A COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUALIZED AND GROUP-ORIENTED READING METHODS RELATED TO CRITICAL THINKING.

摘要

The Problem. The problem of the study was to prove whether individualized or group-oriented lessons provided the best method to increase critical reading skills.; Method. Of the 120 eighth-grade subjects, 60 participated as the control group receiving a regular individualized program and 60 formed the experimental group. The design of the experiment was a simple posttest to determine the influence of the independent variable which was the group oral activities involving use of the Ruddell model for formulating questions. The instrument used to determine students' use of logic, evaluation of internal consistency in an argument, identification of an author's point of view and discernment and comparison of related content from various sources was the Stanford Achievement Test, Intermediate Level II, Form A published in 1973. The method of comparison of control and experiment groups was the statistical means. The method used to ensure comparability of groups I and II in the student selection process was stratified random sampling. The t test to measure equality of mean scores was at the 95 percent confidence level.; Results. There was no significant difference in achievement, although the experimental group did show improvement. Both groups did grow and improve which was a confirmation of both instruction methods. Sixth grade reading level students showed significant improvement in the experimental group. All other reading levels did not show significant improvement in the experimental group, but they did outgain the control group at every level. By reading grade level, it was determined the experimental group had improved vocabulary scores overall and the experimental reading technique produced higher mean scores in all areas--literal, inferential and comprehension, which was the total of the literal and inferential scores. Higher vocabulary scores were found with sixth grade reading level students. Though there were no general significant differences, the tendency was for the experimental group to perform better than the control. As to which method produced a more enjoyable experience, pretest and posttest showed more negative responses from the control group and more positive from the experimental. However, the variance in the number of negative responses was reduced in both experimental and control groups in the posttest.; The experience of the experimental group be accepted as a viable alternative for reading teachers who feel unable to manage an individualized reading program. Improved attitudes were in evidence in both groups, so it must be concluded that one method was not more beneficial than the other in producing improved reading attitudes and, in fact, both methods seemed to improve attitudes. Statistical evidence suggested neither reading method should necessarily be preferred to the other to improve critical thinking. Materials should be selected and questions written so that critical thinking is maximized. Selection must involve suitability so that it can be used for critical thinking. Another recommendation would be to concentrate on a central theme instead of including many areas of human concern. This was especially true of the junior high grades.