Summary. 57 beginners in an informal or open‐area programme and 112 in a traditional, formal classroom in a middle class area, apparently well‐matched in perceptual, motor and cognitive skills, were followed through the primary grades. Statistical analysis of achievement data showed that the formal group from the beginning had been more proficient in reading, and later, also in mathematics. There were significant differences between matched groups (N = 43) at the fourth year on seven primary CPQ factors and the second‐order factor Anxiety vs Adjustment. Mean scores, however, with one exception (F) remained well within normal limits. Total Grade, a derived score which concerns estimation of academic success, was higher for the informal children but was predictive of achievement only for the formal group.
112 beginners in traditional classrooms and 57 in an open-area school within the same middle-class area were apparently well matched in perceptual, motor and cognitive skills at school entry. Statistical analysis of first-year achievement showed that while no significant differences in number concept were observed, the traditional group were more highly proficient readers ( p < .001) than the children in open-area class who showed a failure rate double that of their traditional peers. Reasonable proficiency in perceptual, motor and intellectual skills was a necessary but not sufficient condition for success in reading in the open-area class. The egocentric, behaviorally immature child had a better chance of success in the traditional class. Furthermore, there was no indication that any advantage accrues even to the well-integrated child in the open-area system in his beginning year.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.