518 D. Harlow is professor and chairman of the Special Education Department at the Center for Teaching, and Learning. He has held positions at Kansas State University and the University of Nebraska and has written articles and books in the area of the emotionally disturbed child. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Wayne Peterson is principal of Viking Elementary School in the Grand Forks public school system. Mr. Peterson received his Ed.S. in school administration at the University of North Dakota. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Harlow at The Center for Teaching and Learning, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, N.D. 58202. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to thank the Grand Forks, N.D., schools for providing subjects and facilities for this study. Students from the Center for Teaching and Learning assisted the authors in collecting data.
REFERENCES Rurke, A/.. lA>ok, Listen and Learn. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanich, Inc., 1971. Dunn, L., Smith, J., Horton, K.: Peabody language Development Kit, IA'VCI P. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service. 1968. Falik, L.: The effect of special perceptual-motor /raining in kindergarten on reading readiness and on second reading grade performance. Journal of learning Disabilities, 1969, 2, 395-402. Faustman, M.N.: Some effects of perception training on first grade success in reading. Proceedings of the Twelfth
Annual Convention, International Reading Association. Perception and Reading, 1968, 12. Part 4. 99-101., Get man, G.N., Kane, E., Halgren. A/., McKcc. C Developing learning Readiness. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.. Inc.. 1968. Greenspan, SB.: Research studies of visual and perceptual motor training. In Research Rcf)orts Special Articles (Optometric Extension Program Foundation, Duncan, Okla.), Series 1, Vol. 44, Dec 1971-Sept. 1972. Hammili, D.: Training visual perception process Journal of learning Disabilities, 1972, 5, 552-559 Harris. D.: Children's Drawings as Measures of Intellectual Maturity: A Revision and F.xtensitm of the Goodenough Druw-A-Mun Test. New York: Harcourt. Brace O World, 1963. Harrison. L . Durr. W.. McKcc. P Getting Ready to Read. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co.. 1971 Perrone. V.. Open Education: Promises and Problems. Bloomington. hid.: PDK Fas/backs. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. 1972. Scheffe. 11.: A method for iudgingull contrasts in thcunulysisof variance. Biometrics. 1953, 40, 87-104 Shearer, VI'.. A study comparing disadvantaged preschool children's test scores in directionality orientation and sensory concepts fundamental to their reading readiness before and after visual perceptual motor training. Duncan, Okla., Optometric Extension Program Foundation, Inc., 1969. Stauffer, R.G.: The language Experience Approach to the Teaching of Reading. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers. Inc.. 1970. Williams, J.D.. Lindem, A.C.: Analysis of covariance with multiple covariutcs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1972, 32. 815-816.
The Effects of Intraclass Peer Tutoring on the Vocabulary Development of Learning Disabled Children Lee Epstein, EdD
I
n recent articles the positive effects of peer tutoring have been suggested in a variety of contexts. Glass and Griffin (1973) have included peer group tutoring as one condition that can be easily established within the regular classroom and used by the teacher to help change the attitudes of nonhandicapped children toward their handicapped peers. Christoplos (1973)
outlined a set of techniques that could be used by the regular classroom teacher to facilitate integration of the handicapped child into the regular classroom. Peer tutoring was regarded by Christoplos as one of the most practical ways in which individualization of instruction could be brought into the classroom while reducing the demand and pressures on the teacher.
Volume 11, Number 8, October 1978 Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 13, 2015
63
519 Research findings in the area of peer tutoring (Croth, Whelan, & Stables 1970, Findley & Bryan 1971, Niedermeyer & Ellis 1971) have been very encouraging. Tutoring has been found to have positive academic effects on both tutor and tutee. The majority of this research, however, has focused on the efficacy of interclass peer tutoring (e.g., older student leaves his class to tutor younger student). In reviewing the literature, there appears to be very few research studies that focus specifically on the effects of intraclass peer tutoring on the academic performance of a mildly handicapped pupil. This study is of an intraclass peer-tutoring project that was carried out by learning disabled children in a n u m b e r of self-contained classrooms. The study concentrates within the area of reading on sight-word skills — the ability of the child to say the word that is presented to him. Sight-word skills were chosen for this research for two basic reasons. In the hierarchy of reading skills, sight-word recognition is a very fundamental skill that must be developed before more complex skills can be learned. Also, in many of the currently used reading programs, sight-word skills are presented in the curriculum early in the development of the series. These skills need to be mastered before progressing further into the curriculum.
METHOD Subjects In each of 20 primary-level learning disability classes (self-contained), five children who performed poorly on a word recognition test were identified as tutors. The tutees were randomly assigned to either the peer tutoring in reading or to one of the four control conditions, which included peer tutoring math, teacher-instructed, self-instructional, and blind control.
Experimental Conditions Peer Tutoring Reading. This condition consisted of one tutee and one tutor who spent 15 minutes daily on a reading study lesson in which the tutor 64
assisted the tutee in a review of the specifically designed reading program. In presenting the material to the tutee, the tutor followed a specific seven-step procedure that used a visual, verbal, and auditory strategy of presenting the word being taught. A specific feedback process was implemented by the tutor at the time a tutee identified a word incorrectly. At the end of each daily session, a brief review took place, at which time the tutor filled out the daily progress sheet with the appropriate markings, indicating exactly where to begin the session in the next day. Peer Tutoring Math. One tutor spent 15 minutes daily on an arithmetic lesson assisting a tutee in a one-to-one review of specifically prepared arithmetic problems. The peertutoring-math condition mirrored the peertutoring-reading condition as a control to estimate the Hawthorne effect. In presenting the material to the tutee, the tutor followed a specific five-step procedure using a visual, verbal, kinesthetic, and auditory strategy of presenting the arithmetic problem. A specific feedback process was implemented by the tutor at the time a tutee answered a problem incorrectly. At the end of each daily session, the tutor filled out the daily progress sheet, indicating exactly where to begin the tutoring session the next day. Self-instructional. One person worked alone for 15 minutes daily in the Merrill Phonics Skilltest: The Sound and Structure of Words. A brief six-step guide that gave directions for daily work was provided for the subjects. At the end of each daily session, the subject filled out the daily progress sheet, indicating exactly what words were covered that day. Teacher-Instructed Control. This condition consisted of one person who received no formal individual reading instruction in the Merrill linguistic reading program but was a member of the teacher-instructed reading group in the reading program. The teacher maintained a progress sheet on this child, as well as the remainder of the participants in the group. These teacher-instructed reading groups met for 20 minutes daily. Journal of Learning Disabilities
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 13, 2015
520 Blind Control. This condition consisted of one person who received no reading instruction other than the general classroom reading program. No progress sheet was kept on this child because the teacher was not aware of the participation of this person in the experiment.
Description of Program This study took place in the first half of the 19741975 academic year. During the first week of August, a letter was sent to the teachers of the 20 primary-level specific learning disabilities classes and their principals to introduce them to the nature of the study and explain that testers would be coming to their classes to screen the children. In addition, the letter informed the teachers of the dates of subsequent meetings. There were five testers, all of whom had previous experience with primary-level school children either as professionals or through college courses. Prior to the actual testing, there was an instructional session for the testers during which they were exposed to the testing materials and procedures. The testing lasted one week. After it had been completed and participants selected, a student data sheet was filled out for each participant, and the various training sessions were begun. Individual training sessions were conducted for the teachers, tutors, and self-instructional participants. The primary objectives of the training sessions were to familiarize the participants with specific techniques involved in the tutoring programs and to review ways to establish more effective interpersonal relationships. In addition, they were given an overview of the reading and testing criterion that would be used in the program.
RESULTS The primary analysis of the study concerned the comparison of the five treatment groups on the word-recognition posttest. The 5 * 20 analysis of variance revealed a significant effect for conditions (F=20.5, r//=4,76, ;; < .001).
The 3 * 20 analysis of variance for the number of words covered indicated that the conditions had a significant effect on the criterion (F= 10.75, rf/=2,38, ; J < .001). The 3 * 20 analysis of variance on the time used to cover the words showed no significant differences among the three treatment groups. In summary, the results of the primary analysis were as follows: (1) the peer-tutoringreading group performed significantly better than the peer-tutoring-math, self-instructional, teacher-instructed, and blind-control groups on the criterion reading test; (2) the peer-tutoringreading group covered a significantly greater number of words than the teacher-instructed group; (3) the peer-tutoring-reading group covered fewer words than the self-instructional group, but the difference between the groups failed to reach significance; (4) the difference in the amount of time used to cover the words between the peer-tutoring-reading group and the self-instructional group was not significant statistically; (5) the difference in the amount of time used to cover the words between the peertutoring-reading group and the teacherinstructed group was not statistically significant.
DISCUSSION According to the results of the research, one can infer that mildly handicapped students are indeed capable of implementing a peer-tutoring program within their classroom. Certain structural components built into this particular peer-tutoring program seem to have contributed greatly to this outcome. This researcher found that for mildly handicapped students to be successful with peer tutoring, a thorough orientation to the program was necessary to familiarize the children as much as possible with the actual workings of the program before its classroom implementation. The program*was set up on an easy-to-follow, step-by-step set of directions that left little room for student error. These directions were highly structured not only to eliminate student uncertainties but also to
Volume Ut Number 8, October 1978 Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 13, 2015
65
521 ensure consistency of instruction and procedure throughout all 20 classrooms. It is important to note that while the program itself was highly structured, some measure must be given to the proper assignment of students to conditions. From the results of this research, it has been found that the student acting as tutor must have a thorough knowledge of the subject matter presented to the tutee. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Lee Epstein is presently functioning as a child-school psychologist in private practice in I^ouisville, Ky., andholdsan adjunct faculty position at Indiana University Southeast in the Division of Education. His major professional interests include studying children with school phobias and investigating the teaching of reading to learning disabled children. Dr. Epstein is presently completing a study of the effects of exercise and
jogging on the elimination of school phobias. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Epstein at Room 0028, Hillside Hall, Indiana University Southeast, 4201 Grant line Rd., New Albany, Ind. 47150. REFERENCES Christoplos, F.: Keeping exceptional children in regular classes. Exceptional Children, 1973, 39, 569-571. Croth, R.I., Whelan, R.J., Stables, J.M.: Teacher application of behavior principles in home and classroom environments. Focus on Exceptional Children, 1970, 1, 7. Findley, W.J., Bryan, MM.: Ability grouping: 1970. Athens, Ga.: Center for Educational Improvement, University of Georgia, 1971. Gbss, R.M., Griffin, J.B.: Affective education for the inservice elementary and special education teacher. Bloomington, Ind.. Center for Innovation in Teaching the Handicapped, 1973. Niedermeyer, F.C., Ellis, P.: Remedial reading instruction by trained pupil tutors. Elementary School Journal, 1971,71, 400-496.
Using the Test of Language Development with LanguageImpaired Children Phyllis Newcomer, EdD, and Donald D. Hammill, EdD
T
he Test of Language Development (TOLD) (Newcomer & Hammill 1977) is an individually administered diagnostic instrument that measures seven semi-independent aspects of children's spoken language. It adheres loosely to a linguistic model of language structure and includes two phonological subtests, word articulation and word discrimination; two semantic subtests, oral vocabulary and picture vocabulary; and three syntactic subtests, sentence imitation, grammatic understanding, and grammatic completion. Three subtests —
66
word discrimination, picture vocabulary, and grammatic understanding — involve receptive language abilities, while three subtests — word articulation, oral vocabulary, and sentence imitation — tap expressive skills. One subtest — grammatic completion — measures both receptive and expressive ability. Word discrimination measures the child's ability to differentiate between speech sounds presented in a same-different word pair format. Word articulation requires the child to emit spontaneously speech sounds in response to Journal of Learning Disabilities
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 13, 2015
REFERENCES Rurke, A/.. lA>ok, Listen and Learn. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanich, Inc., 1971. Dunn, L., Smith, J., Horton, K.: Peabody language Development Kit, IA'VCI P. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service. 1968. Falik, L.: The effect of special perceptual-motor /raining in kindergarten on reading readiness and on second reading grade performance. Journal of learning Disabilities, 1969, 2, 395-402. Faustman, M.N.: Some effects of perception training on first grade success in reading. Proceedings of the Twelfth
Annual Convention, International Reading Association. Perception and Reading, 1968, 12. Part 4. 99-101., Get man, G.N., Kane, E., Halgren. A/., McKcc. C Developing learning Readiness. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.. Inc.. 1968. Greenspan, SB.: Research studies of visual and perceptual motor training. In Research Rcf)orts Special Articles (Optometric Extension Program Foundation, Duncan, Okla.), Series 1, Vol. 44, Dec 1971-Sept. 1972. Hammili, D.: Training visual perception process Journal of learning Disabilities, 1972, 5, 552-559 Harris. D.: Children's Drawings as Measures of Intellectual Maturity: A Revision and F.xtensitm of the Goodenough Druw-A-Mun Test. New York: Harcourt. Brace O World, 1963. Harrison. L . Durr. W.. McKcc. P Getting Ready to Read. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co.. 1971 Perrone. V.. Open Education: Promises and Problems. Bloomington. hid.: PDK Fas/backs. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. 1972. Scheffe. 11.: A method for iudgingull contrasts in thcunulysisof variance. Biometrics. 1953, 40, 87-104 Shearer, VI'.. A study comparing disadvantaged preschool children's test scores in directionality orientation and sensory concepts fundamental to their reading readiness before and after visual perceptual motor training. Duncan, Okla., Optometric Extension Program Foundation, Inc., 1969. Stauffer, R.G.: The language Experience Approach to the Teaching of Reading. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers. Inc.. 1970. Williams, J.D.. Lindem, A.C.: Analysis of covariance with multiple covariutcs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1972, 32. 815-816.
The Effects of Intraclass Peer Tutoring on the Vocabulary Development of Learning Disabled Children Lee Epstein, EdD
I
n recent articles the positive effects of peer tutoring have been suggested in a variety of contexts. Glass and Griffin (1973) have included peer group tutoring as one condition that can be easily established within the regular classroom and used by the teacher to help change the attitudes of nonhandicapped children toward their handicapped peers. Christoplos (1973)
outlined a set of techniques that could be used by the regular classroom teacher to facilitate integration of the handicapped child into the regular classroom. Peer tutoring was regarded by Christoplos as one of the most practical ways in which individualization of instruction could be brought into the classroom while reducing the demand and pressures on the teacher.
Volume 11, Number 8, October 1978 Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 13, 2015
63
519 Research findings in the area of peer tutoring (Croth, Whelan, & Stables 1970, Findley & Bryan 1971, Niedermeyer & Ellis 1971) have been very encouraging. Tutoring has been found to have positive academic effects on both tutor and tutee. The majority of this research, however, has focused on the efficacy of interclass peer tutoring (e.g., older student leaves his class to tutor younger student). In reviewing the literature, there appears to be very few research studies that focus specifically on the effects of intraclass peer tutoring on the academic performance of a mildly handicapped pupil. This study is of an intraclass peer-tutoring project that was carried out by learning disabled children in a n u m b e r of self-contained classrooms. The study concentrates within the area of reading on sight-word skills — the ability of the child to say the word that is presented to him. Sight-word skills were chosen for this research for two basic reasons. In the hierarchy of reading skills, sight-word recognition is a very fundamental skill that must be developed before more complex skills can be learned. Also, in many of the currently used reading programs, sight-word skills are presented in the curriculum early in the development of the series. These skills need to be mastered before progressing further into the curriculum.
METHOD Subjects In each of 20 primary-level learning disability classes (self-contained), five children who performed poorly on a word recognition test were identified as tutors. The tutees were randomly assigned to either the peer tutoring in reading or to one of the four control conditions, which included peer tutoring math, teacher-instructed, self-instructional, and blind control.
Experimental Conditions Peer Tutoring Reading. This condition consisted of one tutee and one tutor who spent 15 minutes daily on a reading study lesson in which the tutor 64
assisted the tutee in a review of the specifically designed reading program. In presenting the material to the tutee, the tutor followed a specific seven-step procedure that used a visual, verbal, and auditory strategy of presenting the word being taught. A specific feedback process was implemented by the tutor at the time a tutee identified a word incorrectly. At the end of each daily session, a brief review took place, at which time the tutor filled out the daily progress sheet with the appropriate markings, indicating exactly where to begin the session in the next day. Peer Tutoring Math. One tutor spent 15 minutes daily on an arithmetic lesson assisting a tutee in a one-to-one review of specifically prepared arithmetic problems. The peertutoring-math condition mirrored the peertutoring-reading condition as a control to estimate the Hawthorne effect. In presenting the material to the tutee, the tutor followed a specific five-step procedure using a visual, verbal, kinesthetic, and auditory strategy of presenting the arithmetic problem. A specific feedback process was implemented by the tutor at the time a tutee answered a problem incorrectly. At the end of each daily session, the tutor filled out the daily progress sheet, indicating exactly where to begin the tutoring session the next day. Self-instructional. One person worked alone for 15 minutes daily in the Merrill Phonics Skilltest: The Sound and Structure of Words. A brief six-step guide that gave directions for daily work was provided for the subjects. At the end of each daily session, the subject filled out the daily progress sheet, indicating exactly what words were covered that day. Teacher-Instructed Control. This condition consisted of one person who received no formal individual reading instruction in the Merrill linguistic reading program but was a member of the teacher-instructed reading group in the reading program. The teacher maintained a progress sheet on this child, as well as the remainder of the participants in the group. These teacher-instructed reading groups met for 20 minutes daily. Journal of Learning Disabilities
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 13, 2015
520 Blind Control. This condition consisted of one person who received no reading instruction other than the general classroom reading program. No progress sheet was kept on this child because the teacher was not aware of the participation of this person in the experiment.
Description of Program This study took place in the first half of the 19741975 academic year. During the first week of August, a letter was sent to the teachers of the 20 primary-level specific learning disabilities classes and their principals to introduce them to the nature of the study and explain that testers would be coming to their classes to screen the children. In addition, the letter informed the teachers of the dates of subsequent meetings. There were five testers, all of whom had previous experience with primary-level school children either as professionals or through college courses. Prior to the actual testing, there was an instructional session for the testers during which they were exposed to the testing materials and procedures. The testing lasted one week. After it had been completed and participants selected, a student data sheet was filled out for each participant, and the various training sessions were begun. Individual training sessions were conducted for the teachers, tutors, and self-instructional participants. The primary objectives of the training sessions were to familiarize the participants with specific techniques involved in the tutoring programs and to review ways to establish more effective interpersonal relationships. In addition, they were given an overview of the reading and testing criterion that would be used in the program.
RESULTS The primary analysis of the study concerned the comparison of the five treatment groups on the word-recognition posttest. The 5 * 20 analysis of variance revealed a significant effect for conditions (F=20.5, r//=4,76, ;; < .001).
The 3 * 20 analysis of variance for the number of words covered indicated that the conditions had a significant effect on the criterion (F= 10.75, rf/=2,38, ; J < .001). The 3 * 20 analysis of variance on the time used to cover the words showed no significant differences among the three treatment groups. In summary, the results of the primary analysis were as follows: (1) the peer-tutoringreading group performed significantly better than the peer-tutoring-math, self-instructional, teacher-instructed, and blind-control groups on the criterion reading test; (2) the peer-tutoringreading group covered a significantly greater number of words than the teacher-instructed group; (3) the peer-tutoring-reading group covered fewer words than the self-instructional group, but the difference between the groups failed to reach significance; (4) the difference in the amount of time used to cover the words between the peer-tutoring-reading group and the self-instructional group was not significant statistically; (5) the difference in the amount of time used to cover the words between the peertutoring-reading group and the teacherinstructed group was not statistically significant.
DISCUSSION According to the results of the research, one can infer that mildly handicapped students are indeed capable of implementing a peer-tutoring program within their classroom. Certain structural components built into this particular peer-tutoring program seem to have contributed greatly to this outcome. This researcher found that for mildly handicapped students to be successful with peer tutoring, a thorough orientation to the program was necessary to familiarize the children as much as possible with the actual workings of the program before its classroom implementation. The program*was set up on an easy-to-follow, step-by-step set of directions that left little room for student error. These directions were highly structured not only to eliminate student uncertainties but also to
Volume Ut Number 8, October 1978 Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 13, 2015
65
521 ensure consistency of instruction and procedure throughout all 20 classrooms. It is important to note that while the program itself was highly structured, some measure must be given to the proper assignment of students to conditions. From the results of this research, it has been found that the student acting as tutor must have a thorough knowledge of the subject matter presented to the tutee. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Lee Epstein is presently functioning as a child-school psychologist in private practice in I^ouisville, Ky., andholdsan adjunct faculty position at Indiana University Southeast in the Division of Education. His major professional interests include studying children with school phobias and investigating the teaching of reading to learning disabled children. Dr. Epstein is presently completing a study of the effects of exercise and
jogging on the elimination of school phobias. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Epstein at Room 0028, Hillside Hall, Indiana University Southeast, 4201 Grant line Rd., New Albany, Ind. 47150. REFERENCES Christoplos, F.: Keeping exceptional children in regular classes. Exceptional Children, 1973, 39, 569-571. Croth, R.I., Whelan, R.J., Stables, J.M.: Teacher application of behavior principles in home and classroom environments. Focus on Exceptional Children, 1970, 1, 7. Findley, W.J., Bryan, MM.: Ability grouping: 1970. Athens, Ga.: Center for Educational Improvement, University of Georgia, 1971. Gbss, R.M., Griffin, J.B.: Affective education for the inservice elementary and special education teacher. Bloomington, Ind.. Center for Innovation in Teaching the Handicapped, 1973. Niedermeyer, F.C., Ellis, P.: Remedial reading instruction by trained pupil tutors. Elementary School Journal, 1971,71, 400-496.
Using the Test of Language Development with LanguageImpaired Children Phyllis Newcomer, EdD, and Donald D. Hammill, EdD
T
he Test of Language Development (TOLD) (Newcomer & Hammill 1977) is an individually administered diagnostic instrument that measures seven semi-independent aspects of children's spoken language. It adheres loosely to a linguistic model of language structure and includes two phonological subtests, word articulation and word discrimination; two semantic subtests, oral vocabulary and picture vocabulary; and three syntactic subtests, sentence imitation, grammatic understanding, and grammatic completion. Three subtests —
66
word discrimination, picture vocabulary, and grammatic understanding — involve receptive language abilities, while three subtests — word articulation, oral vocabulary, and sentence imitation — tap expressive skills. One subtest — grammatic completion — measures both receptive and expressive ability. Word discrimination measures the child's ability to differentiate between speech sounds presented in a same-different word pair format. Word articulation requires the child to emit spontaneously speech sounds in response to Journal of Learning Disabilities
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 13, 2015
