I.T.A.: American versus British ExperienceAuthor(s): John DowningSource: The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 52, No. 7 (Mar., 1971), pp. 416-419Published by: Phi Delta Kappa InternationalStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20372939 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 03:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Phi Delta Kappa International is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The PhiDelta Kappan.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 03:45:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Photo: Herb Weitman

? ? cl?

American versus

British Experience

By John Downing

This researcher and writer, who has worked with i.t.a. from its beginnings, compares its success in Britain with its limited acceptance in the U.S. and concludes that this approach to

beginning reading may still have an

American future if educators and

publishers will refuse to allow them selves to be prejudiced by early

mistakes and misfortunes.

Despite setbacks, controversies, and negative evaluations by some leaders in the reading

field, the initial teaching alphabet (i.t.a.) has held on doggedly to a place in American schools and made slow but steady growth. Will i.t.a. continue to spread? Will its growth accelerate?

Or will it fade away? Curiously, it is difficult to predict i.t.a.'s future in American schools, although its accept ance in Britain seems assured.

Why is i.t.a.'s status in Britain so

much better than it is in America? First of all, we must be clear that the difference has nothing to do with nationalism or dialect problems. The i.t.a. medium has stood up very well in its design to satisfy American pronun ciation as well as British speech. Nor does there appear to be any feeling among American teachers, children, or

parents that i.t.a. is a foreign import. No, the difference between i.t.a. in

America and i.t.a. in Britain appears to be quite accidental. From the Ameri can educator's point of view we might call it a "chapter of accidents."

Research Mishaps

Although exactly the same i.t.a.

alphabet was being investigated in

both countries, the American research

designs were remarkably different from the designs used in Britain.

The British investigations were de

signed to compare two alphabets or

printed media: the i.t.a. medium versus

the traditional orthography of English - the T.O. medium. This seemed

appropriate because i.t.a.'s inventor,

Sir James Pitman, repudiated any nec

essary connection between his new

medium and any specific teaching ma

terials or methodology when he first launched i.t.a. in his speech to the

Royal Society of Arts in London in 1960.1 Therefore, in the British re

search, experimental groups and con

trol groups used the same teaching materials and methods. The only dif ference between the treatment of the two groups was the printed medium or

alphabet: the i.t.a. medium in the

experimental group and the T.O. medi um in the control group.

The American research was based on very different assumptions. It

appears that i.t.a. has sometimes been

regarded as "a method" - a sort of

416 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 03:45:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

package deal in which a particular set of teaching materials and techniques was sold along with the alphabet. Thus, the i.t.a. package was compared with other American reading packages, such as the "basal reader method" or the "language experience approach." This seems an odd assumption, be cause some basal readers are printed in the i.t.a. medium while others are

printed in the T.O. medium, and some teachers using the language experience approach write their experience charts in the i.t.a. medium while others write them in the T.O. medium. Two later

American investigations have not made this assumption, but unfortunately they have received very little publici ty.2

Possibly this difference reflects some national characteristic. Do Amer ican educators tend to seek one all

embracing panacea, while British teachers look for smaller improve

ments through modifying only parts of the reading environment? Certainly, the American i.t.a. evangelists have

given the impression that i.t.a. is a kind of educational patent medicine to cure all evils. At any rate, from the

standpoint of the logic of scientific

research, the final outcome of this difference in the research designs used in the two countries is that one cannot draw any conclusions about the rela

tive effects of the two media from the American studies, because the printed medium was not the only variable different in the so-called i.t.a. and T.O.

groups compared. The materials and methods of teaching used to teach one

medium were different from those

employed to teach the other medium.

Regrettable as it may seem from the

point of view of national pride, Ameri can educators must use British re

search for a scientific assessment of the effects of the i.t.a. medium.

At any rate, this is the conclusion arrived at in the British Schools' Coun cil's recent report on i.t.a.3 The

Schools' Council is the official body

for curriculum in England and Wales.

They commissioned two leading Brit ish educators to make an independent inquiry into i.t.a. To review all the

American and British research, the

leading British educational psycholo gist, Frank Warburton, was selected. His partner was Vera Southgate, well known generally as an expert on begin ning reading and specifically for her

article, "Approaching i.t.a. Results with Caution ."4

Warburton regards the American i.t.a. experiments as classic examples of the methodological error of con

founding different variables. For the benefit of teachers who may be less accustomed to the technical terminol

ogy of scientific criticism, he explains the problem with a more concrete

example: "To use different materials for different media is as absurd as

comparing tomato soup with mulliga tawny and always drowning one with

ginger and the other with garlic." The American researchers' package

deal approach to i.t.a. also led to

another source of confusion. All the USOE first-grade reading studies seem to have assumed that the behavioral

objectives of the "i.t.a." package must be identical at all stages with the basal reader and other T.O. packages investi

gated. For example, after only seven

months, all children were tested on

reading achievement tests in the T.O.

medium, despite the fact that the i.t.a. students were learning the different i.t.a. medium. Surprisingly,

no signifi

cant differences were found. The i.t.a. students read T.O. just as well as the

T.O. students. Even more astonishing

ly, most of the investigators interpret ed this as meaning that i.t.a. should be

rejected because i.t.a. training had failed to produce better T.O. reading than T.O. training did!

But a much more important criti cism can be made of such a conclu sion. Even if the variables had been controlled adequately and even if the T.O. tests had been administered at a

more appropriate stage, one is still not entitled to reject an educational inno vation on the grounds of "no signifi cant difference" being found. Such a

conclusion clearly indicates bias in favor of convention and against inno vation.

Warburton seems to have recog nized that the dice are loaded against

innovation in educational evaluation. At the time of writing his report, i.t.a. was being used in about 10% of British

schools, while 90% continued to use the conventional T.O. medium. Pre

sumably, the 90% cherished the belief that T.O. is the superior medium. But

Warburton could not find one single investigation among all the 17 studies

he reviewed which showed an advan

tage for students who began with T.O. The American studies tended to show "no significant differences" on some

measures and an advantage for i.t.a. on

a few others. The British research found much more in favor of i.t.a.

Warburton brings out very clearly that belief in the adequacy of the conven

tional T.O. medium is just as much on

trial as is the innovative i.t.a. medium:

There is no evidence whatsoever

for the belief that the best way to learn to read in traditional

orthography is to learn to read in traditional orthography. It

would appear rather that the best way to learn to read in traditional orthography is to learn to read in the initial teach

ing alphabet.

Vera Southgate's part in the Schools' Council's evaluation of i.t.a.

was a special new study of her own. She used questionnaires and open ended interview procedures to find out the opinions of teachers, inspectors, etc. On their own these might be

rejected as "too subjective," but when

they are combined with Warburton's review of the findings of valid experi

mental data, we have the formidable

convergence of hard statistical results with the professional opinions of prac tical educators working with i.t.a. in the classrooms.

The Established Facts

Recently, John Blackie and Donald Sadler summarized the conclusions ar

rived at by this convergence of statisti cal data with professional opinions.5 Both of these gentlemen recently re

tired from the Ministry of Education where they were Her Majesty's inspec tors. Blackie was the chief inspector

who, as the Secretary of State's asses sor on the Central Advisory Council, devoted his full-time energies to The

Plowden Report,6 which has become

JOHN DOWNING (4, Vancouver Island British Columbia Field Chapter) is professor of education, University of

Victoria, British Columbia. He con

ducted extensive research on i.t.a.

when he was director of the reading research unit at the University of London Institute of Education.

March 1971 417

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 03:45:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

well known in American educational circles as an official guide to what Featherstone termed "The Primary School Revolution in Britain" in the title of his influential New Republic article in 1967.7

Ex-Chief Inspector Blackie and his

colleague give the following "summing up" which they say is "as fair and honest as space and brevity permit. It

quotes a mere fraction of the pub lished evidence in favour of i.t.a.":

Reading. By using i.t.a., chil

dren learn to read more quickly and pleasurably. They not mere

ly sound but understand what

they read. They read indepen

dently and therefore widely in a

great variety of books. The pro

portion of non-readers and strug

glers in i.t.a. schools has been

vastly reduced, and the teacher's

load lightened. Writing. An overwhelming

majority of teachers name the

early start and the improved quantity and quality of the chil dren's free writing among the

main benefits of i.t.a. "Every

body has been astounded at the

enjoyment children find in free

writing in i.t.a. Right from the start the child can say exactly

what he thinks."

Speech. "The children's spo

ken vocabulary has increased

enormously because they read so

much. The spoken English of

T.O. children is not in the same

class as that of i.t.a. children

who can acquire information of

all sorts because of their fluency

in reading."

Spelling. There are no spelling

problems in i.t.a. Queues round

the teacher's desk have vanished,

and no adverse effects are no

ticed after transfer to T.O., or

later in the junior school. Not one teacher said that i.t.a. had

worsened spelling in T.O. Transition to T.O. The ease

of transfer causes "wonder and

delight" to every teacher without

exception, though many add that there should be no haste to

rush it.

The bright and the dull child. More than half the teachers say that i.t.a. benefits children at all

levels of ability. Of the rest, some say it helps the slow; oth

ers, the bright. Attitudes to life and learning.

Children who learn to read and

write easily with i.t.a. develop confidence and independence, and show initiative and responsi

bility at a quite early stage. This leads to a natural increase in

individual study, exploration, and discovery. Early reading and

writing helps the understanding of other subjects, and leaves

more time for them.

The unequivocal conclusion is

that "in the majority of schools, infants using i.t.a. have learned

to read earlier, more easily, and

faster than those using T.O."

Extent of Adoption

If educational practice were based on educational research, T.O. should

have been abolished by now! This seems to be the implication of the

official joint declaration of the Univer

sity of London Institute of Education

and the National Foundation for Edu

cational Research in England and

Wales dated December 3, 1969. It

concludes that the i.t.a. "medium has

substantial advantages over traditional

orthography in the early stages of

teaching children to read," and goes on to give an important reminder to us

all regarding the place of research in

education:

Beyond this, however, lies an

other problem which concerns

the role of research in determin

ing policy. Some at least of the resistance to change lies in a

rooted unwillingness to consider evidence. Few other areas of

educational method have been as

well and thoroughly explored as this. We would therefore urge

teachers and others responsible for the important decision as to

how and by what means reading

should be taught to examine the evidence and to recognize that

on what they decide depends the welfare of countless children

-

especially those who now have difficulties.

Innovation does not usually come

rapidly in English schools. Every head

teacher makes his own independent decisions as to what shall be taught in

his school. No superior administrator can dictate to him in the matter of

curriculum. Thus, progress in innova

tion must be through persuasion, and

so far, according to Sir James Pitman's

Statement before the congressional subcommittee on education in Wash

ington, D.C., in November, 1969, al

most 20% of all British children are

currently being taught to read with

i.t.a.

In the United States the extent of

i.t.a.'s adoption is probably much less.

It has been estimated that about 10% of American school districts use i.t.a.

in at least one classroom. A few

districts have gone over 100% to i.t.a.

This, too, seems to represent a

remarkable discrepancy between the

extent of i.t.a.'s use in America and its

wider adoption in Britain. Part of the reason for this lies in the "slow-but

sure" strategy of carefully thought out

research with replications and alterna

tive methodological approaches which, in Britain, has created a well-deserved sense of confidence in the findings and

conclusions. In contrast, American ed

ucators have been faced with a re

search confusion which cannot inspire much confidence in its conclusions.

But i.t.a. has met with two other

important accidental obstacles in

America with which it did not have to

contend in Britain: 1. Whereas in Britain every educa

tional and trade publisher was invited

to join in the i.t.a. experiment, in

America a "corner" in i.t.a. materials

developed soon after i.t.a. first crossed

the Atlantic in 1962.8 Several Ameri

can publishers were held back from

printing their materials in i.t.a. because

of the false rumor that they were

prevented from using it by copyright restrictions. Although the truth that

i.t.a. is free to be used by all publishers is generally known today, nevertheless

the early misunderstanding has left a

bad taste in the mouth of most Ameri can publishers and this has turned

them off i.t.a. altogether.

2. The American reading establish

ment has been turned off, too. This is

due partly to the mishaps described

already, but also to some of the ways in which i.t.a. has been promoted.9

Many reading experts have come to

regard i.t.a. as just another gimmick, because some of its commercial pro

moters have associated it with every

passing fad in American education

during the past seven or eight years.

They began by jumping on the "back

to-the-good-old-phonics-days" band

wagon and have graduated by stages to

418 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 03:45:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the "accountability" scheme. (In Brit

ain, i.t.a. has never been associated

with phonics and the accountability idea did so much damage to British education that it was rejected many years ago!) Unfortunately, repugnance for cheap and tawdry promotional tactics is not the only cause of the

American reading experts' negative at titudes toward i.t.a. A recent article

published in the journal of the Nation al Foundation for Educational Re search in England and Wales1 ?

alleges the distortion of reseach results in some American reports on i.t.a.

i.t.a.'s American Future

The unfortunate association of i.t.a.

with some bad research and some

unsavory promotional and marketing tactics is absolutely irrelevant to its status as a medium for improving reading instruction. That i.t.a. is a

valuable means for simplifying the

early stages of learning to read has been established quite incontestably

by the Warburton and Southgate re

port. If American educators and pub lishers will take the rational approach of refusing to be prejudiced by these

past mishaps, and if they will set aside

national pride sufficiently to accept the fruits of nearly a decade of i.t.a.

research in Britain, then i.t.a. may get a second chance to catch up in Ameri ca to the lead it has already gained in

Britain.

Independent Sources

The American educator who wants

to give i.t.a. this second chance in his

thinking now has a fair number of sources to which he may turn. For

research evidence, the best source is

the Warburton and Southgate report, but in addition there are some further

experimental data from follow-up studies of i.t.a. pupils which have been

published subsequently.11 The "i.t.a. package deal" miscon

ception can be avoided or overcome

by reference to articles describing the

several alternative i.t.a. programs avail

able from different publishers.12 Of

particular interest in this connection is

the new film made at Sussex Universi

ty, "A British Primary School Puts

i.t.a. to Work," in which i.t.a. is shown

in the role regarded as appropriate in

that country, i.e., as a print medium which makes it easier for children to use books for learning and discovery and which makes exploration of writ

ing for self-expression as natural as

other forms of child art.13

1Sir James Pitman, "Learning to Read: An Experiment," Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 1961, pp. 149-80.

2Jack A. Holmes and Ivan M. Rose, "Disadvantaged Children and the Effective ness of i.t.a.," Reading Teacher, January, 1969, pp. 350-62; Helen M. Robinson, "Effectiveness of i.t.a. as a Medium for

Reading Instruction," in A. J. Mazurkie

wicz, ed., i.t.a. and the World of English. Hempstead, N.Y.: i.t.a. Foundation, 1966.

3Frank W. Warburton and Vera South

gate, i.t.a.: An Independent Evaluation. London: Chambers and Murray, 1969.

4Vera Southgate, "Approaching i.t.a. Results with Caution," Educational Re

search, 1965, pp. 83-96.

5John Blackie and Donald Sadler, "A

Summary of the Report on i.t.a. by the Schools' Council," Teachers' World, Novem ber 13, 1970, pp. 18-19.

6Central Advisory Council for Education

(England), Children and Their Primary Schools (The Plowden Report). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1967.

7Joseph Featherstone, "The Primary School Revolution in Britain," pamphlet reprinting of three articles in The New

Republic, 1967.

8This was in 1962 at the annual meeting of the Educational Records Bureau, New

York City. See John Downing, "Experi ments with an Augmented Alphabet for

Beginning Readers in British Schools," in Arthur E. Traxler, ed., Frontiers of Educa tion. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1963. Reprinted in John

Downing, The Initial Teaching Alphabet Reading Experiment. Chicago: Scott, Fores

man, 1965.

9A selection of these is provided in i.t.a. Books and Other i.t.a. Resources for Chil

dren, Teachers, and Parents available from John Downing in Victoria.

10John Downing, "Cautionary Com ments on Some American i.t.a. Reports," Educational Research, November, 1970, pp. 70-72.

11 John Downing and William Latham, "A Follow-up of Children in the First i.t.a.

Experiment," British Journal of Educational

Psychology, November, 1969, pp. 303-05; John Downing, "New Experimental Evi dence of the Effectiveness of i.t.a. in Pre

venting Disabilities of Reading and Spel ling," Developmental Medicine and Child

Neurology, October, 1969, pp. 547-55.

12John Downing, "Alternative Teaching Methods in i.t.a.," Elementary English, No

vember, 1968, pp. 942-51; "A Psycholin guistic Theory for i.t.a.," Elementary Eng lish, November, 1970, pp. 953-61; "How

Children Think About Reading," Reading Teacher, December, 1969, pp. 217-30; Teresa Leigh, "i.t.a. and Progressive Teach

ing Methods," Reading Teacher, November, 1968, pp. 148-52; Olive Gayford, i.t.a. in

Primary Education. London: Initial Teach

ing Publishing Co., 1970.

13This 16 mm. film is available from either John Downing at the University of

Victoria or from Trevor Payne at the Uni

versity of Sussex.

"I passed factual recall, but I flunked inferential thinking. "

March 1971 419

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 03:45:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions