Case studies of cognitive style in categorizing behavior among remedial readers. (Volumes I and II

This study investigated cognitive study among remedial readers under active and passive conditions of categorizing objects and word phrases in an attempt to note if there were differences between the way in which remedial readers approached concept formation when objects or words were involved.;Subjects consisted of eight, ten to thirteen year old students, reading at least two years below grade level and of average or above intelligence who attended the Temple University Reading Clinic Laboratory School. Four cases were presented in the study.;Subjects were asked to categorize items under five testing conditions. The Goldstein-Scheerer Object Sorting Test (1951) was used for the object categorizing portion. In active categorizing, subjects were presented an array of items and asked to group them and to provide a rationale for their grouping. In passive categorizing, subjects were presented with items from the same array grouped by the examiner and asked for a rationale for the category. Following the rationale for each category, subjects were asked to orally account for another item that could be included in the group and present a rationale for its inclusion. The word categorizing portion, consisting of word phrases representing familiar objects, was administered in the same manner. A task analysis established a parallel between the two procedures. Incorrectly identified passive categories were reintroduced in a subsequent inquiry. An inductive method was used in an attempt to bring each subject to a conceptual level of thinking regarding the category.;The case study format included the actual response of each four subjects. Qualitative differences were noted between method of categorizing objects and words. Results provided evidence that cognitive control factors such as equivalence range,preferred level of abstraction, and constriction-flexibility were not stable and had an effect upon concept formation in reading comprehension. Further, results provided support that individual differences were often lost in statistical treatments used for group analysis. Reading comprehension is a unique factor which is influenced by affective elements. Comparisons between performance on standardized reading tests and performance on cognitive control measures where reading for understanding is not involved may yield misleading results.