For generations--and certainly for the last 30 years--proponents of traditional and progressive philosophies have argued over how best to educate our children. Although this debate is often carried out in the political and academic spheres, the difficulties created by not being able to resolve the differences between the two belief systems become blatantly clear in the pedagogy of early literacy. On the one hand, traditionalists argue for a direct and explicit instructional methodology, and on the other hand, progressives advocate for Whole Language or Balanced Literacy instruction. The classroom often becomes a battlefield as advocates of these opposing schooling paradigms struggle with each other. Differences emerge about which skills and what knowledge are the most important for students to master. Conflicts arise over which methodology is most effective in ensuring that students gain access to bodies of knowledge. The result is that the real world of classroom instruction often becomes a mish-mash of content and strategies that derive from both philosophies. Student assessments frequently contribute to the confusion because they are not aligned with the knowledge and skills students are expected to acquire as well as with the strategies teachers use. Without assessments that are tightly coupled with the underlying philosophy of an instructional program, with classroom practice, and with high-stakes summative assessments, it is extremely difficult for both teachers and administrators to have confidence that they are offering their students the best possible learning opportunities. Interim/benchmark assessments are vital tools for linking classroom instruction with year-end assessments and an essential element of any comprehensive assessment system. Currently, the Dynamic Indicator of Beginning Early Literacy Skills, commonly referred to as DIBELS, is a widely used interim/benchmark assessment. It serves many districts and schools quite well. However, many progressive educators believe that the DIBELS assessment is not well-aligned with a Balanced Literacy approach. In this dissertation the author examines the following essential question about early literacy interim/benchmark assessments: (a) Is the relationship between the assessed level on the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), which fits within a Balanced Literacy framework, and student's performance on high stakes accountability test as strong as the relationship of DIBELS to these same tests; and (b) does the DRA have a degree of predictive validity comparable to DIBELS? The study demonstrated a strong relationship between the DRA and performance on OAKS and that the DRA has a degree of predictive validity that is comparable to DIBELS. The results from the study support the claim that a curriculum-based measure, such as the DRA, can be used as a literacy screening assessment to detect potential reading difficulties. These results give support to progressive educators who wish to have a viable alternative DIBELS.

Psychological tests are closely tied to the context in which they were designed. Within the South African context, the inequalities of apartheid played a major role in test development and use, and it relies on various international tests that may not be suitable to the context and on local tests that may not include all linguistic groups. There is a need for psychological tests that are in use to be reliable, valid and free from bias. Thus, this research examined the applicability of the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability-Second Revised British Edition (NARA II) in the South African context. Aspects of reliability, validity and bias were examined. A non-probability sample of 144 Grade Four first and second language learners attending one of four government schools in Gauteng were assessed on the NARA II. A non-probability sample of eight professionals (two teachers, one psychometrist, two educational psychologists, two speech therapists and one reading therapist and trainer) were interviewed for their views on the applicability of the NARA II. The research followed a mixed methods approach, namely a sequential explanatory strategy. The results demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability, although this was lower than in the normative sample and other studies. Face validity and concurrent validity were adequate. The content validity of the NARA II was questionable within the South African context, suggesting it should be adapted for use in this country. Some evidence of bias based on gender, home language, population group, educational level of parents and the school learners attended was found. The qualitative data supported findings from the quantitative data. A thematic content analysis identified nine themes namely Suitability of the NARA II to the South African context, Similarities between the NARA II and reading tasks in school, Differences between the NARA II and reading tasks in school, Comprehension skills, Assessment tools utilised for reading in South Africa, Learner errors on reading, Foundations of reading, Benefits and Affordability. The overall conclusion is that adaptation of the NARA II and norming on the South African population be undertaken.

No description available.

published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education

Call number: LD2668 .T4 1979 S46 / Master of Science

published_or_final_version / abstract / Linguistics / Master / Master of Philosophy

published_or_final_version / abstract / Linguistics / Master / Master of Arts

The problem of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of certain predictors of reading success and to determine which combination of these predictors was most reliable in predicting reading success.

The problem of the study was the effectiveness of three techniques to teach the instructional unit, "The Air Force Fiscal Account Structure and Codes." The techniques compared were (1) lecture-demonstration procedure supplemented with the eclectic programed textbook, (2) autoinstructional procedure using only the eclectic programed textbook, and (3) the conventional lecture-demonstration procedure.

The problem investigated in this study was whether students who received computer-assisted reading instruction would display positive attitudes toward reading six or more months after the instruction was completed. A Likert attitude scale was administered to thirteen pre-adolescent and adolescent subjects to assess their attitudes toward reading six or more months after they had received computer-assisted instruction (CAI). In addition, a questionnaire was administered to the subjects' parents to determine their perception of the subjects' attitudes toward reading. Data obtained from the Likert scale indicated that the subjects' attitudes toward reading were neutral. An analysis of responses to the parent questionnaire revealed that the students' attitudes toward school-related reading were positive as a result of CAI. This study concluded that CAI had no apparent positive impact on the subjects' attitudes toward recreational reading.