ERIC ED099803: The Evaluation of Operation Wordpower. Final Report.

DOCOHENT BESONE

ED 099 803

TITLE

INSTITOTION

REPOPT NO
POB DATE
NOTE

EDES PPICE
DESCEIPTORS

IDENTIFIEPS

CS 001 523

The Evaluation of Operation Wordpower. Pinal
Report.

Chicago Hodel Cities Prograa, 111. Coamittee on Orban
Opportunity.; Instructional Dynamics, Inc., Chicago,
111.

IDI-69-609
Oct 70
182p.

!!P-$0.75 HC-$9.00 PLOS POSTAGE

♦Adult Basic Education; Job Satisfaction; *Program
Evaluation; Reading; ♦Reading laproveient; *Reading
Instruction; *Reading Programs; Onderenployed
♦Operation Wordpower

ABSTPACT

Operation Wordpower was created to provide a reading
program which would help underemployed, nonreading advilts attain a
better economic position and an increased level of satisfaction. For
the past two years, the program has operated in four of Chicago's
Orban progress Centers and accepts any student reading below the
fifth grade level. The Wordpower Project uses the Sullivan Reading
Program adapted to the Talking Typewriter format as core teaching
materials. A study area is utilized in which the students complete
workbooks, review their lessons, and read additional material on
current events. Each day the student spendfs approximately 20 ainutes
in the Talking Typewriter booth and 20 miiiutes in the study ^rea. The
program is staffed with notiprofessionals trained to keep tho/ machines
performing and to minimally assist students in the study ar^/a. When
the student reaches the sixlV grade reading level, he either leaves
the program or continues with the supplementary programs being
developed. (WR)

IDINo. 69-609

US OEPARTMENTOFHEALTH.
EDUCATION i WELFARE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT MAS BEfeN REPRO
OUCEO EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM
THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN
ATlNG IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS
STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE
SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

Final Report

• THE EVALUATION OF
OPERATION WORDPOWER

Submitted by

Instructional Dynamics Incorporated
166 East Superior Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611

to

Mrs. Murrell Syler, Director
Chicago Committee on Urban Opportunity
33 West Grand Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611

14 October 1970

INTRODUCTION

•

Thanks are due many people who made this evaluation possible.
First, we would like to thank the Wordpower staff for their patience and
help in collecting necessary data. In another vein, thanks are due the
staff for proving that a quality reading program can be effectively
administered to disadvantaged adults by a dedicated paraprofessional
staff. Thanks are duetoMrs. MurrellSyler and the Chicago Committee on
Urban Opportunity for making it possible for the Wordpower program to
meet the critical reading needs of Chicago's disadvantaged adults."

Finally, fecial thanks are due Wordpower's Director,
Mr. A. Louis Scott, for his help in carrying out the evaluation and
coordinating efforts between our staff and his. Beyond this, Mr. Scott
is the creator of the Wordpower concept and has provided the leadership
to bring the concept to fruition. For ourselves and ':he many disadvantaged
citizens who have directly benefited from Wordpower, wo say thank you.

ERIC

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Chapter 1 A Description of the Program o 1

Chapter 2 Methodology of the Evaluation , « 5

Chapter 3 Demographic Characteristics of the Wordpower Students 8

Chapter 4 What Are the Attitudes Toward Wordpoy/er? 19

Chapter 5 Why '^o Students Drop Out ? o o 33

Chapter 6 The delations Between Performance, Reading Gains

and Writing Gains. • • « <. <i 44

Chapter 7 The Relation Between Demographic Characteristics

and Reading and Writing ^-ibility . . * • 59

Chapter 8 How Cost Effective is Wordpower • . . . . 98

Chapter 9 Beyond the Statistics 117

Chapter 10 Sunnrnary and Conclusif :is - . • • 123

APPENDIX I

Section 1 Forms Used by Wordpower Staff 126

Section 2 Forms Used by IDI Staff 13-^

Section 3 IDI Procedures 156

Section 4 Sample Completed Forms 166

ERLC

IV

CHAPTER 1
A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM

Operation Wordpower was created to provide a reading program
which will help the overwhelming number of under-employed, non-reading
adults in our society attain a better economic position and an increased
level of satisfaction. The program, which has been supported by both
federal and local funds administered by the Chicago Committee on Urban
Opportunity, has for the pact two years operated in four of Chicago's
Urban Progress Centers; Montrose center on Chicago^ s North Side; King
Center on the South Side; and the Garfield and Lawndale Centers on the
West Side, Each center is located in an area of economic deprivation.

Wordpower uses the Edisor: Responsive Environment Teaching
Technology, the ''Talking Typewriter" leased from the Responsive Environ-
ment Corporation of New York, a marketing subsidiary of the McGraw-
Edison Company* The ^'Talking Typewriter" automated program lets the

student study at his own pace and gives him immediate feedback about his

1

mistakes without the competitive atmosphere of a classroom.

The "Talking Typewriter' differs dramatically from the more traditional
forms of teaching in which the instructor gives both positive and (often
excessively) negative reinforcements to the student, dominating the progress
and direction of his learning. The "Talking Typewriter" gives only positive
reinforcement to the student leaving full control of the learning situation in
his hands.

The "Talking Typewriter" is an automated electric typewriter coordinated
with a slide projector, a memory drum and tape recorder playback unit, all
compactly situated in a single soundproof, air conditioned booth-carrel. To
activate the "Talking Typewriter", an attendant simply installs the reccrd
and slides for that day^s lesson.

1 For more information about the philosophy and development behind the
"Talking Typewriter", the reader is referred to: Omar Moore, Autotelic
Responsive Environments and Exceptional Child ren (Hampden, Conn, : Res-
ponsive Environments Foundation, Inc., 1963)t

A picture of an object, for example, a truck, appears on the slide
screen, captioned by a sentence, '»A truck runs on a (1) road (2^ ride
(3) rail (4) rent. The recording reads the statement aloud and then asks
the student to type the selection which best completes the sentence.
The typewriter kf:yboard then locks so that the student ean type only the
correct secaence of letters, which in this case would be R,«.0-A-D. If
the student hesitates before pressing the right key, the recorded voi :e
asks him to '^sta/t with R'* and so on, letter by letter. When the stvcient
has finished typing the correct response, the voice may ask him to continue
by typing ''A truck ruixs on a road. During this phase of the lesson, the
keyboard will not be locked so the student can work in the free mode, using
the printed typewriter output from previous exercises to help. After he
has typed the sentence, the student can be asked to *'read the sentence'-.
This enables the student to connect sound with the spelling and, when his
recorded voice is played back, he can compare his pronunciation with the
announcer's. After this initial phase of the lesson, the student moves on
to more complex discriminations and learning syntheses.

Since the ^'Talking Typewriter" is a fully self ^instructional program, the
Wordpower staff does not include any professional educators. The staff
is trained in th- operation of the booth equipment and in giving general
instruction in tho study area. Each center has one program assistant per
two boctks per shift, one supervisor per shift and one study area specialist.
The pt-jj-ram assistants select the proper program for the student each day,
place it on the machine, ar'd keep a record of the students' progress on a
perfor-.nance sheet. The superv'.sor's duties include interviewing all pros-
pective students, and administrating the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT)
and Sullivan Placement test when the student enters the program. They keep
record of the initial testing scores, the placement level, and the students'
attendance and performance. If a student is excessively absent, the supervisor
files a follow-up report, mailji a card to his home, and if necessary, drops
the student from the program. The supervisor also tests students that

Er|c 6 z

continvie in the program after each twenty hours of machine contact to
mt'asare their progress in reading achievement. The study area specialist
helps students with writing:-, reading, and grammar questions which arise
in the study area. She c tten assigns additional reading materials for
students who have progressed beyond the scope of the S\. lHv j.n materials,
and helps students evaluate their progress in the use o\ ^'^rcammar, punct-
uation, and pronunciation,

Th;i Wordpower Project used the Sullivan Reading Program adapted to
the ^'Talking Typewriter'^ format as the core teaching materials. This
selection Wwvs inevitable since the Sullivan Program is the only reliable
reading format available on the '^Talking Typewriter'*, The program is
intended for first to f'.fth graders and therefore is completely inappropriate
for the interest and maturity levels of the adult Wordpower students. To
compensate for this deficiency, materials more relevant to adult interests
were developed to carry .students to the 8th grade reading level, (the
Sullivan materials eno at grade four).

In addition to the ^Talking Typewriter" booths, Wordpower provides a
study area in which the students complete Sulli<. an workbooks, review their
lessons, and read additional material on current events, etc. Each day the
student spends approximately twenty minutes in the ^'Talking Typewriter'*
booth, and twenty minutes in the study area, although eager students are
permitted to spend more time in study.

The flexibility of the '^Talking Typewriter'* format makes it possible to
let the student visit the center on their own schedule. Although students
do not receive any financial support, carfare, or babysitting expenses,
Wordpower does provide a nursery for the care of pre -school children.

When the Wordpower program began functioning effectively, it drew an
unexpected audience, A large number of Spanish speaking adults began
coming to the center motivated not so much to learn to read as to learn
English. The program proved amazingly successful in helping these people

learn to read and write English as a second language. In fact, this group,
on the average, has a better attendance record, faster progress and a
higher achievement rate than the other students.

To summarize, Wordpower is established in four Urban Progress
Centers in Chicago. The program accepts any student reading below the
fifth grade level. The instruction has relied on the Sullivan reading materials
as programmed for the Edison Responsive Environment, the "Talking
Typewriter, " but new materials Iiave been developed by the Wordpower staff
for the fifth and sixth grade levels and are being developed now for the fourth,
seventh and eighth grade levels. The program is staffed with non-professionals
trained to keep the machines performing and minimally assist students in the
study area. When the student reaches the sixth grade reading level, he either
leaves the program or continues with the supplementary programs being
developed.

ERIC

84

CliAPTFR 2
" METHODOLOGY OF THE EVALUATION

The Chicago Committee on Urban Opportunity, with the approval and
under the direction of the Adult Basic Education Division of the United
States Office of Education, contracted with Instructional Dynamics Incor-
porated to carry out the evaluation of the Wordpow<3r project. Instructional
Dynamics Incorporated (IDI) is a Chicago-based firm with extensive
experience in training and education programs for disadvantaged adults.
IDI also runs the GATE House Chicago Program which locates employment
for returning Jobcorpsmen.

The evaluation tried to compensate for the suspicion (and often resent-
ment) which students in programs like Wordpower feel when they see
outsiders '^tamper*' with their program, or ask personal questions. In fact,
Wordpower's concern over this issue prompted them to extensively revise
their forms in the Fall of 1969 to eliminate questions about which students
had complainedo To keep from disrupting the program and biasing the data
collected, IDI decided that the evaluation should use existing Wordpower
files as far as possible as the main source of personal information.

After deliberation, IDI decided to collect five computer based informa-
tion files for the evaluation.

(1) A file based on the Personal Data Form developed and used
by Wordpower;

(2) A file based on the initial and follow-up Stanford Achievement
Test scores administered by Wordpower staff;

(3) A file based on the Weekly Progress Form used by the
Wordpower staff;

(4) A file based on the structured interview developed and
administered by IDI to determine student attitudes toward
V ;ie program;

(5) A file based on the writin-: articulation test developed by IDI.
Samples of these forms and testing iiuitruments are contained in Appendix I.

ERIC

» 5

IDTs decision to use existing forms led to many difficulties. Forms
were revised and to some extent the revisions were not compatible with
earlier versions. Each center used its own methods and filing system,
and therefore forms were often difficult to locate. Students frequently
refused to answer personal items/or attempt tests, or even show up, .so
a lot of data was never collected. We sent our staff of interviewers and
test administrators t'o the centers, but found that after an even week or
more of vigil, we missed many students who were either ''on vacation*'
or else had dropped out before we arrived. For these and many other
reasons, we were not successful in our efforts to interview, test, and
create a demographic profile for everyone, but we were able to capture
a sufficiently large sample to guarantee the validity of our inferences.

The data was collected in three main efforts. In September of 1969,

the IDI staff of interviewers (Sociology and Psychology students from Loyola

University, University of Chicago, and the University of Illinois) interviewed

the students enrolled in the program and abstracted information from the

«

Personal Data Form and Student Progress Form . It should be noted that
both the interview questionnaire and the writing test had to be read to the
student individually, since they couldn't read instructions or items. Beyond
this, we needed to use bilingual interviewers for the Spanish speaking students
who came to the program to learn English. These difficulties combined with
the irregular attendance of students made data collection a slow, arduous task. In
April and May of 1970, the staff interviewed the students who had entered since
the Fall, collected additional demographic information, and administered the
writing pre -test. About this same time, IDI issued the preliminary evaluation
report based on the information gathered the Fall of 1969. The final data
gathering occurred August 1970 with the administration of the writing post-tests
and a final gleaning of the Wordpower files.

To get a second point of view for the evaluation, we interviewed several
staff members to get their opinions, and compiled a file of case histories of
students who had directly benefited from the program. Since Wordpower was

ERIC

106

developing several new instructional modules, an IDI reading specialist
viewed and evaluated them suggesting ways to i;he staff of improving their
technique and style.

The '*core" data (from the five sources above) was keypunched, verified
and placed on a magnetic tape as five separate files. Our final count included
541 interviews, 615 personal data records, 356 weekly summaries, 358 sets
of writing scores, and l62 sets of reading test scores. A computer program
was created to match files for comparisons so that the greatest amount of
information could be saved for each step of our analysis. Delegating as much
of the work as possible to the computer, enabled us to avoid the errors usually
present in hand sorted work.

A variety of statistical analyses, including stepwise regression, multi^-

variate analysis of variance, chi-square contingency analysis, and discriminant
analysis,- were used to interpret the data. With this report, IDI has completed
the final step of the evaluation, the documentation of the statistical findings, and
an interpretation of what really happened as a result of the program.

ERLC

11

7

CHAPTER 3

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
WORDPOWER STUDENTS

The statistical analysis of the demographic data available for 615
students is included in Table 1 tabulated as raw responses, percentages,
medians, and means.

The majority of the Wordpower students in our sample were female
(69. 5%) probably due to the convenience of program for women at home
during the day. The mean age of the sample was 30, 2 years, 46, 0% of
the student sample were not married, 39.8% married^ and 14, 7% were
divorced or wid6wed, Primary wage earners and heads of household were
in the minority (42, 0% and 44. 3%) probably because of increased demands
placed on that group. The median family size was 3.70, probably due to
the large number of rider students (with grown children) which Wordpower
served.

•

Although cur figuros indicate that only 4.4% of the students had a
physical handicap, we suspect this figure is low, since students did not
receive a thorough examination. Future programs should consider emploving
a speech therapist, at least part time, to help students with physiological or
psychological speech problems. Our preliminary study in May of 1970, based
on a pre-revised form for 372 students, showed that 7. 7% of the students
were classified mentally handicapped, again suggesting at least part time pro-
fessional help would be a valuable asset for these jnogrems. The results of
our preliminary study, based on information not 'ailable after the iovms were
revised in Fall 1969, are shown in Table 2 , The sample represented four
ethnic groups, urban Negro (having lived in a large urban center ten or more
years), rural Negro, white and Spanish speaking (largely from Puerto Rico,
Mexico, and Cuba. Of our sample, 47. 0% were identified as urban N2gro,
13.6% as ruralNegro, only 2.4% as white, and, unexpectedly, 37.0% were
Spanish speaking. Overall, approximately 60% of Wordpower^? efforts were

ERIC

12 8

TABLE 1

- DEMOGRAPI-nC CliARACTERISTICS OF

V/ORD POWER STUDENTS

1. Sex Distribution

Female
Male

2. Age

Mean
Median

3. Marital Status

Unmarried

Married

Other

4. Head of Household

Not head of household
Head of household

5^ Primary Wage Earner

Not primary wage earner
Primary wage earner

6, Num b er in Family

Mean
Median

7. Handicapped

No
Yes

ERIC

Valid Responses Percentage

403 69. 5%

177 30.5%

30. 20

27

253 46.0%

216 . 39.3%

81 14.7%

311 55.7%

247 44. 3%

314 58.0%

228 42.0%

3. 70
3

524 95.6%

23 4.4%

139

BLE 1 continued

Valid }. ijonse Percenta je

8. Ethnic Gro up

Urban Negro 2i 'j 47.0%

Rural Negro * 77 13.6%

White 14 2.4%

Spanish Speaking 209 37.0%

9. Number of Dependents

Mean 4
Median 4

J Q Military Service

Veteran >' ^ 1.8%

Rejectr-^ Z .5%

Other -Non-vet 351 97.7%

•

1 1 . P revious Job Training

None 27 V . 54.9%

Mechanical Trades \0 2.0%

Building Trades 8 1. 6%

Food Trades 15 3.0%

Ofiice - Clerical 30 6,2%

Sale s 3 '6%

Neighborhood Youth Corps. 20 4. 2%

Factory 57 11.5%

Other . 79 16.0%

12. Referral

Self 68 13.3%

Operation Outreach 165 32.3%

Other Manpower 279 54.4%

13. Months in Chicago

Mean ^i. 65

Median 99

ERIC

14 10

TABLE 1

continued

Valid Responses

Percentage

14. Changes in R.esidence in
Past Two Years

No Changes

One Change

Two Change s

Three or More Changes

277
93
30
34

63.8%
21.4%
0. 9%
7.9%

15. Region with Majority
of Training

South

Other U.S.A.
Chicago Area
Outside U.S.A.

146
17
166
194

27. 9%
3. 2%
31.7%
37.2%

16. Library Card
No
Yes

449
48

90. 3%
9.7%

17. Reason for Leaving School
Graduation
Work
Other

113

135
235

23.4%
27. 9%
48, 7%

18. Blocks from Site
Mean
Median

12. 60 - 1. 5 Miles
10

19. Reason for Applying

Employment Opportunity 392 79. 6%

Other 100 20.4%

ERIC

15 11

TABLE 1 continued

21. Barriers to "Att.endanct

None

At Least One

Valid Responses Percentage

416
53

88.7%
11.3%

ERIC

16

12

aimed at Black ghetto residents, while the remaining 40% were spent on
the Spanish community.

The preliminary study, accessed information about the sources of
income for the 372 students sampled. It was found for that sample that
70.8% of the students did not receive any type of public assistance, and
37.8% were regularly employed. Although the ^*hard*^ data is not available,
we believe most of the employed Wordpower students are desperately under-
employed. In interviewing students, it was not unusual to find that a bright,
eager individual had to travel one or two hours on public transportation to
perform menial labors as a custodian. In fact, students who ''stick*' in the
program are generally an admirable group of people who work long, tedious
hours, and spend their spare time at the Wordpower Center with the hope of
earning a better living for their family. For most of the students, Wordpower
is the only Federal program that has ever directly helped them.

In the preliminary study, it was found that Wordpower students were
workers. 14. 4% had worked one to tvo years, 21. 7% had worked three to
nine years, and 23. 7% had worked ten or more years. The two largest
catagories of jobs were factory work (31,^%) and the food- service trades
(12.4%). Most of the students (54. 9%) had nc^ver received job training of
any kind, with the two most common areas of training being factory work
and office -clerical duties. 32. 3% of the stuients were referred to the pro-
gram by Project Outreach based at the Urban Progress Centers; 54.4% were
referred by other agencies, and 13. 3% entered without an outside referral.

In general, the students are stable residents of Chicago, only 15% having
made more than a single move in the past two years, with an average residence
of 5 years, 4 months.

27. 9% of the students had been schooled in the South, 31.7% in Chicago,
and 37.2% outside the U. S. A. The preliminary study showed that the
median educational level attained by the students was 8th grade, 27. 2% dropping
out to work, and 16. 1% to marry. In general, Wordpower students are used to
educational failure.

17n

TABLE 2

CHARACTERISTICS OF WORDPQWER STUDENTS
PRE -REVISED FORM - FALL 1969

Initial Sample

1. Speech or Language

No speech difficulty
Foreign Language
Lack of Knowledge
Physical

157
88
21
5

Percentag e

57.9
32.5

7.7

1.8

2. Public Assistance
No
Yes

213
88

70.8
29.2

3. Labor Status

Unemployed
Underemployed
Employed
Part Time

4. Reason Unemployed

In School

Health

Disability

Family Responsibilities

Lack of Skill.-.

Lack of Education

Pregnancy

Other

Senior Citizen

188
10
123
4

17
5
6

42

12
2
1

16
6

57.8
3. 1

37.8
1.2

15.9
4.7
5.6

39. 3

11.2
1.9
0.9

14.6
5.6

o

ERIC

18 14

TABLE 2 - continued

5. Salary - Last Job

Mean

6. Weeks Employed

Mean

7. Years Employed

Less than one year
One to two years
Three to nine years
Ten and over

8. Type of Job

Factory
Mechanical
Office - Clerical
Sale s

Building Trades
Food Service Trades
Managerial
Other

Neighborhood Youth Corps

9. Income - Per Hour

Mean

10. Total Income

Mean

Initial Sample Percentage
$1. 84

36. 3

69 39.9

25 14.4

38 21.7

41 23.7

58 31.4

11 5.9

14 7.6

5 2.7

3 L.6

23 12.4

1 0.5

52 28.1

18 9.7

$2. 21

$3, 568

1 1 . Occupational Goal

Factory Work
Mechanical

Office - Clerical

14
18
40

6.5
8. 3
18.4

TABLE 2 continued

Initial Sample

Percentage

H. Occupational Goal

Sales 4 18

Building Trades 1 0,5

Food Trades 3 1^4

Managerial 0 0

Technical 8 3,7

Professional 41 18.9

Service 11 5 1

Other 29 13.4

Don^t Know 44 20, 3

Senior Citizen 4 1^8

12, Type of Residence

Chicago Housing Authority 52 18.2

Private Rental 220 77,2

Own 13

13. Changes in Residences in Past
Two Years

No Changes 130 54.6

One Change 64 26. 9

Two or More Changes 44 18.5

14. Highest Grade

Mean 8. 04

Less than 8th Grade 94

15. Reason for Leaving School

Graduation 58 22.2

Pregnancy or married 42 16. 1

Work 71 27.2

Discipline 3 ^ 1

ERJC 20,6

TABLE 2 continued

15, Reason for Leaving School

Poor Grades

Illness

Lack of Money
Other

Initial Sample Percentag

7 2.7

10 3.8

3 1. 1

62 23.. 8

ERIC

21 17

79.6% of the Wordpower students sampled, entered to improve their
employment potential. This figure should not mask the fact that nearly
all the students hoped the reading program would help them v/ith everyday
activities, like shopping, reading the newspaper - even>riding public trans-
portation. Many of the students reported that their increased reading ability
helped them do things they had never had the confidence to attempt before;
things most readers take for granted.

In Summary - Wordpower reaches a group of people most of whom
dropped out of school and are underemployed. The students, in general,
work hard and have never been directly helped by any other Federal Program.
Students want to learn to read both to improve their employment opportimities
and to increase their confidence in attacking everyday tasks.

ERIC

CMA.PTER 4

WHAT ARE THE ATTITUDES TOWARD WORDPOWER?

This chapter summarizes the responses of the 541 Wordpower students
interviewed during the evaluation. Table 3 records the responses as both
raw scores and per cents.

Other Reading Programs

Of the 492 students responding to this question, only 49 (10%) indicated
they had previously attended a reading program. These 49 had participated
in a total of 12 different kinds of reading programs sponsored by local imiver-
sities (15%), the Chicago Board of Education (20. 5%),and other Manpower
agencies (41%). 62. 3% of this group felt the previous reading program had
helped with general reading and writing ability, but 37. 7% did not feel the
previous program benefited them at all.

Although 388 students (79.4%) indicated they would enter another pro-
gram if Wordpov/er were not available, only 68 were able to name a program
they could enter. The data show that Wordpower is serving people who want
to learn to read, but really would not know where to turn if Wordpower were
not available, or even fail if they entered in a less individualized program.

The Things Which Prompted Students to Enter the Wordpower Project

Of a total of 453 responses, 118 students (26.0%) indicated that learning
English was their most important goal for working in the Wordpower project
(these responses came overwhelmingly from the two sites with a large Spanish-
speaking population), and 43 were drawn to the program because of the Talking
Typewriter. The attractiveness of the Typewriter format was enhanced at one
Center, which offered a touch typing program in conjunction with Wordpower.
Other reasons for entering were spelling, getting a better job, being able to
read more rapidly, improving writing, pronunciation, and vocabulary.
Important Characteristics of the Program

Of the 493 students responding, 336 (68. 2%) said it was important that the
Wordpower Center was near home; 395 {79. 6%) said it was important that they

EKJC 9119

TABLE 3

RESPONSES TO TME WORD POWER QUESTIONNAIRE

(These results are based on the 541 interviews given by our staff)

1. Have you been in a reading program before other than in school?

No. of Res. Percentage

No 443 90%

Yes 49 10%

A. What was the program called?

College Night 6 15%

Manpower 16 41%

Bd. of Educ. 8 20. 5%

Other 9 23. 5%

B. Did you finish?

No • 29 64%

Yes 16 36%

C. Did the program help you?

No 23 37.7%

Yes 38 62. 3%

2. If we didn't have this program, would you try to enter some other reading
program?

No 101 20.6%

Yes 388 79.4%
A. Do you know of another program?

Definitely Know 68 68%

Questionable 32 32%

3. What things about the program were important to you when you decided to
enter the program?

Typewriter 43 9. 5%

Learn Eng. 118 26 %

Other 292 64.5%

ERIC

21

20

TABLE 3 continued

3, What things about the program were important to you when you decided to
enter the program?

A. Answer "Ye-s" to any of the following that were very important and "No*
to the others.

It was near your home No. of Res. Percentage

No 157 31. 8%

Yes 336 68.2%

You could work at your own speed

No 101 20.4%

Yes 395 79.6%

You could work by yourself

No 131 26.5%

Yes 364 73. 5%

You could choose the time to come

No 96 19.4%

Yes 400 80.6%

You could bring children to the nursery

No 320 65%

Yes 172 35%

You didn't have to compete with other students

No 209 42.3%

Yes 285 57.7%

4. Do you have any newspapers at home''

No 111 22.4%

Yes 385 77.6%
A. Where do you get your newspapers?

Delivered 152 38. 9%

Buy Them 213 54.5%

Library 2 . 5%
From friends or

relatives 24 6. 1%

2321

TABLE 3 continued No. of Res. Percentage

5. Do you have magazines at home?

No 139 28. 1%

Yes 355 71. 9%
A. Whore do you get the magazines?

Delivered 102 28. 2%

Buy them 213 58. 8%

Library 3 . 8%

From friends or relative !5 44 12, 2%

6. Do you have books at home?

No 79 16%

Yes 416 84%
A, Where do you get your books?

Buy them 283 67. 7%

Library 64 15.4%

From friends and relatives 71 16.9%

7. What do you like to read most?

Books 274 56.57o

Magazines 103 21.3%

Newspapers 108 22. 2';'o
A, Why do you like to read?

For enjoyment 206 42. 7%

For study 206 42.7%
For shopping and around the home 30 6. 2%

Other 41 8,4%

8. Do you read newspapers?

No 79 16.1%

Yes 412 83. 9%

ERIC

TABLE 3 continued No. of Res. Percentage

A. What sections do you turn to?
Headlines - Front page

No 165 34%

Yes 320 66%
Sports

No 306 63. 1%

Yes 179 36.9%

Comics - funnies

No 327 67.6%

Yes 157 32.4%

Want Ads

No 272 56. 1%

213 43.9%

Store advertisements or sales

No 254 52.4%

Yes 231 47.6%

9. What things couldn't you do before the program?
Read ads

No 236 51. 5%

Yes 222 48. 5%

Answer ads

No 230 49.4%

Yes 231 49. 5%

Fill out job forms

No 224 48.7%

Yes 236 51. 3%

Free Form

Speak 35 38. 5%,v

Other 56 61. 5%

ERIC 27

23

TABLE 3 continued No. of Res. Percentage

10. What things can you do better because of the reading you learned here?

Read ads

No 176 35. 7%

Yes 317 64.3%
Answer ads

No 222 45.1%

Yes 270 54.9%

Fill out job forms

No 207 42%

Yes 284 58%

Better job

No 202 41.1%

Yes 290 58.9%
Other

Spelling 19

Reading 18

Writing Related Skills 51

11. Highest Grade Achieved

Mean 8.49

Median 9

12. Do you plan to get more schooling?

No 87 17.7%

Yes 404 82. 3%

13. How do your friends or family help you succeed in this program?

Do they help with chores?

No 276 59.6%

Yes 187 40.4%

ERIC

28

24

TABLE 3 continued

No. of Res.

Percentage

13, How do your friends or family help you succeed in this program?

Do they babysit?

No 334 71.8%
Yes 31 28.2%

Do they give carefare?

No 351 75.8%

Yes 112 24.2%

Do they help with reading?

No 291 61.5%

Yes 182 38.5%

Do they want you to get ahead?

No 61 12.6%

Yes 424 87.4%

14. What do the people you live with read?

Do they read books?

No 142 30.4%

Yes ^ 325 69.6%

Do they read magazines?

No 166 35.6%

Yes 300 64.4%

Do they read newspapers?

No 108 23.2%

Yes 358 76.8%

Do they read other things?

No 373 83.4%
Yes 74 16.6%

A. What are those other things?

Newspaper related 27 40. 9%

Instructional related 39 59.1%

TABLE 3 continued No. of Res. Percentage

15. Are you most interested in learning to read; \

\

For Enjoyment 72 14. 7%

For Study 262 53.5%

For Job Opportunity 156 31. 8%

16. What do you like to read about most?

How to do things

No 273 59. 6%

Yes 185 40.4%

Adven:.ure and Action

' No 248 54. 1%

Yes 210 45.9%
News

No 311 66.3%

Yes 158 33. 7%

Stories about real people

No 244 51.9%

Yes 226 48. 1%

Sports

No 301 65.9%

Yes 156 34. 1%
Other

Religious Stories 53 52.5%

Other Stories 48 47.5%

17. Are the stories on the typewriter interesting?

No 221 45. 2%

Yes 268 54. 8%
A. Are they about important things?

No 50 10.3%

Yes 434 89. 7%

ERIC

30

26

TABLE 3

- continued

No. of Res.

Percentage

18. Should more time be spent with students working with
the instructor ?

No 118 24.2%

Yes 370 75.8%

19. What would you like to spend more time with the instructor doing?

Asking questions about the program

No 349 71. 8%

Yes 137 ''8.2%

Getting special hel p

No 273 56%

Yes 214 44%

Working on writing

No 214 44%

Yes 273 56%

Other

More machine 142 68. 9%

More outside help 35 17,0%

More time 29 14. 1%

20. What would you like to spend more time on?

On the Talking Typewriter 303 68. 2%

In the reading center 141 31,8%

21. How much time outside of the Center do you spend reading each day?

None 123 25%

10 minutes; or less 139 28. 3%

20 to 30 minutes 167 33. 9%

Over 30 minutes 63 ' 12.8%

22. Was what you learned helped you with:

Reading sij;ns, labels and instructions:

No 238 48.2%

^ Yes 256 51.8%

TABLE 3

continued

No, of Res.

Percentage

22, Was what you learned helped you with:
Reading for enjoyment

No 293 59.7%

Yes » 198 40.3%

Reading to learn something

No 182 37.1%

Yes 309 62.9

Reading want ads

No 189 38.4

Yes 303 61.6

Reading to do better on a job

No . 186 38%

Yes 303 62%

ERIC

32 28

could work at their own speed; 364 (73. 5%) said it was important that they
could work by themselves; 400 (80. 6%) said it was important that they could
choose their own schedule; 172 (35%) jsaid it w-as important that they could
bring children to the nursery; and 285 (57, 7%) said it was important that they
did not have to compete with the other students. To students, the most im-
portant characteristics of the program are the flexible scheduling and individ-
ualization of instruction, with the location and privacy as significant secondary
concerns.

Reading Materials in Student Homes

A total of 385 students (77. 6%) indicated they have newspapers in their
homes. Of this group, 213 (54. 5%) buy their papers at the stand; 152 (38. 9%)
have them delivered, and only 24 (6. 1%) get them from friends.

A total of 355 students (71.9%) reported they kept magazines in their
home. Of this group, 213 (58. 8%) bought them at a newsstand; 102 (21^. 2%) had
them delivered; 44 (12. 2%) got them from friends and relatives, and only 3 (. 8%)
read them in a library.

With regard to books, a total of 416 students (84%) indicated that they had
books in their home. Of this group, 283 (67. 7%) indicated they bought their
books themselves; 71 (16. 9%) indicated they borrow bocks from friends; and only
64 (15.4%) indicated that they got them from the public library.

412 students (83.9%) indicated they read newspapers; approximately 66%
read the headlines; 48% the advertisements; 4*):% read the want ads; and approx-
imately 35% read the comics and sports. In general, reading materials are
available in the homes of Wordpower students, an important motivating
factor. However, the per cent of students using the library is disappointingly
small, which suggests it might be worthwhile to explore having the Public

Library conduct orientation classes.
Practical Benefits to Stvidents

222 students (48. 5%) indicated that they were not able to read employment
ads when they entered the program; 49. 5% indicated that they were unable to

ERIC

33

29

answer employment ads; and 51, 3% indicated they were unable to fill out
required job forms. When asked how the program had helped, 317 students
(64, 3%) felt they had increased theii- ability to read employment ads; 54, 9%
indicated they had increased their ability to answer employment acls*; 58%
indicated that they were better able to fill out job forms; and 58. 97o indicated
that they felt the program prepared them for an upward movement in jobs.

Support from the Home

The Wordpower students are highly motivated to succeed in their future
endeavors. Although on the average, they have only an eighth grade education,
404 students (82. 3%) indicated they plan to get more schooling beyond Wordpower.

Responding to the question, ''How do your friends or family help you
succeed," 187 students (40,4%) indicated that they receive help with their
household duties; 131 (28,2%) receive help with baby sitting (of course, a
number of people in the program do not have children); 112 (24, 2% are helped
with carefare expenses; 182 (38, 5%) receive direct help at home with their
reading problems; and 424 (87.4%) report they are encouraged by their family
to succeed,

Reading Preferences

A total of 274 students (56. 5%) said they most like to read books; 103 (21, 3%)
like to read magazines best; and 108 students (22. 2%) like to read newspapers
best.

In response to why they like to read, 206 students (42, 7%) said their
principal motivation was enjoyment; 206 (47.7%) indicated it was study; c!^nd only
30 (6,2%) indicated they most like to read for shopping and household duties.

Discussing what they most like to read, 185 (40,4%) indicated they enjoy
reading how to accomplish something; 45. 9% indicated they liked to read about
adventure and action; 3,7% irdicated they liked to read the news; 48, 1% indicated
they like to read biographies; and 34. 1% indicated they liked to read about sports.
Obviously, the ability to read instructions is an important skill to these students.

30

student Evaluation of the Reading Materials

A total o: 268 students (54.8%) indicated that they found the material
on the typewriter interesting; and 89. 7% believed the programs were relevant.
These percentages are much higher than expected, since the Sullivan materials
are intended for children, and therefore do not satisfy the interest or maturity
levels of adults. It is likely that these highly favorable responses are meant
for the Talking Typewriter as a teaching tool and not the materials themselves.
In fact, the Wordpower program is trying to respond to student criticisms of
the materials by programming a series of adult oriented modules. The instant
success and popularity of these materials indicates they have filled an impor-
tant gap in the program.

370 students (75.8%) indicated they would like to spend more time with
the instructor reviewing their lessons. A total of 137 (28. 2%) would like to ask
questions not answered by the program; 214 (44%) would like to get special help;
and 273 (56. 0%) want additional work on writing. The two most significant points
are:(l) students want some per son-tlized help in addr.tion to the machine; and (2)
students want to spend more time working on their writing, as well as reading.

A total of 303 students (68. 2%) would like tc spend more time each day
on the Talking Typewriter,, and 141 (31. indicated they would like to spend
more time in the reading center.

A total of 155 students or 68. 3% of the responders, attributed their success
to the Talking Typewriter; and 26% i.ndici.ted it was the entire Reading oenter.
It is likely that the 26% response, indicating the Center, really reflects the
combined influence of the Talking Typewi iter and the study area together rather
than just the study area.

In responding to "How much time dD you read each day", 139 students (28.3%)
indicated they spend 10 minutes or less reading each day; 167 (33. 9%) are reading
20 to 30 minutes per day; and 63 (12.8%) spend over 30 minutes outside the Center
reading.

ERIC

35

31

Answering the question ''What the program has most helped you read",
256 students (51.8%) indicated they had been helped in reading signs, labels,
and instructions; 19 (40, 3';')) indicated that they were able to do more reading
for enjoyment; 309 (62, 9To) believed they are better able to study, 189 (61.6%)
indicated they are better able to read want ads, and 303 (62. 0%) believe they are
more effective in their daily work.

The Wordpower students are reading outside the Center to exercise their
skills and believe they are more capable in both the occupational and personal

The responses to the interview show that Wordpower students are anxious
to learn to read to raise their occupational potential, and increase their feeling
of personal fulfillment. The majority have never participated in any other
educational program, and, if Wordpower closed, probably wouldn^t know where
to go for more help.

The most attractive features of the program are the individualized
instruction format, the flexible scheduling capability, and the complete privacy
of the REC booth.

Student attitudes toward the program are overwhelmingly positive. For
most, it is the only kind of educational program in which they can participate,
since it fits their work schedule.

Students are encouraged at home to succeed in their study, both by direct
help and the availability of magazines and newspapers. Students spend a'bout
20 to 30 minutes each day reading outside the Center.

The most important finding in this section, is that students feel more able
and confident in finding a job and then keeping it. They view their improved
reading ability as a st(3pping stv-^ne to a better life for themselves and their
families.

sense.

Summary

ERIC

CHAPTER 5

WHY DO STUDENTS DROP OUT?

As it turns out, the student drop out rate is critical to Wordpower,
since meaningful progress in the program depends on regular attendance.
To examine the dropout issue as closely as possible, the information available
in the personal data files of our original sample, was analyzed to determine
those variables which affect the drop out rate.

Our first effort to statistically analyze the variables using multiple
discriminate analysis failed, since the procedure required that all data be
available for every case. Since some data seemed always to be missing on
the forms for any given student, multiple discriminate analysis would have
reduced our drop vs. non-drop comparison groups to the size o£ three or four
students. As an alternative, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi- square
contingency analysis was used to locate differences between the groups.

We began by identifying three groups. The first group was composed of
269 individuals who were either currently enrolled in the program in the Fall
of 1969, or had finished. The second group included 80 students who had
dropped out of the program after less than two months of sustained attendance.
The final group consisted of 51 students who were enrolled in the program, but
did not appear during the four weeks we collected data. We classified these
people as **ghosts'\ It is likely that this group ultimately could be reclassified
as either non-drops or drop outs. For the purpose of the analysis, however,
it was most feasible to use the ghosts as a separate group representing erratic
attendance. Four important variables distinguished among the groups. The
first characteristic was age. The mean for the non-drop group was 33, and the
mean for the dropout group was 28, indicating older students were more stable
in their attendance. The second statistically significant difference am-»ng the
groups was the number of strokes students completed per day. The nc.i-drop
group completed an average of 325 as opposed to only 283 for the dropout group.

ERIC ^'33

w
«'
U
X
H
O

w

>

H
O

a.
o

OS
P

(rj
O

W
U

z

S
Pi
<
>

o

w

n
W

CO

o

o

a
o
u

Q
I

C!
O

>

vO
<N3

n

CO

<

o

CO

(0

00

00

i-H

o

•

•

o

Q

^4

CO

o

u

:^
o

00

M

?J

o

CO

O

CO

CO

•

•

CO

CO

00

•

r-H

a

o

o

u
o
0.

o

o

CO
CO

a

o

u

M

M

:^

o

(U

O

CO

o

o

CO

•

•

o

CO

•

CO

CO

•

in

CO

CO

</>

o

0
o

^0

vO
Cvl

O

CO

o

CO

u
o

o

b
O

4^

(0

'U

Eh

C!

a

(1)
u

o ^

>

:3

CO

M

O

a.

(0

o
o

CO

38

34

ON

in

in

CO

II

II

II

11

II

II

o

o

NX)

r— <

CO

CO

CO

CO

fO

Ui

Ui

Ui

Ui

o

O

r-H

CO

M

ro

CO

r-H

I-H

in

in

•

•

•

•

•

00

r-H

CO

I-H

fO

M

o
in

ar

loc

o

CO

in

o

in

o

o

CO

vD

•

o

•

•

in

00

ON

CO

in

o

00

I-H

I-H

CO

I-H

o

r-H

o

o

CO

•

e

•

•

in

»-H

o

M

CO

0)

1a

(0

0)

1

• H

(0

•p

(0

(0

(T)

♦H

9)

>^

0)

ed

by

le)

(rat

sea

ted

sea

int

int

O

o

o

P.

(0

a-

<D

0

u

0

O

0

a

c

U

u

rC

4J

4J

in
o

V

V

The non-drop group was working 50 per cent faster than the dropout group,
and therefore was less subjectto boredom and frustration. This is probably
evi ence for higher motivation on the part of the non-drop group. The third
and fourth variables were the knowledge and interest levels rated by unit
^ssistants. It was found that the non-drop group scored consistently higher
in both the knowledge and the interest while they worked in the booth. Of a
possible 30 points, the non-drop means were 21. 81 and 20. 0, whereas the
dropout means were only 9. 14 and 14.50. Clearly, the dropouts and ghosts
were students who failed to achieve satisfactorily in the program.

Several discrete variables were cross-tabulated with drop classi-
fication. Two stat\stically significant relationships were found. Non-drop
students had a sigr ificantly higher Spanish- speaking representation than
the dropout groups, indicating that the Spanish- speaking students in general,
are more likely to persevere. The second significant variable was the
stated reason for enrolling. It was found that the non-drop students were
significantly more motivated by employment opportvinity than either the
ghosts or the dropouts (72.8% for the non-drops, vs. 49% for the dropouts).

These facts indicate that the dropout is usually a younger. Black
student who has not seriously enrolled to get a better job. He is less
motivated as evidence by his lack of daily progress and lower knowledge and
interest ratings.

Table 6 documents the entry and dropout ral:es for each of the four
Wordpower sites between December 1969 and Auguist 1970. Table 6 shows
that, in general, the new enrollment each month roughly equals the drops.
Although tliere are fluctuations, this trend is uniform among the Centers,
It is likely that the present organization for Wordpower (four concentrated
sites) is responsible for the lack of growth in the program. The four Centers
have established a volume which is dynamically maintained, and efforts to
move above that level seem to be fruitless. The future of the program will
depend on analyzing the need for each area, and then supplying only enough

ERLC

35

39

TABLE 5

Cm-SQUARE CQNTIXGENCY ANAOSIS
FOR DROPOUTS VS. QTIIER.S ~

Sex. With Column Percents

Non-Drops

Females 54 (22%)

Males lg5 ^^^^^^

Chi-Square (2) = 2. 322

"Ghosts"
15 (29.4%)

Dropouts
24 (30%)

36 (70. 6%) 56 (70%)

Negro

White

Spanish

Ethnic Group. With Column Percents

Non-Drops "Ghosts"
150 (65.8%)

8 (3.5%)
70 (30.7%)

Chi-Square (4) = 10. 143^

34 (82. 9%)
0 (0.0%)
7 (17.1%)

Dropouts
53 (81,5%)

2 (3. 1%)
10 (15.4%)

Economic Assist ance With Column Percents

Non-Drops "Ghosts"
149 (73. 8%) 21(51.2%)
Receiving public assistance .53 (26. 2%) 20 (48. 8%)

Chi-Square (2) - 8. 767*

Dropouts
43 (74. 1%)
15 (25.9%)

Employment Histo ry With Column Percents

Non-Drops "Ghosts"
^"""^ 130 (60. 5%) 23 (52. 3%)

At least one job (39. gc^^, ^1 (47.7%)

Chi-Square (2) = 2. 648

Dropouts
44 (67. 7%)
21 (32.3%)

*p<.05
**p< ,01

36

TABLE 5 (continued)

Rcc;ion V/horc Raised, V/ith Column Pcrcents

N on-Drops "Ghosts"

Far South
South
Midwest
Foreign

Chi-Square (6) = 8. 324

69 (34. 0%)

9 (5.4%)
58 (28. 6%)
65 (32. 0%)

10 (30.0%)
2 (6.9%)

15 (45.4%)
6 (17.6%)

Dropouts

12 (33.3%)
0 (0.0%)

16 (44.4%)
8 (22.2%)

How Referred, With Column Totals

Non-Drops

Self 42 (20.7%)

Other 161 (79.3%)

Chi-Square (2) = 2.800

'Ghosts"

9 (23.1%)
30 (76. 9%)

Dropouts
4 (10.0%)
39 (90. 0%)

Reason for Enrolling

Employment
Adult Education
Recreation
Other

Chi-Square (6) = 19. 755''^=:^

Non-Drops
147 (72. 8%)
36 (17.8%)
16 (7.9%)
3 (1.5%)

"Ghosts"
24 (66.7%)
8 (22.2%)
4 (11.9%)
0 (0. 0%)

Dropout s
24 (49.0%)
16 (32.7%)

4 (8.2%)

5 (10.2%)

* p ^.05
p^^ .01

TABLE 6

NEW ENROLLEES AND DROPS

AT THE n^ORDPOWER SITES

Center

Garfield

[King

Lawndale
Montrose

TOTAL

Center

Garfield
<ing

Lawndale
VIontrose

TOTAL

December 1969

■ ■

January

1970

i

February-

1970

March

1970

New
Enrollees

Drops

New
Enrollees

Drops

New
Enrollee s

Drops

New
Enrollees

Drops

6

4

50

40

28

19

35

30

11

8

1 7

23

18

14

24

36

19

31

8

49

8

1

78

56

18

16

28

5

16

33

21

18

54

103

70

67

158

140

April

1970

•

May

•

1970

June 1970

July

1970

New
EnroUee s

Drops

New
Enrollee s

Drops

New
Enrollee s

Drops

New
Enrollees

Drops

33

51

26

24

22

36

30

47

17

7

11

14

19

16

7

17

27

32

17

8

37

13

30

108

32

37

14

6

14

36

17

18

101

127

68

52^

92

101

8_4

184

ERIC

42

38

TABLE 7

RESPONSES TO TI-IE WORDPOWER STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE

FALL 1969 AND FALL 1970 COMBINED

Question la • What kind of people enroll in this

program?

Staff

Per cent of

Response

ive bpon se

People wanting to improve

20

'^l 7

People on assistance

9

14,3

School drop outs

11

17.5

Spanish wanting to learn English .

11

17.5

Unemployed

4

Illiterate s

_8

1 O 7

Total tabulated response

63

Question lb - What seems to be their main reason for enrolling?

Staff

Per cent of

Re sponse

Re spon se

To upgrade employment

32

53. 3

To learn English

10

16.7

To improve in reading ability

12

^U. u

To enjoy reading more

__6

1 r\ A
lU. U

Total tabulated response

60

Question 2a - What kind of people drop out of the program?

Staff

Per cent of

Response

xve sponse

Those with personal problems

15

25.4

Those not learning

14

23. 6

Those not motivated

10

16.4

Those with job conflicts

9

15. 2

Those who need money for transportation

10

16.9

Total tabulated response

59

ERIC

43

39

TABLE 7 CONTLNUED

Question 2b - Why do thoy drop ovit?

ERIC

Privacy

Supplementary materials
Time factors for work

Total tabulated response

44

40

12

9

58

Staff

Per cent of

Response

Re sponse

Personal problems

24

23.5

Need money for transportation

14

18.6

No school credit

3

2.9

Program is not challenging

16

15.7

No motivation

14

13.7

Job conflict

13

12.7

Health

4

3.9

Not learning

9

9.0

Total tabulated response

102

Question 3a - What do you like best about this

program?

staff

Per cent of

Response

Response

Helping others

28

68.3

Meeting people

11

31.7

Total tabulated response

41

Why?

Satisfaction in helping

30

54.6

Self improvement of student

20

36.3

Can help job opportunities

_5

9.1

Total tabulated response

55

*

Question 3b - What do the enroUees like best about the program.?

Staff

Per cent of

Response

Response

Machines

34

58.6

20.7
15.5
5.2

TABLE 7 CONTINUED

Question 3b (continued)

Why?

Because they learn
Privacy

Because they can get jobs
Personal attention

Total tabulated response

Staff
Response

24
16
3
_4
47

Per cent of
Re sponse

52. 2
34,8

6.5

8.5

Question 4 - What suggestions would you make for improving the program?

Advertise

Professional Help

More supplementary material's

More space

Total tabulated response

Staff
Re sponse

6

5

19
__3
33

Per cent of
Re sponse

18.1

15.2

57.6

9.1

Question 5a - Have you noticed any difficulties that the program has had?

Motivation to attend

Not enough students (advertise)

Staff attitudes

Mechanical problems with machines
Too easy

Total tabulated response
Question 5b - What could be done about them?

Recruitment
Staff meetings
More materials

Staff
Response

14

11

4

7

12.

46

Staff

Response

10
4
9

Per cent of
Re sponse

30.4

23.9

8.7

15.2

21.8

Per cent of
Re sponse

23.2

4. 3

20. 9

ERIC

4541

TABLE 7 CONTINUED

Question 5b - (continued)

More personal contact 8

Provide transportation 5

Professional staff 5

Total tabulated response 43

Question 6 - Could you suggest additional things students should be
doing in the study areas?

Staff
Re sponse

Per cent of
Re sponse

Advanced materials ( supplements)

16

37.2

Tape recorders (pronunciation''

7

16.2

Employment forms { practice )

6

13.9

More staff effort

2

4.6

Work on individual problems .

6

13.9

Group discussion

4

9.3

Recreation

_2

2. 3

Total tabulated response

43

7 - Is enough time spent in the study area?

Staff
Re sponse

Per cent of
Re sponse

Yes

14

73.7

No

5

26. 3

18.6
11.5
11.5

ERIC

4()

42

machines and staff to meet that need.

Several questions in the Wordpower staff questionnaire explored the
problems of dropouts. These data are part of Table 7 . The staff
characterized dropouts as people with personal problems, students who
were not learning, and were not motivated. The staff also indicated
that dropouts are likely to be students with conflicts, or those unable to
afford transportation to the Wordpower Center,

When asked why students dropped out of the program, the staff
indicated it was for personal problems, lack of money for transportation,
and because they did not find the program challenging. Other causes
mentioned included motivation, job conflict, health, and lack of progress.

To summarize, it appears that many dropouts could be screened
before they enter. Students admitted should evidence maturity and desire
to advance in their occupational goals. The problems likely to force a
student to dropout are transportation costs, and the instability of his home.
It might significantly reduce the dropout problem if the program could
offer financial assistance and counselling support.

47

Chapter 6

THE RELAT IONS BET WEEN PERFORMANCE . READING GAINS

AND WRITING GAINS

The progress of Wordpower students \/as calculated using the data
available on the Weekly Progress Form and is summarized in Table 8*
The reading gains in grade levels were calculated; the overall averages are
showa in Table 9(, To explore the relationship between the .initial grade
level placement and SAT pretest scores and their posttest achievement, three
step>;^ise regression analyses were performed. As seen in Table 11, the
correlations between pre and posttest scores for the SAT subtests and Sullivan
book level were phenomenally high. Table 12 contains the data from the final
step i)f the stepwise regression procedureso In each case the pretest score
dominated the regression analysis, hours being a statistically significant
covaiiable only in the case of the Sullivan final grade level. This result is
not completely surprising since the period between tests was so short. Over
a lon;^er period of time, the effect of time spent in the program would
undoubtedly increase in statistical significance o

IDI attempted to locate an instrument to measure the ability to
comriunicate through writing. We found that, although there were several
measures of handwriting style, none met our needs. We constructed a test
to measure communication ability on three writing tasks, commonly
encoi.ntered by disadvantaged adults:

(1) writing a note - taking a message

(2) completing a form or application

(3) writing a summary of a short talk.

We were able to identify six dimensions on which each section
would be rated:

(1) grammar, spelling, articulation

(2) attentiveness, comprehension of the question

(3) sentence structure

(4) communication, getting the sentence acroi5s

(5) ability to choose words effectively
Q (6) flexibility, creativity

ERIC 48

TABLE 8

AVERAGE WEEKLY PROGRESS OF WORDPOWER STUDENTS

N - 356

Variable Mean Median

Weeks in the Program 13.52 10
Program Cards Finished

Per Week 2.45 2

Strokes Made Per Week 280.28 2£ 2
Minutes in the Booth

Per Day 22.62 21

Interest Level jf 26.86 29

Knowledge Level fr'# 25. 2 27

These dimensions were rated by the Wordpower staff as follows:
Poor - 10
Fair - 20
Good - 30

ERIC

49

45

TABLE 9

STUDENT READING ACHIEVEMENT

Variable

Word Recognition ( SAT )
Paragraph Meaning { SAT )
Sullivan Pre- Post

Pr. ; test Mean Post-test Mean Mean Gain

3.47
3.09
1.09

4. 3?.
3. 84
2. 9f5

.85
.75
1.16

Mean Hours Between Tests

20. 03

Hours per two grade level
improvement ( SAT )

"Word Recognition

Paragraph Meaning

Average

47.05 hours
53.33 hours
50. 1 7 hours

Hours per two grade level

improvement

(Sullivan Program)

34.4 hours

ERIC

50

46

TABLE 10

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF READING TEST
yARIABLES FOR TIIE SUBS AMPLE WITH TWO SAT SCORES

Ns'162

Variable Mean Standard Deviations

# WP. - Word Recognition
PM - Paragraph Meaning

Er|c 47

51

Sat - WR Subte St 3.47 2. 15

Pretest Grade Level

Sat - PM # Subtest

Pretest Grade Level 3.09 2. 05

Initial Placc;ment -

Grade Level 1.79 .79

Hours Between

Pre-Post Tests 20.03 10.4

Sat - WR Subtest

Post Test Grade Level 4.32 2.01

£at - PM If Subtest
Post Test Grade Level 3.84 2. 16

Sullivan Post Test Level 2.95 1.04

TABLE 11

ERIC

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE AND POST READING TEST SCORES
N = 162

SAT Pre SAT Pre Initial Placement

WR // PM #^ Sullivan Book Level

SAT Post

WR# .86 .83 .68*'!*

SAT Post

PMM .79 .84^^>;'- .65=:'-'':=

Post test book level .61 . 62 . 63 'I-"-

P^. 01

# Word recognition subtesit score as grade level
## Paragraph meaning subtest score as grade level

52

48

TABLE 12

MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF PRE -TEST READING
SCORES AND HOURS IN THE PROGRAM ON POST
TEST READING ACHIEVEMENT

N « 162

Sat Word Reco.cfnition - Post Multiple R = . 871 F - 24. 93 -l-N

CovaL'iable

Coefficient

T - Score

WR - Pre-Test

. 821

22. 23

Hours in Program

.012

1.60

Sat Paragraph Meaning - Post Multiple R - . 849 F 20. 64

C jvariable

Coefficient

T - Score

PM - Pre-Test

Hours in Program

.903
. 015

20. 28
1. 76

Sullivan Grade Level

Multiple R r . 693 F =- 73. 32

Covariable

Coefficient

T - Score

Placement Level
Hours in Program

.919
.028

11. 87
4. 79

P< .05 that R ^ O
'•''^ P< . 01 that R 4 O

53

Two independent ratings (by different raters) were made for each
student's writing test. Table 13 shows the inter-rater reliability estimates
(product moment correlations) between ratings for each section. As was
hoped, the coefficients for all sections were • 8 or higher, an acceptable
level of reliability for the instrument. The average interval between
writing tests was 12 weeks. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was performed between pre and posttests for each of three sets of subtests
and the results are shown in Table 14. The first subtest division contrasted
overall mechanics (attentiveness, sentence structure, grammar and
spelling) with overall articulation (commimication, vocabulary, flexibility,
creativity). The second subtest division contrasted the three tasks
included in the test. The final subtest division contrasted the six divisions
on which each item was rated.

The ability gains were statistically significant for all subtest
divisions, indicating writing ability improved significantly in every
dimension as a result of the time spent in the program.

Table 15 shows the correlations between the writing subtests and
SAT reading scores. All the correlations were statistically significant
with a range of • 34 to • 6Z, a range indicating a moderate to strong
relationship. The data bears out our suspicion that writing and reading
are closely related for the Wordpower Students

Tables l6 and 17 show the descriptive statistics and correlations
between reading test scores and the weekly progress data. The reading
test scores were negatively correlated (as expected) with the weeks
spent in the program (i.e. , the higher your reading level the fewer the
weeks necessary to complete the program) and were positively related
to the average stroke; s made each day and the average number of minutes
spent in the booth. Str angely, the ratings of interest and knowledge
seemed to be unrelated to achievement, indicating perhaps, the unit
assistants are relatively poor judges of actual reading progress.

ERLC

54

50

TABLE 13

INTERRATER RELIABILITY OF THE
WORDPOWER WRITING TEST

(Pearson's r)

Dimension Section I Section II Section III

Grammar . 807 .426 . 896

Comprehension . 845 . 843 . 888

Sentence Structure . 823 . 783 . 888

Communication . 857 . 866 . 913

Effective Use of

Words . 822 . 819 . 884

Flexibility . 828 . 809 . 898

Overall . 832 . 834 . 894

ERIC

55

51

TABLE 14

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SUB-TEST SCORES
FOR THE WORDPOWER WRITING PRE-POST TESTS

Division I

Pre-Test Post-Test Unvariate Multivariate
Mean Klean F (1. 92) F

Mechanics

2, 906

3, 328

6. 116=;'

Articulation

2. 960

3. 360

5. 048

Division II

Direct Questions

3. 265

3. 668

5. 017=:=

Filling out Forms

3. 085

3. 571

6. 793=;^

Writing a Suniinary

2.45

2. 803

2. 200

Division IT

Mechanics

2. 663

3. 075

7. 667=N

Comprehension

3. 227

3. 582

3. 122

Sentence Structure

2. 829

3. 327

8.492=:=

Communication

3. 163

3.493

2. 625

Effective Word Usage

2.759

3. 228

8. 354=;=

Flexibility

2. 961

3. 383

5. 20 6=;=

3. 437=:=';=

2. 301=:=

7. 537=:==;=

=:< P<.05
*=:= P<; ,01

// The writing test was divided separately in three ways;

(1) Mechanics vs. articulation.

(2) Wxiting notes vs. completing applications vs. writing a summai /,

(3) Grammar vs. attcntivcness vs. sentence structure vs. communication
vs. word usage vs. flexibility,

ERIC

5G

52

ID

w
<:

CO

W

ft;
o
u

H

CO

W
H

0
P

<:
w

w
w

H
W
CQ

CO

O

H
<

W

cc;
erf
o
u

CO

W

O
U

CO

H

CO

W
H

0
H

<

H o
< ^

CO

<

> a;
< pi

(ft
a;

o

vO

LTI

LTI

LO

CO
LO

U

rt

B

U

G

o

Li

<

LO
LO

vO LTI

LTI

LTI

vO LO

vO
LO

LO

m

LO

m in

LO vO

o

P

vO

a
o
♦i-i

m

:^
a*

u

CM
LO

LO

O

CO
LO

LO
LO

vO
LO

LO

LO

LO

LO

u

O

0)

Q

u
u

o

• l-l

m

a
u

s

o

U

0

U
(U

(U

CO

o

u
C

a

o

U

O

>
• i-i

U

w

1—1

00
LO

vO
LO

LO

CO

W
H

<;

H
O
H

>

en

en

«■ £

(U o

M u

O w

en

en

:^

cn

o

cn

bfj
O ^

u a,

o

bO

o o

O O
« •

vv

0. Ok

ERIC

5753

TABLE 16

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE SUBSAMPLE WITH ROTH
READTXG TEST SCORES AND WEEKLY PROGRESS DATA

N 138

Variable Mean Standard Deviation
SAT Pre

WR # 3.4 2. 1

SAT Pre

PM f^ff 3.0 2.0

Initial Placement

Sullivan Book Level 1.7 .77

Hours between tests 20.6 11.0

SAT Post

WR if 4.2 2.0

SAT Post

PM 3.7 2. 1

Posttest book level 2.9 1.0

Weeks in the program 18,2 10.6

Average cards per week 3.1 .72

Averaj];e strokes

per week 295, 8 89. 0

Average minutes

per day 22. 5 2.7

Interest level 27.4 3.1

Knowledge level 26. 5 5.5

A' Word recognition subtest score as grade level

^'-5' Paragraph meaning subtest score as grade level

ERIC 54 58

crq

P

3

0)

p

OQ
W

(D
U)
rf-

W
O
O

0)
P

w

OQ

P
(D

CD
<

O

a.

CD

o
o

QQ

O

w
f2
CT

fD
W

W
O

o

CD

p

CO

aq
p

CD

I— •
CD
<
(D

P

Ik

O

P

o

I— •

o

CTQ
CD

I— •
CD
<
CD

O

00

O

r3

CD
CD

CD
CD

>
CD

P

cm

CD

B

CD

CD

Cb
P

>
CD
P
CD

o
?r

CD
W

CD

^
CD
CD

CD

P

CD

O
P
H
ft.

w

CD

^
CD
CD

O

-J

00

CD
CD

CD

o
p

o

o

h- '

o
en

•

•

•

•

1

1

o

u>

«

«

O

-J

vO

00

ro

y.
/\

•5^

en

p

P LO

a" 00

CD

CO

hD >
(D

CD ^

»i
CD
rh
CD
W

CO

>

< 0)
P

O P

o o

?r CD

CD

CD

CD
CD

CD
CD

CD

cn

o

o

cn
>

>

a

?3
w
>
a

S

0

H
t7l
cn
H

cn
O
O

cn

O
O
J«

w

H

§

cn

W

w

w

z

w

Hi

o

pel

W
cn
cn

O

H
cn

>
f

ERIC

o

vD

59

o

00

4^

o

0

CO

>

cn

tte

rh

cr

0
0

0

cn

CD

ft

<

CD

CD

cn

Tables 18 and 1 9 detail the descriptive statistics and correlations
for the subsample with both writing tests and weekly progress data. Each
of the writing subtests was significantly correlated to the average daily
strokes on the typewriter, the average interest level and the average
knowledge level.

These data imply that it is impossible to separate the teaching of
reading and writing and that Wordpower has been effective in doing both.
The sober conclusion one is led to when reading the writing tests submitted,
is that an entire population of people exist within our city ghettos with
full potential for creative expression but they have been cut off because
of their inability to read and write. Any reading program serving this
group will do well to balance the reading instruction with practice in
effective writing.

ERIC

56 60

TABLE 18

i

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE SUDSAMPLE WITH
BOTH V.'RITIXG TES'.l' SCORES AND WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORTS
N= 197

Variable

Weeks in the program
Average cards per week
Average strokes per week
Average minutes per day
Intcrc st level
Knowledge level

Articulation

Mean
19.21

2.92
314. 04
23. 61
26. 27
23. 35
3. 16
3. 20

Standard Deviation
12. 06
.65
114,76
3, 17
3.89
. 5, 14

.87
.92

Direct questions
Filling out forms

3.48
3. 38
2. 68

.93
.94
1, 11

Mechanics
Comprehension
Sentence structure
Communication
Ability to use words
Flexibility

2.93
3.48
3. 06
3,41
3. 02
3, 16

,79
.99
.85
1, 05
.83
.91

TOTAL

3, 18

.89

ERIC

57

61

TABLE 19

CORRELATIONS liETV/EE:N WRITING TEST SCORES AND

N 197
Variable

WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORTS

Average Average Minutes
Weeks in cards strokes in the booth Interest

Knowledge

Division I proyram

per week

per week

per day

level

level

Grammar ~.

1 O -'•

16=;=

. 37=:^-

. 19-

. 31 =:==:=

. 30 =;=':=

Articii.i atlon

1 £5 -'•

- -. 15

. 37 =:==:=

.18=:=

. 32 =:==:=

. 30=:==;=

Division II

L 5 -•• ■••

-. 20=:=

. 32=;==:=

. 18=:=

. 30^==;=

. 28 ':==:=

r liiing oui lorms

1 Q •'-

15

. 31 =:=^=

. 12

. 28-=:=

. 27 =;==;=

Writing a summar/-.

083

073

. 36 =:==:=

. 19-

. 27 =:=^=

Division III

Mechanics

20=;=

-. 18=:=

. 40 =:==;=

. 23=:==:=

. 32 =:=*

. 32 =;==:=

Comprehension

16=:=

-. 15

. 34=:==:=

.16

. 27 =:==:=

. 27 =;==:=

Sentence structure-.

18=:=

14

. 36 =:==:=

. 17=;=

. 33=;==:=

. 31 =;==;=

Communication

18=:=

-.15

. 37 =:=^;=

. 19^=

. 32 ^=

. 32 ^==:=

Ability to use words-.

20 =;==:=

-. 17=;=

. 39=;=';=

.20=:= •

. 32 ':==:=

. 31 =;==:=

Flexibility

14

-. 13

. 35 =:==:=

. 16=:=

. 30 *=:=

. 28 =:==:=

TOTAL

18=;=

-.15

. 37 =:==:=

. 19 =;==;=

. 31 =:=

. 30 =;=

- P<.05 that X i ^
*=:= P^. 01 that r ?! 0

1*

ERIC

58 62

Chapter 7

THE RELAT ION B ETWE EN DEMOGRAPHTC CHARACTERISTICS
AND READ IN G AN D WRITING ABILIT Y

Tables 20 to 25 document the relationship between selected
demographic characteristics and the availability of reading materials in the
home, the encouragement received at home and the time spent reading out-
side the Center. The principal conclusions from these Tables are:

(1) wage earners did not feel they received as much encourage-
ment at home as non-wage earners

(2) males appeared to get more help with reading from their
families than females

(3) married students ielt they received more encouragement
from their families and spent more time reading outside
the program

(4) students from the Midwest or outside the USA (Spanish
speaking) were more likely to have reading materials
available in their homes

(5) Black students were mcJre likely to receive help in read-
ing from their familieso

Tables 26 and 27 show the correlations between writing test scores,

selected demographic characteristics and the home characteristics used in

the analysis above. The significant relationships observed were :

(1 ) writing ability was negatively correlated to age; i.e. ,

younger students did-better. This is probably due in part
to the more rigid maturity lev :1 associated with age.

(2) the availability of magazines and books in the home was
significantly related to writing ability.

This reemphasizes our conclusion that reading ability and writing
ability are integrally related.

Analyses of variance of writing test scores were performed for
the demographic and attitude categories used above. The significant findings
shown in Tables 28 to 39 were:

ERiC 59

TABLE 20

CROSS TAIU:LATfQ:\ ^VfT'; now PKRC: I':XTS F^KTWEEN SEX AXD SELECTED

H O M E C 1 1 A R A C T ] •■: n I S T I C S

Newspapers in the Home

YES

NO

NOT RESPONDING

Male

84

76.4%

26

23. 6%

7

Female

2 34
76. 5%

72

2 3. 5%

30

Magazines in the Home

YES

NO

NOT RESPONDING

Male

73

66. 4%

37

33. 6^"'

10

Female

219
72. 0%

85

28. 0%

32

ERIC

60

64-

TABLE 20 CONTINUED

Books in the Home

Not

YES NO Responding

Male 92 18 7

83.6% 16.4%

Female 254 51 31

83.3% 16.7%

Does yovir fan^iily help you with Reading?

Not

YES NO Responding

Male 48 55 14

46.6% 53.4%

Female 106 184 46

36.6% 63.4%

ERIC

«5

TABLE 20 C ONTINUED

Do they want you to t^et a head?
YES

Male 91

86. 7%

Female 266

88. 7%

Not

NO Responding

14 12
13.3%

34 36
11.3%

How much time do you spend reading outside of the Center?

Not

0-10 min. 10-20 min. 20-30 min. Responding

Male 65 28 12 12

61.9% 26.7% 11.4%

Female 201 83 15 37

67.8% 27.5% 5.0%

ERIC 66

TABLE 21

CROSS TAr.ULATOXS WITH RAW PERCENTS BETWEEN
MARITAL STATUS AND SELECTED HOME CHARACTERISTICS

Newspapers in the homo

No

Yes

Not

Re s ponding

Never married

12

30 %

28
70 %

2

Married

9

22 %

32
78 %

3

Divorced or Widowed

24
28 %

61

72 %

11

Magazines in the home

No

Yes

Not

Re spending

Never married

13

32, 5%

27
67. 5%

2

Married

11
27. 5%

29
72. 5%

4

Divorced or Widowed

27
3i. 8%

58
68. 2%

11

Books in the home

No

Yes

Not

Re spending

Never married

10
20. 5%

40
79.5%

3

Married

8

19.5%

33
80. 5%

3

Divorced or Widowed

13
15. 3%

72
84.7%

11

ErJc 63 6V

tabu: 21 CONTINUED

Does your family help y

ou with r

cading?

No

Yes

Not Responding

Never married

28
73.7%

10
26.3%

4

Married

24
63. 2%

14
36.8%

6

Divorced or Widowed

47

59. 5%

32
40. 5%

17

Do they want you to get

ahead?

No

Yes

Not Responding;

Never married

9

23. 1%

30
76.9%

3

Married

4

9.8%

37

3

xjivorceci or vviuoweu

11
13. 4%

71

86,6%

14

How much time do you

spend reading outside

of the

Center?

0-10 min. 10

-20

min.

20-30 min. Not Responding

Never married

28
73.7%

9

23.7%

1 4

Married

22
56.4%

13
33.

%

4 5
10. 3%

Divorced or Widowed

54
65.1%

23

27.7%

6 13
7.2%

ERIC

64

68

TABLE 22

CROSS TABULATIONS WITH RAW PERCENTS BETWEEN
REGION OF ORIGIN AND SELECTED HOME CIIiVRACTERISTICS

Newspapers in the home

REGIONS

Deep South

Middle South

East

Midwest

Far West

Out of U.S.A.

Yes

10

62. 5%

24

63. 2%

7

63.6%

28
82.4%

4

44.4%

25
75. 8%

No
6

37.5%

14
36.8%

4

36.4%
6

17.6%

5

55.6%

8

24. 2%

Not Responding;
2

1

0

5

0

2

Magazines in the home

REGIONS

Deep South

Middle South

East

Midwest

Far West

Outside of U.S.A.

Yes
7

43.8%

20
52. 6%

10
90. 9%

27
79.4%

5

55.6%

25
75.8%

No .
9

56. 3%

18
47.4%

1

9.1%

7

20.6%
4

44.4%

8

24. 2%

Not Responding
2

1

0
5
0
2

ERIC

65 69

TABLE 2Z CONTINUED

Docs your fanuly help you with the Reading?
REGIONS Yes
Deep South

Middle South
East
Midwest
Far West
Out of U.S.A.

Do they want you to get ahead?

REGIONS

Deep South

Middle South

East

Midwest

Far West

Out of U.S.A.

7

46.7%

16
48.5%

2

22. 2%

14
42. 4%

1

12.5%

14
45. 2%

Yes

13
92.9%

32
88.9%

9

90.0%

29
85. 3%

8

88. 9%

29
87.9%

No
8

53. 3%

17
21. 5%

7

77.8%

19
57.6%

7

87. 5%

17
24. 8%

No
1

7.1 %

4

11. 1%
1

10.0%

5

14.7%
1

11. 1%

4

12. 1%

Not Responding

3
6

6
2
6
1
4

Not Responding
4

3

1

5
0
2

ERIC

66 70

TABLE 23

CROSS TABULATIONS WITH ROW PERCENTS BETWEEN
ETHNIC GROUP AND SELECTED HOME CHARACTERISTICS

Newspapers in the home

Yes

No

Not Responding

Urban Negro

66

26

3

71.7%

28. 3%

Rural Negro

41

9

7

82. 0%

18.0%

White

26

17

8

60. 5%

39.5%

Spanish

69

17

10

t

80. 2%

19.8%

xyiagazines in ine nome

Yes

No

Not Responding

Urban Negro

33

17

7

66. 0%

34. 0%

Rural Negro

31

10

7

75. 7%

24. 3%

White

23

58

9

28.4%

71.6%

Spanish Speaking

60

26

10

69.8%

30.2%

Books in the 'lome

Yes

No

Not Responding

Urban Negro

44

6

7

88. 0%

, 12.0%

Rural Negro

36

5

7

87. 8%

12. 2%

Whi^e

69

13

8

84. 2%

15.8%

Spanish Speaking

66

19

11

76.6%

23.4%

67 71

TABLE 23 CONTINUED

Does your fcuiiily help yuu with roadinirV

Yes

Urban Negro

Rxiral Negro
White

Spanish Speaking

Do they want you to get ahead?

Urban Negro
Rural Negro
White

Spanish Speaking

33
68.7%

28
71.8%

31
38. 5%

35
42. 7%

Yes

42
84.0%

33
80. 5%

73
91.2%

63
90.0%

No

15
31. 3%

11
28. 2%

49
61.5%

47
57.3%

No
8

16.0%
8

19.5%
7

8. 8%
7

10.0%

Not Responding
9

9

10

14

Not Responding
7

7

10

13

How much time do you spend reading outside of the Center?

0-10 min. 10-20 min. 20-30 min.

Urban Negro
Rural Negro
White

Spanish Speaking

35
70.0%

33
82.5%

46
56.8%

9

61.2%

13
26. 0%

7

17.5%

32
39. 5%

27
33.8%

2

4.0%

3

3.7%
4

2%

Not Responding
5

• 7

9
13

ERIC

68 72

TABLE 24

CROSS TABI.'LATIOX WIT?^ ROW PERCENTS OF TIIE

relation s; '11^ i^ rn-wrEx tuk ro l e as pri\'arv

WAGE EARNER AND SELECTED HOME CHARACTERISTICS

Newspapers in tho Home

YES

NO

NOT RESPONDING

Not

Primary

Wage

Earner

171

80. 3%

42

19.7%

22

Primary

Wage

Earner

136
72.7%

51

27. 3%

13

Magazines in the Home

YES

NO

NOT RESPONDING

Not

Primary

W^age
Earner

155

7 3. 5%

56

26. 5%

24

Primary

Wage

Earner

124
66. 3%

63

33. 7%

13

ERIC

69 73

TAIVLE 24 CONTINUED

Books in the Ilomc

Not

YES NO Responding

Not

Primary 179 34 22

Wage

Earner 84.0% 16.0%

Primary 154 32 14

Wage

Earner 82.8% 17.2%

Does your family help you with Reading?

Not

YES NO Responding

Not

Primary 82 120 33

Wage

Earner 40.6% 59.4%

Primary 68 107 . 25

Wage

Earner 38.9% 6l.l%

ERIC 74

, .TABLE ?A CONTINUKD

Do they want you to get ahead?

Not

YES NO Responding

Not

Primary 197 15 23

Wage

Earner 92.9% 7.1%

Primary 149 28 23

Wage

Earner 84.2% 15.8%

How much time do you spend reading outside of the Center?

Not

0-10 min. 10-20 mm. 20-30 min. Responding

Not

Primary 137 55 l6 27

Wage

Earner 65.9% 26.4% 7.7%

Primary 118 51 11 20

Wage '
Earner 65.6% 28.3% 6.1%

ERJC 7> 75

TABLE 25

RAW SCO'.V'S A^y-Q PyWC-V^yVS V. V.T WF.K^ WV.TUOD OF REFFR RAL
AND SELECTED HOME CliARACTERISTICS

Newspapers in the home

Self

Man Power Agency

Magazines in the home

Self

Man Power Agency

Yes

155
76.4%

97
70.8%

Yes

136
67. 3%

114
72. 2%

No

48
23.6%

40
29. 2%

No

66
32. 7%

44
27.8%

Not Re spondins];
22

13

Not Responding
23

14

Books in the home

Self

Man Power Agency

Yes

171
84.7%

128
80.5%

No

31
15.3%

31
19.5%

Not Responding
23

13

Does you family help you with the Reading?

Yes

Self

Man Power Agency

70

36.5%

78
48.4%

No

122
63. 5%

83
51.6%

Not Responding
33

21

ERIC

72

7(i

.TABLE 25 CONTINUED

Self

Man Power Agency

Yes

175
87. 5%

134
87. 6%

No

25
12.5%

19
12.4%

Not Responding
25

19

How much tinic do you spend reading outside of the Center ?

0-10 min. 10-20 min. 20-30 min. Not Respondin*.

Self 135 48 14 ' 28

68.5% 24.4% 7. 1 %

Man Power Agency 98 47 10 17

98
63. 3%

47
30. 3%

10
6.4 %

ERIC

73 77

(1) students with newspapers and/or magazines and/or books in
their homes had significantly higher writing ability than
those without

(2) students at the Garfield Center were significantly higher in
writing ability than students at any of the other Centers

(3) primary wage earners were significantly lower in the ability
to use good grammar

(4) heads of households wore significantly more able to effectively
use grammar and significantly less able to communicate

(5) students referred by themselves scored uniformly higher in
writing ability

(6) Spanish speaking adults were less able to use proper grammar
and complete applications.

Finally, analyses of variance of reading test scores were
performed for the categories above. The significant findings shown
in Tables 40 to 47 were:

(1) the st-vidents who spent 10 - 20 mimites reading outside the
center every day progressed significantly more rapidly than
those who spent more or less time reading outside the center

(2) heads of household and primary wage earners were placed at a
significantly lower starting level than other students

(3) students at the Garfield Center have significantly higher reading
ability when entering any of the other centers

(4) women progress more rapidly during the program

(5) students receiving help at home are significantly lower in
reading ability when entering the program. It seems likely
that they sense their initially lower ability level and attempt
to compensate by receiving help at hom.e.

The results of tliis chapter show that many personal characteris
tics of students affect their progress in reading and writing ability. In
general the students with most responsibility need the most help and
receive the most help at home. Students with reading materials,
especially magazines and books, make significantly greater gains in
reading and writing than other students.

ERIC

74 78

vO

w

<

U

Oh
<

o
o

w

D

D
W
H
U

w
.J
w

CO

w

H
W

m

O
H

<:

w

p^;
pc;
o
u

H

w

H

O
H

o

W

p^;
o
u

CO

Q

<

U

H

w

H
U

Pi
<
X

u

CO

o

II

0)

•H

LA

u

U

o

u

1

o

cx

u

n

<^

H-l

0

Wj

u

0

u

c

d

ce

0

0)

• ri

CO

0

c;

0)

d

a

2

Q

0)

i-H

u

> D

o o

I— t I— t

I— t I— t

r r

O O

C!
O

U

0 <

o

CO in
o ^

CO vO fVJ CM CM CM
rH O i-H i-H i-H i-H

i I I t « I

O (M O

O P-H rH

in I— t vo vo vo

rH I— I f-H I— t I— t rH
I I I I .1 I

O

O
I

o

o

o

o

o

CO

o

o

CM

CO

CO

CO

CO

C!
O

• r-l
(0

cr

u

CO

a

u
o

o

a

CO

>

• l-l

Q

CO

u

• l-l

C!
u

O
CO

«

0)

a

O

U

0)

u

U

;^
u

CO

0)
U

0)
C!

o
u

a
a

o

U

0)

bo

CO

;^

u
o

>

• l-l

u

0)

r-l

in

o

CO
CO

H

W
H

<
o

o o

II li

u u

in I— t

o o

« •

w

ERIC

75 79

0)

• fH

V)
O

O C
CL O
CO (J

o

a

H

o

-H O

O O O O O

i-H i-H i-H O »-H rH

O

H
<

Pi
O

o

0

W

m
o

o

o

o
o

o

in CO o <Nj CO

CO T;t^ LO i-H (M

o o o o o o o

CO

<

ERLC

p

H

H
H
<

Z

w
w

W
PQ

CO

O
H

<:
»-]
w

o
u

<:

w
»— (

PQ

H

J?,

O

PL,

CO

W

o
u

CO

H
CO
W
H

O

Q

<

Q

<

V)

ti

a

r-H

0

o

.H

a

en ^

o

o o

0)

a

o

0

X

N

0)

0)

M

a

O

0

ap

o

o

o

CO

o

in in

CO CO

C

O

o

o

u

<

o

o

O -H

00

o

CO

o

o

o

O -H

CO

o

Q

I

I

oj in

CO

(\J 00 <\j

in

in o v£>

i-H CO

rsj i-H .-H

CO

00 ^

O »-H i-H i-H

CO

C £
O ^1

CO ^

cr ^

E
S

CO

.!2 o

•f CO

Q

CO

n

•H

a

(J

o

CO

c:

o

u
a

a

o

U

0)

u

u
u

CO

u

CI

o
c/)

c:
o

u

a

o
U

•

pH

f

bO

CO

0

•H

tiv

bil

J

0)

(I)

w

76

80

00

o

in

00

1^

rH

H

CO
W
H

Eh
0

H

o o

00

W
fQ

<:

oi
W
H

W

u

o
z
o

<:

w
M
CrJ
O
U

H
w

W

H

O
H

O

W
U

>

o
<

Z
<

0^

CO

(0

0
u

o

no

O

u

> Q

in

r-

o

l-H

CO

O

CO

CM

CO

in

o

LD

ro

Ln

LO

vD

vO

CM

00

o

CO

O

CO

l-H

i-H

l-H

f-H

l-H

l-H

l-H

O l-H

CO CO

o

CO

o

CO

CO

CO CO

d
O

U

U

CM CO
CO CO CM

O vO
CO CO CM

CM l-H

CO CO

CM

O

CO CO

00 ^« o

fVJ CO CO

CO l-H

CO CM CO

^ ^

CM CO CM

CO CM

CM

CO
CO

00

O

CO

00

t

CM

in

CO

O sO

T^J CO

o

in

CO

o

rO

CM

CO

d

o

>
Q

CO

d

0

CO
(U

cr

u
o

CO

6

0

0

d

s
s

CO

C

d
0

7)
>

P

CO

o
d

d
o

CO

d

ed

a,

a

0

U

u

U

u

CO

(U
U

d

C

o

CO

d

0

U

a

0

U

(0
U

o

>
u

WH

CO

o

CO

H

W
H

.J

H
O
H

NX

ERIC

77

81

K
<

W

^
H
W
CQ

CO

W
Pi
O

u

CO

H

CO

W
H

O
H

O
W

u

<

o

CO
CO

<

CO

W

H
O

Q

Z
<

CO

U
<

u

u
o
<:

0.

00

u

Li ^

0)
Li

\*

CM

00

O

00

LO

00

in

vO

o

ON

00

o

00

00

CO

00

r-H

CO

00

CO

LO

CO

00

o

P

o o

CO CO

CO CO
CO CO

L«

o

o

r-H

u

Li

CO
CO

00 O
CO 00

00 CO C> i-<

00 CO 00 CO 00 CO

LO

o

d
o

(n

cr"

u
u

CO

00

>>

u

w

fo ri

C/3

1^

05

0

d

d

+j

i-H

• iH

• iH

Hi.

O sO 00
CO CO CO

CO

d
o

p

u

•iH

d
u

d
o

d

(U
Li

Or

B

O

U

U
1^

(U
U

d
d

CO

CO

(I)

M
O

(U
>

•iH

U

0)

CO
CO

CO

H
CO

W
H

.J]

H
O
H

in
o

1^

ERIC

78

82

o

CO

W

<:

o

0

u

Z

H
W

0

o

<

w

o
u

H

W
H

O
H

ft:

o

w
u

<

>

C
»-(
>^

<:

CO

Cfj

•H

a.

•H

a

o
u

O
U

?^

M

ID

i-H

o

• H

(/)

>

o

u

a
s

0

o

CO CO

o ^

fO CO

\0 vO

• ■

CO CO

CO CO

CO

CO CO

o

I-H

CO
CO

in

in I-H

CO

CO sO
CO CO

0

•H

>
Q

00

• • .

CO ^

CO

CO

w \
O

•H

cn

cr

U
<D

00

CO

CO

cn

B

O

O

00

■

CO

CO

CO

CO ro

in

m

CO

CO
CO

00 CO o CO

CO CO CO CO

00

■

CO

>^
u

g
a

tn

• H

M

o

•H

>

p

■

CO

CO

en
u

u

^ 00
CO CO CO

00
CO

CO

ti
o

• H

V)

ti

o

o
u
a

s

o

u

CO
CO

CO

CO

u

M

en
(U

u
d

(U

o

CO

CO

ti
o

•H

u

•H

o

o

CO

CO

CO

in

CO

CO
CO

CO
CO

I

CO

«

CO

CO

CO

CO
vO

CO

o

CO

f

t

CO

CO
CO

u

0

(/]

H

0

■p

• H

(/5

>

l-t
• H

W

•H

H

ffec

lexi

<

W

O
f

Oh

<

w
w

O

a
o

H
W

:^

o
o

<

W

O
U
w

H

W
H

O
H

O

w

^-

>
o

CO

C/)
>^
h1

<\

o

> Q

w

CO

o

CO

CO

vD

O

o

in

vD

in

00

vD

00

in

on

CO

(V3

fO

fO

fO

m

m

CO CO

CO

u

g

U

O

in

CO

a
o

• H

u

• H

u

<

in CO

CO CO

(VJ

CO

in 00

fO (\J

CO >

CO CO ro

i-H O CO O «
(\J CO CO CO CO CO

O vO rH in I (VJ

CO CO ro CO CO CO

(VJ
CO

00 CO 00 «^
CO CO CO CO

CO

o
>

• H

a
o

•H

tn

u
o

u

6 E

° i

en

;3
o

>

cn

u

•H

an

c

0

u

• rH

Q

• rH

>

•H

Q

o

cn
C

U

o

U

U
0

u

0

u
cn

o
u
c

c

o

u
d

B

o
U

(0
0

o

>

U

H

W
H

<

H
O
H

• in
o

S/

ERIC

80 Si

n
H

W
W

H
W

m

CO

W

O
U

CO

H

(O

W
H

O

H

O
W

o

>

o

I— <

CO

<:

<

Pi
w
X

H

o

Q

Z
<

Q
.J
O

X

w

CO

o

X

w

H

o

Q
<
W
X

CO

«#,

*#v*

o

o

o

1— 1

00

o

i-H

CO

m

00

LO

n3

0

0

(0

0

X

0

0

(U

(A

:3

0

0

u

> Q

CO
CO

CO

o
rn

o

X! 0

^4

<

>

Q

00 LO O (NJ o

M CO (\j m (\j CO

nX) 00

CO

rs) vo

CO CO

(0

(0

a

O

• H

(0

cr

o §

CO CO CO CO

0)

u

U

4J

o
a

a
o

(/)
•H

>
Q

to
u

a

o

a
o

• H

(0

u
a

e

o
U

u
a

a
o

u
•i-i
a

a

o
U

CO

bo

(0
0

>

u

CO

,0

o

CO

<;

H

o

H

o o

• «

"V V

ERIC

81 8^

O

00

o

CO
CO

w

<

W

O
u

(/)
H

CO

W
H

O

O

w
u

>
O

CO
CO

V)

O
O

U)

U
H

<:

H

CO

<

H

<:

o
o

O

o

—I

0^

I— t

u
>

a
o

CO fO
CO fO

u

CO
CO

a
o

0
o

U
<

0

G

sD in

CO

CO

\0

CO

a
o

•H

(A
0)

u

0)

CO

a

O

q

00

u

a
a

(A

a

o \0 ro vD <— I CO
c^i CO CO CO CO

Q tj< ^

a

0

00

O
CO

(A
U

a

u

0)

LO

CO CO CO CO

CO

a
o

•H

(A

a
a

B

O

U

CO

o

a
a

CO

in

CO

a
o

• H

u

• H

o
U

ro

CO*

a

(A

M

0

^ >,

.t -

U -rH
(II >s

CO
CO

CO

CO

h
O
h

ERIC

82

80

CO

<

v/J
f*1

W

X

w

CO

00

cr^

(A

W

" — '

r_j

CO

w

u

H

rH

(TJ

CO

G

W

H

u

t«

0

w

u

<

<

>

0

>^

NA

<;

i-H

U

o

(f)
• r-(

>

D

o r-

CO CO

u

a

M

o

o

• H

u

M

<

vO 00

o
o

o

00
00

00

o

>

' r-l

D

CO

CO CO CO

LO »--t
CO CO CO

CO

o

CO

00
CO

(0

a
o

(0

u
u

en

a

O

O

0

>

Q

u

• i-i

u

cn
r!

M

a

a

o

0)

4-»

o

0)
(U

u
a

•g

CO

0)
O

>

u

vO

coco vOLnh- OvooOvOi-Hco co

coco cocoro cococococooo co

CO

H

W

H

<:

H
O
H

in
W

<

W

o
u
w

H

W
H

O

Pi

O
W

u

<:
>

o

>^
<

V)

W

H

O

Q

<

o

H

>
W

u
w

o

h

W
Q

H

to

H

CO

C/3

0

o o

in r-H

fS3 fV3

in o
1-1 I— I
■ •

> Q

fV3
CO

sO
CO

CO CO

u

a

o

d

0

u

• H

CO
CO

CO

(M CO

in

CO

CO

00

in

fV3

CV3

in
in

00

CO CO

fV3

(\3
CS]

CS]

O
CO

CM CM

CM CO

CO
0

CM

CO
O

CO CO

O
CO

o ^

CO CO

o

in

CO CO

CO

o

sO

CO

I— I
CO

O

CO

CO

>

tH

Q

(0

o

u

(U

CO

B

0

Id
0

I— (

•r^ 0

Q

(0

u
u

(U

0

•H

CO

d

(U

a,

a

0

U

0)

U
U

CO

(U

u
d

d

(U

d

0

«H

u

a

0

U

CO

M
0

>

U

(U

I— I

CO

CO

CO

h

w

h

h
0
h

ERIC

84 88

vO

CO

w
<

W
»5
O

o

to

H

W
H

0

H

O
W

u

<:
>

o

>^
<:
<

H
O

P

w

g

<

O
O

c

H

W
P

H

w
w

h

c .a

if)

c o

CO

rH 00

o o

CO

00

m

CO m

CO

CO

00

o

00

00

rs3

CO

sO

00 rs3 00 O O o

CO
00

CO CO

o
I— I

CO

CO

rs3

rs3

rH CO

CO

CO

CO CO

CO

00

rH CO

CO

CO

CO fS3

fS3

I— I

CO

00 rH

o

00

, CO

0

s

lat

u

• H

c

0

0

• H

7)

0

<

• H

>
• H

>

Q

P

CO

d
o

CO
(1)

u
(1)

CO
U

o

a
a

w
(4

C

CO

u
u

0)

o

CO

(1)

a

o
U

0)
M

U
0

CO

(1)
U

(1)
0)

o

Oj
U

g

O

U

oJ

CO

u
o

(1)
>

(1)

rs3

rH
O

CO

CO

W
H

<
H
O
H

LO rH
O O
• •

N/S/

ERIC

85 89

X

H
^
W
Q

H
w

W

w

H
W
PQ

w
W
ft}
O
U
w

w
W
H

O
H

o

W

u

CO
rvl

7)

W 4j

co

CO

o

sD

in

in

•

•

in

in

J',

ih
o
in

vO

CO
CO

CO (M o in vO sO

in in CO (M (M sO

O CO CO

CO in i-H

CO

sO Tt^ Tt^

in

ON

sO

o

NO

CO

CO

vO

in

00

CO

00

in

CO

in

00

o

vO

CO

CO

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

ft

•

•

•

CO

CO

CO

CO

(V]

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

o

0

00

o

00

in

if)

I-

c^

sO

o

O

CO

in

00

o

O

•

•

•

ft

ft

ft

•

ft

ft

ft

•

•

CO

fO

CO

CO

CO

CO

(M

CO

CO

<

<
>

O

w
in

<

«H

u

>

o

u

•H

a

ulal

a

u

0

0

U

♦ H

0

I vis

0

P

(0

o

•H

O

CO

a

4->

4J to
P U4

u

a
a

m

fcJO

>H

>

(0
U

•H

.a
u

0

• H

(0

d
a

a

o
U

0)
M

4-*

(0

u

W)

CO

n

u
o

>

H
c/)
W
H

<
H
O
H

in »-H
o o
ft ■

w

ERIC

86

90

00

W

<

in
W

O

u
w

H
w
W
H

O

1—4

H

I— I

O
W

u
<:

O

I— I
w

><
-I
<

o:

o

Q

<^

<:
w

o

X
H

<:

W

z

N
<

<

H

W

Q

H
w

u
w

H
W

(0

■(J

a o

(U

I-H

J!)

• H

O (VJ

00

00
CO

CO m

o

CM CO

o

o

in

O
CO

O

in

00

CO

CO

I-H CO

I-H I-H I-H

I-H

vO

00

I-H

CO

0-) (\3

CO m m m

in

CO

00

00
00

o

CM

00

00

CM

(Nj m (\j m (\j

ima

ulat

»— (

t!

u

a

0

0

u

w

0

(A

Div

Div

(0

d
o

• H

CO
0)

U
0)

u

a

o

o

u

U

>

• H
P

CO

u

• H

d

X
u

0)

0

• H

w
d

0)

a

O

U

0)

?l
<M
U

U

CO
0)

u
a

CO

o

• H

u
d

t

o
U

(U

bo

CO

u
o

>

• H

u

0)

4J

0)

O

CO

o

00

H
in
W
H

<l
H
O
H

4'f

ERIC

87 91

w

H

W
P

H
to

W
W

^
H
W
W

w

O

u

to

H
to
W
H

O

z

H

l-H

Pi
O

w
u

<:

Pi
<
>

o

to
t— (
to

>^

<:

CO

H
O

Q
W

o

H

<

H

w

w
o
<

O
U

4^
w

w
>

l-H

w
u
w

O

00

n
c/)

c o

C)

f-H

>H

> Q

CO

in

CO

CO

CO

in

*-H

O

o

o

o

o

»-H

o

o

i-H

o

o

o

O

o

00

(VJ

in

rH

in

CO

O

l-H

in

o

in

1-H

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CM

ro

ro

ro

ro

CO

fO

CO

rH

in

r-H

O

00

CO

o

CO

o

(M

rH

CO

CO

CO

CO

CM

CM

CO

CO

CO

ro

CO

ro

O

c5
o

h u (-

<

• H
P

CO

o

• H

(0

U

0)

Q

0)

o

o

o

(0

a

B
u

0)

u
u

(0
0)

u

Cj
0)

u
o

> m

w h

H

CO

H

H
O
H

ERIC

88

vStudents at the Garfield Center show significantly higher acliievement in
reading and writing than those attending the other Centers^ This may be
due, at least in part, to the student library provided at Garfield, and unavail-
able at the other Centers, Providing a library with the Wordpower program
may be a vital factor to stimulating students to working on their own.

ER?C 8, 911

o

W

PQ
<

CO

W
H

W

u
o

o
<:

CO

W

a
o
u

CO

H

CO

W
H

O

»-«
Q

<:
w

o

w
u

<:

>
O

CO

»-i

CO

<

<

CO

CO

h1

U

o

TO -H

o

in

vO

00

CO

sO

00

•

•

•

•

o

CM

o

o

o

LD

0)

CO

CO
CM

cn

in

CO

in

O

CO CO

< ^

CO

CM

CM

O

CO

in

CO

p.

cn

o

V
(0

CO

c;

CO

O

o

CO

'J

+J

CO

to

»H TO
• H

bJD
O pC)

u a

^ p.

a

w
-I

<

H
c/)
W
H

0

Q
<
W

o

w
u
z
<

>
O

t-H

>^

<

w
oi

H
O

O

o

H
<

Q
W
O
<
Pi

O
U

w

w
H

W
Q

H

W
W

^
H
U

U
Pi
O

u

in
ti

00

4J

4} c

C/)

u

o

o

CO

CM
■

ro

r ^

CO

co

>

s §

VU >

in

00

o
o

ro

»-H

CO

ro

0)
>

A

M
O
0

cq

4-)

CO

0)

4J

V)

0

ERiC

91 95

w

<

H
^
W
Q

H
Z

w
w

H
W
fO

c/)
W
Pi

o
u

c/)

H
w
W
H

O
W

o

w
u

<
>

O
w

>^

<

p.
w

o

y-,

I — «

>

W

u

w

H

o
w

w
O

H
Q

<
W

0

X

H

<;
w

0

^:

u

w

-X-

•X-

-X-

CO

co

CO

r-

fo

CO

1—1

•

•

•

•

•

o

1— <

1— <

O

o '

2

w a

41^ C

u
o

in

•

in

CO

00
t

CO

in

CO

•

u

Oh

H 0,
c/5

a

rH

P.

(0

o
H

<:

(0

o

P.

0)

bn

to

to

u
o

o
to

to

o
u
to

to

rO

to

o

O rC!

o

ERIC

92

9G

CO

W
X

w

w
w

H
W

PQ

CO

W
Ci^

O

u

CO

H

CO

W
H

O

P
<
W

O

w
u

<

CO

(0

u
o

(0

^4

.2

o

00
CO

sO
CO

00

in
cn

CO

in

00

o

00

00

in

o

00

CO

00
CO

CO
CO

CO

CO

o o

CO

<

CO
t— I
CO

>^

<
<

CO

<

CO

>

1%

CO

in

(0
^4

o

CO

O

CO

CO

0)

>

0)

o
o

CQ

CO

0)
+^

o

p.

in
o

ERIC

93

97

CO

00

M

O
O

in vo

t •

W
<

CO

W
X
H
O

Q

<:

CO

W

Pi
<
W

w
o
<:

<

Pi

^4

CI

u

W
a;

s

• r-l

O

in
to

CO
CO

C/3

0) =tfc
CO

in

o

ro

00

00

si

ft s

•H

c

O

(0
O

CO

CO

CO

o
o

cq

to

o

p.

>

>

1— 1

(U

U

bJO

to

to

<u

o

o

0

to

O

to

+J

to

+J

(U

to

0)

to

to

C!
0

a

• f-4

•H

d

a

0

a

u

u

bX)

03

u

M

0

ERIC

94 98

CO

CO

CO

IT)

CO

o

O

o

.-4

If)

W
►J

<

CO

W
O

u

H

CO

W
H

O

Q
<
W

O

w
u

<;

I— I

O

CO

»— I

(O

<

W
O

H
<

P
<
W
o5

H

CO

W

W
H

05
O

• H

B

o

CO

I

O

• H

o

I

O

s

o
o

0)

• H

u

sO

CM
CO

CO

(O

00

i-J CO

O
00

>

E8

U ^

• H

CO

i

o

CM

sO 00
• •

r-< O

CO
CO

H
d

fq

CO

:^
0

CO

00

CO CO

CO CO

CM
CO

CO CM

o
o

CO

a;

CO

>

CO

(U

o
u

CO

CO
CO

d
o

o
u

in

o o t:j
• • u
WO

^ ^

>

bo

CO
0)

(U

o
u

1^
o

CO

CO

(U

CO

•H

E

p.
u

ERIC

95 99

o

CO

00

sO

CO

(NJ

CO

o

h

W3
W

o
u

H

CO

W
H

O

l-H

Q
<
W

Ui
O

W

u

<

l-H

O

CO
t—i
CO

<
<

CO

O

Pi
O

CO

<
H

<
H

<
0

c

^2

>

in

CO

O
CO

U

CO CO

H a.

CO

rH l-H

to

•

CO

(0

CO

CO

CO CO

0)
>

o
o

pq

W
(U

(0
O

rH >

J>

•X^ Jh

;h

bo CO

(0

u

o o

Jh cj

O CO

a

(0 -y

^ (0

(0 W)

o 5

•H re

*s a

o 'O
^ ^ ^

ERIC

100

w

pq
<

w

w
pcj
o
u
w

H

CO

w

H
O

Q

<:
w

o

w
u
^;
<:

<:
>

o

CO
*-i
CO

<

<

u
o

O

S a:

<^ o

^4

6

in

CO

CO

sO

in

CO

CO
CO

CO

CO

o
o

in

in

00

>

il

rH

in

CO

o

CO

o

CO

o

CO

o

<

CO

=Jfc

<

CO

CO

CO

(U

o
o

CO

o
o

CO

4J

CO

CO

(U

CO

o

• H
4J

• H

o
u

0)

in
o
. u

(0

s

ERiC

" 101

CHAPTER 8
HOW CO ST ] .. FF TXTIVE IS WORD POWER

When analyzing the effectiveness of Wordpower, it is. difficult,
if not impossible, to balance the human values, and the costs. Although
this section examin'^s the important cost characteristics of the program,
it must be kept in n^iind that Wordpower had to absorb start up costs,
recruit a full staff and develop the full operational plan during this period.
Undoubtedly costs are decreasing as the program progresses.

To establish a basis for the analysis reading gains vvere related
to significant student characteristics. Multivariate analysis of covariance
was used to test group differences in reading achievement due to the
program and the results are included in Table 48,

There were no statistically significant group differences for the
initial sample. This result is important (in a backwards way) because
it shows that the program is equally effective for men or women, wage
earners or non-wage earners, students referred by themselves, or
other agencies, and those employed or unemployed. The Wordpower
method appears to work equally well for any group of disadvantaged
stude nts.

Tables 9 and 10 contain the data available for 93 individuals who
were tested twice during their participation in the Wordpower program.
Four bases can be used to determine the cost per unit of student progress
in the Wordpower program.

The Stanford Achievement Test is a well-known standardized
instrument with Word Recognition and Paragraph Meaning subtests. The
instrument which has been carefully normed for first and second grade
youngsters is at best limited when testing Wordpower students (at worst,
it is totally inadequate). The SAT is used primarily out of default, since

ERIC

98 102

TABLE 48

MULTIVAR IA TE ANALYSIS OF COVAJIIANCE OF THE
PERFORMANCE OF VARIOUS WORD POWER GROUPS

Criterion Variables:

Covariables:

Word Recognition Posttest, SAT Paragraph
Meaning Posttest, and Sullivan Posttest Book Level

Word Recognition Pretest, Paragraph Meaning
Pretest, Initial Placement Level, cuid Hours in
the Program

Sox

Female means

Male means

Adjusted contrasts
( male s- female s )

Word Recognition
Po st-te st

3.775

4.815

. 237

Univariate F ( 1,59 ) 2. 369
Multivariate F ( 3, 57)

Wage Earners vs. Non-Wage Earners

Word Recognition
Post-test

Non-wage earners, 3.862
me ans

Wage earners, means 4.145

Adjusted contrasts .107
(wage - non wage)

Univariate F (1. 75 ) 1. 024

Multivariate F ( 3,73 )

Paragraph Meaning
Po st-test

3.300

4.462

.269

3. 293
1.443

Paragraph Meaning
Post-te st

3.464

3.581
.06

. 305
.491

Sullivan
Post-te st

7.167

7.491

.257

.698

Sullivan
Post-te st

6.718

6.310
.172

.430

ERIC

99 103

TABLE 48 CONTINUED
Method of Referral

Word Recognition
Post-test

Self referral means 4,070

Other referral means 2,947

Adjusted Contrasts .226
( self-others )

Univariate F (1,51) 3,320

Multivariate F ( 3, 49 )

Barriers to Attendance

Word Recognition
Post -test

No barriers, means 3,769

Barriers means 4, 244

Adjusted contrasts ,028
( no barriers vs. barriers)

Univariate F ( 1,59) . 039

Multivariate F ( 3, 57 )
Labor Status

Word Recognition
Post -test

Unemployed, means 4,137

Employed, means 3,731

Adjusted contrasts , 363

(employed -unemployed)

Univariate F ( 1, 55 ) , 556

Multivariate F (2, 53)

Paragraph Meaning Sullivan
Post-test Post-test

3.530 6,400

2,782 6.000

.016 .162

.015 ,235
1,4333

Paragraph Meaning Sullivan

Post -test Post -test

3,288 6,510

3,700 6,438

.006 .309

.002 ,876
, 332

Paragraph Meaning Sullivan
Post-test Post-test

3,778 6,656

2,990 6.586

.088 ,248

1.186 .569
.610

ERIC

100 io<|

no adequate standar di/.ed test for adults or disadvantaged students is
available.

Perhaps the bebt available measure of achievement in this
program is the actual advancement made by students in terms of the
reading material. Since the program is constructed in a progravrimed
instruction format and students must cover and master a prescribed
amount of material in order to progress from one unit to another, this
may be the most reliable and valid measure of actual adult achievement.
The SAT scores, unfortunately, require reference to a population of white
middle class children, a group essentially irrelevant to Wordpower.

As shown in Table 9, the mean hours for a two -grade -level
achievement gain is 50. 17 on the average for the SAT and only 34.4
ai3 measured by progress in the Sullivan program.

The best estimate of the number of student sessions possible
is 25 per day per machine, since a student spends an average of 20
minutes per day on the machine, and that the centers are opened a
minimum of twelve hours per day. Since there are a total of 20
machines available at the four urban progress centers, 5 00- students
can attend the Wordpower program at any one time.

The records of actual attendance in the program are available
in Tables 49 through 52, Each of the Wordpower Centers has operated
c^onsiderably below the maximum figure. The Garfield Center has an
average weekly attendance of 223. 1 sessions out of a possible 500,.
the Montrose Center has an average of 240. 9 weekly sessions out of
a possible 750, the Lawndale Center has an average of 177. 6 weekly
sessions out of a possible 500, and the King Center has an average of
269. 9 weekly sessions out of a possible 750. Combined, the four
Centers average 91 !• 5 out of a possible 2, 500 sessions that students
could be attending, for an overall efficiency rating of 36.64%. Since
Wordpower is an experimental demonstration program not providing

ERiC

loi 105

108

o

(0
(0

CO

o
c!

ii

ERIC

u

ERIC

O
O

o

o

00

o

o

vO

o

o

o

CO

o

N

(0

o

0)

u

o

o
o

o

o

\0

o
o
in

0

H

o

CO nd ^
c

0

o
o

o
o

N

O
O

113 117

stipends or even carfare to students, 36% may not be a bad batting
average. In fact it probably is unreasonable to expect a program
operating under these conditions to operate at more than 50 % efficiency.

There are several reasons for the under-attendance. The
Wordpower machines are concentrated at too few sites. Conceivably,
each of the sites could operate with half the machines they now use, and
serve the same number of people. Decentralization is a must to
establish a respectable level of efficiency.

The reflections of the staff as shown in Table 7 indicate they
believe it is important to find away of better advertising the program,
incorporating an incentive to motivate the students to good attendance.
The recruitment program, using only Community Respre sentatives,
has failed to put Wordpower across. As it now functions Project
Outreach employs Community Representatives who go out into the community
and refer individuals to all of the programs and services being offered
at the Urban Progress Center. Since this service has failed Wordpower,
an auxiliary recruitment procedure or advertising will have to be
developed to reach prospective students. In one case*^-an enthusiastic
student recruited over 40 people. It may be that students like this
one may be the answer to recruitment problems.

If we now introduce some other totals, it is possible to
estimate the cost effectiveness of the Wordpower program. The cost
of the Wordpower program has been approximately $35, 000 per month.

Projectiug 34. 4 student hours per two-grade-level achievement
(the Sullivan figure )and assuming a two-grade -level gain as the basis
for measuring, we can make two cost estimates. The first reflects
the projected cost per student if the program were running at peak
efficiency, and the second projects the cost per student as the program
is now functioning.

In the efficient case, it would be possible to expose the students

ERLC

114 118

for a total of 833 hours per week, or a gain of 48. 43 grades per week,
193. 72 per month. Dividing the monthly figure into the total expenditure
of $35, 000 per month gives an average cost per student of $180.67 per
grade -level in gain — ($361. 34 per two-grade -levels gain).

In the situation to date the Centers are used for approximately
303. 8 hours per week, or a gain of 17. 66 grade- levels per week
{ or 70. 64 per month). When this figure is divided into the $35, 000
per month total, the average cost per student is $495. 47 per grade-
level increase or $990. 94 per two-grade-level increase.

It is difficult to establish comparative data since no existing
program has reached the population Wordpower serves. A somewhat
comparable program is run by the University of Chicago Lab School
using individual teachers with students in a one-to-one relationship.

Their rule of thumb for progress is twenty hours per grade-
level improvement, or a total of forty hours per two»grade-level

«

improvement. Our best estimate indicates Wordpower accomplishes
this same gain in 34. 4 hours, 86% of the time, with a much more
retarded group of students. For the University of Chicago program to
compete with the efficient Wordpower estimate, it would be necessary
for the tutoring program to operate at a cost of slightly more than $9. 00
per hour per student hour. This $9. 00 wc aid have to pay for the
individual tutor, the books and materials used^ the materials consumed
by the student, and the overhead to keep the program running. This,
of course, includes nothing for development of new reading materials
or establishing a study area center where students could re -work the
material covered during their daily lesson.

In conclusion, therefore, the results of this section indicate that
Wordpower can be cheaper, in the long run, than alternative methods
of teaching reading. Unfortunately, problems in recruitment and over-
centralization have caused Wordpower to operate at only 36% efficiency.

ERIC 115 119

Once fewer machines are put at more sites, and an auxiliary recruitment
program is instituted, Wordpower will be cost competitive with the best
reading programs, none of which have been successful in reaching the
severely retarded disadvantaged adult.

116

120

CHAPTER 9
BEYOND THE STATISTICS

New Material for Adults

To aake the program more relevant to adult interests and to provide ^'
materials at the seventh and eighth grade levels, the Wordpower research staff,
under the direction of Mr. John Hurst, an eminent authority on Basic Adult
Education, have adapted materials to supplement the child oriented Sullivan
reading program. The research staff is now in the process of programming
thirty stories from Mr. Hurst's fascinating series, "And So the Story Goes."
Each story in the series is an interesting but little known experience in the life
of a famous writer, statesman or scientist. The stories are being programmed
using a unique "speeded" method of presentation developed by Hearst for the
"Talking Typewriter", which reduces the response time of the Typewriter by
two thirds, enabling students to advance through the program at an accelerated
rate. While the story unfolds, students in the booth read, spell, and pronounce
keywords in the lesson. After the booth session, the Study Area Specialist
goes over the story with the student in a reader, which reveals the identity of
the famous figure.

The effort invested in this new programming returns in two ways. First,
it improves the overall quality of the Wordpower program, and second, it pro-
duces a set of outstanding adult materials available for future adult reading pro-
grams. IDI submitted a detailed critique of previous programming efforts and
methods for the Wordpower research staff (the details of which need not be re-
iterated here) but this newest effort with Mr. Hurst which has not proceeded
sufficiently to permit an evaluation, promises to be a giant step forward.

Case Histories of Wordpower Students

When evaluating a program like Wordpower, which helps people in the
lowest economic strata, statistics do not really tell the story. They never fully
describe the importance of the ability to read to a disadvantaged adult. To

uv 121

honestly measure the value of the program, we tried to find out what it has
meant to the students, not just to the IBM cards.

In the section that follows, we have included several short summaries of
the more than 70 case histories we have on file of individuals who have directly
benefitted from Wordpower.

One lady came to Wordpower to improve her spelling, pronunciation,
and vocabulary, because she had failed several qualifying exams for clerical
work. After completing the program, she reported that her improvement in
reading and writing made it possible for her to become a typist with Alden, Inc.

A young woman entered Wordpower to improve her educational fut\ire.
After many hours of hard work and diligent study, she went on to receive a high
school diploma. She is now enrolled in an I. B.M. ti^aining school.

After two months of regular attendance in Wordpower, a woman was able
to significantly increase her reading level. Later, she told the staff that her
reading progress had made it possible fo2> her to get a job as a clerk for a print-
ing firm.

A woman entered Wordpower because she knew her deficiencies in
grammar, reading and writing held her back. Through Wordpower program and
her own determination, she has been able to find a rewarding job.

A young woman was unable to write her name when she entered the program.
After several lessons, she could write well enough to correctly fill out a job
application, In this way, Wordpower helped her to find her first job.

A high school student who experienced difficulty in reading and writing
enrolled in Wordpower, After attending the program, he substantially improved
in his communication skills. He became so enthusiastic about the ^'Talking Type-
writer" that he purchased a typewriter of his own to help himself with his home-
work. Wordpower has helped this young man raise his academic ambitions.

Thrc^ young men came to the Wordpower program under Project Alter-
native, a program which gives men convicted of misdemeanors the opportujnity

ERLC

118

1 9^>

JL ^ twi

to complete their education while serving their sentences, and find gainful
employment when released. Their progresf 'n Wordpower enabled them to
pass the entrance exam to the Washburn Trade School, They now attend
classes in electronics, carpentry, and plumbing,

A woman who was totally illiterate when she came to Wordpower,
succeedec in completing the program and now can read and write proficiently.
She now feels more confident in carrying out household chores and shopping
for her family.

Upon entering Wordpower, an unemployed young man was reading at
the 2nd grade level. After working in Wordpower, he increased his reading
level to the fifth grade. As a resixlt, he is now employed at Goodwill Industry,
and reads the newspaper daily.

The Chicago area has many senior citizens who never received an ad-
equate education, Wordpower is a "last cheince" for many of these people to
learn to read. An elderly lady, totally illiterate when she entered Wordpower
progressed through a year of hard work. Her crowning achievement came
the day she was able to write a letter to her family in the South. She joyfully-
thanked the Wordpower staff for her new found ability to communicate,

A man entered the program because he was not able to pass the GED
exam. By attending Wordpower he improved sufficiently to qualify for GED
classes,

A high school graduate employed at Cook County Hospital as a nurses'
aid, entered Wordpower with a 4th grade reading level. She attended classes
for three months and progressed sufficiently in reading to pass the Licensed
Practical Nurses' reading exam. She is now enrolled in L, P, N, training
classes.

One young man had an intense desire to read when he came to Wordpower,
He was always struggling through a current novel by a black author, or civil
rights leader, and yet, he read below the 4th grade level. Through extensive
vocabulary drills and special assistance in comprehension given him in Word-
power, his reading ability increased sufficiently to enable him to enter General

ERIC

119 123

Educational Development (GED) classes.

A Spanish speaking woman who had lived in the United States for
thirteen years, wanted citizenship, but was uncertain of her English.
After progressing in the Wordpower program, she became a U. S. citizen
and expressed her appreciation to the staff. As a result of her experienre,
she is hoping to work at the Urban Progress Center and help others as she
was helped.

A young man from Cuba came to Wordpower to improve his English,
so that he could get a better job. When the Wordpower staff learned that he
was interested in printing, he was referred to printing classes as well. He
now works for the same employer, has shorter hours, and makes consider-
ably more money.

One man who entered the Wordpower program could not carry on a
conversation in English. In Wordpower he improved rapidly, and got a sig-
nificant promotion at work.

A young woman who was attending. GED classes felt that she would fail
the GED tests because of her poor reading skills. She enrolled in the Woid-
power program and successfully passed the GED test.

A young woman speaking practically no English completed the Wordpower
program. She has been promoted to receptionist-typist at an insurance agency
because of her bilingual abilities.

A young man with a 3rd grade reading ability who wanted to enroll in the
Board of Educat ion Adult Education Classes enrolled in Wordpower. After
diligent study, he raised his reading level to the 6th grade level and has en-
rolled in an Adult Education Program.

A young woman who was working as a waitress because she was not able to
read and write effectively, found she was not able to sufficiently support her
family, nor could she move on to a better job. She enrolled in the Wordpower
program and improved her reading and writing sufficiently to qualify for the
Graduate Education Diploma classes. She is presently employed by the U. S.
Treasury Department and her salary has increased by more than 150 per cent.

ERIC

120

A young man from St, Louis came to the Lawndale Urban Progress
Center looking for a job. He wanted to earn enough money to return to St.
Louis and re-enter school there, hut was unable to find a job because of
his poor reading, spelling, and diction. During the year and a half he
fpent in the Wordpower program, his reading ability doubled, and he was
able to pass the entrance exam to the Marine Corps. He is now serving his
country in uniform.

Another young woman, presently enrolled at Malcolm X College, had
tried to become a practical nurse. She failed her exam twice, and found it
was due to her lack of reading skills. She enrolled in Wordpower, and through
regular attendance, hard work and encouragement, she ha§ significantly in-
creased her reading level, and is now moving on to a teaching career.

Another youi.g woman was unable to distinguish among the letters of the
alphabet when she first enrolled in the Wordpower program. Through her
work in the program, she not only has learned to read, but has also become
proficient in typing. She is now employed by the Model Cities Program here
in Chicapo.

A young w'cman who believed that her employment opportunities were
severly limited because of her poor education and her low reading ability,
enrolled in the Wordpov/er program to raise her income. After months of
hard study^ she began typing. She became so good that she is now employed
with the Garfield Neighborhood Community Center as a community representative.

A young girl who entered high school with a reading level below the 3rd
grade was faced with the problem of having to drop out. She enrolled in the
Wordpower program when she discovered she could not find a job. During the
summer she more than doubled her reading level, and now plans to return to
school to finish her high school education.

Our files contain many more examples of other students who have been
directly helped as a result of Wordpower. But beyond this, we cannot begin
to estimate how many people went on to better jobs or educational opportunities
without telling the staff. The important point of this chapter is that Wordpower

has helped people in a very direct and porsonal way > Some people are able
to get into another educational program, others to learn a trade, get a
better job or improve doing daily chores. All had their lives enriched, an
outcome not measiirable in dollars and cents, or grade levels, but in the
pride and satisfaction the students continue to experience.

ERIC

122 120

CHAPTER 10
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This section is devoted to the formidable task of summarizing
all the results presented in the previous chapters.

It is apparent that Wordpower meets an important need in ghetto
communities. There are many people who are concerned (and under-
employed ) because of their inability to read and write. Many l:dve a
history of academic failure and could not participate in a traditional
reading program. All are grateful for the help Wordpower gives.

As was anticipated, writing was shown to be intimately related
to reading. The obvious implication, a good reading program should
make provisiqns for writing as a concommital skill, Wordpower
would do well to explore the potential of this idea.

The Chicago Committee on Urban Opportunity is in the process
of revamping the Wordpower concept. The program will be altered to
serve at least twice as many Centers, placing just two machines at
each location, Wordpower will be coordinated with other training
programs like **Touch Typing'* and stipends will be provided to
encourage regular attendance. This new development for Wordpower
answers the major problems identified in this report. Recruitment
will be improved since Wordpower will be tied to other on-going
programs. Attendance will be improved since students will receive
financial incentives. The focus of the program will be decentralized.
It will serve more people as well as increasing its efficiency.

Perhaps, most important, it will continue to help people in
the ways outlined by the ^'success stories'^ of Chapter 9. It will
continue to serve as a stepping stone to help students move on to new
educational and occupational goals* Wordpower will continue to be

ERIC

123 127

ah important program for reaching disadvantage adults because it
offers more flexibility than traditional tutoring or classroom
techniques and insures the privacy and freedom from embarrassment
necessary to instill confidence and security^

124 128

APPENDIX I

FORMS AND PROCEDURES

125 129

SECTION 1

FORMS USED BY THE WORDPOWER STAFF

126

130

Revised

September 1969

1 . Kar;;D

A, Stare Date
8. Dace of. Lxruh

2. Aciclrciss

5. Telephone a\o,

6. Social Security Ko.

3. Proiile Number !

9. Handicapneci
No

V/.. 0ccupaci0'a3i Co:il

Not consistantiy
reported.

7 . Sex

7a iG
"Female 1

10* Milirary Service Status
^Veteran
R ejectee
^Other Non-Vet

13. ?ri:ri'iry vla'^c 14. Head of Family

fcarucr

"No

iC.

or Household
Yes

r/.

(e-ivc-. title be lev;)

No

Job Title

19, Tj/cIc Las t JoS"

21.

j^*^. i^ciDvir Sr.j-tu:^ /-L Tir.-.^i Iri^*.::; viewer j ?5. AOierrod by

Zr.^y^cyy::, (no: uridc/err.^uoyou) j

Jonc o-*\);..;> 1 oy ud j

No c ir. ; ••b s:i^' /ore e - ivi ch oo 1 !

11. Marital Status
N ever Married
M arried
^ Divorced
Widov;/er

15. Check Oae

A m. Indian

^ _K er>ro

Oriental

Other

Not

i^jl ^^.^ rOrCili

vO tuC r /

CH Outreach

Job Corps
uTi ion
rjv.yloyer
So.',.:-

Vol faro

^0 the r Co:.v.vun i ty*

O k O Li J J j

^School I
Otber

ERIC

131

pa^e 2

BEST COPY

26. Lan^o.a,.;e Spoi.ou in uoive

Knv>lisU

^^^^ SprTsnlsh
. , Ochar (spocify)

2V, Lent:rh oi Keaiueiicc
in Chiccijio

29. Blrcliplc.N^e
City

State

3 ^

30. J^cngth of Sesidcnce
in Birthplace

33.

AO. Additional Co;v«uants

^o. Number oc Rosidancc*
Changes within last
two years

31, Last Year in Schoo!
19

34. Library Cdrd
^Ye.s

35. Driver's License
^

36. Kear.on for Leaving School

^ ^Crc'iduaLlcn

rro;:'.naacy
Is'ork

^ Dir,c"i.plin;:ry

^^A""^- Credos

^ Other

^ jr - - -

37. Dis Lance froai the
V/or,d power Site

Blocks

39. Barriers to Atteaoini; Class

3S. Reason for Applica-
tion

Rec>d for Recreation
^__Eniplo>T::int: Oppor-
tunity
Read Everyday Material
^Other

1

ERIC

132

ci-N-ri;i< N.\Mi:_

SimMlTTIll) i\\

DA'I'M

KNKOI.I.F!' TKST SCOKKS

KNROl.I.FF, NAMK
Startcdj

Tniti.'il Test in?',
Stanford Achievement Test (SAT)

Score

Test
Form

WR or M
PM

Reading Placement Exam
(Sullivan)

2nd Mistake in Book #

Machine Level Book //

2nd Testing after

Machine flours

Stanford Achievement Test (SAT)

Test
Form

Score

WR or M
PM

Reading Placement Exam
(Sullivan)

2nd .Mistake in Book # ^
Machine Level Book

3rd Testing after

Test
Form

Stanford Achievement Test (SAT)

Score

WR or M

PM

Machine Hours

Reading Placement Exam
(Sullivan)

2nd Mistake in Book //

Machine Level Book #

ERIC

Ath Testing after

Test
Form

Stanford Achievement Test (SAT)

. Score

or N

PM

^^Nol. less thnn 20 liours

Machine Hours

Reading Placement Exam
(SulJ ivan)

2nd Mistake in Book //

133

Machine Level Book //

CCUO-71/.-WP-2/2V/0

CCUO OPERATION WORDPOV'ER
INITIAL TKSTIKG REPORT

N^me

2« AddiTCiSS

3# Profile Number

Sex

Male

5. Age

6, Dv^te Teiited

Sullivcin Placement
Test Results

Female

Level

Applicant Accepted into

Primary I

Intermediate I

Pro

Prirniiry II

Interraediate II

Date to Start

Applicant Rejected

Score

Form

Reason

10. Further Action T^ken (For Applicants Rejected)
_Rcferred to UPC-GED Class
Referred to UPC Adult Education Class

Referred to Urban Life Division

Other ReferraKr^pecify)

No Referral Made(explain)

!!• Result of Referral Date

12* Completed by

Center

Date

CCi;0-637-'.vT-6-lO-<;9
O iscnrch Divlaion - E?

ERIC 1 34

CHICAGO COMMITTF.E ON URBAN OPPORTUNITY
OPERATION WORDPOWER

Follow-Up Report

1 . Name

2. Address

3, Telephone

4. Profile Number

5. Start Date

6. Days Absent

7. Date Initiated

7. Follow-Up Attempts:

Mo

Dy

Yr

Mo

Dy

Yr

Mo

Dy

Yr

9. Reason For Absence:
rjf Illness
/ / Family Care Needed
/ / Child Care Needed
/ / Found Employment
/*T Enrolled in Training

Yes (complete 9 and 11)
No (complete 10 and 11)

J Not Interested

/ Disliked Procram

_/ Transportation

/ Schedule Unsuitable

7 Other

10. Failure to Contact:
/ / Moved

/ / No Such Address
rj Not At Address
rj Building Demolished
/~ Other

11. Comment on Absence or Failure To Contact:

12. Will Enrollee Pveturn?

• £7 Yes (Date

£7 No

14. Completed By:

Title:

Center: ^ ^

Date:

13. Final Status:

/ / Enrollee Returned on
/ / Enrollee Dropped on

Total Days Absent

15. Approved By:

Title:

Date:
Date:

CCU0-6VJ-v;F Revised 8/25/69

ERLC

135

FKKFAUKD 3Y

Week of

CHICAaO COVMITTEH Oil URr AN OPPOUTUIIITY

oiTifAVTo:: v;oiiL^:-'o;;i;R ^ tfJ^

W]:kkly activity ukfout ^

ATTiuimAiicK i:;:Ow:;ATio:i

A. IMTAKK ^

1. Enrollccs reported end of previous week

2. Nuinbcr aijplicants this v;eek

3. Number rejected ^

/J. Number Applicants accepted

5. Numbor Rc— Entrants

B. TOTAL EiiivOLLIZn (iT?:.!': 1, 4, 5)

6. Total Dropouts • ^

7. Total Co:np]c^cd

C. TOTAL ACTIVi: FillitOLLEyiS, END OF V/KPK

(ite.T. 3, ICKS 6 & 7)

WFJ^iKLY ATrij;ri;A::cF }-;:r.A>n^o",.'::

AM

PM

PR}

ABSENT

PREHENT

ABSENT

Monday

Tuesday

V/edneadny

Thursday

Friday

" POLLO:? UP REFOHTC

1« Nxiinbcr Follow Up Reports initiated thiy v;eck

2. Total Folio'./ Uj) Reporto pondin^', end of this
v;oek

ERIC

13G

W>4ek-).:;--R'.!p orl

ra,;c! 2

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

^ Di?op OUT co:.:Pi.i7i'!:!)

TOTAL

KUUOLLi-iK ct'A :v; xTi;:u ::t] cr;

MALK

PliS.IALK

AGE

16-21
22-44
4^-64
over 64

Kufn 3Ki{ S-y;niO:.S ATTr.Ni)V:D

I - 5
6-10

II - 20
21-30
31 - 40
41 - 50
over ^0

G rade Bop-'^
I 1-2"

II 3-3

III 6-7

IV 8-3 0

y specify m-itcriril

ERIC

137

SECTION 2
FORMS USED BY IDI STAFF

134

138

OPKRATiox \vo]ilpo\vf:r questionnaire

Interviewer Interviewee Center K L G M

Sluft 1 2

Opening Instructions: WE ARE TAIUNG A SURVEY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE
OPERATION WORD POWER PROGRAM TO FIND OUT HOW TO MAKE IT
BETTER. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR-
SELF AND THE PROGRAM. PLEASE ANSWER THEM AS BEST YOU CAN.
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND A QUESTION ASK ME AND I'LL EXPLAIN IT.

\lf you are asked a question at this point, try to use one of the stock answers below. )

Privacy ; NO ONE AT THE CENTER WILL EVER SEE YOUR ANSWERS OR
KNOW WHAT YOU SAID.

How Long; USUALLY THE INTERVIEW TAKES ABOUT 10 MINUTES.

Doesn't want to take the interview ; I KNOW YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THE .
SUCCESS OF THIS PROGRAM. OUR CONVERSATION IS YOUR CHANCE
TO MAKE IT BETTER FOR YOURSELF AND OTHERS.

1. HAVE YOU BEEN IN A READING PROGRAM BEFORE, OTHER THAN
IN SCHOOL?

No

Yes; DID YOU FINISH?

No

Yes

WHAT WAS THE PROGRAM CALLED?

DID THE PROGRAM HELP YOU?
No; WHY DIDN'T IT HELP YOU?

Yes; HOW DID IT HELP YOU?

159

ERIC

Questionnaire Page 2

2, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS PROGRAM WOULD YOU TRY TO ENTER
SOME OTHER READING PROGRAM?

No

Yes; DO YOU KNOW OF ANOTHER PROGRAM?

No

Yes; WHAT IS IT CALLED?

3. WHAT THINGS ABOUT THE PROGRAM WERE IMPORTANT TO YOU
WHEN YOU DECIDED TO ENTER THE PROGRAM?

ANSWER "YES" TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING THAT WERE VERY
IMPORTANT AND NO TO THE OTHERS.

IT WAS NEAR YOUR HOME;

YOU COULD WORK AT YOUR OWN SPEED;

' YOU COULD WORK BY YOURSELF;

YOU COULD CHOOSE THE TIME TO COME;

YOU COULD BRING CHILDREN TO THE NURSERY;

YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMPETE WITH OTHER STUDENTS.

4. I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE KINDS OF THINGS YOU HAVE TO
READ AT HOME.

DO YOU HAVE NEWSPAPERS AT HOME?
No

Yes; WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR NEWSPAPERS?

delivered

buy them

library

from friends or relatives

ERIC

140

Questionnaire Page 3

5. DO YOU havf: magazines at home?

No

Yes; WHERE DO YOU GET THEM?

delivered

buy them

. library

from friends or relatives

6. DO YOU HAVE BOOKS AT HOME?

No

Yes; WHERE TO YOU GET YOUR BOOKS?

buy them

library

from friends or relatives

7. WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO READ MOST?

BOOKS, OR

MAGAZINES, OR ^cSioice
from

NEWSPAPERS Bne)
^

WHY DO YOU LIKE TO READ ■

FOR ENJOYMENT, OR

FOR STUDY, OR

FOR SHOPPING AND AROUND THE HOME.

OTHER

8. DO YOU READ NEWSPAPERS?
No

Yes; WHAT SECTIONS DO YOU TURN TO?

headlines - front page

sports

comics - funnies

'want ads

_ store advertisements or sales

other

ERIC

141

Questionnaire Pi'.ge 4

9. ANSWER YES TO THE THINGS YOU COULDN'T DO BEFORE YOU
BEGAN THE PROGRAM.

READ ADS.

ANSWER ADS.

FILL OUT JOB FORMS.

OTHER

10. WHAT THINGS CAN YOU DO BETTER BECAUSE OF THE READING
YOU LEARNED HERE?

. READ ADS.

ANSWER ADS.

FILL OUT JOB FORMS.

GET A BETTEP JOB.

OTHER

11. WHAT GRADE DID YOU FINISH IN SCHOOL.?

12. DO YOU PLAN TO GET MORE SCHOOLING?

NO

YES

13. HOW DO YOUR FRIENDS OR FAMILY HELP YOU SUCCEED IN
THIS PROGRAM?

DO THEY HELP WITH CHORES?

DO THEY BABYSIT?

. DO THEY GIVE CARFARE?

DO THEY HELP WITH READING?

DO THEY WANT YOU TO GET AHEAD?

ERIC

142

Questionnaire Page 5

14. WHAT DO THE PEOPLE YOU LIVE WITH READ?

^DO THEY READ BOOKS?

DO THEY READ MAGAZINES?

DO THEY READ NEWSPAPERS?

DO THEY READ OTHER THINGS?

WHAT ARE THOSE OTHER THINGS?

15. ARE YOU MOST INTERESTED IN LEARNING TO READ:

■

FOR ENJOYMENT, OR
FOR STUDY, OR

FOR SHOPPING AND AROUND THE HOME,

FOR JOB OPPORTUNITY.

16. WHAT DO'yOU like TO READ ABOUT MOST:

HOW TO DO THINGS, OR

ADVENTURE AND ACTION, OR

NEWS, OR

STORIES ABOUT REAL PEOPLE, OR

SPORTS, OR

OTHER

17. ARE THE STORIES ON THE TYPEWRITER INTERESTING?

NO

YES

ARE THEY ABOUT IMPORTANT THINGS?

NO

YES

ERIC

14?^

Questionnaire Page 6

18. SHOULD MORE TLMP: BE SPENT ON STUDENTS WORKING WITH
THE INSTRUCTOR?

NO

YES

19. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEND MORE TIME WITH THE
INSTRUCTOR DOING?

ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROGRAM

\ GETTING SPECIAL HELP

^ WORKING ON WRITING

OTHER

20. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEND MORE TIME:

ON THE TALKING TYPEWRITER, OR

IN THE READING CENTER, OR

ON OTHER THINGS

21. HOW MUCH TIIvIE, OUTSIDE OF THE CENTER, DO YOU SPEND
READING EACH DAY?

NONE

10 MINUTES OR LESS

20 TO 30 MINUTES

OVER 30 MINUTES

22, HAS WHAT YOU LEARNED HELPED YOU WITH:

READING SIGNS, LABELS AND INSTRUCTIONS.

• READING FOR ENJOYMENT.

READING TO LEARN SOMETHING.

^ READING WANT ADS.

• ' READING TO DO BETTER ON A JOB.

er|c 144

WORDPOV/ER STAFF QUfZSTIONN AIRE

interviewer Staff Member Center K L G M

Instructions; I WOULD LIICE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
WORDPOWER PROGR.\i\l AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENROLLED.

1. WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE ENROLL IN THIS PROGRAM?

WHAT SEEMS TO BE THEIR IvIAIN REASON FOR ENROL UNO?

2. . WHAT laND OF PEOPLE DROP OUT OF THE PROGRAM?

WHY DO THEY DROP OUT?

staff Questionnaire - Page 2
3. WHAT DO YOU LIKE BEST ABOUT THE PROGRAM?

•

WHY?

WHAT DO THE ENROLLEES LIKE BEST ABOUT THE PROGRAM?

WHY?

4. WHAT SUGGESTIONS WOULD YOU MAKE FOR IMPROVING THE
PROGRAM?

5. HAVE YOU NOTICED ANY DIFFICULTIES THAT THE PROGRAM
HAS HAD ?

ERIC

14G

Staff Questionnaire - Page 3
WHAT COULD BE DONE ABOUT THEM?

6. DO YOU THINK THE STUDENTS SPEND ENOUGH TIME WITH THE
TALKING TYPEWRITER?

DO THEY SPEND ENOUGH TLME IN THE CENTER?

7. COULD YOU SUGGEST ADDITIONAL THINGS STUDENTS SHOULD BE
DOING IN THE STUDY AREAS?

8. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROGRAM?

ERIC

147

Staff Questionnaire - Page 4

13. WHAT GRADE DID YOU FINISH IN SCHOOL?

WHAT SUBJECT DID YOU LIKE BEST?

WHAT SUBJECT WAS THE HARDEST?

14. DO YOU PLAN TO GET MORE SCHOOLING?

No

Yes; WHAT KIND OF SCHOOL PROGRAM WOULD YOU

LIKE IF YOU GO BACK?

GET A SCHOOL DIPLOMA, OR

LEARN A SKILL OR TRADE, OR

GO TO COLLEGE, OR

OTHER

15. HOW DO YOUR FRIENDS OR FAMILY HELP YOU SUCCEED IN
THIS PROGR^VM?

DO THEY HELP WITH CHORES?

DO THEY BABYSIT?

DO THEY GIVE CARFARE?

DO THEY HELP WITH READING?

DO THEY WANT YOU TO GET AHEAD?

16. WHAT DO THE PEOPLE YOU LIVE WITH READ?

DO THEY READ BOOKS?

DO THEY READ MAGAZINES?

DO THEY READ NEWSPAPERS?

DO THEY READ OTHER THINGS?

WHAT ARE THOSE OTHER THINGS?

ERIC

148

WRITIXG TEST

SCR-I PT FOR TAPK CASETTE
Thank you for taking a few minutes to help us mal;e the Wordpower Program better,

•

I will ask a few questions* I would like you to try to write answers to each one.
No one at the center except you will see the results, I hope you enjoy doing
each problem. Each time before you start writing, push the orange lever, to
the red dots and the tape will stop. To start the tape again, push the lever to
the green dotso Now practice turning the machine off and back on by pushing
the lever to the red dots and then back to the green dots again, (PAUSE)
Now try it againo (PAUSE)

As we go along, I v/ill ask you to take a telephone message, to make a shopping
list, and to fill out a form. Do the best job you can but don^t worry about
making mistakes in your English or spelling. Put your answer in your own
words. Try to include all the information you are given. Before you begin
writing, push the lever to the red dots. When you are done or can't write any
more, push the lever back to the green dots and wait for me to tell you what to do.

You should have a booklet and a pencil so that you can write down your answers.
At the top of each page in your booklet is a page number. The information on
page one should already be filled in. Now turn to page two. (PAUSE) There
are numbers for each question. The questions you will hear are also written
out so you can follow along. Please use the space after each number for your
answer to that question. If there is something you don't understand up to this
point, please stop the machine and ask one of the supervisors for help, (PAUSE)

Get ready for the fir at question. (PAUSE)

ERIC

149

SCRIPT FOR TAPE CASETTE Page 2 '

Please write a note to a member of your far. ily. Ask them to go to the store

and pick up one quart of n.ilk, (PAUSE) one dozen eggs, (PAUSE) and a pound

REPEAT

of meat.

NOW STOP THE MACHINE AND WRITE (PAUSE)

Now get ready to write for question 2. (PAUSE)

Please write a note to som.eone in your family. Tell them that you will not be

u .-1 Q u , 4. • • .V REPEAT

home until 8 p. m. but that cmner is m the oven.

REPEAT

STOP MACHlNf: AND WRITE
Now get ready for question 3.

While you are at work, you receive a telephone call. Please take a telphone
message. Stop the recorder after each sentence so that you get the whole
message. I will say stpp and write at the end of each sentence to help you.
Here is the message. (PAUSE)

Te M Mr. Brown, B-R-0~W-N. that Mr. Kramer, K-R-A-M-E-R, called .

REPEAT

STOP MACHINE A-ND V/RITE

Tell Mr. Brown that ho will get his check for 300 dollars on Friday.

REPEAT

■ STOP MACIUNE AND WRITE
Now get ready for question 4,

ERIC

160

vSCRTPT FOR TAPE CASB:TTE Page 3

, 1 .rT« T will <3av stoD machine and write after each

Here is another telephone message. I will say siop ixid

sentence to help you. (PAUSE)

Tell Mr. Jones that MuKves t Const iniction_Compa^^
— ~ ■ REPEAT

STOP MACHINE AND WRITE (PAUSE)

His order has come in, and he_c^mckJlup_aRe^^
• ' RE PE AT

STOP MACHINE AND WRITE (PAUSE)
Please turn to page four. (PAUSE)

You are applying for a Job and you are asked to fill out a form. It looks like the
form on page 4, next to the number 5. Fill in the information on the form as best
you can. Thej^isj^c_eio2^^

you did on your last iob. and\vh at kind_o f . iob you m ost like to do, .
^ REPEAT

/'

STOP MACHINE AND WRITE (PAUSE)
Please turn to page 5.

There is a complaint form neKt to number 6. You bought . radio from a department
store. When you took the radio home, it did not work so you are taking it back to
the store. At the store, the sales clerk asks you to fill out the complaint form.
Answer each of the .uestions. 1—'-"- '^'"'^"^
telenh onc number, -h-t ""■^ ^^'hat is wrong with it. (PAUSE)
REPEAT

Please turn to page 6. (PAUSE)

ERIC

151

SCRIPT FOR TAPE CASETTE
Now I am going to read a paragraph about smoking and cancer.

Page 4

Although women smoke cigarettes as much as men, they do not suffer as much
lung cancer. Why? The answer, according to statistician C. Hammond of
the American Cancer Society, is simple: modern women do not smoke like men.
On the average, they do not start smoking as young as men and do not inhale as
deeply. Hammond also said, however, that the more women smoke like men,
the higher will be their disease and death rates.

Let's go over this once more.

Now write dovm in your own words the most important things I have said. STOP
THE MACHINE AND WRITE,

You have finished the test. We will ask you to take a test like this agciin in a
few months. This will help you find out how much the program has helped
your writing. Now I will play some music. When the music is over, give
your answer sheet and the tape recorder to the supervisor.

Thank you.

ERIC

15-2

Page 1

NAME .

DATE ■

CENTER__

\

\ HOURS IN PROGRAM

INITIAL READING LEVEE

ERIC

I5:i

Page 2

Please write a note to a member of your family* Ask them to go
to the store and pick up one quart of milk, one dozen eggs, and a
pound of meat*

Please write a note for your family* Tell them that you will not be
home until 8 p. m* but that dinner is in the oven.

Page 3

Questio n

3 Tell Mr, Brown that Mr, Kramer callecU

Tell Mr, Brown that he will get his check for 300 dollars on Friday,

Tell Mr, Jones that Midwest Construction Company called.

His order has come in. He can pick it \ip anytime after 2 o'clock.

ERIC 1 6^

Question

Name:^
Address:

Phone :

JOB AP1>LICATI0N

1. What did you do on your last job?

Page 4

2, What kind of work do vou most like to do?

ERLC

156

Page 5

Question

COMPLAINT FORM

Name:

Address:

Phone :

\. What did you buy?

2t What is wrong with it?

3t What do you want the store to do about it?

Page 6

Question

7 Although women smoke cigarettes as much as men, they do not

suffer as much lung cancer. Why? The answer, according to
statistician C, Hammond of the American Cancer Society is
sample: modern- women do not smoke like men. On the average,
they do not start smokiaig as young as men, and do not iiihale as
deeply, Hammond also said, however, that the more women smoke
like men, the higher will be their disease and death rates.

198

SECTION 3
IDI PROCEDURES

156

Established Fall - 1969

Procedures Tor ID! Interview Staff

PROCKDURES

Priori t.i on:

!• All interviewed students, regardless of starting date.

2. Actives who started prior to August 15, 1969. (This includes ghost

actives who have not hnd a session for two weeks or more and yet
have not been dropped).

3. Students who have oncf\ dropped but are nor actively reinstated (D & R,

dropped and reinstated).

4. Students who have been dropped from the reading program. (D, drop).

-If there exists a List of Interviewed People, do the names on this list
first.

-Do not attempt an alphabetical list, as the files are usually set up ac-
cording to class times.

-Make two Working Lists from the Weekly Progress File, a.m. and p.m.

-Choose students to work on .rrom these lists with regai^d to avoiding con-
flict In using the files (They are needed daily by the attendants).
Therefore, if you are working in the morning, code p.m. people, for
example ♦

-As you are making up the ?ist, be sure to exclude students who have NOT
been interviev.od and yot started after August 15th.

-Although filing problems differ from center to center, it Is usually a
good practise to take about f?. ve students from the working lists at
one time and hunt dovvn all the information on them.. If you can not
find some of this, set these names aside and get others. This way
you can got right dov-n to coding people who have all inf oi-Tritition
readily available. Gather the problem nam.os at intervals and search
again and/or ark the supervisor. In many cases the supervisor can
supply the mp.terial or explain why it is not there. Occasionally
a student can not be coded because the inf oi^nation is lost.

-If more than one coder is working at a center, be sure each puts his
Initials next to the nenes on the working list that he intends to
code. This la a precaution analnst double cotilng.

-Keep an accurate Master List of Code Numb«^rs and Narfls,

-As you cede a student, be sure to check the name off the working lists
and add it to the ra ster list.

-Keep a list of quest ions on each student with missing or conflicting in~
fcrriation. At a time convenient to the supervisor, you can quickly
run do^fn the problens with her.

-Keep a Hat of questions on codinp; procedures to ask youv IDI coordinator.
No question 5s too silly, renlJ.y. Look for problems and patterns
and bettor rays to code inf oinat ion. Ask the questions and help
work out the solutions.

-Do occasional Spot Checks with other coders, that is, carefully check

your assocl .'itea ' coding on a student by going through the I'ilos and
tho code sheet colur.n by column.

It scom.s to be a r,ood Idoa to have sovcrul people v.orklng ton:;other
at one cenl/>r, e.".v;eclal. ly t)^o.y sro boln;j brninod. Jr^robleris nnu r-'.is-
i ^ .\5l'incllnr,s can be filtc^rod t"iU'OUf;;h and vorked out Y.dth collcotlvo

Lists:

ERIC

160

CODE SHEET NOTES pCjO

C ard ill

14 -Prlcon record: no information.

15 -Urban if In ^hica;~o or large northern city more than 10 yrs,

16 -Code this as a "2" If the student has loss than first grade education

because this is definitely a lack of knowledge difficulty. This dif-
ficulty ^i^ also usually recorded on the first progress reports with
scores of 10 or 20 for average knowledge,

18 -Nuriber of dependents = number in the family,

19 -Military service: leave blank for ircmen,
22)

23>-Last job also neans the presen'j job if the student is currently employed.
24)

33 -Violations in housing cede: It seems no one listed any violations.
40 >

41 J -Age when completed highest grade In school is often figured out by
subtracting year of birth frcm last year in school. Of course this
Is not al'^fays accurate or plausible,

46 -Reject files: No real files exist at the centers. King does have on
index card file vrlth narz s and dates of initial testing, but no rea-
sons for rejection are given. It seems that the tvro main reasons for
rejecting, students are either that they lack adequate knowledge of
the Snglinh language or that they already read above a 6th grade level.

51 -Everyday materials = adult education. There were very few "read for
recreation" responyes,

53)

54{-Di3tance from '.Vordpowar site in blocks can often be figured out once
the coder acquires a general knowledge of the streets in the city
area of the center,

60+)

69f-Code as a "3" if unable to reach by phono but attempt T'as nade.
61+)

70 /.Reason for absence:

1. Illness 6. Returned to school

2. Em.ployrient conflict 7. Other

3. Family care 8. Inadequate information

4. Hew program 9. Moved

5. Not interested Lack of car fare

74 -Code "3" means as of 10-2-69 no one had completed the whole program

and had been sent slscv,'here for another program. People who had com-
pleted Hook 10 rrere all still returning for supploTo-:} ntary work und were
therefore cd ded as "2" in col, 74 and as "2" in col, 76 for supple-
jTL'ntary -.vork. Co'-le "4" in col, 74 rofers to active ghosts, thnt ia,
students still in the active file \-:ho have not been in for a session
in two vreeks or r.ore.

75 -Because no one bad completed the whole program, there were no final

ref ernls,

78(-Session: a day with at loant one card completed In the machine. Wo did
' not count tho int,rod-,ic fcr.ry lornonr. ^^s sepoioii:; because the nti'oko pro-
gression would not follovr duo to free type response.

ERIC

161

CODE SHEET NOTES (2)

-A day rnarked only "classroom, " "study," "RAS," "Springboard,"

etc, is noit'nor a licsslon nor an absonce.

-A day not marked Is usually an absonco. One way to tell is to
check the card that should follow the last conpleted one. If
this card is not done the folloTrinrr, day and nothing is marked
for that day, it is an absence. This may continue for several
days, "ivith the assistants writing in, for example, "S 1-4" (for
Book 1, Caixi 4) for t^ro or three days until a session takos
place that conplates this card to line 15. Some times the ma-
chines are crotjded, and tho student can not Cuntinue t-., his next
card that day. In this care a note is usually written in for
that day explaining or indicating "classroom." This is neither
a session nor an absence.

-A week xrith five absences, that is in v/hich the p«r3on never came,
is disregarded completely. On the other hand, if at least one
day is inirked with a maciino session, that one day counts as a
session, and the other four days must be counted as abnences if
they are not marked as clasoroom work.

Card

7 -All students take the same placement test. The Sullivan book level

in Y?hich they pi nee depends upon how far they correctly work in the
test. The renult is ui;.ually vrritten on the cover as, for example,
"Book ,-^^2." Occasionally there is no record of a placement test, or
conflicting results are found. In this case, check the 1st week's
progress report to see which book the student began in. Use this
book as his olacement level.
8) *
31( -Carefully check:

1. Date of exams, placing the ©arllst first Jn the columns. In case
of several secondary tests, take the highest score unless it is
marked as invalid. It pays to check with the supervisor.
2* Perm: Roman numerals I or II. Precede a Porn II score? with two
x's before •listinK the results in tho colum.ns. There are not
four sets of scares on Form II tests, so there will bo room in
the eight columns.
3« Two col\ir.na each for the four kinds of areas tested in each exam.
Be sure to record _onl^ the fcrade level and not the raw score or
tho percGnta?;es or rltaninos, Flace'oach grade level score in
its respective columns, leaving blank columns for areas not tested
in a particular cxari. Often the vocabulary section does not
have a ncure, for example,
32 -Th5 s really 13 ?^ inking for the highest grrdo level [riot Sullivan book
lovel) completed no far in the ccirye7^" Vcually a progress tost is
given as each SullJvan book is completed. Kowevor, if there is no
record of

ERIC

162

CODE SHEET liOTSS (3)

the latest test, take the last ccr.pleted book as recorded in the week-
ly progress record. Then you convert this book level to grad level.

Series I = Bock Levels 1-4 Book Levels 1+2 s 1st grade level

Series II - Book Levels 5-8 " " 3,4,5 = 2nd grade " .

Series III ^ Book Levels 9-12 " " 6+7 S 3rd grade

" " 8,9,10 = 4th grade "

Please note that in the Progress Test booklets for each of the three
series the levels tested are not r.arked. The inside cover of each
test booklet looks the sane: blank scaiares to record the gi'ade on
eight tests. Each level tef;ted in each booklet has t770 tests, thus
the eight squares,

34 (-A week counts only if it contains at l-ast one machine session,^ Weoks
vhcre the student ras absent or only in the classroom and not in the
naclilne do not count at all, , ^ * 4.uw

35+ - Look rcr the earliest back records of students ^7ho have been in the
profrraJn for a long tlr.e. Because of bulk, the early sessions are
80-etir.es pulled from the files and stored olsev/nere. Also, be sure
to*"code the ^7eeks in ordor, earliest to most recent. The sheets are
: sometimes stacked rith the latest on top, sometimes earliest on top.
Be sure to check the progression of the weeks carefully, as the sheets
are occasionally jumbled.

SIX DIMENSIONS OF EVALUATED WRITING SKILLS

RATING SCALE

1

no response.

2

verbatim copy of question, or totally deficient
response^

3

question is copied, but one or two words are
changed, or a proper noun is inserted, indica-
ting some understanding of the question and
some ability to respond. This rating is also
usrcd for the below adequate response which none-
theless demonstrates some ability in the parti-
cular dimension.

4

adequate performance in this area.

5

above average; demonstrates superior ability in
this area.

DIMENSIONS

1, Gramme' r. Spelling, and Punctuation

This dimension defines the students ability to express himself in
correct English, It is concerned with the proper usages of the parts of
speech, verb tenses, etc, , as well as with the mechanics of spelling and
punctuation.

The following are examples taken from actual student responses to
the question (No, 7) which asks for a summary of an article on smoking and
cancer, with their corresponding ratings and a brief commentary on the
assignment of the rating:

High level response (5): "Women smoke cigarettes as miich as men,
but they do not inhale as deeply as men do. Tliis response contains no
errors in the dimension considered here.

Mid-level responye (4): "Modern women do not smoke like men.
They don't start smoking young like men does. And they don't inhale
deeply as men does, " This response contains an error in the verb form
of "to do" after the v/ord "men. " The average student will make at least

ERIC

- 2 -

one grammatical nustako iii his rcssponsc.

Low level response (3): "They do not smoke cigarettes, because
the cancer infection. According to E.G. Hammond is simple. " The
poor grammar in this response is serious enough to merit the low
rating, since the message has been distorted due to an omission of
several words.

2. Attentivencss to Question, Comprehension

This area involves the ability to understand written instrtictions
and directions, and respond in full to what is asked. An answer wliich
is irrelevant or incomplete is the result of either an inattentivenes s to
the questions or an inability to comprehend written English.

The following are examples of responses the question, "Please
write a note to a member of your family. Ask them to go to the store
and pick up one quart of milk, one dozen eggs, and a pound of meat. "

High level response (5 ): "Mother, can you go to the store and
get me one quart of milk, etc." This response answers the question
and indicates complete understanding.

Mid-level response (4): "George, will you go to the store and
buy some milk and eggs. " The response here is not entirely accurate,
yet it does indicate an understanding of the question. It is considered
an average answer.

Low level response (3): "Igoto the store and buy one quart of
milk, etc." This response demonstrates a lack of understanding of
the question since the student did not attempt to write a note directing
another person to carry out the chore.

3, Sentence; Structure

This area involves the ability to follow the established form of
a correct English sentence. It is concerned with word order, posi-
tioning of clauses, run-on sentences, etc.

ERIC

165

- 3 -

ERIC

The following aro. oxarnplus taken again from the students' summary
of the article on smoking:

High level response (5): "Women do not begin smoking as early as
mea Also, tliey do not inhale as deet)ly as men do. " There is no error
in structure. A rating of "5" is given,

Mid-level response (4): ''As modern women do not smoke like mem
On the average, tliey do not start smoking as young as men. " The first
sentence in this response is poorly constructed since it is left incomplete.
The student recovers in the second sentence and earns the 2 -rating.

Low level response (3): "Well the most important things you have
said on the average they do not start smoking as young as men and do not
inhale as deeply and also the higher will be their disease and death rates."
Here is a good example of a run-on, poorly constructed sentence.

«

4. Communication, Getting the Message Across

This dimension concentrates on the student's ability to make him-
self understood in written English. The tested individual may be extreme-
ly deficient in grammar and sentence structure, yet capable of convey-
ing his thoughts to the reader.

The following examples are again responses to the question con-
cerning the shopping list:

High level response (5): "John--, Please go to the store and buy
one quart of milk, etc. " The student has communicated precisely what
is asked in his response.

Mid-level response (4): "My sister to go to the store and pick up
one quart of milk, etc. " There is a problem in wording here, yet the
student has probably been successful in getting his message across to the ^
reader.

Low level res :>onsc (3): "One quart of milk, one dozen eggs and a
pourd of meat^ " The essential message has been here. The note does

not direct anyone in the family to run tho errand, and must therefore be
assigned a l-raling fcjr coiinumicalion.

166

- 4 "

5. Effective Use of Words

This dimension is concerned with vocabulary, word and idiom usage,
and the avoidance of verbosity or unnecessary repetition. Conciseness of
expression is important here, as well as the demonstration of a facility
for choosing the right word at the right time.

The following are examples taken from the second question on the
test, ^'Please write a note for your family. Tell them that you will not
be home until 8 P.M. , but that dinner is in the oven.

High level response (5): "Dear Brenda, I won't be home for dinner.
Debra and I have gone shopping. Erma has cooked dinner and it's in the
oven. Will return home around 8 P.M." This response indicates a con-
fident facility with words. The future and present perfect tenses of verbs
not contained in the question, and the last fragmented sentence, "Will
return home around 8 P.M., " captures the natural wording of a brief note.

■ Mid-level response (4): "Dear Virginia, I will not be home until
8 P.M. but the dinner is in the oven." This is a correct response but
it depends entirely on the wording of the question for vocabulary and usage.

Low level response (3): "Jose--, I will not be home until 8 P.M.
but that dinner is in the oven. " The structure of this response is in-
correct since it followed the wording of the question even more precise-
ly than did the preceer'ing example. The student neglected to change the
dependent clause "but that dinner is in the oven, " and must therefore be
assigned a 1 -rating for this dimension.

6. Flexibility and Creativity

This dim.ension involves the student's ability to express himself
freely, without having to depend on the structure of the question in order
to phrase his response. Style is import^lnt here. The flexible response
demonstrates the student's capacity for free and uninhibited expression.
He an.swera the question accurately, but he does so in his ow^^ way. He

ERIC

167

- 5 -

may even give some evidence of creativity by expanding his responses
with relevant information or commentary.

The following examples are taken from the third question on the
test, in two parts, "Tell Mr. Brown that Mr. Kramer called. Tell
Mr. Brown that he will rot his check for 300 dollars on Friday":

High level response (5): "Mr. Brown: A Mr. Kramer called you,
and said your check for $300 would arrive on Friday, the 27th of June,
as scheduled. " The addition of "the 27th of June, as scheduled, " is
enough to earn the student a high rating for flexibility here. The student
has also neatly combined the two parts of the question.

Mid-level response (4): "Mr. Brown: Mr. Kramer called and said
• you will get your check for $300 on Friday. " This is an average response
for this question, combining the two parts of the question, but supplying
no additional information.

Low level response (3): "Mr. Bro'vn: Mr. Kramer called. Mr.'
Brown: You v/ill get your check for 300 dollars on Friday. " No flexi-
bility here, but the student has answered the question accurately and
has been assigned a 1 -rating for this dimension of writing skills.

o

ERIC

SECTION 4
SAMPLE COMPLETED FORMS

166

169

SAMPLE WRITING TEST " ^

HIGH PEIlFORMAN'Cr: ^^$\ Vi^*^

Qucr.lion

1 • Please write a note to a member of your family. Ask them to go

to the store and pick up one quart of milk, one dozen eggs, and a
\ pound of meat.

"3;. N

• 1

\- =.-Vv.. 0^ c' <-' ^-.V^^

V \ \: •••

. -. \^

Please write a note for your family. Tell them that you will not be
home until 8 p.m. but that dinner is in the oven,

"A

■ C\

O

' J •

«

^ ^\^^ V' . \.

N f

A •••

\:... f

V

ERIC

170

Quo stion

00^^ Page 3

Tell Mr. Brown that Mr. Kramer called. ....
Tell Mr. Brown that he will get his check for 300 dollars on Friday.

Tell Mr, Jones that Midwest Construction Company called,

^^^^

His order has come in. He can pick it up anytime after 2 o'clock.

\

1 K.H

ERIC

171

N

Page 4

Question

JOB APPLICATION

Name:

Address:

Phone :

1. What did you do on your last job?

2.» What kind of work do you most like to do?

er|c ' ' • . . 172;

6 • 1

Name :^
Address;

Phone:

0^

Page 5

COMPLAINT FORM

1. What did you buy?

>

What is wrong with it?

3. What do you want the store to do about it?

ERIC

T7T

Question

Although women smoke cigarettes as much as men, they do not
suffer as much lung cancer. Why? The answer, according to
statistician E. C, Hammond of the American Cancer Society is

simple; modern women do not smok'e like men. On the average,

j

they do not start smoking as young ajs men, and do not inliale as
deeply. Hammond also said, however, that the more women smoke
like men, the higher will be their disease and death rates.

• \ N

^ \\

>

\ ")

^\ r.

*

/

\ Ar-

\

• N ' \

X..

•

ERIC

1,71

i

^r<AnAi-t^ ^/'^/Aa^, inn\cit<^'ti0n

Sa^t liTy
in "f ^ 'J' a/*eq

175

CI Nri K N\Mi

DATi; 10/? ?./<.<)

:;UllMI r I I.I I hY

KNKOI.l.l-.K NAMI-;

In it ial Test in ;j,

Stanford Ach i cvehicnt Test (SAT)
Test

Score

1.8

Reading Placement: Kxam
(Sul livan)

2nd Mistake in Book 4

WR or M

p[^l could not test

Machine Level Book //

Date: 3/13/69

2nd Testing after ^ 2 . 3 Machine Hours

Stanford Achievement Test (SAT)
Test

Form Pi^i- ^

Score

Reading Placement Exam
(Sullivan)

2nd Mistake in Book

WR or M

Pf^^ could not test

Machine Level Book ir

1

Note: is a railroad porter

and cannot attend regularly.

Date: 7/24/69

3rd Te:; t ing after

Machine Hours

Stanford Achievement Test (SAT)

Sc ore

Test
Form

Reading Placement Exam
(Sullivan)

2nd Mistake in Book i^

WK or M
PM

Machine Level Book #

4th Test ing after

Machine Hours

Stanford Achievement Test (SAT)

Test
Form

Score

or 'M

PM

^'•N()( le:.s th^iu ?() hv)urs

Reading Placement Exam
(Sul 1 ivan)

2nd Mistake in Book //

Machine Level Book #

(:(UIO-7l4-WP-2/25/VO

ERLC

I7(>

OIMOKAllOX

I'ORD POWER QUi:STIONNAlRE

nter viewer

Interviewee

Center

Shift 1

Opening Instructions: WE ARE TAtaiNG A SURVEY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE
OPERATION WORDPOWER PROGRAM TO FIND OUT HOW TO MAKE IT
BETTER. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR-
SELF AND THE PROGRAM. PLEASE ANSWER THEM AS BEST YOU CAN.
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND A QUESTION ASK ME AND I'LL EXPLAIN IT.

(If you arc asked a question at this point, try to use one of the stock answers below. )

Privacy ; NO ONE AT THE CENTER WILL EVER SEE YOUR ANSWERS OR

How Long; USUALLY THE INTERVIEV; TAKES ABOUT 10 MINUTES.

Doesn't want to take the- interviev.- ; I KNOW YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THE
SUCCESS OF THJS PROGRAM. OUR CONVERSATION IS YOUR CHANCE
TO MAKE IT BETTER FOR YOURSELF AND OTHERS.

1. HAVE YOU BEExN IN A READING PROGRAM BEFORE, OTHER THAN
IN SCHOOL?

Yes; DID YOU FINISH?

No

Yes

WHAT WAS THE PROGRAM CALLED?

DID THE PROGRAM HELP YOU?
No; WHY DIDN'T IT HELP YOU?

Yes; HOW DID IT HELP YOU?

KNOW WHAT YOU SAID.

o

ERIC

177

2. IF V.'K DIDN'T HAVE THIS I^KOGRAM WOULD YOU TRY TO ENTER
SOME OTHER READING PROGRAM?

y No

Yes; DO YOU KNOW OF ANOTHER PROGRAM?

_Yes; WHAT IS IT CALLED? . <^

3. WHAT THINGS ABOUT THE PROGRAM WERE IMPORTANT TO YOU
WHEN YOU DECIDED TO ENTER THE PROGRAiV ?

ANSWER "YES" TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING THAT WERE VERY
IMPORTANT AND NO TO THE OTHERS.

jOl) IT WAS NEAR YOUR HOME;
\((o^ YOU COULD WORK AT YOUR OWN SPEED;
Y<v5, YOU COULD WORK BY YOURSELF;
tJQ YOU COULD CHOOSE THE TIME TO COME;
fjQ YOU COULD BRING CHILDREN TO THE NURSERY;
y<f,S YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMPETE WITH OTHER STUDENTS.

4. I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE lUNDS OF THINGS YOU HAVE TO
READ AT HOME.

DO YOU HAVE NEWSPAPERS AT HOME?

Yes; WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR NEWSPAPERS?

^ delivered

buy them

library

from friends or relatives

ERIC

178

5, DO YOU IIAVK iMAGAZlNKS AT HOME?

No

Yes; WHERP: DO YOU GKT THEM?

delivered

buy them

library

from friends or relatives

8-^

6. DO YOU HAVE BOOKS AT HOME?
•_^No

' Yes; WHERE TO YOU GET YOUR BOOKS?

buy them

library

from friends or relatives

(InsQrt
choice
from

WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO READ MOST?
y BOOKS, OR

MAGAZINES, OR

NEWSPAPERS

WHY DO YOU LIKE TO READ
FOR ENJOYMENT, OR
sy FOR STUDY, OR

FOR SHOPPING AND AROUND THE HOME.

OTHER

8.

DO YOU READ NEWSPAPERS?
No

\/^ Yes; WHAT SECTIONS DO YOU TURN TO?
^^"^^ headlines - front page

sports

comics - funnies

want ads

store advertisements or sales

U^thor

ERIC

179

9. ANSWER YES TO THE THINGS YOU COULDN'T DO BEFORE YOU

BEGAN THE PROGRAM. ^

ifC, FILL OU^

f!y FILL OUT JOB FORMS.
OTHER

10. WHAT THINGS CAN YOU DO BETTER BECAUSE OF THE READING
you' LEARNED HERE?

READ AI3S.

V/ ANSWER ADS.

FILL OUT JOB FORMS.
V ^ GET A BETTER JOB.
OTHER

11« fO V /HAT GRADE DID Y.OU FINISH IN SCHOOL;

12. DO YOU PLAN TO GET MORE' SCHOOLING?

it

NO
YES

13. HOW DO YOUR FRIENDS OR FAMILY HELP YOU SUCCEED IN
THIS PROGRAM?

\ y DO THEY HELP WITH CHORES?
DO THEY BABYSIT?
DO THEY GIVE CARFARE?
IdO THEY HELP WITH READING?
V^x^ O TPIEY WANT YOU TO GET AHEAD?

er|c , ISO

14. WILVT DO niK PKOPLIO YOU LIVE WITH READ?

DO TlfKY READ BOOKS?

< ^^^^

DO THEY READ MAGAZIMOS?

DO THEY READ NEWSPAPERS?

DO THEY READ OTHER THINGS?

WHAT ARE THOSE OTHER THINGS?

15. ARE. YOU MOST INTERESTED IN LEARNING TO READ:
. FOR ENJOYMENT, OR

\^ FOR STUDY, OR

FOR SHOPPING AND AROUND THE HOME,

_^^_^^or job opportunity.

16. what do you like to read about most:

how to do things, or

adventure and action, or

'news, or

stories about real people, or
sports, or

OTHER

17. ARE THE STORIES ON THE TYPEWRITER INTERESTING?

NO

JW^YES

ARE THEY ABOUT IMPORTANT THINGS?

NO

ERIC

IBl

18. SHOULD iMOR}'! TJMK VAl. Sl^LWT OK STUDKNTS WORKING WITH
THE INSTRUCTOR?

YES

19. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKIC TO SPEND MORE TIME WITH THE
INSTRUCTOR DOING?

/S>^ ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROGRAM
GETTING SPECIAL HELP

WORKING ON WRITING
I lER /^■^^J2 ^1>v<

20. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEND MORE TIME:

ON THE TALKING TYPEWRITER, OR
IN THE READING CENTER, OR
ON OTHER THINGS

21. HOW MUCH TIME, OUTSIDE OF THE CENTER, DO YOU SPEND
READING EACH DAY?

NONE

10 MINUTES OR LESS

20 TO 30 MINUTES

^..yOVER 30 MINUTES

22. HAS WHAT YOU LEARNED HELPED YOU WITH:

\^ READING SIGNS, LABELS AND INSTRUCTIONS.
yy^ READING FOR ENJOYMENT.

READING TO LEARN SOMETHING.

RE APING WANT ADS.
y/^READING TO DO BETTER ON A JOB.

ERIC

182