This article was downloaded by: [University of Strathclyde]On: 04 October 2014, At: 08:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20

Teaching Children to Read‐‐IITHE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OFDIFFERENT METHODS OF TEACHINGREADINGJoyce M. MorrisPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Joyce M. Morris (1959) Teaching Children to Read‐‐II THE RELATIVEEFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF TEACHING READING, Educational Research, 1:2,61-71, DOI: 10.1080/0013188590010205

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188590010205

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 08:

10 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Teaching Children to Read--II

THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENTMETHODS OF TEACHING READING

B. The Place and Value of Whole-word Methods

I. Introduction by JOYCE M. MORRIS

DIFFERENCES in terminology impede any attempt to evaluate scientific evidenceon the relative efficiency of different methods of teaching reading. There is,however, some agreement among authorities that most reading methods may use-

fully be classified into two broad groups on the basis of the psychological processes pre-sumed to be involved. c Synthetic ' is the term frequently used to describe those methodswhich build up a recognition of wholes (words, phrases, and sentences) from parts (letter-names and sounds), and ' analytic' refers to those which begin with a recognition ofwholes, as units of meaning from which their constituent elements are broken down.Thus, the alphabetic, syllabic and all phonic methods constitute a synthetic approach toreading whilst whole-word methods, which include the word, phrase, sentence and storymethods, may be defined as analytic. Alternatively, the latter are sometimes describedas ' global', ' syncretist' or ' ideo-visual'.

On the whole, educationists in English-speaking countries today consider that thesynthetic work involved in the first group of methods is too difficult for beginners inreading and is in any case ' psychologically unsound ', being contrary to the principlesof child development. Consequently, they advocate an analytic approach after childrenhave enjoyed an informal period in which to develop confidence, an interest in books, andthe necessary desire to read without which any method is useless. Later on, when a sightvocabulary has been acquired, instruction in breaking down words into smaller units isrecommended in order to give pupils a technique for deciphering new words.

Research into the place and value of phonics in the reading programme (see firstarticle in this series) would appear to support the view that whole-word methods shouldprecede any systematic phonic teaching, for, in most studies, a successful use of syntheticmethods has been shown to depend upon the level of maturity of the pupils. Thus,intelligent children, or those from home backgrounds rich in linguistic resources, willgenerally have reached an adequate stage of phonic readiness in the reception class,whereas for those who are dull or handicapped in any other way, systematic phonicinstruction may desirably and safely be postponed until later in the school course.

It should be pointed out in this context that the successful use of a synthetic approachto reading by some non-English-speaking countries, particularly those of Scandinavia,does not contradict this idea that analysis should precede synthesis in the teaching ofreading, since children in these countries start school at least one, often two, or even threeyears later than their English contemporaries.

The value of whole-word methods cannot, however, justifiably be inferred solelyfrom a study of the use of phonic methods: the case for analytic methods of teachingreading must be examined in its own right. In doing this one may look at the historicaldevelopment of the notions concerned and their embodiment in current educationalpractice.

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 08:

10 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

II. Historical BackgroundComenius is usually credited with the introduction of the word method. His

Orbis Pictus—The World of Sensible Things Pictured, published in 1657, was, according toMonroe, the first illustrated textbook for children. In this he argued that when wordsare presented along with pictures representing their meaning " reading cannot but belearned—and indeed too, without using any ordinary tedious spelling—that mosttroublesome torture of wits."

It was not until the beginning of the 19th century, however, that Comenius' revoltagainst the established synthetic methods of teaching reading received strong supportfrom educators. In France, Jacotot, advocating the use of visual methods, too, suggestedthat words rather than letters should form the child's introduction to reading. He evenwent so far as to state that, if a child learns by heart a sentence or a page of something, hewill divide it for himself into words, syllables and letters, and be able to recognise themlater in a different context.

About the same time, Worcester, in America (quoted by Smith), was writing in hisPrimer of English Usage: " It is not, perhaps, very important that a child knows the lettersbefore he begins to read. It may learn first to read words by seeing them, hearing thempronounced, and having their meanings illustrated, and afterwards it may learn toanalyze them or name the letters of which they are composed." His compatriot, HoraceMann, shared this view of children's development and strongly criticised the currentletter-by-letter system of teaching reading, preparing the way for the first (mid-century)American readers specifically based on whole-word methods.

Froebel and Dewey indirectly, and Vogel with his ' method of normal words ', madefurther contributions to the ' whole-before-part' school of thought. It was Decroly inBelgium, however, who, at the close of the century, carried their ideas to a logical con-clusion by insisting that as one reads primarily for meaning the sentence is the appropriateunit for beginning reading.

Decroly exerted a strong influence on the development of whole-word methods ofteaching reading. Indeed, it is often asserted that, except for the fact that children noware encouraged to handle books right from the start,, the teaching in infant classrooms isbasically Decrolian in character. The climate of educated opinion at the end of thefirst world war, or even before it, favoured a less mechanicals approach to reading than hadhitherto been in vogue. The difficulties of a phonio approach for very young childrenhad become apparent. Many pupils, for example, stuck at the point of being able tosound out the letters but were unable to synthesize the individual sounds into words.The letter-by-letter peering at words encouraged by this method was neither conduciveto speed nor fluency. Moreover, when giving phonic instruction, teachers found itdifficult to make themselves heard at the back of a class without adding a distinct vowelsound to some letters, so tha t ' p ' became c per ' , ' f'—' fer', and so on.

The weaknesses of synthetic methods seeming thus to be exposed, it is not surprisingthat the ideas of educators like Decroly exercised an increasing influence on teachingpractice. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the pendulum swung too far in the otherdirection—so much so that, according to Gray, American teachers during the latetwenties and early thirties were advised to consider meaning as almost the only factor inword perception and to expect their pupils to identify new words by guessing from thecontext.

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 08:

10 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Experienced teachers are rarely persuaded to change their methods by the voicesof articulate radicals alone and many continued to give systematic instruction in word-analysis skills. In the middle thirties, however, some of the ideas of the Gestalt psycho-logists on visual perception began to penetrate to the schools, and appeared even to someof the more sceptical teachers to give psychological colour to practice in the ' progressive 'schools.

The fundamental hypotheses of the Gestaltists will be discussed later: here we mayremark that recently experimental psychologists have tended to discard much of thisearly work. Vernon, for example, who in 1937 devoted considerable space in herbook Visual Perception to Gestalt psychology, stated seventeen years later:

" The apparently clear outlines originally drawn by the Gestalt psychologistshave become blurred and dimmed. And it has seemed perhaps that theirexperimental results and their theories did not after, all indicate a fundamentalbasis for the understanding of the nature of perception, but rather a one-sidedexaggeration of certain features by no means the most important in perceivingas we ordinarily experience it."

In contrast, educationists generally have continued to stress the support given towhole-word methods by the Gestaltists. The following statement from Backwardnessin Reading, by Duncan, is typical of many:

" We tend to see a whole word-pattern before we see the parts of it. A youngchild may recognize the word * elephant' long before he knows the componentletters. It is a distinctive ' word-pattern'. Even the most backward olderpupils, who do not know letter-sounds, although they may have been ' drilled ' inthem for years, recognize the words ' ice-cream ', ' orange ', and ' lemonade '.This tendency to see in ' wholes ' is emphasized in the gestalt hypothesis."

One wonders how such conflicting opinions can exist side by side until it is realisedthat psychologists interested in an experimental approach to visual perception areconcerned mainly with the fundamental Gestalt hypotheses themselves, whereas educa-tionists usually concentrate attention on practical consequences which may derive fromthem. If teachers are to feel confident in the use of whole-word methods for beginningreading, a re-examination of the part played by Gestalt psychology in their developmentis very necessary.

Strengthened by the rise of the ' experience' approach to learning in the thirties,Gestalt theories undoubtedly influenced development towards greater attention to wordmeanings and contextual clues. The look-and-say method of individual word recognitionwas ' old' in 1933, according to a Board of Education report. By then the sentencemethod for beginning reading, which implies not merely a single, relatively uncomplexvisual gestalt but a much more complex, contextual and meaningful one in which visualclues do not dominate, had taken its place in many English schools. Educational practicehad, in fact, far outrun such evidence as was provided by the actual experimental dataof the Gestalt psychologists.

As might have been expected, there was a certain amount of criticism of this develop-ment in teaching practice, but not until the war years, when the extent of illiteracy amongthe Armed Forces was revealed, did it become serious. Public opinion, aroused by the

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 08:

10 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Press, virtually demanded that educationists should re-assess the validity of the methodsby which reading was taught in primary schools. A series of investigations by localeducation authorities and the Ministry of Education in England certainly producedevidence of a deterioration in children's reading standards. This was ascribed largelyto the disruptive effects of the war but other contributory causes were suggested. There"was no recommendation of a return to early systematic phonic instruction and no generalattack on the use of analytic (either word-whole or sentence) methods for beginningreading apart from a criticism of their exclusive use. Inquiries in America and otherCountries resulted in similar conclusions.

If indeed teachers follow the advice of authorities on the teaching of reading, theword-whole method, or the later sentence approach of the thirties, should predominatein the reception classes of our schools. How far this is a fact must be judged from recentinquiries.

III. Whole-word Methods TodayA clear picture of teaching practice in any large area is difficult to obtain. Even

in one school, long classroom observation is necessary before a refined and reliable assess-ment of the methods used in the early stages of teaching reading can be made. It ismisleading, too, to speak of different reading methods as though each were self-contained,and as if teachers confined themselves to one particular method, and are consistent intheir approach for all children. Nevertheless, broad trends towards an analytic orsynthetic approach may be distinguished.

According to Duncan in an appendix to Language, a 1954'publication of the Ministryof Education, " in general, in the United States of America during the past twenty-fiveyears the use of phonic work in teaching reading has disappeared. No widely circulatedreaders published in that country in recent years has any phonic basis nor contains anyphonic work." Russell's inquiry, described in a previous article, would suggest that thisis a rather exaggerated view of the situation. It is, however, probably true to say thatanalytic methods predominate in American schools today, at any rate in the early stagesof learning to read.

In this country as a whole no recent survey of current trends has been carried out,and the opinions of educationists conflict to some extent. Duncan, for example, statesthat synthetic methods have been out of favour in English schools for some years, andDaniels and Diack appear to support his statement. Gagg, on the other hand, from aknowledge of over 400 schools, challenges their observations and points out that, whilstwhole words usually form a child's introduction to reading, " infant teachers do in factuse ' phonics' and that in almost all the popular published reading schemes phonicpractice is found."

Conclusions about teaching practice in England, drawn either from individualobservers or from a study of one county, are obviously of doubtful general validity.There is, however, some evidence from the Foundation's recent Kent inquiries (Morris)which backs up the description of present practice given by Gagg. In these studies,as will be seen in Tables 1 and 2, a distinction has been made between the ' word' and* sentence' methods, although both represent stages in the evolution of analytic methods.

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 08:

10 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table HIMEAN SCORES ON THE MINISTRY'S WATTS-VERNON READING TEST BY

TYPE OF SCHOOL WITHIN TYPE OF AREA

N=1,374 Children aged 11 -p

TYPE OF AREA

UrbanRural

All areas

TYPE OF SCHOOL

J. with I.

13.612.1

13.2

J. without" I.

13.813.0

13-7

All-age

12.812.0

12.6

The Ministry report adds, " Differences of the same order between types of school. . . were found in the other two surveys " (1948 and 1952). None of the differencesin Table III is, in fact, statistically significant, but these results certainly do not confirmthe expected superiority of Junior with Infants schools.

Further evidence can be obtained from a reading survey of all children in the 11 +age group carried out, with the assistance of the Foundation, by a County EducationAuthority. In this survey the Foundation's Sentence Reading Test 1—a test of readingcomprehension—was given and estimates were made of the proportion of children in thearea defined as " illiterate." The purely arbitrary definition of illiteracy adopted, forthese eleven-year-old children was a score on the reading test of 7 or under, since themedian score on the same test for seven-year-old children was between 7 and 8 points.Table IV gives the proportion of " illiterates " among children attending different typesof primary school in urban and rural areas.

Table IVPERCENTAGE OF " ILLITERATES " BY TYPE OF PRIMARY SCHOOL AND

TYPE OF AREA

N=3,2i5 Children aged 11 +

TYPE OF AREA

UrbanRural

All areas

TYPE OF SCHOOL

J. with I.

4.7

4.83

J. without I.

2.71.6

2.83

All-age

3-43-6

3-55

The Junior without Infants schools show a significantly smaller percentage of*c illiterates " than the Junior with Infants schools. Differences between Urban andRural areas are not significant. In this same investigation, when a higher standard ofreading was taken to define " backward " readers, similar differences were found. Itwould appear, therefore, as if the Ministry's findings are confirmed. In reading, at least,the performance of children in separate Junior schools appears to be superior; and in theface of the reasoning given earlier this is certainly unexpected. As in all research work,

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 08:

10 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

however, caution is necessary in interpreting results. Although the superior reading ofchildren in separate Junior schools may be due to the influence of the schools, the possi-bility must be considered that this type of school attracts " better " children, a fact thatneed not be so surprising when it is remembered that separate Junior and Infant schoolshave, in the main, been built since 1930 and are therefore closely associated with newerhousing areas.

In the local reading survey referred to above, the results of a Moray House VerbalReasoning Test and the Foundation's Non-Verbal Test 1 were also available for thechildren in the sample, and the relevant mean scores on these tests are given in Table V.

Table VMEAN SCORES ON A MORAY HOUSE VERBAL REASONING TEST AND THEN.F.E.R. NON-VERBAL TEST I FOR CHILDREN ATTENDING DIFFERENT

TYPES OF PRIMARY SCHOOL

N=3,2i5 Children aged 11 +

TEST

M.H.V.R.N.F.E.R.

N/V 1

TYPE OF SCHOOL

J. with I.

96.95

100.06

J. without I.

99-49

104.00

All-age

97-23

98.98

The mean scores on both tests for children attending the^separate Junior schools aresignificantly higher than those for the other two types of school. Without necessarilymaking any assumptions about either of these tests measuring innate " intelligence,"these results indicate that even on tests that are relatively independent of formal teaching,children in Junior without Infants schools are still superior. This would suggest, perhaps,the hypothesis that other factors besides school influence may be operating to producethe high reading scores in these schools.

When it comes to the consideration of other possible factors, there are very fewpublished researches that contain any relevant results. Kemp examined the influenceon children's performances of a number of " school " variables and found that the mainfactors determining level of attainment in the formal school subjects were, in decreasingorder of importance, intelligence, socio-economic status and numbers on roll. Kemp'sinquiries, however, were confined to one type of primary school and hence do not throwany direct light on the present problem. On the other hand, Morris, in her Kent inquiry,studied the association between a number of school characteristics, including type oforganisation, and the reading achievement of children aged seven to eleven years. Herresults are particularly apposite to a study of the present problem and hence will be givenin some detail.

She found that good reading attainment was associated with schools in good districts(that is, the socio-economic status of parents in the school catchment areas was high)and with a Junior without Infants type of organisation. It was also associated with largeschools and superior buildings. She found in addition that high scores on a non-verbal

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 08:

10 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

test were similarly associated with schools in good districts, of large size and with superiorbuildings. They were also associated with a Junior without Infants type of organisation,but to a lesser degree of statistical significance.

These results agree with the other evidence .cited earlier. Morris, however, carriedout further analyses of her data aimed to eliminate the effect of those variables whichcannot readily be altered, namely, urban/rural location, socio-economic status and size ofschool. The association between good reading and the Junior without Infants organisa-tion was then shown not to be statistically significant.

In addition to using the scores on a reading test alone as a criterion of performance,Morris also used " reading adjusted for intelligence," the scores on non-verbal tests beingemployed for the adjustment. Her analyses showed that when allowance was thus madefor differences in " intelligence," there was, nevertheless, a marked and highly significantassociation between higher reading ability and the Junior without Infants type of organisa-tion. This remained even after eliminating the effects of urban/rural location, socio-economic status and school size. Assuming that the adjustment process was valid, thiswould indicate that Junior without Infant schools were indeed producing better readers.

So far, all the evidence considered has come from the testing of eleven-year-oldchildren, or, in Morris' case, all children aged 7 to 11. However, in Morris' very thoroughinvestigation a further series of analyses was carried out on a sample of first-year juniorchildren only. In this sample, as the children had been juniors for only six months, it ishardly likely that good attainment could be attributed to the influence of the junior school,but the results again showed a highly significant association between good reading (andgood non-verbal scores) on the one hand, and Junior without Infants, schools, superiorbuildings, high socio-economic status and large school size on the other. Moreover,when the effect of the last two variables (and urban/rural location) were partialled outfrom the analysis a significant association remained between good reading and the Juniorwithout Infants type of organisation. This last result is certainly surprising since, asMorris puts it, "Unless progress can be attributed to a change of school, the fact of beingeducated in a separate infants school is perhaps more important for reading developmentthan later attendance at a school for juniors only." And she goes on, " These resultswould, therefore, appear to refute the common supposition that a Junior with Infantstype of organisation is better for ensuring continuity of development."

From the evidence reviewed so far it seems fairly clear that children attendingseparate Junior schools produce better reading test results than those attending Juniorwith Infants schools or unreorganised All-age schools. It also seems fairly clear that theseparate Junior schools on the whole are larger, have superior buildings and are to befound in neighbourhoods of high socio-economic status. Whether the higher readingscores are due entirely to this latter fact or whether the separate Infant and Junior organi-sation affords additional benefits on the children being educated in them is not so clear.

Evidence from the Foundation's National SurveyIn 1955, as a part of a National Survey of Ability and Attainment, fully representative

samples of children in three age groups were given tests of reading, arithmetic and non-verbal ability. Of interest to the present inquiry are the results obtained from the 7 +

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 08:

10 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

and 11+ age groups. The former were tested during October, that is, about six weeksafter they had become "juniors." The latter were tested in May, that is, during theirlast term as "juniors."

The 7 + age group was given a non-verbal picture test, a test of reading and a testof mechanical arithmetic which consisted of four separate sub-tests of 20 items each inaddition, subtraction, multiplication and division. The 60-item reading comprehensiontest was the same as that given to children in the older age groups of the survey andalthough it proved to be highly successful with these latter groups it was found not to giveeffective discrimination with the younger children and hence, unfortunately, had to beomitted from the subsequent analyses.

The mean standardised scores obtained by the 7 + children for the non-verbal andarithmetic tests are given in Table VI.

Table VIMEAN STANDARDISED SCORES ON THE NON-VERBAL AND ARITHMETIC

TESTS FOR CHILDREN ATTENDING DIFFERENT TYPES OF PRIMARY SCHOOL

N=2,4I7 Children aged y-f

TEST

Non-verbalArithmetic

TYPE OF SCHOOL

J. with I.

98.59101.28

J. without I.

101.6699.84

All-age

97-1799-71

Although the differences for the most part just fall short of statistical significance,the results are nevertheless extremely interesting, especially when it is remembered thatthese children had only just become " juniors." The children in the separate juniorschools, although giving a better performance on the non-verbal test, did not do as wellas the combined Junior with Infants schools in arithmetic. Care should be taken not toplace too much weight on this result in view of its'statistical non-significance, but it doesapparently provide some counter-evidence, at least in arithmetic, to Dr. Morris' con-clusion that for reading education in a separate Infants school is advantageous.

The 11+ age group completed a reading comprehension test and two tests ofarithmetic. The first of the arithmetic tests (Arithmetic 1) was a 25-item " mechanical "test ranging from simple addition to multiplication and division of fractions and decimals.It was given without time limits. The second arithmetic test (Arithmetic 2) consistedof 100 items, 40 mechanical and 60 problem, administered with a time limit of 50 minutes.This test was in fact similar to the usual type of arithmetic test used by many LocalEducation Authorities as part of their 11+ allocation procedures. The children in thisage group also completed a 64-item non-verbal test. The mean scores for this age groupare given in Table VII.

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 08:

10 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table VHMEAN SCORES ON FOUR TESTS .FOR CHILDREN ATTENDING DIFFERENT

TYPES OF PRIMARY SCHOOL

N=3,O29 Children aged 11 +

TEST

ReadingArith. iArith. 2N/V

TYPE OF SCHOOL

J. with I.

99-6598.3998.08

100.42

J. without I.

100.42101.56101.97101.09

AH-age

99-3399-8o99-3697-99

Again, not all the differences between the Junior with and without Infants schoolsreach statistical significance, although that for Arithmetic 2 does. The trend is, however,consistent, and apparently confirms the previous findings for children of this age.

In order to discover whether the higher mean scores for the Junior without Infantsschools are due to the influence of the type of organisation or to the fact that this type ofschool contains " better " children, it is necessary to carry out further analyses. Unfor-tunately, no data on the socio-economic status of the catchment areas for the schoolsconcerned were collected in the National Survey, but the size of each school, or rather, thesize of the age group in each school, was known and, as both Kemp and Morris have shown,this variable is highly correlated with the type of area in which the schools are situated.An examination of the data showed that the average number of pupils in the age groupconcerned attending both Junior with Infants and All-age schools was just under 20compared with nearly 80 for the Junior without Infants schools.

Accordingly, the mean test scores on Reading and Arithmetic Test 2 for differentsized age groups in each type of school were examined. No association between testscore and size was found in the All-age schools, but in Junior without Infants schools theassociation was highly significant for both tests, whilst in the Junior with -Infants it wassignificant for arithmetic and nearly so for reading.

With arithmetic, when the effect of the size of the age group was eliminated by usinga regression analysis, no difference between the mean scores for Junior with and withoutInfants schools remained—although the difference had been significant previously. Themean standardised scores on Arithmetic Test 2 for different sizes of age group are given inTable VIII.

Table VHIMEAN STANDARDISED SCORES ON ARITHMETIC TEST 2 FOR DIFFERENT SIZES OF AGEGROUP IN BOTH JUNIOR WITH INFANTS AND JUNIOR WITHOUT INFANTS SCHOOLS

N=2,642 Children aged n -f-

TYPE OF SCHOOL

J. with IJ. without I.

SIZE OF AGE GROUP

2 0

96.095-8*

4 0

97-897-6

50

98-798.5

60

99.699-4

8 0

101.4*101.2

•These values have been estimated from the data, since there was only one Junior with Infants school with more than 80 pupilsin the age group, and no Junior without Infants schools with less than 30 pupils.

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 08:

10 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

In the case of reading, however, eliminating the effect of the size of the age groupreveals significant differences between the two types of school concerned. This timethey are in-favour of the Junior with Infants type of organisation. The relevant meanstandardised scores are given in Table IX.

Table IXMEAN STANDARDISED SCORES ON READING TEST FOR DIFFERENT SIZES OF AGEGROUP IN BOTH JUNIOR WITH INFANTS AND JUNIOR WITHOUT INFANTS SCHOOLS

N«= 2,642 Children aged 11 +

TYPE OF SCHOOL

J. with IJ. without I.

SIZE OF AGE GROUP

ao

97-593-7*

40

99-495-7

5O

100.496.6

60

101.497-6

80

103.4*99-6

•These values have been estimated from the data, since there was only one Junior with Infants school with more than 80 pupilsin the age group, and no Junior without Infants schools with less than 30 pupils.

The results set out in Tables VIII and IX are extremely interesting. Clearly, thesize of the age group per se does not cause the difference in mean score; this must be theresult of other variables with which size is associated.

It would seem, however, as if the superiority in performance of children attendingJunior without Infants schools which is normally found is not due to any specific influencewhich this type of school may exert on its pupils. Indeed, the»Eesults of Table IX suggestthat, other things being equal, the Junior with Infants type of organisation is to be pre-ferred, at least so far as reading is concerned.

Summary and ConclusionsAlthough the trend since the war seems to be in favour of providing primary educa-

tion in separate Infants and Junior schools, from the purely educational viewpoint astrong case can be made out for maintaining greater continuity in combined Junior withInfants schools. Evidence as to whether there are differences in the levels of attainmentof children in the two types of organisation is meagre, but what there is appears at firstsight to contradict expectation and to favour the separate Junior school. A closer examina-tion of the problem suggests that the apparent superiority in performance of childrenattending Junior without Infants schools may be ascribed, not to any influence that thistype of school might exert, but to the fact that separate schools for children aged 7 to 11have been built for the most part within the last 20 or 30 years and are to be found innewer housing estates and better areas generally. As a result they probably contain ahigher proportion of more able children.

In making a choice between the two types of organisation it is clearly of primeimportance that due consideration should be given to the needs and interests of thechildren themselves. It could be maintained that administrative arguments ,for buildingseparate schools should be waived in favour of a type of organisation that offers psycho-

7°

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 08:

10 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

logical and educational benefits, even if the final attainments of children attendingseparate junior schools are demonstrably higher.

However, when appropriate allowances are made for the environmental factorsassociated with the type of area in which schools are built, the results, although in partconflicting, suggest that there is little difference in the attainments of children attendingthe two types of organisation. There is even some indication that the performance ofchildren in combined Junior with Infants schools is superior. Although it would bedesirable to confirm this latter finding with evidence from further surveys, it would, never-theless, seem that the policy of building separate Infants and Junior schools needs to beseriously questioned.

ReferencesKEMP, L. C. D., "Environmental and other characteristics determining attainment in primary schools," Brit.

Educ. Psych., XXV, 67-77, 1955.NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH, Periods of Stress in the Primary School, London, 1955.MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, Standards of Reading, 1948-1956, H.M. Stationery Office, 1957.MORRIS, J. M., Reading in the Primaiy School, Newnes, 1959.

7*

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 08:

10 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014