Two Methods of Teaching Alphabetizing

Abstract

A learning center is an instructional device developed for the attainment of specific goals by activities. Current literature (1) concerns design of strategies implemented without regard to comparing this method of teaching other instructional approaches. To fill this need, the present study compared the performance of two third grade classes (N = GO), one taught by the learning center method and the other by a teacher-directed method in acquiring alphabetization. The school is racially integrated and children are predominantly of the low-middle economic stratum as determined by the income of parents, financial expenditure per child for education, and number of children on the free lunch program. Activities for the learning center group were designed to permit flexibility in learning rate and independent study; however, the teacher monitored pupils' progress to answer questions and make sure the pupils worked on tasks. At selected points achievement was assessed; students continued other experiences or reviewed activities until a successful level of performance was achieved. The teacher-directed group received large group instruction from the Time to Wonder series (2). The instructional time allocated was 20 min. per day for 15 days. Cognitive achievement was measured by pre- and posttests. Affective response was measured b a Thurstone Scale for Hostility (3). The cognitive instrument was administered the zrst day of the program. Affective attitude was assessed after the third day of treatment. The posttest, followed by the hostility scale, was administered again on Day 15. Significant differences between mean cognitive achievement on pre- and posttests were measured by a 2-tail t test for paired observations (p < .05). For both groups, mean achievement increased significantly. Pre- and posttest means for learning center group were 85.9 and 109.32 (SD = 28.61, 31.22; 120 = 2.46, p < .01) and the teacherdirected group were 86.6 and 101.78 (SD = 27.09, 29.34; t~ = 1.69, p < .05). Mean ratings of the hostility scale on the pre- and posttests assessed by a 2-tail t test for paired obserrvauons indicated that affective response for learning center group changed from Favorable about to Pleased with the instructional method. Means were 22.08 and 16.77 (SD = 24.93, 15.12; t- = 1.59, p < .05). Affectiye, respnse for teacher-directed group was Favorable about treatment on both adm~nistrations; mean scores were 23.69 and 21.98 (SD = 25.03, 26.15; tll = 2.34). Preliminary results suggest both methods effectively produced gains in alphabetization. Pupils expressed a more positive affective response, i.e., reduced hostility, after working in the learning center, while students in the teacher-directed group showed no change. The novelty of the learning center might account for this reduction; findings are by no means conclusive as methods were provided intact groups. Cross-validation w~ch chlldren in more diverse classrooms, other subject content, and techniques for assessing pupils' reactions are needed.