Atlanta University Center

DigitalCommons@Robert W. Woodruff Library, Atlanta

University Center
ETD Collection for AUC Robert W. Woodruff Library

5-1-1965

Two methods of teaching arithmetic in second

grade
Lexie Battle Williams
Atlanta University

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.auctr.edu/dissertations

Part of the Education Commons

Recommended Citation
Williams, Lexie Battle, "Two methods of teaching arithmetic in second grade" (1965). ETD Collection for AUC Robert W. Woodruff
Library. Paper 818.

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Robert W. Woodruff Library, Atlanta University Center. It has been
accepted for inclusion in ETD Collection for AUC Robert W. Woodruff Library by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Robert W.
Woodruff Library, Atlanta University Center. For more information, please contact cwiseman@auctr.edu.
TWO METHODS OF TEACHING ARITHMETIC IN SECOND GRADE

A THESIS

StJBNITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION,

ATLANTA UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIR~1ENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MA~STER OF ARTS

BY

LEXIE BATTLE WILLIAMS

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

ATLANTA UNIVERSITY

ATLANTA, GEORGIA

NAY 1965
 DEDICATION

Dedicated

To my Loving Mother

Mrs. Lizzie Battle

11
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First, I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Edward K. Weaver

and Dr. Laurence E. Boyd, my advisor and co-advisor for their valuable

guidance, advice and patience which enabled me to make this accomplish

ment.

Second, my sincere thanks to Miss M. I. Freeman and Dr. Ed. S. Cook,

my principal and area superintendent, for their splendid cooperation

in the initiation of this study.

Finally, I wish to express my gratitude and acknowledge my

indebtedness to Mrs. Gladys Kineard, my devoted sister, for the

encouragement which she gave nie and which was very much needed to

perform this task.

L.B.W.

111
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

DEDICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT, . . . . . . . iii

LIST OF TABLES . . . .
vi

LISTOF FIGURES . vii

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION............ . . S ~ • ~ ~ • S 1

Rationale. . . . .,. . . . . . • . . . . . . 1
Evolution of the Problem • • • • S • • ~ • • 4
Contribution to Educational Knowledge. • . . . . . . 4
Statement of the Problem • . . . a . . 4
Purpose of the Study . . . . • . . . . . . 4
Definition of Terms. . . . • . . . . . . 5
Limitations of the Study . . . • . . . • . . 5
Locale of the Study. . • . • • . . S • • 5
Subjects . . . . . • . . . S • • 5
Description of Instruments • • , • . . . . . . 5
Method of Research • • . . . • . . . . • • 6
Survey of Related Literature • • • . . . . . 7
Objectives and Philosophy of Teaching
Arithmetic . . . . .. 11
Organization and Curriculum Content a • . • • • • 13
Methods of Teaching Arithmetic. • . . . . . . 18
Evaluation 22
Trends in “modern” Arithmetic • 24

II. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA. . . • • . . • • 27

Organization and Treatment of Data • 27

Achievement Indices On Tests. • . . . . . • • . 29
Results of Otis Quick-Scoring Mental Ability Test. 29
Results on Gates Primary Reading Test 31
Results on Metropolitan Readiness Arithmetic Test. 35
Results on New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings. 35
Results on The Stanford Achievement Test . • . , 40
Results on The Teacher-made Test. . . • . . . • 0 41

iv
 V

TABLE OF CONTENTS- -Continued

Chapter Page

III. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . 53

Interpretative Summaries . . . . 54
Conclusions • • • . . . . . . . . 57
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Recommendations . . . . . . . . 59

BIBLIOG~~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . e • • 60

APPENDIX, . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • 64

Specimen of the Otis Quick Scoring Mental Ability Test

Specimen of the Metropolitan Readiness Test (Arithmetic)
Specimen of the Gates Primary Reading Test
Specimen of the New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings
Specimen of The Stanford Achievement Test
Teacher-Made Test
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Distribution of the Raw Scores on the Otis

Quick-Scoring Ability Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2. Distribution of the Raw Scores on the Gates

Primary Reading Test. . . . . . 33

3. Distribution of the Raw Scores on the Metropolitan

Readiness (Arithmetic) Test. . . . . . . . 36

4. Distribution of the Raw Scores on the New York

Arithmetical Meaning Test. . . . . . 38

5. Distribution of the Raw Scores on the Stanford

Achievement Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . 40

6. Distribution of the Raw Scores on the Teacher-made

Test. • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

7. Significant Difference on the Otis Quick-Scoring

Mental Ability Test and the Metropolitan
Readiness (Arithmetic) Test. • . . . . . . . . .. . . 45

8. Significant Difference on the Gates Primary Reading

Test and the Metropolitan Readiness (Arithmetic).
Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

9. Significant Difference on the New York Arithmetical

Meaning Test and the Metropolitan Readiness
(Arithmetic) Test. • . . . . 48

10. Significant Difference on the Stanford Achievement

Test and the New York Arithmetical Meaning Test.., . 49

11. Significant Difference on the Metropolitan

Readiness (Arithmetic) Test and the Teacher-
made Test 51

12. Significant Difference on the Stanford Achievement

Test and the Teacher-made Test. . . . . . . . . . . . 52

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Frequency Polygon of the Scores made on the Otis

Quick-Scoring Test of Mental Ability by the
Thirty Second Grade Pupils of the Whittaker
School. • • • • • • . • . • •~ 32

2. Frequency Polygon of Scores made on the Gates

Primary Reading Test by the Thirty-two Second
Grade Pupils in the Whittaker School. . . . . . . . .. 34

3. Frequency Polygon of Scores made on the

Metropolitan Reading (Arithmetic) Test by
the Thirty-one Second Grade Pupils of the
Whittaker School. . . . 37

4. Frequency Polygon of the Scores made on the New

York Arithmetical Meaning Test by the Thirty-two
Second Grade Pupils of the Whittaker School. . • . 39

5. Frequency Polygon of the Scores made on the

Stanford Achievement Test by the Thirty
Second Grade Pupils of the Whittaker School 42

6. Frequency Polygon of the Scores made on the Teacher

made Test by the Thirty Second Grade Pupils of
the Whittaker School • • .• 44

vii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Rationale.-—Our modern industrial civilization rests to a large

degree on the achievements of mathematicians. The spectacular progress

of modern man in controlling the environment and harnessing the forces

of nature to meet his needs has been possible because he had available

a number system that was readily adaptable to a large number of

practical problems.1 Arithmetic is not only interwoven with the

activities in which adults engage; it is also an integral part of the

life of the young child. Number is the basic element of a constantly

expanding system of thinking which enables man to deal effectively and

systematically with the quantitative aspects of his daily affairs,

Recent studies of the learning process have revealed the value

of new types of instructional procedures in arithmetic and the limita

tions of various traditional practices.

The teaching of arithmetic has been influenced considerably by

various theories which have been dominant at different periods of time.

Briefly, the principal theories are referred to as the drill theory,

the incidental-learning theory and the meaning theory. The drill

theory, in effect, has held that repeated practice with the basic

facts of arithmetic is sufficient for mastery.

1William B. Ragan, Modern Elementary Curriculum (New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 277.

1
 2

The incidental-learning theory has held that proper motivation

for learning fundamental facts can be achieved by presenting these

facts as part of a more general learning situation.

The third theory is the meaning theory. This theory holds that

pupils will achieve mastery of ideas and skills in arithmetic if

practice is given following understanding, It is concerned with needs,

interests, responses, and the life outside the school,1

The revolution taking place in the field of mathematics.identifies

and accentuates the social aspects of education. In the first place,

pupils enrolled in our schools need to learn more mathematics than in

any other period of history. This learning can not be gained except

by concrete effort of pupils and the schools. Secondly, mathematical

education involves a blending of knowledge and culture of the past with

the new subject matter of modern mathematics. This, too, is a function

of the school, The way educational experiences are presented to

children, in order to avoid confusion and to provide efficiency of

instructional practices, represents a third aspect of the relation of

the school to society.

But there remains a fourth aspect, perhaps the most important of

all, The school must make value judgments about the kind and amount of

education to be provided for children. Certainly children need a

balanced mathematical education which will enable them to live and

learn in our culture. They must also be assured that the essential

1Clifford Bell, Clela D. Hammond, and Robert B. Herrera,

Fundamentals of Arithmetic for Teachers (New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1962), p. 4.
 3

spirit of democracy is achieved through the method and content provided

for them.’

Teaching must be effective if adjustments are to be adequately

made and the learner is to become a well-adjusted personality, learning

numbers is an integral part of the process of learning to live. Life

can be full and rich; made so in parts through realization of the

fullness and richness of number relations. As we try to help children

live we must evaluate our efforts. We must continue ways and means in

number teaching which will contribute meaning and vitality to social

living--dynamics and effective happy living.2

Similarly, many authorities consider the possibilities of

arithmetic.

Hollister and Gunderson state that:

At all levels of arithmetic teaching the instructor needs

to encourage children to think for themselves and in this way
to discover concepts, facts, and generalizations. By helping
the children to discover interesting facts about the history
and use of numbers, the teacher can enrich the program and add
to the overall effectiveness of the pupils experience with
numbers. The interest in what numbers are and how to use them
can be engendered by the skillful teacher. This involves
guiding and helping the child to understand values and meanings
so that he becomes thoroughly familiar with numerical functions.
The successful arithmetic teacher instills interest, familiar
ity, and confidence in working with numbers.3

1Wilbur H. Dulton, Evaluating Pupils’ Understanding of Arithmetic

(New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 14.

Newton Stokes, Teaching the Meanings of Arithmetic (New York:

Appleton-Century-CroftS, Inc., 1951), p. 10.

3George E. bluster and Agnes C. Gunderson, Teaching Arithmetic

in Grades I and II (Loromie, 1954), p. 5.
 4

Evolution o~ the problem.--The writer’s interest in the area of

arithmetic evolved out of a desire on the part of the writer a teacher

at John p. Whittaker Elementary School to investigate this problem

area because of personal interest. Also the writer became interested

in this problem because “modern mathematics” has been adopted in the

school where she teaches.

Contribution to Educational Knowledge.--It is hoped that this

study will be of significance to other teachers in improving the

teaching of arithm~etic, to make it more meaningful to the boys and

girls. It is also hoped that certain implications can be drawn from

this study which will be helpful to children, teachers and principals.

Statement of the Problem.--The problem of this study was to test

the hypothesis that there will be no significant difference in

achievement and development of meaningful understanding and/or concepts

when a group of second grade children are taught arithmetic in a

“conventional” or “traditiona1’~ frame as compared with a meaning frame.

Purpose of the Study.--The purpose of this study was to teach a

group of second grade children arithmetic in a frame of “conventional”

methods and content and in a frame of tIfmeaningt~ methods and content.

More specifically, the purpose of the study was:

1. To determine the difference, if any, in comprehension of

the “fundamentals” of arithmetic when taught in a
conventional and/or meaning frame.

2. To determine the pupils ability to solve arithmetic

“reasoning problems” to do computations, and to de
velop an understanding of the number system.

3. To draw implications from the findings which might

be basic to the improvement of the arithmetic
program in second grade.
 5

Definition of Terms~- -The terms used in this study are defined

as follows:

1. Traditional method - This method often referred to as

the drill method is one by which the learner practices
or repeats a process again until it is learned after an
undertaking is given by the teacher.

2. Meanings are defined as the import of relationship

inherent in number study; the sense which the relation
ships are intended to express. The method is essentially
one of problem-solving. Relationship constitutes the
meanings.

Limitations of the Study.--This study is limited in that it was

confined to one group of second grade children. It was limited to the

extent that any research design provides certain limitations in

freedom of movement and operation. In addition, the study was limited

by the extent to which the inv~stigator provided learning opportunities

to one group of students in two methods of teaching which were, to a

considerable extent, based on differing conceptions of the learning

process and the goals of arithmetic instruction.

Locale of the Study.--This study was conducted at John P.

Whittaker Elementary School, Area IV of the Atlanta Public System,

1964—1965.

Subjects.--The subjects involved in this study was one second

grade class of boys and girls.

Description of Instrurnents.--The instruments to be used to collect

data for this study are identified below:

1. Otis Quick Scoring Mental Ability Test, Alpha This is the
-

latest refinement in a series of measures of intelligence

sampling a variety of mental functions that have repeatedly
demonstrated their usefulness for predicting school success.
The short form yields only one I.Q~ though including both
verbal and nonverbal material0

lStokes, op. cit., p. 12.

 6

2. Metropolitan Readiness Tests Arithmetic Part, Form S -

This test measures number knowledge. It measures achieve

ment in number vocabulary, counting, ordinal numbers,
recognition of written numbers, writing numbers, the
meaning of functional parts, recognition of forms, etlling
time and the use of numbers in simple problems.

3. Gates Primary Reading Test To determine the pupil’s

-

reading ability at this level. The Gates Primary is

divided into three parts --Word Recognition, Sentence,
and Parag~raph reading.

4. New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings (Level One) - This

test is composed of two parts Test 1, Pre-Measurement
--

Concepts, and Test 2, Numerical Concepts.

5. Stanford Achievement Test, Arithmetic Part - The arithme

tic test contains 63 items in three parts: Part A,
Measures, Part B, Problem Solving, Part C, Number
Concepts.

Method of Research.--The method of research used in this study

was the experimental method, employing tests, statistical analysis and

curriculum materials to collect the data required for the study. A

single group of second graders was used throughout the study and

experiment, and their achievement under one condition was compared

with their own achievement under another condition.1

Research Procedure.--The data necessary for the development of

this study was collected, organized, analyzed, interpreted and

presented by the following steps:

l~ Permission to conduct the study was requested from the

school officials.

2. Literature pertinent to this study was gathered, reviewed,

and summarized.

3. The Otis Quick-Scoring Mental Ability Test was administered

at the beginning of the experiment.

1John W. Best, Research In Education (Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1959), p. 131.
 7

4. Gates Primary Reading Test was administered to determine

reading ability at this level,

5. The Metropolitan Readiness Test (Form 5) Arithmetic Part

was administered to determine arithmetic readiness.

6. New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings was administered

at the end of the first instructional period.

7. Stanford Achievement Test Primary Battery I Arithmetic

Part was administered at the end of the second instruc
tional period.

8. Teacher made test - the teacher made tests were con

structed by the teacher,

9. Observation - to obtain evidence of growth (primary

technique of evaluation).

Survey of Related Literature.--Within the past few years the

field of arithmetic for primary grades has become an area in which

there is a tremenãous need for the enrichment of teaching and learning.

Foster1 states that there is a need for introducing materials stressing

the use of deductive reasoning in arithmetic in the primary grades.

Buckingham2 writeE that problems must be expressed in language

which children can understand- -the computation should be within their

power, and their complexity- -the number of steps involved should be

within the maturity of their reasoning processes. This points up the

fact that specific word study is an essential procedure in connection.

with problem-solving.

~James M. Foster, “Deductive Reasoning in the Primary Arithmetic

Program,” American Teacher (January, 1962), pp. 20-21.

2B. R. Buckingham, “Social Value of Arithmetic,” Arithmetic in

the Elementary School, Twenty-ninth Yearbook, National Society for the
Study of Education (New York, 1936), p. 59.
 8

All teaching of reasoning problems should be intensely practical.

Strickland’ points out the fact that developing number sense is

developing vocabulary meanings. A number of words must be learned as

well as the number words can be an exciting challenge to teachers’

capabilities. With skill and understanding she can lead them to a

knowledge of numbers and to an ability to use them.

It is wise to plan for arithmetic in an orderly manner.

Brueckner and Grossnickle made the following statement about planning:

Arithmetic instruction in the primary grades should proceed

on a systematic, planned basis. From the beginning, the
children should participate under teacher guidance in well
selected activities which will show them how arithmetic
functions in their daily lives. In these experiences the
work should be so conducted that the mathematical and social
phases of arithmetic are both fully developed.2

Arithmetic is universally accepted as one of the fundamentals

which must be taught to American school children. Yet certain aspects

of the teaching of arithmetic have given teachers a great deal of

concern.

Petty found that complaints concerning the child’s lack of

ability to solve problems dealing with quantative situations comes

from many quarters.3 Clark and Eads indicated that the difficulty

1Ruth G. Strickland, Language Arts in the Elementary School

(Boston: D. C. Heath, 1957), pp. 181-182.

2Leo J. Brueckner and Foster E. Grossnickle, How to Make

Arithmetic Meaningful (Philadelphia: J. C. Winston Company, 1947),
p. 513.

3Olan Petty, r~Requiring Proof of Understanding,” Arithmetic

Teacher, II (November, 1955), pp. 121-123.
 9

children have with problem-solving lies in their lack of ability to~

see the various relationships involved in the problem situation.1-

The arithmetic meaning to be acquired by most children in the

primary grades are briefly certain mathematical concepts and

processes. We often make a serious error in assuming that primary

arithmetic consists of a routine counting, reading, and writing of

numerals, and routine oral and written repetition of simple arithme

tic facts~~ Swenson says that teachers in the primary grades have the

responsibility to teach much more than the oral and written form.

They also need to teach the underlying and surrounding meaning and

concepts and processes which are merely signified forms. The concepts

and processes which undergird the whole arithmetic curriculum should

be introduced and practiced in the primary grades for the primary

teacher sets the foundation. These concepts should not be thought of

as primary in the sense that they are easy ideas for immature learners.

They should be considered primary in the sense of being fundamental or

basic ideas.2

Neureiter and Wozencraft made a study in “Action Research” to

make a contribution to the development of a better elementary school

curriculum by showing that arithmetic content can be redistributed

1John Clark and Laura K. Eads, Guiding Arithmetic Learning

(Yonkers on Hudson: World Book Company, 1945), p. 256.

2Esther J. Swenson, “Making Primary Arithmetic Meaningful to

Children,” Journal of the National Education Association (January,
1960), 43-61.
 10

between. the primary and intermediate grades.’

G. T. Buswell states that:

Experience with arithmetic in the beginning grades can be

roughly classified into three groups. The first, and
oldest of these presented arithmetic as a set of facts to
be learned with little appeal to understanding or to social
uses. .A se:ond group of practices uses concrete experiences
as the proper way to introduce numbers to children. A
third way of presenting number experiences exemplified by
the systems of Catherine Stern in this country and of
Cruisenaire in Europe, pays less attention to socially
concrete experiences and deals more directly with
numbers and number relations.2

Findings from a study in relative effectiveness of two methods

of teaching arithmetic in relation to sex differences revealed that

“the meaning methods exhibited no superiority over the drill method

of teaching arithn~tic to males and females.”3

Another stu.dy concerned with the comparison of. “meanful’’ and

“traditional” methodologies revealed:

In spite of the absence of observed statistically

significant difference in the level of scholastic achieve
ment between the experimental and the control groups,
there presists the tendency of the experimental group
to benefit more in reference to the larger means on tests.

‘Paul R. Ne&treiter and Marian Wozencraft, “What Arithmetic in

Second Grade,’’ Arithmetic Teacher (January, 1962), pp. 252-256.

T. Buswell, “The Content and Organization of Arithmetic,”

The Arithmetic Teacher (March, 1959), pp. 77-80.

3R. C. H. Gannaway, “The Relative Effectiveness of Two Methods

of Arithmetic Teaching in Relation to Sex Differences” (unpublished
Master’s thesis, School of Education, Atlanta University, 1960), p. 30.

4Bronnel .R. .Whelchel, “A Comparison of “Meanful’’ and ‘‘Traditional”

Methodologies with Reference to Selected Topics from Number Theory,
1961-1962” (unpublished Master’s thesis, School of Education, Atlanta
University, 1962), p. 40.
 11

The writer will summarize some findings in the following areas:

(1) Objectives and Philosophy of Teaching Arithmetic

(2) Organization and Curriculum Content

(3) Methods of Teaching Arithmetic

(4) Evaluation

Objectives and Philosophy of Teaching Arithmetic

In the teaching of arithmetic, objectives through the years have

been both broadened and clarified. They have moved from the idea of

being strictly social, to mathematical contrasting with social, down

to the present acceptance of both mathematical and social objectives.

These objectives have been greatly determined by the various philoso

phies of the teacher’s role in the teaching of arithmetic.

There are three clearly identifiable philosophies of the teacher’s

role in the teaching of arithmetic with consequent and varying degrees

of success in attaining the goals of arithmetic education. The three

philosophies are authoritarian, laissez-faire and democratic.

The authoritarian philosophy assumes that the child is largely

dependent upon the teacher for the identification and exposition of the

facts and processes in the subjects. Conversely this philosophy assumes

that the child is not capable of trfiguring out’~ for himself any of the

facts and processes in arithmetic.1

The philosophy of laissez-faire assumes that the role of the

teacher is to allow the child to do anything he wishes to do within

1Committee on Flexibility of the Central New York Study Council,

Developing Meaningful Practices in Arithmetic (New York: June, 1951),
pp. 3-4.
 12

certain limitations. She proceeds on the assumption that it is

outside her responsibilities to participate in the guiding of the

child in the discovery of facts and generalizations in arithmetic;

and that it is even more outside her role to identify for him any of

the facts and generalizations.3-

The democratic philosophy assumes that the learner is capable

of growing from a dependent to an independent organism. From a

propelled to a self-propelled being. It assumes that the child is

capable of making discoveries of arithmetical facts and understandings

for himself with the. guidance of the teacher.2

Corresponding to these three philosophies of the teacherts role

are three theories of learning which currently influence much of

arithmetic education. They are the drill theory, the incidental-

learning theory, and the meaning theory. They correspond as follows:

Authoritarian-Drill theory, Laissez-faire-Incidental-learning theory,

and Democratic-Meaning theory.

Confronted with these three theories the problem becomes, for

the teacher and research worker, one of deciding which theory to

accept. It is generally agreed that the drill theory offers little

hope as a solid foundation upon which to build an adequate arithmetical

structure. The indicental-learning theory is somewhat of a remedy for

the drill theory because it strongly emphasizes interest, but does not

1lbid., pp. 8-9.

2lbid., pp. 15-16.

 13

support the teaching of arithmetic as a system of closely related

understandings. The meaning theory recognizes the desirable qualities

of practice and the importance of interest and needs basically expli

cated in incidental-learning theory. In addition, it emphasizes the

idea that arithmetic is an organized system of ideas, Consequently,

it is concluded that:

•the meaning theory is basic to a modern program

of arithmetic in the democratic classroom. Numerous
research studies have shown the superiority of learning
that results from arithmetic learned under the meaning
theory.1-

Organization and Curriculum Content

The curriculum of arithmetic, generally speaking, has not under

gone any major changes. This is due to the fact that the curriculum

was in the past and still is today concerned with common usage of

operations within the decimal system. It was not until after 1957

that the curriculum underwent any great change. Other systems not

based on ten could be introduced, but even so, the curriculum-maker

had freedom only in respect to emphasis and to variety of application.

Therefore, up to that time, it dealt with organization of content, its

grade placement and the kinds of desirable application as indicated by

social usage.

Research in grade placement and readiness has two effects on

the arithmetic curriculum. They are referred to as the “stepped up”

curriculum and the “stretched outer curriculum. The “stepped up”~

‘Ibid., pp. 25-30.

 14

curriculum got its roots from a study conducted by a group to determine

the mental age level at which various topics in arithmetic could be

taught to “completion.” Typically, the Committee found that addition

of like fractions required a mental age of ten to eleven years, and

unlike fractions, fourteen to fifteen years. Two-figure division

required a mental age of twelve to thirteen years.1

Related to grade placement is the problem of postponed or

deferred instruction. Beneget in Manchester, New Hampshire, carried

out a study from which he concluded “If I had my way, I would omit

arithmetic from the first six grades. The whole subject could be

postponed until the seventh year, and mastered in two years study.2

This lead many people to conclude erroneously that all arithmetic

could be deferred until the seventh grade. However, closer observa

tion showed that there was much arithmetic taught in grades one and

four. Thiele visited the Manchester, New Hampshire, schools and said:

“First hand observation leads me to conclude that Beneget did not

prove that arithmetic can be taught incidentally. Instead he provided

conclusive evidence that children profit greatly from an organized

1C. W. Washburne, “The Grade Placement of Arithmetic Topics: A

Committee of Seven Investigators,” Report of the Society’s Committee
on Arithmetic. Twenty-ninth Yearbook, Part II, National Society for
the Study of Education (Bloomington, Illinbis: Public School Publish
ing Co.,, 1930), pp. 641-670.

W. Washburne, “Work of the Committee of Seven on Grade

Placement in Arithmetic,” Child Development and the Curriculum.
Thirty-eighth Yearbook, Part I, National Society for the Study of
Education (Bloomington, Illinois: Public School Publishing Co.,,
1939), pp. 299—324.
 15

arithmetic program which stresses number concepts, relations, and

meaning.1

Former goals for elementary school arithmetic are not being

forsaken. Dean says the following frequently quoted purposes continue

to be major objectives:

1. To develop concepts of quantity and quantitative

relationships; to develop the child’s ability to
think in quantitative situations.

2. To develop as high a level of skill in computation

as is realistic in consideration of each child’s
potential.

3. To recognize those situations in daily living

requiring mathematical solutions and the appro
priate techniques for solving them.

4. To develop an understanding of our number system

and to recognize the value of the base 10 in con
cept development as children work with processes.

She continues by stating that to these the following goals, which

have some element of newness, should be added:

1, To help each child understand the structure of

mathematics, its laws and principals, its sequences
and order, and the way in which mathematics as a
system expand to meet new needs.

2. To help each child prepare for the next steps in

mathematical learning which are appropriate for
him in terms of. his potential and his future
education requirements.2

~iouis C. Thiele, Contribution of Generalization to the Learning

of the Addition Facts. .Contributions to Education, No. 673 (New
York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University,
1938), p.. 84.

2Edwina Deans, Elementary School Mathematics, U. S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, 1963, p. 4.
 16

When teachers have a broad perspective of arithmetic, they are

able to set up satisfactory patterns for both content and method. Most

teachers, however, use a course of study developed by someone else.

The question of what is to be taught and when is very rigidly stated in

courses of study classified as traditional,

Every society attempts to provide for its youth a form of edu

cation that will presumably perpetuate that society--its form of

government, its ideas and its moves. Hence when we consider the purposes

and aims of teaching any subject in the American school curriculum, we

must look first to the needs of our society as a whole.

More specific purposes to be served by arithmetic in the curri

culum may be stated as follows:

(1) It should provide the arithmetic needed for a

general education.

(2) It should lay the foundation for the mathematics

needed in scientific and technical pursuits.

(3) It should enable an individual to deal with number

ideas and symbols as easily as he deals with the
language ideas and symbols in his environment.’

We all agree that arithmetic should be taught meaningfully. Hence

if given two instructional methods, if one of them makes arithmetic more

meaningful to pupils or produce greater understanding we should prefer

that one~2

~-Cleato B. Thorpe, Teaching Elementary Arithmetic (New York:

Harper and Brothers, 1962), p. 49.

2Maurice L. Hortung, ttDistinguishing Between Basic and Super

ficial Ideas in Arithmetic Instructions,” The Arithmetic Teacher
(Washington, D. C., 1959), p. 66.
 17

In ~a study of meaning method as it is related to publication of

whole numbers., Brownell and Moses1 compare the effectiveness of the

decomposition method to the equal addition method when each was taught

two ways, meaningfully and mechanically. The researchers using a

variety of data, found that the decomposition method when taught

meaningfully was the most successful method wherein the equal addition

method was different to rationalize.

In a description of the meaning method, Miller asserts that:

The meaning method offers the student an integration of

the concepts and principles of arithmetic as well as
the computation of the problem. Explanation of why
the processes work are given to the student. Rules
are explained, not in isolated segments but as
conclusions based upon arithmetical definitions and
principles.2

In evaluation of the meaning method conducted by the theorist in

arithmetic learning, the usual procedure has been to compare the

meaning method with the drill method. Brownell and Chazel3 were among

the first to investigate the problem with an experiment that demonstrate

the effectiveness of premature drill on the elementary level.

William A. Brownell and Harold E. Moses, ttMeaningful Versus

Mechanical Learning,’t Duke University Research Studies in Education
(Durham, N. C., 1946), p. 407.

2G. H. Miller, IrHow Effective is the Meaning Method?” The

Arithmetic Teacher (Washington, D. C., 1957), p. 46.

3William H. Brownell and Charlotte B. Chazell, “The Effect of

Premature Drill in Third Grade Arithmetic,” Journal of Education
Research (Washington, D. C., 1935), p. 17.
 18

Thiele’ and later Swenson2 conducted experiments based on

learning 100 addition facts which showed significant difference in

ability to make generalizations in arithmetic problems by those

students who were instructed by the meaning method.

Methods of Teaching Arithmetic

Teaching arithmetic is a task which will challenge the best

efforts of teachers. The efficient teacher must have a thorough

knowledge of the subject matter of arithmetic, skill in technique,

and in guiding the learning of pupils.

It has been noted that arithmetic teaching in the past has

been less effective than it should be. In seeking reasons for this

lack of efficiency, material and content have been somewhat at fault

but certainly the methods of teaching arithmetic have also been an

important factor. The trend in methods have greatly been influenced

by the objectives of arithmetic. When the aim is for computational

skill, then, teaching follows mechanical methods, but when the aim

is for quantitative thinking alone with computational skill then

teaching follows mechanical methods, but when the aim for quantitative

thinking alone with computational skill, then teaching follows

rational methods.

1-Thiele, op. cit., p. 84.

2Ester J. Swenson, “Organization and Generalization to the

Factors in Learning, Transfer and Retroactive Inhibition,” Learning
Theory in School Situations (University of Minnesota Press, 1949), p. 9.
 19

The method drill has been attacked by many in terms of its

worthiness to the process of learning. Some have argued to abandon

it, others have said that it needs clarifying. At this time, however,

the argument is that if used it should follow meanings. Studies have

been conducted to compare the drill method with functional procedures.

Harding and Bryant conducted one study in which they attempt to

determine pupils taught through functional procedures would attain as

high achievement on standardized measures of computation and reasoning

as would pupils taught by the formulized drill.1 Their findings

indicated that the direct first-hand-experience method produces greater

improvement in reasoning than drill procedures and vicarous experiences.

The limitations of the traditional drill program, with its

narrow objectives and formalized methods of instruction, and the value

of the modern program, with its emphasis on number meanings and social

uses of arithmetic, are well summarized in the following statement.

One of the great fallacies of the elementary curriculum is

to classify arithmetic as a skill or a drill or a subject
tool. When arithmetic is viewed in these terms and is
taught accordingly the results are just what we have been
getting for the last several decades. In a word, arithme
tical incompetence, the teaching process, according to
the tool conception of arithmetic, undertakes to tell
children what to do but not why to do it; and then by
ceaseless dull to have them do it until they can
demonstrate some degree of mastery. After that, heavy
programs of maintenance are organized to keep the
skills alive.2

1Lowry W. Harding and Inez P. Bryant, “An Experimental Compari

son of Drill and Direct Experiences in Arithmetic Learning in the
Fourth Grade,” Journal of Educational Research (1944), pp. 321-24.

A. Brownell, “When is Arithmetic Meaningful,” Journal of

Educational Research, 38: pp. 481-498.
 20

But arithmetic, properly conceived, is not a tool or a drill

subject. Of course, proficiency is necessary--everyone agrees that

this is so; but more than proficiency (speed and correctness) in

computation is demanded by the conditions of life. In practical

living we must be intelligent in quantitative situations. Mechanical

skills may suffice so long as these skills are employed in situations

which are wholly familiar. To the degree that situations differ from

the completely familiar, we must be able to think--and one does not

think effectively with mechanics alone. Thinking is possible only to

him that possesses rich meanings. So equipped, one is sensitive subtle

aspects of situations which escape the possessor of mechanical skills

alone. For many, many years we have been told that skills can be used

intelligently, only when thay are acquired intelligently; hence the

important of meaning in arithmetic.

In much of the current literature dealing with the teaching of

arithmetic, emphasis is placed on the importance of making what is

being learned vital andmeaningful to the learner. A nuniber of important

investigations have shown that the learning of arithmetic is greatly

facilitated when what is being learned is made mathematically meaningful

and socially significant to the pupils, when they. understand what they

are learning.

Two theories of teaching arithmetic differing markedly in point

of view underlies much of current practice in classroom instruction.

The first of these may be called the traditional, or Irdril])I theory;

the second may be called the modern or ~meaning” theory, There are no

standard definitions of either theory. There also is no general

 21

agreement among the sponsors of either theory in the details of methods

of applying them.

The contrasting principles underlying the “drill” theory and the

“meaning” theory are summarized in the chart below:

Meaning Theory

1. Learning takes place through experiences that are

intrinsically and genuinely purposeful.

2. Learning should be meaningful and insightful.

3. The discovery of facts, meanings, and generaliza

tions by the learner through inductive procedures
leads to understanding and insight.

4. Content should be presented so that the perception

of relations is made possible.

5. A wide variety of learning experiences including

practice should be provided to extend meanings
and to assure needed practice.

6. Learning is a growth process leading gradually to

responses of an increasingly mature level.

Drill Theory

1. Extrinsic devices are effective means for motivating

learning.

2. Learning is essentially a mechanistic, neurological

process.

3. Authoritative prescription by the teacher through

deductive procedures of facts, methods, and ideas
to be learned leads to the establishment of cor
rect connections.

4. Learning consists of forming specific bonds or

connections that are presented as unrelated elements.

5. A process of repetitive drill assures learning and mastery.1

1Leo J. Brueckner, Improving the Arithmetic Program (Appleton

Century-Croft~, Inc., 1952), pp. 68-69.
 22

6. Performance at the adult level is expected and required

at all stages of learning.

Evaluation

The methods of teaching and the evaluation of learning cannot be

separate in theory and should not be separated in practice. Instruction

and evaluation should go hand in hand. As teachers develop new insights

into learning, they should employ them in improved evaluation,and as

they correct or modify evaluations and devise procedures which are more

comprehensive and more penetrating, they should come upon new data of

great significance for improved guidance of learning. Instruction and

evaluation, then, are inseparable and mutually interdependent.1

Arithmetic has been a good field for testing and measuring. As

a result of research, the modern program makes use of a variety of

techniques and devices.

Following are some ways of evaluating pupils: (1) teacher-made

oral and written tests, (2) Standardized tests, (3) Observation and

interviews, (4) Pupils~ reports and the like.

A complete program of evaluation in arithmet.ic will measure

growth in ability to make judgments in quantitative situations, ability

to do mental arithmetic, attitudes toward arithmetic, appreciation of

the uses of arithmetic, and other outcomes. It makes use of the

problem situation test both real and contrived dramatization, anecdotal

records, growth charts and others.

a-William A. Brownell, Arithmetic in Grades I and II (Durham,

N. C.: Duke University Press, 1941), pp. 63, 160-169.
 23

One of the first clearly defined statements of the evaluation of

learning in arithmetic was made by William Brownell in 1941. He pointed

out the need for irniting measurement and evaluation with instructional

practice~~tuinstruction and evaluation go hand in hand.~

Methods of studying pupils’ thinking in arithmetic were carefully

discussed by C. T. Boswell1 in 1949. He suggested six ways to study

pupils’ thinking (have pupils think aloud, use manipulative aids, make

diagrams, and the like) as the basis for understanding how pupils

arrive at their answers in computation or in solving word problems.

William Brownell2 has been studying arithmetic teaching in

English and Scottish schools. While his studies are not at this time

directed toward pupil understanding or arithmetic processes, he has

been able through the use of observation techniques to point out certain

characteristics of arithmetic instruction in lower grades. Brownell

believes we have seriously underestimated the attention of school

beginners. We have held •that beginners cannot remain interested in

anything and keep their attention thereon for more than a relatively

few minutes at a time- -say fifteen, twenty or thirty minutes. In

English and Scottish schools we saw infant school children working

happier, busily and effectively at a number task throughout periods of

an hour or more. We have seriously underrated the ttreadiness~~ of

1-Guy T. Boswell, “A Comparison of Achievement in Arithmetic in

England and Central California,” American Teacher, 4:1-9 (February,
1958).

2William A. Brownell, “Observation of Instruction in Lower-Grade

Arithmetic in English and Scottish Schools,” Arithmetic Teacher,
7:165-177 (April, 1960).
 24

school beginners for systematic work in arithmetic. We can safely ask

children in the lower grades to learn more in arithmetic than we are

now asking them to learn.

Trends in Modern Arithmetic

It is well known that during the last decade the spotlight of

attention has been focused on mathematics programs. Teachers in the

elementary schools today find themselves in the midst of a general

education revolution with elementary school arithmetic being a part of

this reformation.

Corrothers found that one reason for the emphasis being placed

upon arithmetic is the rapid advance in it which makes increasingly

greater demands upon an enlightened population.1 Dean states that the

other reason for the change that is taking place is: (1) the need for

more effective articulation from one grade to the next.2

In general the schools are now moving into the phase of the

mathematics revolution that involves shifting from. experimental programs

and books to those designed and published by commercial textbook

companies, and on these the influences of the School Mathematics Study

Group has been enormous.

Suppes conducted a study that involved 8,000 children in Cali

fornia aged six to eleven. The result of Suppes’ experimental class in

1Billy Jean Corrothers, “Opinions of Selected Teachers Concerning

a Modern Elementary School Arithmetic Program,” (unpublished Master’s
thesis, School of Education, Atlanta University, 1964), p. 20.

2Deans, op. cit., p.1.

 25

1960-61 indicated that simple mathematical concepts can be understood

by the beginner, provided these are presented precisely with the help

of a consistent notation.1

There is today under discussion in the mathematical community

another report that of the Cambridge Conference which some say marks the

beginning of a second revolution in mathematics. It was drawn up in

the summer of 1963 at Cambridge, Massachusetts by a group of the country’s

leading mathematicians and mathematics users. They simply state their

belief that if a teachable program were developed, teachers would be

trained to handle it. Members of the Cambridge Conference based their

mathematics curriculum for the first six grades on the parallel

development of arithmetic and geometry, which is what many new program

already do.2

Four significant changes have affected elementary school mathe

matics programs during the past seven years. First of all, mathematics

for small children is viewed as a combination of several mathematical

sciences, each contributing in simple ways to children’s competency

with numbers.

The second change which the new mathematics has brought about is

more careful use of quantitative vocabulary.

1Evelyn Sharp,t’Progress Report on The Mathematics Revolution,”

Saturday Review (March, 1965), p. 62.

2lbid., p. 74.
 26

The third change advocated by modern mathematicians is that of

increased emphasis upon understanding the computational operations.

The fourth change which is supported by “the New Mathematics”,

is that of giving the responsibility for learning back to the children.1

From all these developments it is plain that the trend is toward

moving each mathematical subject down to an even earlier place in the

curriculum.

1Clyde C. Corle,”The New Mathematics,” Arithmetic Teacher, II

(April, 1964), pp. 248-249.
 CHAPTER II

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Organization and treatment of the data, --The data which were

collected to fulfill the requirement of the problem and purposes of

this study were obtained through the administration of the following

tests:

1. Otis Quick Scoring Mental Ability Test.1

2. Gates Primary Reading Test.2

3. Metropolitan Readiness Test (Arithmetic).3

4. The New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings.4

5. The Stanford Achievement Test.5

6. Teacher Made Test.

These tests were administered to the thirty-two second grade

pupils at the John P. Whittaker Elementary School, Atlanta, Georgia,

1Authur Otis, Otis Quick Scoring Mental Ability Test (New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, 1954).

2Arthur I. Gates, Gates Primary Reading Test (New York: Bureau

of Publication Teacher’s College, Columbia University, 1958).

3Gertrude Hildreth, Nellie Griffiths Metropolitan Readiness

Test (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1954).

4Wayne Wrightstone, The New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings

(New York: World Book Company, 1946).

5Truman L. Kelly, Richard Madden, Stanford Achievement Test (New

York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964).
27
 28

during the period September to January.

The tests were administered as follows:

1. The Otis Quick Scoring Mental Ability Test was

administered at the beginning of the study and

was utilized to ascertain the range in mental

abilities of the subjects.

2. The Gates Primary Reading Test was administered

to ascertain the subject’s reading readiness.

3. The Metropolitan Readiness Arithmetic Test was

administered to determine readiness and consti

tuted the pre-test in this study.

4. The New York of Arithmetical Meanings Test was

administered at the end of the first experimental

period and constituted the mid-test.

5. The Stanford Achievement Test (Arithmetic) was

administered at the end of the study and, con

stituted the post-test.

The data derived from the administration of the tests and their

statistical treatment are organized, presented, analyzed, and inter

preted in the remainder of this chapter as follows:

1. There are six tables which present the basic data

obtained from the test scores. These tables

present all the frequency distributions and

percentile ranks of the scores obtained from

administration of the five tests.

 29

2. There are five tables which present the frequency

distribution of the scores obtained from the test

together with their respective measures of central

tendency.

3. There are eight tables which present the measures

of variability and reliability of the scores

obtained.

The criterion of the reliability of the statistics on the vari

ables of the data was Fisher’s “t” test of significant differences.

The one per cent level of confidence was used, which gives “t” a value

of 2.58.1

Achievement Indices on Tests

The data on the measures of central tendency and variability of

the scores on the tests as obtained by the thirty-two pupils are presented

in the series of Tables 1 through 6; and graphically portrayed in the

Polygons (Figures) 1 through 6, with the discussion of the data pertinent

thereto.

Otis Quick Scoring Mental Ability Test

Results on the Otis Quick Scoring Mental Ability Test, --The data

on Otis Mental Ability Test as revealed by the scores of the thirty-two

pupils enrolled in the second grade of the John P. Whittaker Elementary

School, Atlanta, Georgia, 1964-1965, are presented in Table 1, page 30

~G. Milton Smith, .A Simplified Guide to Statistics for Psy

chology and Education (New York, 1962), p. 74.
 30

and Figure 1, page 32.

TABLE 1

DISTRIBUTION OF RAW SCORES ON THE OTIS QUICK SCORI IG

MENTAL ABILITY TEST AS OBTAINED BY THE THIRTY
SECOND GRADE STUDENTS OF WHITTAKER ElEMENTARY
SCHOOL, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 1964-65

Score Number Per Cent

53 - 54 1 3.33
51-52 0 0.00
49 50
- 2 6.66
47 48
- 4 3.33
45— 46 3 :0.00
43 44
- 3 :o.oo
41 42
- 2 6.66
39-40 3 :0.00
37 38
- 3 :0.00
35 36
- 0 0.00
33-34 1 3•33
31 32
— 2 6.66
29-30 3 10.00
27 28
- 1 3.33
25—26 1 3.33
23-24 1 3.33

Totals 30 9.86

Mean 40.5
Median 40.5
Sigma 12
S.E.,m 2.26
Mean Deviation 0.63

The scores on the mental ability test ranged from a low of 23

to a high of 53. This is comparable to the range of mt lligence

Quotient from a low of 77 to a high of 103. The data in Licate that

there was a mean score of 40.5, a median of 40.5, a sigm of 12, and

a standard error of the mean of 2,26,

 31

Thirteen or 43 per cent of the pupils scored above the mean;

13 or 43 per cent scored below the mean; and 5 or 14 per cent scored

within the mean class interval. The mean score of 40.5 was equicalent

to an Intelligence Quotient of 92. This score indicated that these

pupils could be grouped to work at their grade level at the beginning

of the school year.

Gates Primary Reading Test

Results on the Gates Primary Reading Test.--The data on the

Gates Primary Reading Test as obtained from the scores made by the

thirty-two pupils enrolled in the second grade of the John P. Whittaker

Elementary School, Atlanta, Georgia, 1964-1965, are presented in Table

2, page 33 and Figure 2, page 34.

The scores of the thirty-two pupils range from a low of 4 to

a high of 48, with a mean score of 6.5, a median of 6.9, a sigma of

12, and a standard error of the mean of .21. Approximately 60 per

cent of the pupils scored at the lowest quartile with 5 scoring within

the mean score interval. The mean score of 6.5 indicated a grade-

placement of 1.9. Further, the scores indicated that the grade level

of the pupils ranged from a low of 1.3 to a high of 3.8. Fifteen or

46.87 per cent of the pupils scored above the mean; 12 or 37.60

per cent scored below the mean; and 5 or 15.62 per cent scored within

the mean-class interval. The score on the Reading test indicated

that the thirty-two pupils were reading at their grade level for

beginning second grade.

 7

Cl)

.,-‘ 4
cJ4
p-I

Cl)

5 10 15 20 25 30
Scale of Scores

Fig. 1.--Frequency Polygon of Scores made by the thirty

second grade pupils on the Otis Quick Scoring Mental Ability
Test.
 33

TABLE 2

DISTRIBUTION OF RAW SCORES ON ThE GATES PRIMARY READING TESTS

AS OBTAINED BY THE SECOND GRADE PUPILS OF WHITTAKER
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, ATLANTA, GEORGIA,
1964-65

Score Number Per Cent

45-48 15 3.125

41-44 2 6.250

37-40 0 0.000

33-36 1 3.125

29-32 0 0.000

25-28 0 0.000

21-24 2 6.250

17-20 0 0.000

13-16 4 12.500

9-12 5 15.625

5- 8 5 15.625

0- 4 12 37.500

Total 32 100.000

Mean 6.5

Median 6.9

Sigma 12

S.E.m .21

Mean Deviation 1.69

 34

12

11

10

rl

tl~
0

G)

20 25 30 50 55
Scale of Scores

Fig. 2.--Frequency Polygon of Scores made by the thirty-two

second grade students on the Gates Primary Reading Test.
 35

Metropolitan Readiness Arithmetic Test

Results on the Metropolitan Readiness Arithmetic Test.--The

data on the Metropolitan Readiness Test as revealed by the scores of

the thirty-two pupils enrolled in the second grade, John P. Whittaker

School, Atlanta, Georgia, 1964-1965, are presented in Table 3, page

36 and Figure 3, page 37. The scores on the Readiness test ranged

from a low of 4 or 3.2 to a high of 5 or 15.62, with a mean score

of 15.5 or 15.62, a median of 15.1, a sigma of 5.3 and a standard

error of the mean of 0.93. Approximately 12 or 38.7 per cent of them

scored below the mean; 12 or 38.7 per cent of the pupils scored above

the mean; •and 7 or 22.6 per cent scored within the mean-class interval.

The mean score of 15.5 indicated a grade placement of 2.3, The score

on the Readiness test showed that the thirty-two pupils were ready

to begin second grade arithmetic.

New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings

Result on New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings.--The data on

the New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings as obtained from the scores

made by the thirty-two pupils enrolled in the second grade of the John

P. Whittaker Elementary School, Atlanta, Georgia, 1964-1965, are

presented in Table 4, page 38 and Figure 4, page 39.

 36

TABLE 3

DISTRIBUTION OF ThE RAW SCORES ON THE METROPOLITAN READINESS

TEST (ARITHMETIC) AS OBTAINED BY THIRTY-ONE SECOND GRADE
STUDENTS OF WHITTAKER ELEMENThRY SCHOOL,
ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 1964-65

Score Number Per Cent

23-24 5 15.625

21-22 2 6.451

19-20 0 0.000

17-18 5 15.625

15-16 7 22.580

13-14 4 12.903

11-12 1 3.225

9-10 4 12.903

7- 8 1 3.225

5-6 1 3.225

3-4 1 3.225

Total 31 99.987

Number 31

Mean 15.5

Median 15.1

Sigma 5.3

S.E,m •93

Mean Deviation •-35

 37

12 14 16 26
Scale of Scores

Fig. 3. --Frequency Polygon of Scores made by the thirty-

one second grade students on the Metropolitan Readiness Test
(Arithmetic).
 38

TABLE 4

DISTRIBUTION OF RAW SCORES ON THE NEW YORK TEST OF ARITHMETICAL

MEANING AS OBTAINED BY THE THIRTY-TWO SECOND GRADE STUDENTS
OF WHITTAKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, ATLANTA, GEORGIA,
1964-65

Score Number Per Cent

61-62 1 3.125
59-60 0 0.000
57—58 1 3.125
55—56 2 6.250
53-54 2 6.250
51-52 8 25.000
49-50 6 18.750
47-48 0 0.000
45-46 1 3.125
43-44 1 3.125
41—42 1 3.125
39-40 0 0.000
37-38 3 9.375
35~-36 2 6.250
33-34 0 0.000
31-32 0 0.000
29-30 1 3.125
27-28 1 3.125
25-26 0 0.000
23-24 0 0.000
21-22 2, 6.250

Total 32 100.000

Mean 48
Median 47.33
Sigma 10.05
S.E,m 1.8

The scores of the thirty-two pupils ranged from a low of 21 to a

high of 62 with a mean score of 48.0, a median of 47.33, a sigma of 10.5

and a standard error of the mean of 1.8. Approximately 20 or 6. per cent

of the pupils scored above the mean, 12 or 39 per cent scored below the

mean~class interval. The mean score of 48 was equivalent to 3.8. The

scores on the New York Test of Arithmetical Meaning showed that the
pupils were doing average work for their grade level.
 39

5
c1~
~1
•r-(

p-I

0~ 20 25 30 35 4~ 50 55
Scale of Scores

Fig. 4.--Frecjuency Polygon of Scores made by the thirty two

second grade students on the New York Test of Arithmetical
meaning.
 40

Stanford Achievement Test

Results on the Stanford Achievement Test.--The data on the

Stanford Achievement Test as obtained from the scores made by the

thirty-two pupils enrolled in the second grade at the John P.

Whittaker Elementary School, Atlanta, Georgia, 1964-1965, are

presented in Table 5, below and Figure 5, page 42.

TABLE 5

DISTRIBUTION OF RAW SCORES ON THE STANFORD ACHIEVE~4ENT TEST

AS OBTAINED BY THE THIRTY SECOND GRADE STUDENTS
OF WHITTAKER ELEt~tENTARY SCHOOL,
ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 1964-65

Score Number Per Cent

57-58 3 10.00
55-56 2 6.66
53-54 3 10.00
51-52 2 6.66
49-50 3 10.00
47-48 3 10.00
45-46 4 13.33
43-44 1 3.33
41-42 4 13.33
39-40 3 10.00
37-38 1 333
35-36 1 3.33
Total 30 99.97
Mean 47.5
Median 47.6
Sigma 6.2
S.E.,m 1.1
Mean Deviation .20

The scores of the thirty-two pupils ranged from a low of 35 to

a high of 58, with a mean of 47.5, a median of 47.6, a sigma of 62,

and a standard error of the mean of 1.1. Approximately 13 or 44

per cent of the pupils scored above the mean. Fourteen or 46 per
 41

cent scored below the mean and 3 or 10 per cent scored within the mean-

class interval. The mean score of 47.5 indicated a grade placement of

3.8, Further, the scores indicated that the pupils were working at

grade level and above.

Teacher Made Test

Result of Teacher Made Test.--The data on the Teacher Made Test

as obtained from the scores made by the thirty-two pupils enrolled in

second grade of the John P. Whittaker Elementary School, Atlanta,

Georgia, 1964-1965, are presented in Table 6, page 43 and Figure 6,

page 44.

The scores of the thirty-two pupils ranged from~ a low of 30 to

a high or 50 with a mean score of 43.5, a median of 42.8, a sigma of

5.07, and a standard error of the mean of 0.95. Approximately 14

or 47 per cent of the pupils scored above the mean, 13 or 44 per

cent scored below the mean and 3 or 10 per cent scored within the

mean-class interval. The scores on the teacher made tests indicated

that the pupils were ready to move ahead profitably at their grade

level.

Significant Differences on the Tests

The data on the significant differences of the scores on paired

variables of the respective tests as obtained by the thirty-two pupils,

are presented in the series of Tables 7 through 12, with the discussion

of the data pertinent thereto.

 42

U)

0..
z
p-I

a)

Scale of Scores

Fig. 5.--FrequencyPolygon of Scores made by the thirty

second grade pupils on the Stanford Achievement Test.
 43

TABLE 6

DISTRIBUTION OF THE RAW SCORES ON THE TEACHERS TEST AS OBTAINED

BY THE THIRTY-ONE SECOND GRADE STUDENTS OF WHITTAKER
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 1964-65

Score Number Per Cent

49-50 6 20

47-48 4 13.33

45-46 4 1333

43-44 3 10

41-42 2 6.66

39-40 5 16.66

37-38 1 3.33

35-36 3 10

33-34 0 0

31-32 0 0

Total 30 99.97

Mean 43.5

Median 42.8

Sigma 5.07

SE,m .95

Mean Deviation .-73

 44

CI)

r~ 4
p-I

a)
-Q

0 5 1 35
Scale of Scores

Fig. 6.--Frequency Polygon of Scores made by the thirty

second grade pupils on the Teacher-made Test.
 45

Otis Quick Scoring and the Metropolitan Readiness

Test (Arithmetic)

The “t” ratio of Comparative Data.--Table 7 shows the compara

tive measures for the two tests Otis Quick Scoring Mental Ability

Test and the Metropolitan Readiness (Arithmetic) Test were: the mean

on the Otis Mental Ability Test was 40.5 and on the Metropolitan

•Readiness Test it was 15.5; the median on the Otis Mental Ability Test

was 12; and on the Metropolitan Readiness Test it was 5.3; and the

standard error on the Otis Mental Ability Test was 2.26 and on the

Metropolitan Readiness Test it was 0.93. The standard error of the

difference between the two means was 2.44.

TABLE 7

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ON THE METROPOLITAN READINESS TEST

(ARITHMETIC) AND THE OTIS MENTAL ABILITY TEST AS
OBTAINED BY THE THIRTY STUDENTS ENROLLED IN
THE SECOND GRADE OF WHITTAKER ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 1964-65

Stand-
Number Standard ard Differ-
of Error of Error ence
Tests Cases Mean Sigma Mean M1M2 of Mean flt”

Metropolitan
Readiness 31 15.5 5.3 0.93
2.44 25.0 10.25
Otis Mental
Ability 30 40.5 12 2.26

The flt” of 10.25 was definitely significant for it was much

greater than 2.58 at the one per cent level of confidence and 59 de

grees of freedom. Therefore, the difference between the scores made

 46

by the thirty-two pupils on the Otis Test of Mental Ability and the

Metropolitan Readiness Test was statistically significant. The results

here indicated that the thirty-two pupils made higher scores than

usual at the beginning of the school year.

Gates Primary Reading Test and Metropolitan

Readiness Test Arithmetic

The Itttr ratio of Comparative Data.--Table 8, page 47, shows

the comparative measures for the two tests, Gates Primary Reading

Test and the Metropolitan Readiness (Arithmetic) Test were: The

mean on the Gates Primary Reading Test was 6.5 and on the Metropolitan

Readiness Test (Arithmetic) it was 15.5 with a difference of 90. The

median on the Gates Primary Reading Test was 6.6; the median on the

Metropolitan Readiness Test (Arithmetic) 15.5; the sigma on the

Gates Primary. Reading Test was 12 and on the Metropolitan Readiness

Test 5,3 and the standard error on the Gates Primary Reading Test was

0.21 and on the Metropolitan Readiness Test 0.93. The standard

error of the difference between the two means was 9.0.

The “t” of 9.4 was definitely significant for it was much

greater than 2.58 at the one per cent level of confidence at 61 de

grees of freedom. Therefore, the difference between the scores made

by the thirty-two pupils on the Gates Primary Reading Test and the

Metropolitan Readiness Test was statistically significant. Further,

this indicated that the pupils were ready to do formal work at their

grade level in arithmetic.

 47

TABLE 8

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ON THE PRIMARY READING AND

METROPOLITAN READINESS (ARITHMETIC) TEST OF ThE
THIRTY STUDENTS ENROLLED IN THE SECOND GRADE
OF WHITTAKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, ATLANTA,
GEORGIA, 1964-65

Stand
. ard
Number Standard Error Differ-
• of Error of M - ence
Tests Cases Mean Sigma Mean 1 M2 of Mean “t”

Primary
Reading 32 6.5 12 0.21
.95 9.0 9.4
Metropolitan
Readiness
(Arithmetic) 31 15.5 5.3 0.93

New York Test of Arithmetical Meaning and the

Metropolitan Readiness Test (Arithmetic)

The “t” ratio of Comparative Data.--Table 9, page 48 shows the

comparative measures for the two tests: New York Test of Arithmetical

Meanings and the Metropolitan Readiness Test were: the mean on the

Metropolitan Readiness Test was 15.5 and on the New York Test of Arith

metical Meanings 48; the median on the Metropolitan Readiness (Arith

metic) Test was 15.1 and on the New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings

47.33; the sigma on the Metropolitan Readiness Test (Arithmetic) was

5~3 and on the New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings 10.5; and the

standard error on the Metropolitan Readiness Test (Arithmetic) was

0.93 and on the New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings 1.8. The

standard error of the difference of the two means was 2.02.

 48

TABLE9

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ON THE METROPOLITAN READINESS TEST AND

THE NEW YORK TEST OF ARITI~METICAL MEANING AS OBTAINED BY
THE SECOND GRADE STUDENTS OF WHITTAKER ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 1964-65

Stand
ard
Number Standard Error Differ-
of Error of M -M ence
Tests Cases Mean Sigma Mean 1 2 of Mean utII

Metropolitan
Readiness
(Arithmetic) 31 15.5 5.3 0.93
2.02 32.5 16.1
New York Test
of Arithmeti
cal Meaning 32 48 10.5 1.8

The ~ItIr of 16.1 was definitely significant. It was much greater

than 2.58 at the one per cent level of confidence. Therefore, the

difference between the scores made by the thirty-two pupils on the

Metropolitan Readiness Test (Arithmetic) and the New York Test of

Arithmetical Meanings was statistically significant. According to this

significant the thirty-two pupils were doing better than average mastery

of arithmetic meanings; with an adequate conceptual background for more

advance work.

Stanford Achievement Test Arithmetic and

New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings

The “t” ratio of Comparative Data.--Table 10, page 49, shows

the comparative measures for the two tests: Stanford Achievement Test

and the New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings were: the mean on the

New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings was 48.0 and on the Stanford
 49

Achievement 47.5; the median on the New York Test of Arithmetical

Meanings was 47.33 and on the Stanford Achievement Test 47.60; the

sigma on the New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings was 10.5 and on

the Stanford Achievement Test 6.2; and the standard error on the

New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings was 1.8 and on the Stanford

Achievement Test 1.1. The standard error of difference between the

two means was 2.10.

TABLE 10

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ON THE NEW YORK TEST OF ARITHMETICAL

MEANING AND THE STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST AS OBTAINED
BY THE SECOND GRADE STUDENTS OF WHITTAKER
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, ATLANTA, GEORGIA,
1964-65

Stand-
Number Standard ard Differ-
of Error of Error ence
Test Cases Mean Sigma Mean M1-M2 of Mean tTtt!

New York Test

of Arithme
tical 32 48 10.5 1.8
2.10 0.5 0.33
Stanford Ac
hievement
Tests 30 47.5 6.2 1.1

The ‘~t’t of 0.33 was not significant for it was less than 2.58

at the one per cent level of confidence at 60 degrees of freedom.

Therefore, the difference between the scores made by the

thirty-two pupils on the New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings and

the Stanford Achievement Test was not statistically significant. It

 50

may be concluded that there is not a vast difference here according to

the scores and the time of the testing during the experimental period.

Metropolitan Readiness Test (Arithmetic:)

and Teacher Made Test

The “t” ratio of Comparative Data.--Table 11, page 51, shows the

comparative measures for the two tests: Metropolitan Readiness (Arith

metic) Test and the Teacher Made Test were: The mean on the Metropolitan

Readiness (Arithmetic) Test was 15.5 and on the Teacher Made Test 43.5;

the median on the Metropolitan Readiness (Arithmetic) Test was 15.1

and on the Teacher Made Test 42.8; the sigma on the Metropolitan Readi

ness Test was 5.3 and on the Teacher Made Test it was 5.07; and the

standard error on the Metropolitan Readiness Test (Arithmetic) was

0,93 and on the Teacher Made Test 0.95. The standard error of the

difference between the two means was 1.33.

The “t” of 20.97 was significant because it was greater than

2.58 at the one per cent level of confidence at 59 degrees of freedom.

Therefore, the difference on the scores made by the thirty-two

pupils on the Metropolitan Readiness (Arithmetic) Test and the Teacher

Made Test was statistically significant. The scores here indicated

the readiness of the pupils and serves as an inventory of what the

pupils already know and also as an indication of the mental maturity

of the pupils.
 51

TABLE 11

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ON THE METROPOLITAN READINESS TEST

AND THE TEACHER MADE TEST AS OBTAINED BY THE EECOND
GRADE STUDENTS OF WHITTAKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,
ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 1964-65

Stand-
Number Standard ard Differ-
of Error of Error ence of
Test Cases Mean Sigma Mean M1-M2 Mean It~U

Metropolitan
Readiness 31 15.5 5.3 0.93
1.33 28.0 20.97
Teacher Made 30 43.5 5.07 0.95

Stanford Achievement Test

and Teacher Made Test

The “t” ratio of Comparative Data.--Table 12, page 52, shows

comparative measures for the two tests: The Stanford Achievement Test

and Teacher Made Test were: the mean on the Stanford Achievement Test

was 47.5 and on the Teacher Made Test 43.5; the median on the Stanford

Achievement Test was 6.2 and on the Teacher Made Test 5.07; and the

standard error on the Stanford Achievement Test was 1.1 and on the

Teacher Made Test 0.95. The standard error of the difference between

the two means was 1.73.

The “t” of 2.31 was not significant for it was less than 2.58 at

the one per cent level of confidence and 58 degrees of freedom. There

fore, the difference between the scores made by the thirty-two pupils

on the Stanford Achievement Test and the Teacher Made Test was not
 52

statistically significant. It is this writer’s belief that because the

difference between the scores made by the thirty-two pupils on the

Stanford Achievement and the Teacher Made Test was not statistically

significant, there was no vast difference in the achievement shown.

The Stanford Test was administered at the end of the second experimental

period at a time of the year when there had been many absentees among

pupils.

TABLE 12

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ON THE STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST

AND THE TEACHER MADE TEST AS OBTAINED BY THE SECOND
GRADE STUDENTS OF WHITTAKER ELEMENT~RY SCHOOL,
AThANTA~, GEORGIA, 1964-65

Stand
ard
Number Standard Error of Differ-
of Error of ence
Test Cases Mean Sigma Mean M1-M2 of Mean Irtli

Stanford
Achievement 30 47,5 6.2 1.1
1.73 4.0 2.31
Teacher Made 30 43.5 5.07 0.95
 CHAPTER III

SUNN~RY AND CONCLUSIONS

Interpretative Summaries

Introductory Stateme~.--The interpretative summaries of the

findings are presented under the following captions: 1) Interpre

tative Summary of the raw scores made on the reading, arithmetic,

and mental abilities tests.

Statistical resume.--The quantitative data basis to the Findings

and the interpretative summations are presented in Tables 1 - 6,

pp. 30 - 43 of the second chapter, and graphically portrayed in the

polygons Figures 1 - 6, pp. 32 - 44.

Findings on the Otis Quick Scoring Mental Ability Test

The data obtained from administration of the Otis Quick Scoring

Mental Abilities Test indicates a range from a low of 23 to a high of

53 for an I.Q, range, a low of 77 to a high of 103. There was a mean

score of 40.5, a median of 40.5 a sigma of 12, and a standard error

of the mean 2.26.

Findings of the Gates Primary Reading Test

The data obtained from administration of the Gates Primary Reading

Test indicates a range of a low of 4 to a high of 48, with the means score

of 6.5; a median of 6.9, a sigma of 12, and a standard error of means of .21.

53
 54

Findings on the Metropolitan

Readiness (Arithmetic)

The data obtained from administration indicates a range from a

low of 4 or 3.2 to a high of 5 or 15.62. There was a mean score of

15.5 or 15.62, a median of 15.1, a sigma of 5.3, and a standard error

of ~the mean 0.93.

Findings of the New York Arithmetic

Meaning Test

The data obtained from administration of the New York Arithmetic

Meaning Test indicates a range of a low of 21 to a high of 62, with a

mean score 48.0, a median of 47.33, a sigma of 10.5, and a standard

error of the mean 1.8.

Findings of the Stanford

Achievement Test

The data obtained from administration of the stanford Achievement

Test indicates a range of a low of 35 to a high of 58, the mean of 47.5,

a median of 47.6, a sigma of 6.2, and a standard error of the mean 1.1.

Findings on the Teacher Made Test

The data obtained from administration of the Teacher Made Test

indicates a range of a low of 30 to a high of 50, with the mean score

of 43.5, a median of 42.8, a sigma of 5.07, and a standard error of the

mean 0.95,
 55

The significant differences on the reading,

arithmetic and mental abilities test

The flt” ratio of Comparative Data.--Otis Quick Scoring and the

Metropolitan Readiness Test. Table 7. The Comparative measures of the

two tests were: the mean of the Otis Quick scoring was 40.5 and on the

Metropolitan Readiness 15,5 and the median on the Otis Reading 12; on

the Metropolitan Readiness 5,3; and the Standard error of the mean on

the Otis Quick scoring test 2.26; and the standard error of the mean

was 0.93.

The Standard error of the difference between the two was 2.44.

The “t” of 10.25 was definitely significant because it was

greater than 2.58.

The “t” ratio of Comparative Data.--Gates Primary Reading Test

and the Metropolitan Readiness (krithmetic) test. Table 8.

The Comparative measures of the two tests were: The mean on the
I
Gates Primary Reading test was 6.5; the mean on the Metropolitan Readi

ness (Arithmetic) 6.5; and the median on the Gates Primary test was 6.6;

and median on Metropolitan Readiness 15.5; the sigma on the Gates Primary

test 12, the sigma on the Metropolitan Readiness 5.3; Standard error on

Gates Primary Reading was 0.21; on Metropolitan Readiness 0.93.

The “t” of 9.4 was definitely significant because it was much

greater than 2.58.

The “t” ratio of Comparative Data,--New York Arithmetic Reading

Test and the Metropolitan Readiness (Arithmetic) tests.

The Comparative measures of the two tests were: the mean of the

New York Arithmetic Reading was 48; the mean on the Metropolitan
 56

Readiness (Arithmetic) test 15.5; the median on the New York Arithmetic

Reading test was 47.33; the median on the Me~ropo1itan Readiness (Arith

metic) test was 15.1; the sigma for New York test was 10.5, on the

Metropolitan Readiness was 5.3; and the standard error of the mean of

the New York test was 1.8; and the standard error of the mean for

the Metropolitan Readiness (Arithmetic) was 0.93.

The “t” of 16.1 was definitely significant because it was much

greater than 2.58.

The “t” ratio of Comparative Data.--Metropolitan Readiness

(Arithmetic) and the Teacher Made Test.

The Comparative measures between the two tests were: The mean

of the Metropolitan Readiness (Arithmetic) was 15.5; the mean of the

Teacher Made test was 42.8; the sigma of the Metropolitan Readiness

(Arithmetic) test was 5.3; and the sigma of the Teacher Made test was

5.07; the standard error of the Metropolitan Readiness (Arithmetic)

was 0.93; the standard error of the Teacher Made test was 0.95.

The “t” was 20.97 and was significant because it was greater

than 2.58.

The flt” ratio of Comparative Data.--Stanford Achievement Arith

metic test and New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings.

The Comparative measures between the two tests were: the mean

of the Stanford Achievement Arithmetic test was 47.5; the mean of the

New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings was 48.0; the median of the

Stanford Achievement Arithmetic Test was 47.60; the median for the
 57

New York test of Arithmetical Meanings was 47.33; the sigma for the

Stanford Achievement Arithmetic test was 6.2; and the sigma of the

New York test of Arithmetical meanings was 10.5; the standard error

of the mean of the Stanford Achievement Arithmetic test was 1.1; and

the standard error of the mean of the New York test of Arithmetical

meaning was 1.8.

The itt?? of 0.33 was not significant because it was less than

2.58.

The “t” ratio of Comparative Data.--Stanford Achievement Arith

metic test and Teacher Made test.

The Comparative measures between the two tests were: the mean of the

Standord Achievement Arithmetic Test was 47.5; the mean of the Teacher

Made Test was 43.5; the median of the Stanford Achievement Arithmetic

test was 6.2; and the median on the Teacher Made Test was 5.07; the

sigma of the Stanford Achievement Arithmetic test was ; the sigma

of the Teacher Made Test was • The standard error of the Stanford

Achievement Arithmetic test was 1.1; and the standard error of the

Teacher Made test was 0.95.

The “t” of 2.31 was not significant because it was less than

2.58.

Conclusions

The findings of this study appear to warrant the following

conclusions:

1. The subjects involved in this study were, generally,

superior in mental ability, grade placement, and/or
 58

achievement to those subjects, which have been

studied by others, which purport to come from
this same socio-economic and cultural sub-group.

2. There did not appear to be any statistically signi

ficant differences in comprehension of the 11funda-
mentals” of arithmetic when the subjects were taught
in a conventional or meaningful frame.

3. Differences which appeared in comprehension and/or

achievement appeared to be functions of the tests
which were administered, rather than of the I~methodstt
or conceptual framework for teaching arithmetic.
That is, differentials in achievement were manifested
more in terms of tests than in terms of “methods of
teaching’1.

4. It does not appear to make a great deal of difference

in reasoning, computational ability, or development
of understanding whether one teach’s ~modern~ arith
metic by conventional or modern methods.

Implications

The conclusions of this study appear to warrant the following im

plications:

1. Individuals teaching arithmetic in the elementary schools

need not concern themselves, necessarily, with such
factors as mental abilities, readiness, and the like in
making decisions as to whether they will teach arithmetic
in a “meaningful’t and/or ~rconventional!t frame of reference,
especially, and specifically, in-so-far as this study is
concerned, if the students are on or at the expected
levels of maturity, mental abilities, and grade placement
as measured by selected standardized tests such as those
utilized in this study.

2. Ability to solve “reasoning problems”, to do computations,

and to develop understandings of the number system do not
appear, in this study, to be functions of methods of
teaching, hence teachers might well adopt any or all methods
of teaching which appear to be relevant.

3. Arithmetic programming in the second grade might well be

improved if:
a~ Teachers would recognize that whatever methods,
techniques, procedures and the like which appear
useful will not make material differences in
 59

achievement of the students:

b. Teachers and/or school administrators or systems which

have previously hesitated to develop arithmetic
programs along modern lines need no longer so hesitate,
since essentially the same achievement and other
levels of competency are attained by students taught
in either frame of reference.

4. It may well be concluded that any superior of the modern

versus the conventional approaches to teaching arithmetic
lie in areas other than those of reasoning, computation,
and the like upon which this study concentrated.

Recommendations V

The findings, conclusions, and implications of this study appear to

warrant the following recommendations:

1. Other studies be conducted to ascertain other dimensions

of difference, if any, between a conventional and/or
meaningful frari~e:when factors other than, or in addition,
to intelligence, achievement, reasoning, and the like are
dealt with. This means studies should be conducted,
either along the design of the present study or in other
designs, which will attempt to deal with more than the
cognitive domain - - which will deal with variables in
the affective and motor domains~

2. More schools should venture into the “new” or “modern”

mathematics since there is no apparent disservice in
achievement and other goals when children are taught
in the modern frame of reference.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Bell, Clifford, Hammond, Clela D., and Herrera, Robert B. Funda

mentals of Arithmetic Teachers (New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1962), P. 4.

Best, John W., Research in Edncation (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959), p. 131.

Brownell, William A., Arithmetic in Grades I and II (Durham, N. C.:

Duke University Press, 1941), pp. 63. 160-169.

Brueckner, Leo J., and Grossnickle, Foster E., How to Make Arithmetic
Meaningful (Philadelphia: J. C. Winston Company, 1947),
p. 513.

Brueckner, Leo J., Improving the Arithmetic Program (Appleton-Century

Crofts, Inc., 1952), pp. 68-69.

Clark, John and Eads, Laura K., Guiding Arithmetic Learning (Yonkers
on Hudson: World Book Company, 1945), p. 256.

Dulton, Wilbur H., Evaluating Pupil’s Understanding of Arithmetic (New

Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 14.

bluster, George E., and Gunderson, Agnes C., Teaching Arithmetic in

Grades I and II (Loromie, 1954), p. 5.

Ragan, William B., Modern Elementary Curriculum (New York: bolt, Rine
hart and Winston, 1961), p. 277.

Smith, Milton G., A Simplified Guide to Statistics for Psychology and

Education (New York, 1962), p. 74.

Stokes, C. Newton, Teaching the Meanings of Arithmetic (New York:

Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1951), p. 10.

Strickland, Ruth G., Language Arts in the Elementary School (Boston:

D. C. Heath, 1957), pp. 181-182.

Thorpe, Cleats B., Teaching Elementary Arithmetic (New York: Harper

and Brothers, 1962), p. 49.

60
 61

Year Books

Buckingham, B. R., “Social Value of Arithmetic,” Arithmetic in the

Elementary School, Twenty-Ninth Yearbook, National Society
for the Study of Education (New York, 1936), P. 59.

Washbuone, C. W., “The Grade Placement of Arithmetic Topics: A

Committee of Seven Investigations,tr Report of the Society’s
Committee on Arithmetic. Twenty-Ninth Yearbook, Part II,
National Society for the Study of Education (Bloomington,
Illinois: Public School Publishing Co., 1930), pp. 641-670.

Washbuone, C. W., “Work of the Committee of Seven on Grade Placement

in Arithmetic,” Child Development and the Curriculum. Thirty-
eighth Yearbook, Part I, National Society for the Study of
Education (Bloomington, Illinois: Public School Publishing
Co., 1939), pp. 299-324.

Periodicals

Boswell, Guy T., ‘1A Comparison of Achievement in Arithmetic in England

and Central California,” American Teacher. 4:1-9 (February,
1958),.

Brownell, W. A., “When is Arithmetic Meaningful,” Journal of Educational

Research, 38: pp. 481~498.

Brownell, William A., trObservation of Instruction in Lower-Grade

Arithmetic in English and Scottish Schools,” Arithmetic
Teacher, 7:165-177 (April, 1960).

Brownell, William A., and Moses, Harold E., “Meaningful Versus Mechanical
Learning,” Duke University Research Studies in Education (Durham,
N. C., 1946), P. 407.

Brownell, William H., and Chazell, Charlotte B., “The Effect of Premature
Drill in Third Grade Arithmetic,” Journal of Educational Research
(Washington, D. C., 1935), p. 17.

Buswell, G. T., “The Content and Organization of Arithmetic,” The

Arithmetic Teacher (March, 1959), pp. 77-80.

Cone, Clyde G., “The New Mathematics: Arithmetic Teacher,” (April, 1964),
Pp. 248-249.

Foster, James M. “Deductive Reasoning in the Primary Arithmetic Program,”

American Teacher, (January, 1962), pp. 20-21.
 62

Harding, Lowry W.,, and Bryant, Inez P., “An Experimental Comparison
of Drill and Direct Experiences in Arithmetic Learning in the
Fourth Grade,’t Journal of Educational Research (1944),
pp. 321-24.

Hortunz, Maurice L., “Distinguishing Between Basic and Superficial

Ideas in Arithmetic Instructions,” The Arithmetic Teacher
(Washington, D. C., 1959), p. 66.

Miller, G. H., “How Effective is the Meaning Method?’t The Arithmetic

Teacher (Washington, D. C., 1957), p. 46.

Neureiter, Paul R., and Wozencraft, Marian, “What Arithmetic in Second

Grade,” The Arithmetic Teacher (January, 1962), pp. 252-256.

Petty, Olan, “Requiring Proof of Understanding,’t The Arithmetic

Teacher (November, 1955), pp. 121-123.

Sharp, Evelyn, “Progress Report on the Mathematics Revolution,’t

Saturday Review (March, 1965), p. 62.

Swenson, Ester J.., “Organization and Generalization to the Factors

in Learning, Transfer and Retroactive Inhibition,” Learning
Theory in School Situation (University of Minnesota Press,
1949), p. 9.

Swenson, Ester J., “Making Primary Arithmetic Meaningful to Children,’t

Journal of the National Education Association (January, 1960),
pp. 43-61.

Thiele, Louis C., Contribution of Generalization to the Learning of the

Additional Facts. Contributions to Education, No. 673 (New
York: Bureau of Publications, Teacher’s College, Columbia
University, 1938), p. 84.

Reports

Committee on Flexibility of the Central New York Study Council, Develop

ing Meaningful Practices in Arithmetic (New York: June, 1951),
pp. 3-4.

Deans, Edwina, Elementary School Mathematics, U. S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, 1963, p. 4.
 63

Unpublished Materials

Carrothers, Billy Jean, “Opinions of Selected Teachers Concerning A

Modern Elementary School Arithmetic Program,” (unpublished
Master’s Thesis, School of Education, Atlanta University,
1964), P. 20.

Gannaway, R. C. H., “The Relative Effectiveness of Two Methods of

Arithmetic Teaching in Relation to Sex Differences,’t (un
published Master’s Thesis, School of Education, Atlanta
University, 1960), p. 30.

Wheichel, Bronnel R., “A Comparison of “Meànful” and rtTraditionalt!

Methodologies with Reference to Selected Topics from Number
Theory, 1961 - 1962,” (unpublished Master’s Thesis, School
of Education, Atlanta University, 1962), p. 40.

Tests

Gates, Arthur I., Gates Primary Reading Test (New York, Bureau of
Publication Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958).

Hildreth, Gertrude, Griffiths Nellie, Metropolitan Readiness Test

(New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, 1956).

Kelly, Truman L., Madden, Richard, Stanford Achievement Test (New

York Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964).

Otis, Authur, Otis Quick Scoring Mental Ability Test (New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, 1954).

Wrightstone, Wayne, New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings (New York:

World Book Company, 1956).
 179
xia~aav
~i~iJ ~hU4~ *~1L~k]. . ~

Otis Quick-Scoring
Nonverbal
Score
Verbal
Mental Ability Tests: J’/’ew Edition
Score
BY Arthur S. Otis, Ph.D.

Ai~
Total
Score

MA ALPHA TEST: SHORT FORM

IQ

NAME AGE__GRADE___~

TEACHER__________________________ DATE________________________

SCHOOL CITY

Copyright 1936, 1952, by Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York
Copyright in Great Britain. All rights reserved
ALPNA:AS-37 a
PkJNTED IN U.S.A.

This test is copyrighted. The reproduction of any part of it by mimeograph, hecto~raph, or in any other
way, whether the reproductions are sold or furnished free for use, is a violation of the copyright law.
 Otis Quick-Scothig: Alpha: As

~f
4

.
7

8 IHI
[z]

~ ~
 Otis Quick-Scoring: Alpha: As

SI >,~ (I) L>zi

14

F M. 14 T
15

16

[31
I_A Otis Quick-Scoring: Alpha: As -

19

20 /~

~,
22
000
23

24

ftij
[4]

~T~ff9fll~~
 K
Otis Quick-Scoring: Alpha: As

25

26

BTB FMF DWD HFL

6-7-8-q 6-q-2-~ 1-2-3-4 4-5-6-7

31~~

o D 0 0 0 0 0
o a a a a 0 0
*oo~
32

[5]
 Otis Quick-Scoring: Alpha: As

33

36

~~***~
~

39~

40

[6]
‘‘~~‘~V)~ flTh~P~ fl~”~’’”~” Wflfl4~’~’fll,q!?!flTw,n, !IW”P9 “if “I’’’ “!P”’if’ ~ifW~r’I’I’F
 I LI
Ur~J~ _ Urr~i H~fl
D
O~D~DOO
V :~qd~ :~1o~-~p!n~ ~flQ
Metropolitan Readiness Tests
BY GERTRUDE H~. HILDRETH, PH.D., AND NELLIE 1. GR~FFITHS, M.A.
FORM

TEST: FORM S

NAME

TEACHER.
-— SCHOOL
BOY GIRl DATE OF TESTING

DATE OF BIRTH
Year

______
Year
Month

_____
Month
Day

——
Day

CITY_ COUNTY.

_NUMBER OF MONTHS KINDERGARTEN TRAINING

TEST RAW SCORE This space is to be used for drawing a man.

1. WORD MEANING

2. SENTENCES

3. INFORMATION

4. MATCHING
Total Tests 1—4
x
5. NUMBERS
6. COPYING
Total Tests 1—6

READING READINESS
SUM OF READING
SCORES LETTER READINESS
TESTS 14 RATING STATUS

• NUMBER READINESS
SCORE LETTER NUMBER
TEST 5 RATING READINESS
STATUS
I

TOTAL READINESS
SUM OF TOTAL PERCEN
SCORES LETTER READINESS TILE
TESTS 1—6 RATING STATUS RANt~ DRAWING A MAN RATING
—

TEST

COPYRIGHT 1950 BY HARCOURT, BRACE & WORLD INC., NEW YORK

PRINTED IN U.S.A. MRT S. 17
This test is copyrighted. The reproduction of any port of it by mimeograph, hectograph, or in any other
way, whether the reproductions ore sold or are furnished free for use, is a violation of the copyright low. a
-‘~r-~

c~’•-4 t•~;•

cor’3~

‘F,

~lIIIIII
~i~i—j~ii
I I -)
d ~
 Metropolitan Read

JJL~
12345
6789102112
IS 141516171819
20212223242526
2728233031

15

16

Number right [41

 ~zJ~’ )~- \\~~
C!)
z
H
z
(ID
0
0

0
z0
0
z
4.
Es

-‘aol

0
0

0
 Metropolitan L-CeacllfleBS: a

TEST 4. MATCHING

OK KO NO

33~ 36~ _ 3~6 6~3

[91
 Metropolitan R

L
4

r in ,
&
C’)
 Metropolitan Read

i3

NEW NOW
15
WNC WON
feet - foot foot toof,

874 478 847 782,

CR PG RC

92 29 93 62
~er
winter writer winret rinte~
Nurnb8r right.. F 12 1
 [€i]
:.*
-~.
SU~1~P~JflN .~ J4S~LL
 I— — ~
00

O~Q~) N)

0) CAD N)

Co
a
0
0
0

0)C)D ~LO a
 [ci] l1f2~i.S .s2qwn4
0
~flTTTfl~~fl UW1T,flrTflT9flTAT
 Metropolitan ~€

TEST 6. COPYING

~\j.

S
55
4

SDF
10
New York BY

test of J. Wayne Wrightstone,

~rithmeticaI Joseph Justman,

Morris Pincus, AND

~eanings Ruth H~ Lowe

NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

EVEL ONE

AME

AMPLES
A.

8~123 ‘1,5
Published l~y World Book Company, Tonkers-on-Hudson, New Tork, and Ghicago, Illinois
Copyright © 1956 by World Book Gompany. Copyright in Great Britain. All rights reserved. PRINTED IN U.S.A. NYTAM LEVEL 1-3

This test is copyrighted. The reproduction of any part of it by mimeograph, hectograph, or in any other
way, whether the reproductions are sold or are furnishedfreefor use, is a violation of the copyright law. a
New York Test of Arithmetical Meanings (LEVEL ONE)

To be filled in by the examiner

Pupil s Name Grade Age Boy_

Girl_

Teacher’s Name School of Birth_______________

YEAR MO. D~
City or Town State Date•

SCORE BOX MAXIMUM —___

~ POSSIBLE PUPIL’S %-ILE

~ Test PAGES SCORE SCORE RATING RANK

Test 1. Pre-Measurement Concepts 3—7 32 ~ )~c~d

Test 2. Numerical Concepts 8—12 37 ~
• Total 69

I N DIVI DUAL This summary chart is to be used by the teacher for making an analysis of concepts ne
ANALYSIS •CHART further
irigfor
0 items development.
omitted. In the appropriate spaces, enter an X for incorrect responses a

TEST 1 :PRE - MEASU REMENT CONCEPTS

SIZE SHAPE WEIGHT TIME INDBF. QUANT. PLACE & DIST.

ITEM ITEM ITEM ITEM ITEM ITEM

NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.

1 9 14. 18 22 26
2 10 15 19 23 27
3~ 11 16 20 24 28
4 12 17 21 25 29
5 13 30
6 . 31
7 . 32
8

~ 8 5 4 4 4 7

NUMBER
CORRECT

TEST 2 NUMERICAL CONCEPTS

ONE-ONE CARD. QUANT. ORDINAL
CORRES.. NOS. TERMS NOS. ADD. SUET. MULT. DIV. FRACT.

ITEM ITEM ITEM ITEM ITEM ITEM ITEM ITEM ITEM

NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. —

1 — 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 —,

2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 —

3 7 —~ 11 15 19 23 27 31 35
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
, 37
MAX. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
SCORE

NUMBER
CORRECT
)
C.,
I
(0)
w
I- c%4 C.,
 [ 0
/

4
>-
z
I’,
I
z
0
U
I
(1)
w
I-
 N.Y.T.A.N

IL

21
>-.
z
I
U,
LU
~Z~)
I-
LU
0
U
U,
I
z
0
U
I-
U)
w
I-
 N.Y.T.A.M.

TEST 2
1~ I •2 3 4 5

~~23456
~~~2458IQ,
~t~3689IO
~ 3’l 5.6
2 3 ‘1 5 6

~
~

8 91012
123510
n
 6
c E I
c
L—WV1.AN
 N.Y.T.A.

10
 N.Y.T.A.M.—1

11
 N.Y.T.AJ

TEST 2 (CONT’D)

33

34

35

36 I 2 34 5
U 2 3 ‘1 5 8
SCORE TEST 2

12
 PRIMARY

BATTERY

TRUMAN 1. KELLEY RICHARD MADDEN ERIC F. GARDNER HERBERT C. RUDMAN

NAME
last first initial
BOY GIRL fl GRADE_____ TEACHER_________

SCHOOL DATE OF TESTING__

year month day
CITY OR TOWN DATE OF BIRTH
year month day
STATE________ AGE
years months

GRADE PERCENTILE
SCORE RANKS STAN IN EC

~PercentiIe Ranks and Starines based on tables for Beginning U Middle U End U of grade (check one)

~ HARCOURT, BRACE & WORLD, INC.

 TEST 1: Word Reading
SAMPLE 6
not 0 eat 0 is
~ him 0 drink 0 ice
~~4Z SUfl good ° eyes

~ sit 0 ~‘ play slow~

to~rs 0 flat 0 13 plan

gives 0 pond 0 flyin~

children 0 flag 0 p1ea~
kinds 0 pool 0 plac
2 8 14

horse 0 candy 0 shor

food 0 foot 0 boo1~
door 0 carry 0 shoe
window 0 found 0 both
3 9 15

shoe 0 school 0 witl~

chair 0 letter 0 ride
table 0 teeth 0 rain
bear 0 laugh 0 writ
4 16

read 0 mail 0 peop

~ ran 0 blow 0 scho

~ rain 0
larger 0 towr

tI~\)~- ride 0 ship 0 chic

5 11 17

farm 0 hand 0 oran

always 0~ his 0 musi
ring 0 house 0 bad
ball 0 horse 0 plan

2 GO ON TO THE NEXT Pi
 24 30
bake 0 roof 0 reach 0
break 0 rest study 0
bread 0 rock 0 wrong 0
became 0 really 0 boil

31

bulb Q wire Q hair 0

bill Q strong 0 her D
build Q storm Q hear 3
board 0 whip Q hard 0
26 32
~ giant 0 point 0 backward 0
bone Q head 0 growl 0
gather 0 friendly 0 team 0
sister Q thaw 0 bounce 0
27 33
however 0 corner 0 weave
cabin 0 cool 0 sew 0
shape 0 cover 0 seal 0
camera 0 cotton 0 ocean 0
28
string 0 earth 0
~ noise 0
nuts 0 finish 0 early 0
nose 0 drove 0 worm 0
~ feed 0 arm 0 wool 0
29 3~
television0 -~~z instant ~ rest 0
-~

found 0 ice cream Q ahead 0

telephone Q instead Q rolling 0
fold 0 c~= island 0 wind 0
ro. Right 1 2 3 45 6 7 6 910 11121314151617181920 21 22232425262728 2~ 30 31 323334351 STOP
r. Score Below 10110 10 11111213 13 14 14 15 15 1616 17 17 17 18 18 19 192021 22232425 2627 2932361
3
TEST 2: Paragraph Meaning
SAMPLES
I am white.
The kitten likes A
I come from a cow.
A color mew milk— Children like to drink me.
I am 9
The boy
He~av~fa 9 meat bread water milk
He waited The fox’s tail is red.
Then it w~ The tip of the tail is white.
B -car His tail is red and
~c 1oo1~ 10 blue yellow white black
Jane has a pet. We have five pet hens.
He wags his tail. They give us 1•
He says, “Bow-wow.”
11 milk apples eggs farms
He is a ~
1 dog cat doll rabbit Tom has a toy.
Bob went away. It goes up and up.
He said, “ 2 It is an 12
2 Jump Help Good-by Mother 12 airplane automobile engine ora

Mary laughed at the surprise. The cat and the horse are hungry.
It was something 3 We will give the horse some hay.
We will give the J3 some milk.
3 blue funny red little
13 horse baby cat calf
I can sing.
I can fly. I can jump from tree to tree.
lama 4 I have a long tail.
4 kite rabbit bird frog I am a
14 dog cat monkey mouse
See my dog play.
Hecan 5 I can swim fast.
5 help want run ball I live in a glass bowl.
I am a _15
Dick is with the pony. 15 fish baby boy girl
The pony is in the barn.
Dick is in the 6~. Grandma came to see Alice and To~
6 house barn car school She brought a doll and an engine.
The engine was for Tom.
The car is red. The doll was for ~i6
It can go
16 me Alice us brother
7 run first ride fast
I give light. Dick has a flower garden. He wat
I make you hot. it every day. Everyone says, “W
You see me in the sky. pretty J~L you have in your gard
I am the ~ Dick.”
8 sun rain air snow 17 tomatoes berries corn flow

4 GO ON TO THE NEXT
 TEST 2: raragr~pii ivie~iiiiig ~bUIILIIIU~U)

barn door was open. Sally had an apple.

gate was open, too. The skin was red.
~i$ was gone. It was ~7 inside.
train bird toy horse 27 white red blue orange

a blue. Sue must stay in bed today.

a far away. Her face feels very hot.
cannot touch me. She does not want her breakfast.
a the ~ Sue is 28
table chair garden sky 28 happy sick hungry lazy

You should be careful when you cross

;y has a tiny pet.
a street. Watch out for 29 Always ..
as four legs.
look ~
~ a 20
29 airplanes birds dogs cars
pony duck cow kitten
30 for boys both ways back pretty
cut her hand. John, Paul, and Fred played.
iurt very much. Each boy had a ball.
said, “I am a big girl. There were ~3 balls.
ill not ~21•”
31 two three four five
laugh cry sing run
Billy did a trick.
n made of wood. He stood on his head.
we four legs. His .~3 went up in the air.
ple sit on me. 32 hands head ball feet
n a _22L...
chair cow lap floor I am very sweet. Boys and bears like
to eat me. I am .~3
[nie goes in the water. 33 honey milk bread fish
has two feet.
is a 23 We saw a TV show about cowboys.
cat chicken duck bunny They rode very fast on their horses and
shot bad men with their guns. Mother
iething was stealing food. Mother said, “Real work hard taking
-~

ght a trap. She put cheese in the care of .~5 . They do not spend
). That night she caught a their time .~36 bad men.”
fly fish fox mouse 34 horses cowboys men people
35 grass sheep cattle land
the children in play clothes. They 36 shooting beating shaking scaring
e packages of apples, sandwiches,
des, and other good things to.~5 John wanted to buy a cake.
‘y are Miss Allen’s class on their He went to the 37
to the park for a 26 He also bought some 38
sell buy cook eat 37 country baker builder airport
ride picnic trip visit 38 butter meat fish bread

ght 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 11 121314151617181920 21 222324252627 282930 31 32333435363738 STOP

ore 10111112121314141515 15161616161617171717 1.6181819192020212223 2425262729313640
5
 TEST 3: Vocabulary
SAMPLE 8 16 24 32
lamp 0 picture 0 stupid 0 pleased 0 conduct
chair 0 laugh 0 silent 0 unhappy 0 appearanc
bread ® thought 0 strange 0 beautiful 0 difficulty

1 9 17 25 33
break 0 plenty 0 warn you 0 sells it 0 huge
bounce 0 cereal 0 worry you 0 moves it 0 important
spill 0 several 0 fool you 0 buys it 0 far away
2 10 18 26 34

tackle 0 power 0 complete 0 removed 0 glad

shot 0 duty 0 destroy 0 promoted 0 certain
film 0 natural 0 order 0 punished 0 prepared
3 11 19 27 35
think 0 carry 0 protection 0 travel 0 handsome1
dream 0 start 0 quiet 0 stay 0 opposite
wish 0 find 0 food 0 sleep 0 similar
~4 12 20 28 36

small 0 sew 0 popular 0 a pasture 0 majority

valuable 0 steal 0 industrious 0 a crate 0 victory
heavy 0 choose 0 enthusiastic 0 an orchard 0 vote
5 13 21 29 37

broad 0 spend 0 impossible 0 mighty C lace

high 0 fix 0 stretched 0 faithful C dainty
middle 0 need 0 unusual 0 famous C golden
6 14 22 30 38

ashamed 0 clear 0 knock 0 food C a whistle

angry 0 under 0 wait 0 medicine C a lake
worried 0 over 0 arrive 0 supplies C a boat

7 15 23 31 39
relatives 0 search 0 religious 0 push them C afraid
partners 0 march 0 old 0 join them C wild
tricky 0 service 0 all together 0 run them C rare

I No. Right. 1 2 3j4 5 S 7 8 910 11121314151617181920 21 222324252627282930 313233343536373839

f+\ fl~r.score BeIowlOhOlOlOlllllll2 12121313141415151617 18192122232425272931 33364044485255+
 I 4: ~)~JUIIIII~

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

ht 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 910 1112131415161’7lijjjjl STOP

re 10111314151616171718 192021222324~283O34j
TEST 5: Word Study Skills
SAMPLES 7 SAMPLES. 21
A busy 0 game Q C snake ~ wish C
~ song cat 0 joke 0 push C
~ warm 0 party 0 luck 0 much C
B 8 22
toy Q tree 0 big 0 come C
boy.. Q tell. 0 boy.. . Q plenty C
day 0 this 0 play 0 cub C
9 15 23
can 0 why 0 we 0 leave C
had 0 then C been 0 turn C
man 0 was 0 best 0 teach C
2 10 16 24

river 0 such 0 sand 0 seat C

heavy 0 church 0 belt 0 week C
money 0 shoot 0 sold Q speed C
3 11 17 25

quick 0 brave Q salt 0 seed

promise 0 blast Q thing 0 eat c
rich 0 boy 0 three 0 swing C
4 12 18 26
at Q kite 0 book 0 through C
sack 0 knife 0 back 0 food c
ocean Q kind 0 think 0 foot C
5 13 19 27
laugh found 0 peace 0 laid
circus 0 zoo 0 please 0 place C
club Q circle 0 boys Q plain C
6 14 20 28
write Q Indian o bite 0 limb C
night 0 Eskimo 0 life 0 tiny C
white 0 April laugh 0 climb C

Pfl nil Tfl ~ar iI~VT DAPE

 I ~ I ~I; IVUI LI %1LLILIJ %PICIii~ ~•~‘~I

~AMPLES 35 SAMPLES 49
~ far 0 win 0 G hate ® thing 0
car twin 0 hat. 0 thick 0
tar 0 tin 0 ~ hot 0 think 0
F’ 36 H 50
say room 0 ~ rider 0 ton 0
day boom 0 rid 0 ten 0
play 0 broom 0 said 0 tin 0
37 43 51

beat 0 knock 0 sang 0 mice 0

neat 0 cock 0 can 0 mix 0
meat 0 rock 0 find 0 miss 0
38 44 52

become 0 tanks 0 bread 0 set 0

income 0 banks 0 beast 0 seat 0
outcome 0 thanks 0 best 0 sit 0
51 39 45 53

ate 0 chop 0 tell 0 biggest 0

out 0 shop 0 tall 0 busiest 0
oat 0 hop 0 till 0 breakfast 0
32 40 46 54
yell 0 nail 0 laugh 0 though 0
jell 0 snail 0 gave 0 thought 0
fell 0 sail 0 says 0 through 0
33 41 47 55
cow 0 rash 0 day 0 style 0
how 0 cash 0 made 0 still 0
now 0 crash 0 head 0 steel 0
54 42 48 56
lack 0 tough 0 sight 0 mansion 0
back 0 through 0 sigh 0 standing 0
black 0 though 0 side 0 station 0
ight
core
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
BeowlO
11 121314151617181920
10101011111112121212
21 2223242526 27282930
13131313141414151515
31 323334353637383940
16161718181919202021
41 424344454647484950
22232425262728303234
STOP
Ight (contd) 51 52 53 54 55 56J 9
core 39 48 55÷
 TEST 6: Arithmetic Part A: Measures
SAMPLES 6

A
:~ /10

4A87N41241
2~

~:
/4
4)(8
\~~y ~ \~3/ ~
I 3: 4
7

B *1

I I
9

DECEMBER
~

~ ~ 1 2
~ 2345678

~QHA 10

11

4
28~~
4 72831
35c~ ~

10 GOON TO THE NEXT

 TEST 6: Arithmetic (Continued) Part B: Problem ~Solving

~15 6 23 2 3 6 10

24
0

23 4 6 3 5 6

0 1 2 1 2 3 4

,6 7 10 6O~1 2 45

2 3 4 5~’ 1 2 4 5

1 2 3 4 2 4 6 8
29

5 6 7 8 20 40 50 80

1 2 3 4~ 2 3 4 5

2 1012 20~ 1 2 5 20

11 GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE ~

 TEST 6: Arithmetic (Continued) Part C: Number Concepts

eight

1 2 3 4
35

43 27 19 39

15 51

/
4 3
3 1 4
+4 +2 +2

50

4 6 8 10 9
—o —3 —1 —2 —5

Cr Srnrn