Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED099803: The Evaluation of Operation Wordpower. Final Report."

See other formats


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