Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(1965)
Speech to print phonics
(1963)
Phonic method vs. combination method in teaching beginning reading
Frank Pauley (1951)
Sex Differences and Legal School Entrance AgeJournal of Educational Research, 45
M. Harrington, D. Durrell (1955)
Mental maturity versus perception abilities in primary reading.Journal of Educational Psychology, 46
Stewart Stewart (1965)
i.t.a.—after two yearsElementary English, 42
Safford Safford (1960)
Evaluation of an individualized reading programThe Reading Teacher, 13
I. Anderson, Byron Hughes, W. Dixon (1956)
Age of Learning to Read and its Relation to Sex, Intelligence, and Reading Achievement in the Sixth GradeJournal of Educational Research, 49
Sartain Sartain (1960)
The Roseville experiment with individualized readingThe Reading Teacher, 13
(1964)
Phonemic structural approach to initial reading instruction
Clymer Clymer, Robinson Robinson (1961)
ReadingReview of Educational Research, 31
(1966)
Reading for meaning. (4th ed
A. Mackinnon (1959)
How do children learn to read
(1963)
Structural reading series
R. Bloomer (1960)
AN INVESTIGATION OF AN EXPERIMENTAL FIRST GRADE PHONICS PROGRAMJournal of Educational Research, 53
Dolan Dolan (1964)
A modified linguistic versus a composite basal reading programThe Reading Teacher, 17
Challenge and experiment in reading. Proceedings of the International Reading Association, 7
Mazurkiewicz Mazurkiewicz (1964)
Teaching reading in America using the initial teaching alphabetElementary English, 41
Stewart Stewart (1957)
Values and limitations of basal readersMaterials for Reading
Dolch Dolch, Bloomster Bloomster (1937)
Phonic readinessElementary School Journal, 38
M. Wittrock (1986)
Handbook of research on teaching
A. Gates (1961)
Sex Differences in Reading AbilityThe Elementary School Journal, 61
A. Gates, D. Russell (1938)
Types of Materials, Vocabulary Burden Word Analysis, and Other Factors in Beginning Reading. IIThe Elementary School Journal, 39
G. Bond, R. Dykstra (1967)
COORDINATING CENTER FOR FIRST-GRADE READING PROGRAMS.
(1963)
An investigation of the effect of the similarity of oral and written patterns of language structure on reading comprehension
Alexandre Gaudeul
Summary of investigations relating to reading.
F. MorganElmer, M. Light (1963)
A Statistical Evaluation of Two Programs of Reading InstructionJournal of Educational Research, 57
(1958)
A critical analysis of scientific research in phonics
M. Templin (1957)
Certain language skills in children
D. Blokhuis (1951)
[After two years].Tijdschrift Voor Tandheelkunde, 58 6
(1960)
The royal road readers
(1946)
Pintner-Cunningham primary test, form A. (General ability tests, revised.) New York: Harcourt
(1964)
Phonetically regular words oral reading test
T. Harris (1964)
Summary of Investigations Relating to Reading July 1, 1962 to June 30, 19631Journal of Educational Research, 57
(1961)
Materials for individualized reading
J. Holmes, H. Singer (1964)
Theoretical Models and Trends Toward More Basic Research in ReadingReview of Educational Research, 34
Paul Sparks, L. Fay (1957)
An Evaluation of Two Methods of Teaching ReadingThe Elementary School Journal, 57
Strickland Strickland (1963)
Implications of research in linguistics for elementary teachingElementary English, 40
(1962)
Reading achievement of German and American children
Carroll Carroll (1948)
Sex differences in reading readiness at the first grade levelElementary English, 25
J. Stroud, E. Lindquist (1942)
Sex differences in achievement in the elementary and secondary schools.Journal of Educational Psychology, 33
Olson Olson (1958)
Growth in word perception abilities as it relates to success in beginning readingJournal of Education, 140
Waetjen Waetjen, Brambs Brambs (1963)
Sex differences: A case of educational evasion?Teachers College Record, 65
J. Boer, Martha Dallmann (1960)
The teaching of reading
R. Goldman, K. Horton, B. Neas (1966)
The initial teaching alphabet: As a therapeutic aid in the field of speech pathologyPeabody Journal of Education, 44
J. Holmes, H. Singer (1964)
Chapter II: Theoretical Models and Trends Toward More Basic Research in ReadingReview of Educational Research, 34
Goldberg Goldberg, Rasmussen Rasmussen (1963)
Linguistics and readingElementary English, 40
(1965)
A comparison of ten different beginning reading programs in first grade
Balow Balow (1963)
Sex difference in first grade readingElementary English, 40
George Prescott (1955)
Sex Differences in Metropolitan Readiness Test ResultsJournal of Educational Research, 48
(1941)
Reading and sentence elements
Theodore Clymer, H. Robinson (1961)
Chapter II: ReadingReview of Educational Research, 31
L. Zirbes, Katherine Keelor, Paul Miner
Practice exercises and checks on silent reading in the primary grades, report of experimentation
Mabel Rudisill (1957)
Interrelations of Functional Phonic Knowledge, Reading, Spelling, and Mental AgeThe Elementary School Journal, 57
C. Fries (1964)
Linguistics and readingBulletin of the Orton Society, 14
(1964)
Teaching reading with i.t.a. in Britain
D. Durkin (1972)
Teaching young children to read
A. Olson (1958)
Chapter III: Growth in Word Perception Abilities as it Relates to Success in Beginning ReadingJournal of Education, 140
(1961)
Results of teaching a system of phonics
David Bear (1959)
Phonics for First Grade: A Comparison of Two MethodsThe Elementary School Journal, 59
McDowell McDowell (1953)
Report on the phonic method of teaching children to readCatholic Education Review, 51
M. Austin, Coleman Morrison (1963)
The first R : the Harvard report on reading in elementary schools
M. Templin (1957)
Certain language skills in children : their development and interrelationships
Robert Mccracken (1967)
A TWO-YEAR LONGITUDINAL STUDY TO DETERMINE THE ABILITY OF FIRST GRADE CHILDREN TO LEARN TO READ USING THE EARLY-TO-READ I/T/A PROGRAM.
Tiffin Tiffin, McKinnis McKinnis (1940)
Phonic ability: Its measurement and relation to reading abilitySchool and Society, 51
(1963)
Experiments with Pitman's initial teaching alphabet in British schools
B. Porter (1973)
Let's Read.Reading Horizons, 14
Anderson Anderson (1956)
The relationship between reading achievement and the method of teaching readingUniversity of Michigan School of Education Bulletin, 27
Gates Gates (1926)
A modern systematic versus an opportunistic method of teaching: An experimental studyTeachers College Record, 27
Harry Tate (1937)
The Influence of Phonics on Silent Reading in Grade IThe Elementary School Journal, 37
David Bear (1964)
Two Methods of Teaching Phonics: A Longitudinal StudyThe Elementary School Journal, 64
ABSTRACTS Presents the report of the Coordinating Center of the Cooperative Research Program in First‐Grade Reading Instruction. Data used in the study were compiled from the 27 individual studies comprising the Cooperative Research Program in First‐Grade Reading Instruction relevant to three basic questions: (1) To what extent are various pupil, teacher, class, school, and community characteristics related to pupil achievement in first‐grade reading and spelling? (2) Which of the many approaches to initial reading instruction produces superior reading and spelling achievement at the end of the first grade? (3) Is any program uniquely effective or ineffective for pupils with high or low readiness for reading? The instructional approaches evaluated included Basal, Basal plus Phonics, i.t.a., Linguistic, Language Experience, and Phonic/Linguistic. Identical information was gathered in each project concerning teacher, school, and community characteristics and common experimental guidelines were followed in all 27 studies. Results of the correlation analysis revealed that the ability to recognize letters of the alphabet prior to the beginning of reading instruction was the single best predictor of first‐grade reading achievement. The analysis of methodology indicated that the various nonbasal instructional programs tended to be superior to basal programs as measured by word recognition skills of pupils after 1 year of reading instruction. Differences between basal and nonbasal programs were less consistent when measures of comprehension, spelling, rate of accuracy of reading, and word study skills constituted the criterion of reading achievement. The analysis of treatments according to level of readiness for reading revealed that no method was especially effective or ineffective for pupils of high or low readiness as measured by tests of intelligence, auditory discrimination, and letter knowledge. (Note: This article was originally published in the summer 1967 issue of Reading Research Quarterly and is reprinted here in its entirety. See also this issue's reflections on the article.) PRESENTE EL INFORME del Centro Coordinador del Programa Cooperativo de Investigación de la Enseñanza de Lectura en Primer Grado. Los datos usados en el Estudio, fueron recopilados de 27 estudios individuales que comprendía el Programa Cooperativo de Investigación de la Enseñanza de Lectura en Primer Grado, relevantes para tres presuntas básicas: (1) ¿Hasta qué punto están relacionadas las diversas características de alumnos, profesores, clases, ecuelas y comunidad con las realizaciones obtenidas en lectura y delectreo entre alumnos del primer grado? (2) ¿De los muchos enfogues utilizados en la enseñanza de lectura inicial, cuál produce mayor rendimiento en la habilidad para leer y deletrear al terminar el primer grado? (3) ¿Es algún programa singularmente eficaz o ineficaz para alumnos con un alto o bajo grado de aptitud para la lectura? Los métodos de instrucción evaluados incluyeron Básico, Básico Más Fónico, i.t.a., Linguístico, Experiencia con el Idoma Y Fónico/ Linguístico. En cada proyecto se recopiló información idéntica respecto de las características del profesor, la escuela, y la comunidad, y se siguieron las mismas pautas experimentales en los 27 estudios. Los resultados del análisis correlativo revelaron que la habilidad para reconocer las letras del alfabeto, previa a la iniciación de la enseñanza de lectura, era el único y mejor indicador para predecir las realizaciones en lectura en el primer grado. El análisis de la metodología indicó que los diversos programas nobásicos de enseñanza tendian a ser superiores a los programas básicos, medidos en términas de habilidades de los estudiantes para reconocer palabras después de un año de enseñanza de lectura. La diferencia entre programas básicos y no‐básicos era menos consistente cuando medidas de compresión, deletreo, rapidez y exactitud en la lectura, y destreza en el estudio de palabras donstituyeron los criterios para las realizationes en lectura. El análisis de los tratamientos de acuerdo con el nivel de aptitud para la lectura reveló que ningún método era particularmente eficaz o ineficas para alumnos de alta o baja aptitud, medida por medio de pruebas de inteligencia, discriminación auditiva y conocimiento de letras. Vorgestellt wird ein Bericht des Koordinationszentrums für das gemeinsame Forschungsprogramm im Erstleseunterricht. Die in dieser Studie verwendeten Daten wurden aus 27 Einzeluntersuchungen zusammengestellt, die gemäß der Zusammenarbeit im Forschungsprogramm für den Erstleseunterricht drei grundlegende Fragen erfassen: 1. Bis zu welchem Ausmaß sind die Merkmale von unterschiedlichen Schülern, Lehrern, Klassen, Schulen und Bezirken relevant für die Leistungen eines Schülers im Erstlese‐ und Schreibunterricht? 2. Welcher von den vielen Zugängen im Erstleseunterricht ermöglicht bessere Lese‐ und Schreibleistungen am Ende der ersten Schulstufe? 3. Gibt es irgendein Programm, das eindeutig effektiv oder ineffektiv ist für Kinder mit hoher oder niedriger Lesemotivation? Die Lehrmethoden, die evaluiert wurden, umfaßten grundlegenden Fibelunterricht, Fibelunterricht und Sprachlehre, das System des Anfangsalphabets (i.t.a.), Sprachlehre, Sprache im Verwendungszusammenhang und Verschriftung. In jedem Projectbereich wurden identische Informationen zu den einzelnen Merkmalen gesammelt, betreffend den Lehrer, die Schule und den Bezirk. Allgemeine Forschungsrichtlinien wurden in allen 27 Studien beachtet. Die Ergebnisse der aufeinander bezogenen Analysen zeigten, daß die Fähigkeit, Buchstaben des Alphabets noch vor dem Leseunterricht zu erkennen, als beste singuläre Vorhersage für die Leistungen von Erstlesern bezeichnet werden kann. Eine Analyse der Unterrichtsmethoden zeigten, daß unterschiedliche, nicht fibelorientierte Lehrprogramme eher besser waren als fibelorientierte Grundlagenprogramme, bezogen auf die Messung der Schülerleistungen im Bereich der Worterkennung nach einem Jahr Leseunterricht. Unterschiede zwischen fibelorientierten und nicht fibelorientierten Programmen waren weniger starr, wen Sinnverständnis, Buchstabierfähigkeit, Lesegenauigkeit und Wortaufbau‐ wie Wortabbauübungen als Kriterien der Leseleistung genommen wurden. Die Analyse der Unterweisungen entsprechend dem Bereitschaftslevel fürs Lesen ergab, daß sich keine Methode als besonder effektiv oder ineffectiv für Schüler mit hoher oder niedriger Lesemotivation erwies, wie anhand von Intelligenztests, von Hörtests und Buchstabentests festgestellt wurde. Dieser Forschungsbericht wurde durchgeführt gemäß einem Vertrag mit dem U.S. Ministerium für Gesundheit, Erziehung und Wohlfahrt, dem Erziehungsamt und mit Unterstützung des kooperativen Forschungsprogrammes. ON Y PRÉSENTE le rapport du Centre de Coordination du Programme de Recherche Coopérative sur l'Enseignement de la Lecture au niveau primaire. Les données utilisées au cours de cette étude ont été recueillies d'après les 27 études individuelles composant le Programme de Recherche, et concernaient trois problèmes de base: (1) A quel point les caractéristiques variées de l'élève, du professeur, de la classe, de l'école, de la communauté sont‐elles en relation avec les résultats atteints en lecture et en orthographe par l'élève de première année? (2) Parmi les nombreuses méthodes utilisées pour enseigner la lecture aux débutants, quelle est celle qui donne les meilleurs résultats en lecture et orthographe en fin de première année? (3) Un programme donné est‐il entièrement efficace ou inefficace pour des élèves dont le degré de facilité en lecture est respectivement élevé ou bas? Parmi les différentes méthodes évaluées on comptait les suivantes: Lecture de Base, Lecture de Base plus Phonique, enseignement initial de l'alphabet, Linguistique, Expérience du langage, Phonique/Linguistique. Dans chacune des 27 études on s'est proposé de recueillir le même genre d'information en ce qui concerne les caractéristiques de professeur, d l'école et de la communauté et on a suivi les mêmes lignes générales d'expérience. Les résultats des analyses de corrélation ont révélé que la capacité de reconnaitre les lettres de l'alphabet avant de commencer l'apprentissage de la lecture était le meilleur facteur prédictif en ce qui concerne les résultats atteints en fin de première année. L'analyse des différentes méthodes a indiqué que les programmes sans lecture de base ont tendance à être supérieurs à ceux utilisant les lectures de base en ce qui concerne la capacité de reconnaitre des mots en fin de première année. Les différences entre ces deux séries de programmes sont moins uniformes lorsque compréhension, orthographe, rapidité et exactitude en lecture, et étude des mots constituent les critères d'accomplissement en lecture. L'analyse des traitements selon le degré de facilité en lecture a révélé qu'aucune méthode n'est particulièrement efficace ou inefficace pour des élèves dont le degré de facilité était jugé respectivement élevé ou faible d'après des tests d'intelligence, de discernement auditif et de connaissance des lettres.
Reading Research Quarterly – Wiley
Published: Oct 1, 1997
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.