
18.
I 'm p o p u la r w i t h k id s my own age.
x
19.
My p a re n ts u s u a l l y c o n s id e r my f e e l i n g s .
X
.
X
20.
I 'm never unhappy.
(L IE )
X
21.
I 'm d o in g th e b e s t work t h a t I can.
22.
I g iv e i n v e r y e a s i l y .
23.
I can u s u a l l y ta k e care o f m y s e lf .
X
24.
I 'm p r e t t y happy.
X
25.
I would r a t h e r p la y w i t h c h i l d r e n
youn ger than me.
X
My p a re n ts e xpe ct to o much o f me.
X
26.
X
X
27.
I l i k e everyone I know.
(L IE )
28.
I l i k e t o be c a l l e d on in c la s s .
X
29.
I un d e rsta n d m y s e lf.
X
30.
I t's
31.
T hings are a l l mixed up i n my l i f e .
32.
Kids u s u a l l y f o l l o w my id e a s .
33.
No one pays much a t t e n t i o n t o me a t home.
34.
I neve r g e t s c o ld e d .
(L IE )
35.
X
p r e t t y tough t o be me.
I 'm n o t d o in g as w e ll
li k e to .
X
X
X
X
in school as I ' d
X
91
LIKE ME
.
' UNLIKE ME
36.
I can make up my mind and s t i c k t o i t .
37.
I r e a l l y d o n ' t l i k e b eing a boy - g i r l .
X
38.
I have a low o p in io n o f m y s e lf.
X
39.
I d o n ' t l i k e t o be w i t h o t h e r p eo ple .
X
40.
There are many tim e s when I ' d
le a ve home.
X
X
l i k e to
41.
I'm never shy.
(L IE )
X
42.
I o f t e n f e e l upset in s c h o o l.
X
43.
I o f t e n f e e l ashamed o f m y s e lf.
X
44.
I 'm n o t as n ic e lo o k in g as most pe o p le .
X
45.
I f I have som ething t o s a y , I u s u a l l y
say i t .
46.
Kids p i c k on me v e r y o f t e n .
47.
My p a re n ts und erstan d me.
48.
I always t e l l
(L IE )
49.
X
X
X
th e t r u t h .
My te a c h e r makes me f e e l
' good enough.
X
I 'm n o t
X
50.
I d o n ' t ca re what happens t o me.
X
51.
I 'm a f a i l u r e .
X
52.
I g e t u pse t e a s i l y when I'm s c o ld e d .
X
53.
Most people are b e t t e r l i k e d than I am.
X
54.
I u s u a l l y f e e l as i f my p a re n ts a re
push ing me.
X
55.
I always know what t o say t o pe o p le .
(LIE).
X
56.
I o f t e n g e t d is c o u ra g e d i n s c h o o l.
X
57.
Things u s u a l l y d o n ' t b o th e r me.
58.
I c a n ' t be depended on.
X
X
/
REFERENCES
.93 .
REFERENCES
Anderson, C a m illa .
"The S e lf-Im a g e :
A Theory o f th e Dynamics o f
B e h a v io r , " in The S e l f in Growth, Teaching and L e a r n in g , ed.
■Don • E. ..HamacheF. Englewood C l i f f s :
P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1965,
p p . 1-13.
A u s t i n , Mary.
"R etarded Readers S p e a k ," The Reading T e a c h e r,
O cto b e r, 1958, pp. 24-28.
Bond, Guy L . , and M ile s A. T i n k e r .
Reading D i f f i c u l t i e s :
T h e ir
D iagn osis and C o r r e c t io n .
New Y o rk: A p p le t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s ,
1967.
Burg, L e s l i e A.
" A f f e c t i v e T e a chin g— N e gle cted in I n n e r - C i t y Schools?",
The Reading T e a c h e r, J a n u a ry, 1975, pp. 360-63.
Camp, Bonnie W., and Z i met, Sara G.
"C la s s ro o m .B e h a v io r During Reading
and I n s t r u c t i o n , " E x c e p tio n a l C h i l d r e n , O cto b e r, 1975, pp. 109-110.
Chang, Theresa S.
" S e lf - C o n c e p t s , Academic A chievem ent, and T e a ch e r's
R a t i n g , " Psychology i n the S c h o o ls , Ja n u a ry , 1976, pp. 111-113.
Combs, A r t h u r W., and Donald Snygg.
Harper and Row, 1959.
I n d i v i d u a l B e h a v io r .
New Y ork:
Coopersmit h , S ta n le y .
"S e lf-E s te e m and Need Achievement as D e te r­
m inants o f S e le c t iv e R e call and R e p e t i t i o n , " Jo u rn a l o f Abnormal
and S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , May, 1960, pp. 310-317.
_________.
S e lf-E s te e m I n v e n t o r y . .
San F r a n c is c o , 1967.
Davidson, Helen . H . ,. and Gerhard Lang.
" C h i l d r e n 's P e rc e p tio n s o f
T h e ir Tea chers' F e e lin g s Toward Them R e lated t o S e l f - P e r c e p t i o n ,
School A chievem ent, and B e h a v io r , " i n The S e l f i n G row th,
T e a ch in g , and L e a r n in g , ed. Don E. Hamachek.' Englewood C l i f f s :
P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1965, pp. 424-39.
E a rp, N. Wesley.
"C h a lle n g e to S ch o o ls:
Reading i s O ver-e m p h a size d ,"
The Reading T e a c h e r, March, 1974, pp. 562-6.5.
Ferguson, George A.
S t a t i s t i c a l A n a ly s is in Psychology and E d u c a tio n .
4 th ed.
New Y o rk l
McGraw-Hi I ' I , I W l F
94
F in k , M a r t in B.
" S e lf-C o n c e p t as i t R e la te s to Academic Under­
a c h ie v e m e n t," in The S e l f in Growth, Tea chin g, and L e a r n in g ,
ed. Don E. HamacheFi
Englewood C l i f f s :
P r e n t i c e - H a lI ,- I n c . ,
1965, pp. 486-92. ■
G la v in , J. P ., and F. R. A n n e s le y .
"Reading and A r i t h m e t i c C o r r e la te s
o f Conduct-Problem and Withdrawn C h i l d r e n , " Jo u rn a l o f S p ecial
E d u c a tio n , 1971, pp. 213-19.
Good!ad, John I . "U n d e rs ta n d in g th e S e l f i n the School S e t t i n g , "
C h ild h o o d E d u c a tio n , September, 1964, pp. 9-14.
G rau bard,.P . S.. "The R e la t io n s h ip Between Academic Achievement and
B e h a v io r D im e n s io n s ," E x c e p tio n a l C h i l d r e n , 1971, pp. 755-56.
Gunderson, B e rn ic e V.
"Reading:
A p r i l , 1976, pp. 370-72.
To Dare i s t o Do," Language A r t s ,
H u n te r, E l iz a b e t h .
Tuning i n t o C h i l d r e n , " Childhood E d u c a tio n ,
O c to b e r, 1975, pp. 13-19.
M c I n t i r e , W a lte r G., and Drummond, R obert J.
"The S t r u c t u r e o f
S e l f Concept i n Second and F ou rth Grade C h i l d r e n , " E d u c a tio n a l
and P s y c h o lo g ic a l Measurement, 1976, XXXVI, pp. 529-36.
M i l l e r , H a rry B . , and Steve H e rin g .
"T e a c h e r's R a tin g s --W h ic h
Reading Group i s Number One?", The Reading T e a ch e r, Janu a ry,
1975, pp. 389-91.
N ie , Norman, C. H a d la i H u l l , Jean G. J e n k in s , K a rin S t e in b r e n n e r ,
Dale H. B ent.
S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r th e S o c ia l S t u d i e s . 2nd
ed.
New Y ork:
M c G ra w -H ill, 1975.
O pie, Nancy, and Grace L em asters.
"Do Boys w i t h a Low-Average I.Q .
A c t u a l l y Have a Low S e lf-E s te e m ? ", The Jo u rn a l o f School H e a lt h ,
September, 1975, pp. 381-85.
P in e , Mary.
" S e lf - C o n c e p t, In fo rm a l E d u c a tio n , Reading Achievement
i n Grade One," The Reading T e a c h e r, J a n u a ry, 1978, pp. 412-17.
Robinson, Helen M. Why P u p ils F a il i n Reading.
o f Chicago P ress, 1946.
Chicago:
U n iv e rs ity
95
Ryan, Mary, and Karen L. W is e c a rv e r . " M i d d l e / J u n i o r High School
C o u n s e lo rs ' C o rn e r," Elem entary School Guidance and C o u n s e lin g , .
December, 1975, pp. 132-37.
S a t i r , V i r g i n i a . " P e oplem aking.
Books, I n c . , 1972..
Palo Al t o :
Science and B e h a vio r
Sawyer, Diane J.
"The D ia g n o s tic M y s tiq u e — A P o in t o f V ie w ," The
Reading Tea ch e r, March, 1974, pp. 555-61,
_________.
"Readiness F a c to rs f o r R eading: A D i f f e r e n t V ie w ," The
Reading T e a ch e r, A p r i l , 1975, pp. 620-24.
Simon, S id n e y, and R obert O'Rourke.
"E ve ry C h ild has. High W orth— Prove
I t , " L e a r n in g , December, 1975, p p . 46-50 .
S te n n e r , A. Jackson, and W il li a m G. Katzenmeyer.
" S e lf-C o n c e p t
Development in Young C h i l d r e n , " Phi D e lta Kappan3 December,
1976, pp. 356-57.
T itle
I P r o j e c t P ro p o s a l.
B illin g s :
B illin g s
P u b lic S c h o o ls ,
1977- 7 8 .
W il li a m s , Jean H.
"The R e la t io n s h ip o f S e lf-C o n c e p t and Reading
Achievement in F i r s t Grade C h i l d r e n , " The Jo u rn a l o f E d u c a tio n a l
■
R esearch, A p r i l , 1973, pp. 378-80. .
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
1762 100 1366 9