An Analysis of Semantic Products of Disadvantaged and Advantaged Second, Third, and Fourth Grade Good and Poor Readers

Abstract

One hundred-thirty students were analyzed in this study to discern if there is a significant difference between good and poor readers when the subjects arc grouped as advantaged or disadvantaged. The P/S Oral Language Inventory was used and responses from subjects were considered as paradigmatic or syntagmatic. When these results were subjected to an Analysis of Variance, measureable dif ferences were noted.The data are used as background for a proposed frame of reference for both advantaged and disadvantaged learners. In such a frame the individuals would share a common reference base.The lack of verbal fluency among the disadvantaged students has been cited in many recent studies (Thomas 1962, Filmer 1967. They communicate among themselves quite easily but when it comes to formal education the breakdown is disastrous. Is it that the teacher doesn't understand them or that they do not understand the teacher? What is it that a child from an advantaged background brings to school that helps him make the formal schooling connection significantly more times than his disadvantaged counterpart? The authors are aware of the physiological, psychological, social and emotional factors present when any individual or group is measured for achievement in a school setting. This study was undertaken to ascertain whether or not any measureable differences could be identified, in verbal behavior, as a possible indication of thinking patterns.More specifically is there a difference in the paradigmatic-synta?-matic responses between high and low achievers in reading as identified by a classroom teacher? Is there a significant difference, advantaged socio-economic versus disadvantaged, between good and poor readers?Twenty-five second, third, and fourth grade teachers were asked to identify six or seven of their poorest readers and six or seven of their best readers. Several from each group were then randomly selected to take the P/S Oral Language Inventory. Each subject was asked to go with the examiner and orally respond to thirty stimulus words with the first word they thought of when they heard the stimulus word. No trials were given, no other directions stated.

The Key to Learning

“…Bickley, Dinnan, Bickley (1970), Dinnan, Cowart, Bickley (1971), and Dinnan, Bickley and Williams (1971). When a measure of success was placed against the type of responses, a clear (.01 level of confidence) indication was that those subjects who produce a "higher level" (superordinateco-ordinate-whole-part, or contrast) product, as measured by the "products of the intellect" Guilford (1967) were making a success in formal schooling.…”

Visual Perception: A Transfer of “Products” Found in the Key to Learning

“…Investigations in verbal behavior completed by Dinnan, Bickley and Williams (1970), Bickley, Bickley and Cowart (1970), Bickley, Dinnan and Bickley (1970), and Dinnan, Cowart and Bickley (1971) dealt with the verbal production of language of a broad spectrum of subjects. The subjects ranged in age from three to sixty-three.…”