THE RESPONSES OF SKILLED AND LESS SKILLED NINTH GRADE READERS TO AN ORIGINAL OR AN ADAPTED STORY.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the written responses of skilled and less skilled readers to either an original or an adapted story, and the written responses of less skilled readers to either an original or an adapted short story. Data were compared relative to three areas: (1) statistical analysis of frequency of clausal units, and categorization of clausal units according to recall, inference, and supplementation; (2) statistical analysis of selected elements of the short story, specifically, setting, characterization, plot, and theme; and (3) descriptive analysis of frequent responses within each subcategory. Ninth grade students designated as skilled and less skilled readers by scores on the California Achievement Test formed two distinct sample populations. Subjects were randomly assigned to read either an original short story or an adaptation of the same story and write all they could recall, including selected elements of the short story, namely, setting, characterization, plot, and theme. Findings indicated that in terms of frequency of clausal units and categorization of clausal units, the responses of skilled readers to the original story contained significantly more clausal units and inference statements than the responses of less skilled readers. The responses of less skilled readers to the adapted story contained significantly more clausal units and inference statements than the responses of less skilled readers to the original story. Additionally, in their responses to elements of the short story, skilled readers differed significantly from less skilled readers for both the original and the adapted story with respect to characterization, plot, and theme. The responses of less skilled readers to the adapted story contained significantly more plot statements than the responses of the less skilled readers to the original story. Results point to the use of adapted stories with less skilled readers; however, caution must be used in arriving at such a conclusion since this study did not include qualitative interpretation of responses or other response measures such as reader interest and enjoyment.