DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 074 477 CS 000 463

AUTHOR Kling, MartinTITLE General Open Systems Theory and the Substrata-Factor

Theory of Reading.INSTITUTION International Reading Association, Newark, Del.PUB DATE 66

NOTE 45p.; Reprint from Highlights of the Pre-convention

Institutes, 1965, Albert J. Kingston, Editor

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS *Models; *Reading; Reading Processes; *Systems

Analysis; *Systems Approach; *Systems Concepts;Theories

IDENTIFIERS Open Systems Theo Substrata Factor Theory

ABSTRACT

This study was designed to extend the generality ofthe Substrata-Factor Theory by two methods of investigation: (1)

theoretically, to establish the validity of the hypothesis that anisomorphic relationship exists between the SubstrataFactor Theory.a3 the General Open Systems Theory, and (2) experimentally, todiscover through a series of substrata analyses the patterns ofinteraction by which a set of subject matter areas mutually andreciprocally support each other. Eight postulates, fundamental toboth the General Open Systems Theory and the Substrata-Factor Theory,were identified. It was concluded (1) that there was an isomorphicrelationship between all postulates in the two theories; (2) thatsubject matter areas could be conceived of as suprasystems girded bydiverse, yet fundamentally related, subsystems; (3) that workingsystem hierarchies were found for each content area manifestingquantitative and qualitative differences in organization of substratasequences, amount of variance called for, and redundancy ofparticular. variables; (4) that reciprocal interaction could beinferred from and K on Y and Y on X regression analysis; and (5) thatthe proration sequential technique might provide a basis fordetermining the extent of a particular subsystem's impact on thesuprasystem. Suggestions for further research and a bibliography areincluded..(This document previously announced as ED 024 546.) (7B)

,

4

GENERAL OPEN SYSTEMS THEORY AND THESUBSTRATA-FACTOR THEORY OF READING 1

Mart Rung

Rutgers University

-Purpose

This study wa3 designed to extend the generality ofthe Substrata-Factor Theory via two methods of investi-gation:

1. Theoretical y, to establish the validity ofthe hypothesis that an isomorphic relation-ship exists between the Substrata-FactorTheory and General. Open Systems Theory;

2. Experimentally, to discover through a seriesof substrata analyses the patterns of inter-action by which a set of subject matter areas(reading, vocabulary, information, literature,grammar, numerical reasoning, arithmetic funda-mentals, geography, history, and civics) mutu-ally and reciprocally support each ocher.These patterns are used to illustrate thenature of the subsystems subsumed within asuprasystem as postulated in the theoreticalmodels under consideration.

Method of Analysis

In Part I, a logical analysis of the postulates de-rived from the General Open-Systems Theory and the Sub-strata-Factor Theory is made. Attention is particularlycentered on the eighth postulate as an appropriate- focusto illustrate in Part II the statistical application ofthe postulate.

In Part II, two substrata analyses are presented todiscover the statistically significant contribution whicheach of the content areas makes to the other specifiedsubsystems in an "idealized" mental cosmos which themodel conceives. as a syprasystem of interrelated workingsystem hierarchies.

Part I

The integrating construct of this paper is GeneralOpen Systems Theory. General Open Systems theorists make

79.

tpre following presumptions-

1. that inanimate and animate matter can be repre-sented by systems,

2. that a greater unification among the varioussciences is both desirable and attainable, and

that there exist general systems laws "whichapply to any system of a certain type, irre-spective of the particular properties of thesystems or the elements involved" (Bertalanffy,1950b, p. 138)

General Open Systems Theory has been described byAshby (1958, p_ 1) as symptomatic of a movement directingits attention to systems that are complex. Ashby notesthat for the past two hundred years science has beeninterested primarily in whatever is simple, i.e., inidentifying the units out of which complex structures aremade. Thus Sherrington isolated the stretch reflex;Pavlov, the salivary conditioned reflex; Dodge, thecorneal-reflection method for photographing eye movementsThe rule was to fractionate and study one variable at atime.

Bertalanffy (1956, p. 2) indicates that one of themain problems of General Systems Theory is to deal withorganized complexity. Logic would seem to demand not aspecial systems theory but a larger construct utilizingUniversal principles valid for "systems" in general inorder to understand the characteristics of such organizedcomplexity.

Bertalanffy defines a system as "sets of variabless_anding in interaction" (1956, p. 3

Floyd Allport gives a comprehensive definition ofa system:

any recognizably delimited aggregate ofdynamic elements that are in some way inter-connected and interdependent and that continueto operate together according to certain lawsand in such a way as to produce a characteris-tic total effect. A system, in other words,is something that is concerned with some kindof activity and preserves a kind of Integration

80.

and unity; and a particular system can be recog-nized as distinct from other systems to which,however, it may he dynamically related. Systemsmay be complex, they may be made up of interde-pendent sub-systems, each of which, though lessautonomous than the entire aggregate is, never-theless, fairly distinguishable in operation(1955, p. 469).

Astronomers have little difficulty defining a solarsystem, even though it is obvious that a particular solarsystem is part of a larger system such as a galaxy, whichin turn is part of the Milky Way, which is embedded inthe universe. The definition of a system is arbitrary andis highly dependent on a priori definitions of a task orproblem:

The concept of system, then, implies a goal orpurpose, and it implies interaction and communi-cation between components or parts .

A man-machine system is an organization whosecomponents are men and machines, working to-gether to achieve a common goal and tied to-gether by a communication network (Gagne, 1962,pp. 15-16).

Systems may vary along two dimensions: (1) by theirlevel of abstraction (pictorial, descriptive, or abstractmathematical); and (2) by the type of metaphor they em-ploy (machine, organism, field, etc.) (Hearn, 1958, p.40) . The most appropriate metaphor for representinghuman individuals and human aggregates is the OrganismicOpen Systems Model.

From an analysis of dynamic and serviceable theoriesin a number of sciences including biology, chemistry,and physics, Bertalanffy (1945, 1950a b, 1956) identi-fied or abstracted seven attributes of an Organismic OpenSystems Model; Werner ( 948),an eighth:

1. Open Systems exchange energy and in ormation withtheir environment through input and output channels_

2. Open Systems tend to be characterized by steadystates as those of organic metabolism - a constantratio being maintained by the components of thesystem. An inanimate example is that of a candle_

81.

0 PO 0 10to 0, "003 rt

rt rrfr .0 0C

SDI IV' ,rr Itt)0 I.<

trill 7 . tort py oo rt

0 H. 0 5O. EMI 0 to

t.4

FOM 0<rt C 11 H.0 7" CD 0rt Ht.0, 0 0

7 0CAI HO

0 00 1-4-000,ft 40 Cr

rtrNu nz rDrr to 400 H. 11

rt Irq In1

O c 01rid

rat DI0. 0 Irpl

Go

90rl

V. VM1,1

O 0 M(D

00 0n rr

a'

IPO 0 00 rr 0 14 '10

M. los M. Pa .n :ft9. rD ft rt

'`" 01:1 trI/ titP " ,S

Cr IV' tlYcal irb cry' IL<

0,7 >tli 0 '11< rt 0 m(DI 17

0. to M 110 10161 1413

111. 0 01 17 rtH, H. H.

rill0 0 0 M 0 0

or4

0 Oh HA0 Piro.000C n 4.41 Ili' Ilia

001 0 rt Pa1-to fp a 711.-1 Irb1 rD

. 4:1 crt. rt. CP 0 0.1 14. IIG

Z1 03 H. rtM rI rr 0 0 It H.1-11 rt, rt 0 0

0 N rort C 11.13

oP.,. : 0 n IMterp14 r) 0 IrDO 07toenn400 11rt. 00110 HI 0 HI 0 0

'.4 It 1/440111

0. 0

till < 0 In to of- ItIrD rt rr

1/441 Pt ;77. 7 to4-4 0

rt Q.71 1,4; to

',01 0 0 I

MMnIA z 0C 0 0,HI IR to4 1-iiPli 00 to 0 to 9: 0 0it-L HI. ft Mt rt 0 C 01,CO 'HI MI 0, 0 II: to 0Ili Ho 0i rt rr rD rt iirt M r r M 0

11 oN, 0 Ca nto0 0 t lio.J, 0 rr rt71 0 la. '10 lit 0 In, MO 11 rt 11.01 0 10: HolIN V Co rt il < H.O 0 rt Cr, rtIrt 1H. Or' Itil 0 0 rt H.0 int It - r 0nO la- 7 rtH. Po 1 : d l .0 0 Co 0Co 1-11 0 Lio 0 0 rtr? to, ...-0 C ixt to 0

0 I-, ft1 0O II 0 co x . Crt P'I4 rt co 0 pr'01 rt fp H. H.rt. la- 4 71 IH 0IT 0 0 00n7. 0 111 0

to clo H. pr'O minion)4 Pai 7 -

i 0 IN, NI, it4.4,1-4 AD1107

m Po n ',4!Ht H. Cry'to 0, m rr 0 00 0 m itl CJI

il 1-4' lag 'M 0 rr

rit ri. < to M0 k< M rr 0

t... H. w1.4. 10 0

.0 Ii 0H1141 Pla 0 13

SCI (D

it rt at Pt 0

7 0- 1Ft,

co 0 INA11 n

7 0 Fr* 0n

rt7 00 §' n 1.4 n rr 11

11410 H. H. 0 p) ,r,n ,(D r) 00. 0 .4 0 ihoi 0 Z1 7' to 0 0 %. .11H, 0 rt. 0 7 io, PI ?A .Fiiii Pa CD M N P14 17 ira iPai V M to to Pa CI. M. n e.. trlikAii Pa Hit 0 V' .4 'V 0 in 2 ra, to 0o, n o ilo H M CD 113 Pe 0 rh 0 01 rt rtC .03: m 9 14 Pt 0 rt itl 0 n rr IH4.0 n at 141 ill la) ni, 1-11..010 00irtt-a rt. 0 0 17 Mi Cr 9 ri, S )4 rt co 7Mi .4 rt :Pa HI

0,

Pa ril. :Hi 7 ina irt1 Mii . < m n n. rr. k lc ci, 1-Ai. 06 oH. Ir,.. n o 4 M nt C 0 to 11i4 Cr 'rt tri 1141 P" 11 rt Ili H. 0 1.-17 rt 4 tai iC Pa m cr'' '11: it ratH. H. M 7 0 m .ZI rt 'di Pa Poi 'fitM

0 0 VI Pa 7 M .0. :71 . 7 irr irt ft in in:M rt: I-4 X' 13) rt. iii, rD M Al 7rt: to 0 rat to ito 14 7 iro 0. .0 0' M 47 ft H. rr. 4 r*' ft to in.. tati 0'rD co fo 7 irm, o. 0. t N it < e.cr to H. Q. IM 113113 H. 0 V 7 0 14. ro, 1111DI 0 to ri, 0 H re 0 0 0, 01 0."10 v. nr 11:1 (1), 11111 'Ddl ti 10 111 rt lall VI tlt) mi 0 rD 01 n 101., 1-11 H,14.ne'OMM M1V M 00,11"'.114.. It-Jitri4211nmH.47 .0 pa 01. rt: irl 0, ipiM 0. C111' 51 19, .14 Cl. < mo m ri& 0 to Ilia. 4 ft: .ra C 'ft 0 11.41CD. Hi H II ( Hi rr PO 0

111 0 0rt. 12. to irt to V im 7 1-,1 7 in to 0 oi,1

oill Hi M 0 0 0lip rt 0 M. rt o 4). om111: till 9 DI .zriv 0 0 to H.4 0 Ho hM 0 rt 0 rt iM 9 n ka II piiii H.in. ,4 Pa Pa 14 M C. 9 M. --- 0 CT rtH. 13 0 CQ 10 H, .. m 4 0 Pa o!' m

im 0 H. 0 C lift It C 111 HA M< 0 1,4 J-11.. .111 re' Hil 0;0 M 0 to 0 :H, 0 H. Hi 0., pli kt 0n 1H, HI Hi. 4 in 91 N.' 104 ft 0 m'44; 14. a) ID 0 Iti 0 0rt' 0 w 0 MI ft 97 rt I,H,, rb Mt

1 0 H. ill0 rt 0in it<

10. 0 0Ho;

10 IC'rp

10 0.113

04' clo IL<DD B [41

rr0 9

IP> mrbl :S

01 0 paC I,

rt HMY

06. it0 04 M

11111.. IcArr

Ito

11 V HrO 0

CQ

71;1.. Irloatrirpol Irr

0

rt rDto :Pa 0ft rt Ct.

Pai .0

H4m

ft 0itrt: rp

C 1'44 'rr

112Q IrrO

0

rt

rtPat

IIN

7 Open Systems display progressive segregation aprocess wherein systems divide into a hierarchicalorder of subordinate systems. It has been assumedthat the process of segregation is related to nega-tive entropy wherein the organism progresses to higherlevels of order and differentiation. Disorganization(positive entropy) and organization (negative entropy)operate in a living organism during the entire courseof life.

In the early stages of life, organizationoutruns de-organization, so that theorganism becomes more and more differenti-ated or, in other words, grows. With adult-hood, life continues, but growth slows toa stop. With old age de-organization out-runs organization, and with death organt-nation terminates and de-organization, re-sulting from the free play of entropy, hasfull reign (Bray and White, 1954, p. 75).

Open Systems also display progressive integration.Higher order systems are continually being formedfrom the organization of smaller systems into function-al hierarchies united to cope with problems of greatercomplexity than can be handled by any of the sub-ordinate systems alone. This is a function of nega-tive entropy.

2Concurrent and independent of Bertalanffy (1945: 1949-(trans. to-English, 1952), 1950a & b, 1951, 1955, 1956,1962a &b) and other open system theorists who have pub-lished in The-Society for the Advancement of'GeneralSystems Theory since 1956, and the Journal of BehavioralScience also founded in 1956, Holmes (1948, 1953, 1954,1960, 1961a & b, 1963a. & b, 19640. and Holmes and Singer(1961, 1964, 1965) developed the Substrata-Factor Theoryof Reading.

The major hypothesis of the analysis to be described inthis paper is that the Substrata-Factor Theory of Readingand Open Systems Theory are isomorphic to each other,i_e are structurally similar.

Brodbeck points out that isomorphism requires twrconditions:

1. There must be a one-to-one correspondence,between the elements of the-model and the-

83.

elements of the thing for which it isa model. For every chimney stack, thereis a miniature chimney. Every windowhas its replica and vice versa.

Certain relations are preserved. Forinstance, if a door is to the left ofa window in the original, their replicasare similarly situated; the model isconstructed to scale. The model may ormay not "work" on the same principle asthe original. If it does, the iso-morphism is complete. If for instance,a model of a steam engine is also steampropelled, then the isomorphism is com-plete (Brodbeck, 1959, p. 374).The breadth of the Substrata-Factor Theory, is indicatedby Holmes in the following summary which defines readingin terms of his theory:

In essence, the Substrata-FactorTheory holds that normally reading isan audio-visual verbal processing skillof symbolic reasoning, sustained by theinterfacilitation of an intricate hier-archy of substrata factors that havebeen mobilized as as -a psychologicalwork-ing system .and pressed into service inaccordance with the purpose of thereader (1960, p. 115).

Significance of AnalysisThe significance of the following analysis rests inits attempt to show that the essential form of the postu-lates of the gubstrata-Factor Theory are identical withthe generalized form of the fundamental postulates thathave been discovered to hold for modern theories in othersciences. If this can be done, it will show that thepostulates of the Substrata-Factor Theory which wereformulated to explain the content of a specific disciplinereading, without regard to form, nevertheless, fit theformal criteria of the General Open Systems Models as ab-strated from other sciences. What would this prove?Most importantly, it would show that the formal aspectsof the Substrata-Factor Theory were not only consistentwith similar Open Systems theories in other sciences, but

84.

also that it was internally consistent. The presentationthat follows is an attempt to show how the Substrata-Factor Theory parallels General Open Systems Theory.

In this paper, each of the General Open 'SystemsTheory postulates is stated. After each general postu-late a discussion relates the Substrata-Factor Theory inthat area to the General Open Systems Theory.

General Open Systems Theory Postulate I: Exchaweof gnisLaytinfc2ITallmar matter with the environmentthrou h input and out ut channels. Interaction betweenthe individual and the environment implies that the totalvariance of any response can be accounted for only inpart by individual differences. It depends ala on thestimulus characteristics of the environment anti the inter-action between the individual and his milieu.

The total range of "outside" and "inside" variableshas an impact on the output of the individual's achieve-went. S. B. Sells (1963, pp. 9-13) has outlined some twohundred manageable variables that can be empiricallymeasured. Sells' effort is a first step toward the de-velopment of taxonomic dimensions to account for the totalstimulus situation.

The five major headings around which these twohundred variables are grouped include natural aspectsof the environment; man-made aspects of the environment;description of task-problem, situation and setting; ex-ternal reference characteristics of the Individual; andindividuals performing in relation to others.

The Substrata-Factor Theory predicts that a child sachievement hierarchy, which would include.many variablesin each.of the above five major headings, will- undergo'a gradient shift or _orderly change _as he progressesthrough sch3ol, As the individual increases his proficiencyin newly learned subskills, theeontentand structuralorgan-ization of the substrata factors in the hierarchy whichunderlie his developing ability to achiAve will also change.

General Open Systems Theory Postulate II: Iaintenanceof steady:states. The concept of a steady state was proba-.bIy first stated by Mareau de Maupertuis (1698-1759) inhis Essai._de Cosmologie (1750) in which-he described theprinciple of least action. In biological terms ClaudeBernard (1865) expressed Maupertuis' principle as themaintenance of the internal. enviromient. Fechner (1873),

in a practically unknown monograph, describes his idea ofthe steady state as follows:

All development progresses in the directionof an always more complete utilization ofenergy for stationary systems - maximumstability, therefore, always means maximumutilization of energy (quoted in Henninger,Hayman, Fruyser, 1963, p. 82)

Cannon conceived of homeostasis, wherein a physio-chemical constancy-is maintained, such as the automaticregulation of body temperature, the pH level of the blood,and the maintenance of osmotic pressure.

In the field of reading, the Substrata-Factor Theorypostulates a working system of subabilities which aredirected toward the solution of a problem.

The problem organizes the abilities,as the abilities determine what may be or-ganized. That is, the particular kind ofproblem requires a certain organization ofabilities, as the individual possession ofcertain abilities limits what he may organize(Holmes, 1953, Ch. 32, pp. 1-2).

Neurologically, a working system is conceived of byHolmes (1960, p. 117) as a nerve-net pattern in the brainthat functionally links together the various subsystemsthat have been mobilized in a workable communicationssupersystem. A first approximation of how this workingsystem might be determined is at present statisticallyderived by a Wherry-Doolittle-Holmes Substrata Analysis.

On thebasis of Holmes' extension of the steady-stateprinciple to reading, the Substrata-Factor Theory predictsthat working systems would vary with the problem, the pur-pose, and the stage of psychoeducational neurological de-velopment of the individual:.

General Open Systems Theory Postulate III: Selfregulating tendency--reestablish a steady state afterbeing disturbed.

. . The very counteractivity which-corrects the Undesirable deviation oftenproceeds in an oscillating fashion. Resto-ration of the original state of equilibrium

86.

is not a very smooth process, but con-sists of a series of pulls and pushes,like the swings of a pendulum, whichgradually approximates the center-of-gravity position_ The corrective ac-tivity may overdo or underdo the jobit is called to do; there may be anovershooting or undershcoting of themark while the corrective process isgoing on avienninger, Mayman, & Pruyser,1963, pp. 87-88).

In terms of reading, the deviation of a working sys-tem from its Steady State may be manifest in the returnsweep, number,and pattern of fixations, regressions, andthe duration of fixation. For instance, regressions havebeen studied most intensively by Bayle (1942), who notedthat causes of regressions may be found in the type ofmaterial and the difficulties the reader experiences inderiving meaning. Six interpretation difficulties whichaffect the eye-movement patterns were Identified by Bayleas word order; word grouping; misleading juxtapositionof certain words; lack of punctuation to make the meaningclear; shifts in the meaning of words; and the necessityfor concentrating on key words or key elements in sentenceunits.

The Substrata-Factor Theory holds that when the work-ing system is inappropriate for the reader's purpose(specific word attack in an otherwise easy passage), thesteady state will be disturbed, and the working systemwill make internal adjustments in An effort to solve theproblem. Upon clarification, the original working sys-tem will be restored.

Several Interesting questions are raised by Menninger,Mayman, and Pruyser (1963) about the concept of self-regulation and return to the steady state.

Is there a complete return to the statusquo ante?Is the proCess of diSeqbilibriatitin toequilibriation a circular one?Are the mechanics of control the same atevery level?Does it equally- apply to parts and wholes,to systems, subsystems, and supersYsteMs?Is there growth of self-regulating actionand decline of it?

87.

'12)1

> 141 CI 1>N

Ir-1 "*. 05 ,..101 .1j, in,0 Lo 4.11 *HI U1> a11 141 t er4 +HIIA 01 0 pH 10 LI'

.HI 71 U.11' 4.1 V. C MI

icn .1 La 14-4 14. Ir-11 ini 01 al

"r-1 C1)

V. 31 0 -JO0 0 .. l'A ..' Iced3' .14! .4141 10 > 0 01

al ,c] tt H ..I.

ILI,' 0 PH 4.1 Iti 1, *

.. u ro 010 1M1 .10 00 14 01 1> 4j1 ...c

0 14 Pril IM 41.I.J W CL Li ,r41 - 0 LIto iu co

Mt 411..^1 ,,IM 141

O CIO t al. Jj1 z 4j. !,.0 E r4 a1 Ea 0-tr 0 0

r0 o 11:4 V 0 V.0 a 'CI 0 elILO CO ICI ... u k to013 N, .14 34 0 0 0.,

U 114 1WI11 0 PrI11 .0 IIIA.Il' PHI 0 PH 0 0 41 101 0 r4 ,,01 O. 00 0 .10 11, 1H 0 1544 0 H :01 CI 0 0

tO 04 0 RI 34O 0 1141 E 4 til 441't 141 0 ind 10 +1

11

(j, .4.1 Li ;,.,,. .5.14 u . 41 14W On 0

to E 10/11 10 >.,14A iri xO ! 0 MI 0 0 .44IMI "0 II 0 MI Itt

0 ccl 14 C 1r-11 0 4O .4.J 1.j1 0 0 z to

0 101 CI 11 U Ir411

Li' 'ca' 1-111 '0 14 !E 11LIII ,jj .0

1111 11111

1114,4 X, 1111 1U 1-11. PI 4.:1 CO all 4 MI 41 Irt

0 14 1.1 /4 >h1 L14,11 1>), Lr.) PH C 01 I Iv) toCO r-4 0 0 1 .r40 r-4- 0 it4044 a) alc,riZ 0 4 0 0. oril 01

4.41 a PHI 10 ir"111 11.0

14' lei C: 14 Z ,1401 0 0 .14 4111 0 p0'ICJ 4, 44 44 ti. ,,,,4

.

3,14

10 114l a 0 141

all VI 11 E itz (3 1'44 -0'0 1W,100 >1711 0 0 10

. el lull .1,41: catio1.4! .44 u to 141 En >s. 0 at 4.j. In 01 >1P'), 0 1>N1414, III 01) all et.

14-111' itn Pi-I 41 1071 ir.16,

lod ...

.-1' 0It Ira H U r-41! H 10 r-I1 .1471 111 0 10 1)111 Ill 5 '4-11 LI C al al al0. rill 1"4 141 14 RI th WI Pe4I ^T) ICI 0 0 14 Z PH 0 44 1E4 Ibr: to° 044 14-1 10 0 0 0 1:4, >,,H oz ,w1 co . c '141 141 Ira > "Al, 0 0 0 101 0$.1

10H 0 0 u S 0 . ,w . "-II tn U 7:11 H (11 0 cd 0 .0. a 0 uf THII .1-4: e 4 inaWI 01 0 'A: .4 0 tr, 0 11111 0 0 r.-1 41 .r.! cti co ol p.41' ie oil u le lat .. no g ri-4 5. 0. zPrIll ..141 la ri > LI, 11114 ..,J 0 4 '44 0 0 0' '0 CI .1..11. 0 '44 11. II 01 0 01 1'441 0 col ca' 14 0 ..rii 0 0 .1,4 all 0 4J1 a 0 14 0 ad 0 5 1E till) irl 0 0 441 .iil 0 0 0 Z , 0 "PH' PH PH p 0 40 0 PH! 11 Itn U 111"411 '0 '0 01 Cl 0tjl 0 U ,a 0/11 .J0 .a p 0 0 0 .0 IA. .,1-1 01 .r1I /4' TA 1.11 .4.1

,11j .14 t til ..1411 U 0 Lidrri

0011 10Z Prl 0 r'H 0 4iel U T.13 1M 0 .1.111 .0 0 1II4 'LIP"' 'u 4 14.411 E 0 1441,,,4 ,r4, 14, ,u, 0 cl, .i0ico 0 0 0 0H,0 4,1 toU

.14 1>,,, 4.1JI A4 01 l4 ot 11641 .0 AU1 al .4.)1 CI r.41 PH ',LI 1.

1017; IMII r4.1ri it .14 a41MI, CI 0

r4I ,01 4 1121' 0 0 LI 0 0 0 E V 14 Prl 0 MI .

4 0 112. 0 15 al 0 0 oa,u,IHIll 1,q '113, 4,0 ,140, 14.4 ,411'

to 00 P0 '0ql, 4..1 01 14 Trl ,44 U U .1141 Tr41 07 0 11 ID) 0 > 1-t N, ,W Prt

14.1 al0 .N, 4 101 .11 'Pi 0 10 4.;11 '01 ' 1C1,1 0 10 CD 0 0 . 0 0 ..1-1411 -103 17* 3 0

01 Z41 ,,10 4.. ..611 44 02 111.3 0 .,r11 Z ;11..1+ .W U 1C111 II 0 1.0 :01 0 44 0 H'

144 10 4.1 r.4 pc 5 lo u s 07' 11 : 1r44117C1 0 0 H 11.4 irl .,1 0 14 H 1.,

0 > gt11 ill 14 Cill 4 0- 4>,,, III 0 II to 01 >,. 4IT 0 U I tn. frill, Li. U iti 4r)l' 0 01 mrll Ct: 0 0 o4 > 5 -0 ..r.i

0 0 0 0 :I 0 0 44 04 1.1 .4-1 11-11 0 11>1 U 10.41.1 0 6 a 0 p x to a a to .,"'Ti 4-1 4.1 0 1.il r-i > oil 0 ,c, op,41 *ik 1 4 '.r1 1k re U .4 4 '44 1,-4. II 4 '.1-1 0 Cid. 0 1,-41 -14

.110 14 0a x ., u 9,4 0 .4j .1,41 U ed irl E71 14 . IL: 0 L1: 101 COI

la; 14 'IHI 03 In 0 0 13 + 010'4 04,4H, 0 ..jj to Id

PH

.4. I* 1"0p it 1

1 14

0 E al 4: 'HI 0 0 ..,14 0+, .141 '.111 .14 01 . 0 0 >I, 4.1 ,0 lo, 0 g 4u .,r1 vel ,2 .'11ri0 4j1 14 0 1J 10:11 .4 4.J11 !CI ,Z 144 . 0, la) 1111 114 LI1 15 01 0 ad. .al 4 0 MI 01.1 01 04.114.111 0 Ea .44 0 H al of 4; II ICI 4vH11 0 4 ft144 . 01CILL.11:L4 Pri 4:110 11,14 tal 0 >)i irt 0' 0 0 0 :1 ''' .11j1 i'01 5 '0 0 " al a) a) :..0 . (til>,,, 1,>,,, .4 a 0 el: Pell 10 E IrD ica H. E. 'rl 411 0 IMI I. ;P 111 4-1. C 4 "4''jto.ril .41.0 .roril

0 1>ti ,,,. 'CO 0 0 .4-I a a . t ai4 LI 14 C .1:11 5 u N. i 0 5 14.4 os ,u, -u ril iIf4 a) .40 "ti .0 .LJ 4.11 r'11 '111 In 11L1 -941 0 0 Li. 44 0 0 0 4 0 ...1 1-1 0

E2 fs.

1:1 I," 0 ., till 0 lui 0 0 4 ird 0 44 .41 ,11.1 144 0 111.1uil 1111 0 41 0- ,4,11 .W an r0 zn 4. .4.11Ito_

co LI tr4 ,r cti .1r-11 eill 4.11

0 .er) 0 $4 10 0 1.1 01 4,J, till) 0044 .0 td: PH

O 0 LI .IU HI g 0 lo $41 spit cal 11..1 PC1 141 .A1 0' Ird 0 0 0 0 it 114 ok 4.1 0 ,4 0 01 to

to 01 ..z 4,..4 ,w 10 to ,41J 0644 .1j Ito .44 00 "Tri 10te it

1WII 161 -.01 10; 0141 0 '01

0 ij,1-11 > .I4 iv 106 1,41 0 0 0, 0 ,4 le Ikl..1 .1r-1 H H. 0 144 :I, 0. L to ''..." 4.1 (1,, o ,,-.10 .ril ..ta ol 0 ..r1 0 al 41 0 0 0 S '44 .14 0 0 0 144 101 r4 ir40 in 0, : . oi Ira > 14 .11-A', '44 .1.11010 0 It 0 41j .0 :11 44 En 14 0 4.11 0 'a 11 > Ir-4 0 04 0 a) 0\ 10 in 15 : fl3 PHI PHC 'Car' 0 1.4 4 0 1.1 0 011 .Irt Irv, .0 0 14 4;4 a* 01 0 0 iga1 ILI 04 0. 4 ,-1 to 1,,4 LI biDI ), 4..t Ito 14 (.11.1-4H, 01 V 1:44.1 1Z11 0 0 '113' 0 0 4 .Z, 44 101 Ill E, 341 V .1.0 Ci. el 'H. ,Ij1 "'Ps' .0 .0 0 01 0 s N.,'0 101 44 .141 101 3.4 10

'01 >1

11151 ir'1:3101 !II :w.0 'VI 341 '14! 1111 0HI .141 ciji. it DI c4 cij . .0 w

.1-1 '''0 4 0 itn r4, >1,1

> 111, 1-1 'CL1 E e-s, 14 >1011

.0 ind >s 0 0 Cfs 0 :0 '54,iri 5 xi ai. co 41 T-1 .r1 CO' g11.4

A hierarchy of levels can be recognized,each with its own mode and means ofhomeostatic regulation, interrelated byan over-all homeostatic tendency p. 65)

Five specific interactions of the various subsystemsare indicated by Luby (1962): a receptor system for external stimuli; a receptor system for internal stimuliincluding those from muscles, joints, and viscera; asystem for filtering the diverse sensory input andintegrating and interpreting It; an effector system in-volving autonomic and volitional motor acts; a chemicalenergy production system necessary for the adequateevocation of reactions in each of the separate systemsmentioned.

The Substrata-Factor Theory postulates that thevarious substrata factors are tied together in a workingsystem; and as their interfacilitation in the workingsystem increases, the efficiency of the child's readingalso improves. Such diverse substrata factors initiallybecome associated in a particular working system by thepsycho-catalytic action of mobilizershypothetical con-.structs which are deep-seated value systems (Holmes,1959)

General open Systems TheoryPostulate VI: 'Feedbaciepraps.0 -The-feedback concept. hasbeep.highlighted.by_cybernetics -in terms_of:servomechaniams, some devicethatcontrols-.-some-vdriable in-aspeeialwayby-comparintits.actual value with a desired. reference value.

Recently, Fender (1964), a professor of biology andelectrical engineering, has described the human body asa collection of servomechanisms. Feedback critical sys-tems regulate such functions as body temperature, consti-tution of body fluids, the flow of blood to the organsand extremities, and the rate of breathing to the levelof physical activity.

Fender did an intensive microscopic analysis of thecontrol mechanism of the eye and found that the microscopicstructure of the retina is similar to that of the brain.In fact, he notes, the retina is part of the brain thatbecame detached in the course of evolution (1964, p. 32)

Thejmplication of Fender's systems of theeye enhances the -idea-that the retina contains not onlylight - sensitive rods and cones but also bipolar cells,

8

amacrine cells, and ganglia which may equip it to processsome information in its own right. The eyes are notmerely a reflector of higher mental process or a mechanicalcamera. (See also Granit, 1955.)

The Substrata-Factor Theory postulatez a continuousmonitoring of the meaningful material in order for mobi-lizers to effect the successive compensations necessarywithin the working systems as they fluctuate around theirhypothetical steady states.

General Open Systems Theory Postulate VII: Entasstls-ive se = re ation and hierarchical order of subs s terms. Thispostulate is very similar to the organismic-holistic orien-tation of Werner and Kaplan who assume". . . that organismsare naturally directed towards a series of transformations--reflecting a tendency to move from a state of relativegloballty and undifferentiatedness towards states of in-creasing differentiation and hierarchic integration" (1983,p. 7)

Further, Werner and Kaplan maintain that, with theattainment of higher acvels, lower-level functions are notlost but under normal circumstances subordinated to moreadvanced levels of functioning. Under special conditions,such as dream states, pathological states, intoxication,drugged states, various experimental conditions or con-frontation with especially difficult and novel tasks apartial return to more primitive modes of functioning be-_ore progressing towards higher-level operations may beevidenced. This tendency has been described by Werner(1948) as the genetic principle of spirality.

The Substra-a-Factor Theory postulates the gradientshift in perceptual-conceptual differentiation withinand between kinesthetic-auditory and visual modes oflearning. There is continual interaction between thewhole and its parts. As the parts become more differenti-ated and meaningful, so does the whole; and as the wholebecomes more meaningful, so do its parts (Holmes 1953Ch. 32, p. 7).

What constitutes part and whole is a perennial scien-tific problem continually being analyzed by the natureof scientific reduction. In any scientific observationwhat is takentas the whole and what, as the parts? Thehistory of science indicates that the answers to thisquestion are inextricably bound up with the personalpreference of the experimentalist, his concepts of cau-sality, the culture he belongs to, the Zeitgeist of the

90.

times he lives in and the nati.'re of the material orexperiment.

General Open Systems Theory Postulate VIII: Pro-gressive integration. Postulate VIII develops fromPostulate VII; with the continued organization of smallersubsystems into functional hierarchies, a more integrativesupersystem also emerges.

Each of the constituent subprocesses must be thoughtof'-as integral parts of the whole that work together andcontribute proportionately to its total in each and everysituation in which the supersystem workS.-

By additive processes, series-combinationsof suitable systems, interlaced with parallel-combinations as desired, may be constructedInto larger and larger systems. Thus, hier-archies of subsystems may be developed: sub-system of subsystem of subsystem, etc. (Ellis-5, Ludwig, 1962, p. 11)

Miller, Galanter, and Pribram come to grips withthe supersystem subsystem relationships as follows

The implication is relatively clear, however,that the molar units must be composed ofmolecular units, which we take to mean thata proper description of behavior must bemade on all levels simultaneously. That isto say, we are trying to describe a processthat is organized on several different levels,and the pattern of units at one level can beindicated only by giving the units at thenext higher, or more molar, level of descrip-tion.

or example, the molar pattern of behav-ior X consists of two parts, A and B in thatorder. Thus, X = AB. But A, in _turn, cOnsists of two a-.and b; and B consistsof three,. c, d, and e. Thus X = AB = abcde,and we can describe the same segment of" be-havior at any one of the three levels, Thepointi-however, is that we do not want topick one level and argue that it is somehowbetter than the others; the complete descrip-tion must include all levels. Otherwise,the comparative properties of the behavior

will be lost--if we state only abode,for example, the (ab) (ode) may be-come confused with (abc) (de) whichmay be a very different thing.

This kind of organization of be-havior is most obvious, no doubt, inhuman verbal behavior. The individualphenomena are organized into morphemes;morphemes are strung together to formphrases; phrases in the proper sequenceform a sentence, and a string of sentencesmakes up an utterance. The complete des-cription of the utterance involves allthese levels. The kind of ambiguity thatresults when all levels are not known issuggested by the sentence, "They are fly-ing planes." The sequence of phonemesmay remain unchanged, but the two analyses(They) (are flying) (planes) and (They)(are) (flying planes) are very differentutterances (1960, pp. 13-14).

Holmes utilizes the concept of aubstrata.factorswhich is a_dynamic set:of:subsyatems Continually beingorgani andnd reorganized in 'thebrainidepending on thetask confronting-the organism.- Neurologically, substratafactors are

neurological subsystems of braincell-assemblies, containing variouskinds of Information such as memories-for :ahapessbunds,7andmeaningsr.ofwords and word-parts,:as well asmemories for vicarious and ekperientialmaterial,conceptualizations,and meaning-ful relationships;stored as. substantiveverbalunitsinphrases,:idloms,sentences,etc. Such:neurological:subeystemsobrain cellasseMblies-gain--an inter.facilitation, in Hebb's sense (Hebb,' D.O.The Organization of Behavior. New York:John Wiley 4:-.Sons,- 1949, p.--335), by

means, appropriate, but diverse subsets of inforMationilearned undar-differenteircumstances atdifferent times and, threfore,..storedin different parts of the brainatebroughtsimultaneouslyAnto awareness

92.

when triggered by appropriate symbolson the printed page. These substratafactors are tied together in a working-system, and as their interfacilitationin the working-system increases, theefficiency of the child's reading alsoincreases (1960, p. 116).

Belated to the hierarch of TEy_25fpwileneraltpn y tints Theory and Subs trra to -'a+is the assum tion of multicausalit r reci rocal cau-xon.

McEwen (1963, p. 337) refers to reciprocal causationas the reversibility of cause-effect relations. Physicalevents are relatively free from reciprocal influence; butbiological and sociocultural situations often mutuallydetermine each other.

Maclver notes that "one can reverse with some degreeof truth almost any statement of social causation." Heillustrates this as follows:

Does the kind of education account for thestandard of, intelligence in a community?True, but does not the standard of intelli-gence account for the standard of education?(1942, p. 68)

Neurath (1938) called this postulate reciprocity-mutual causation' and abandoned it because it makes socio-cultural data too "clumsy and perplexing."

In contrast to such a conception of multiple causation,there are the monocausal models of Watson's conditionedreflex or Freud's sexual compulsion and Marx' economicdeterminism. As Fei 1 has sagaciously noted.

. in most of the signifidant applicationswe must remember that it is an entire set ofconditions that represents "the cause of anevent" and that what we may abstract as "causeor "effect"' in a complex situation is usuallyonly some factor, aspect, magnitude, etc., thatwe select from more complex (and possibly in-exhaustible) welter of factual details (1953,p. 410).

931

Hook (1937-) calls for a "functional theory of cau-sation together with all the apparatus of statisticalinquiry" and for "developing a theory of measurement todetermine the relative weight of various causal factorsconsidered." Only a multicausal theory could "offer anexplanation of the correlations found."

The substrata factor analysis which is the statisticalmodel supporting the Substrata-Factor Theory accepts thereciprocal causation postulate. Statistically, a sub-strata analysis consists of Holmes' extension of theWherry-Doolittle Multiple Selection Technique. The W-D-Hsubstrata analysis

(a) yields successive sets of subvariables,(b) gives each set a definite place in acomplex hierarchy of subabilities, and

(c) discovers statistically significantcontributions which each of the sub-abilities in the hierarchy makes tothe criteria immediately above itin the over-all hierarchy of skillsand also to the major criterion it-self.

LiLgara shows the generalized schema. of a substrataanalysis. The studies to date, however, take into con-sideration only the X on Y regression. Hence, while theSubstrata-Factor Theory postulates reciprocal causationand makes provisions for such analyses in the design ofthe 7094 digital computer program for a substrata analy-sis, the actual analyses, to date, have been in only onedirection. Since cause and effect cannot be directlyinferred from either simple or multiple correlation, thepostulate of reciprocal cause and effect cannot be either,substantiated or refuted on the basis of a statisticalsubstrata analysis.

On the other hand, all knowledge possessed by anormal individual and all mental processes within the sameindividual must be actively associated or at least maybecome associated by an existing mental mechanism in thebrain. The actual degree to which they are associatedon the avera-e may be expressed by the coefficient of=-correlations. While correlations cannot in any waysubstantiate reciprocal cause and effect relationships,the correlational analysis can and does give an estimate

94.

Level 0 Level I

P01

Level 11

P0114--itb P0P01 0012

Level III

P

C011 F011

Polni C01n1

Pot_

PO22

POml

P0m2

P0211

CO 1 P012

CO22PO2lk

C02n21

°milP-C0rn1 OrT112

POmnmi-41Omnm POmnm

mn k_-m- -mn

Fig. I, Schematic Diagram with generalized notation of a substrata analysis throughthree levels.

Major criterion Co is undergircied by substrata factors Poi Po ...vom.Each of these rest on a wider base at Level II. Likewise, at Level ICI the base iseven broader. Pt m _ Corn is used to Indate an identity, except thatwhat was considered a predictor is in turn considered a subcriterion.

From: Holmes, J. A., a Singer, H. The substrata- factor theory: substratafactor differences underlying reading ability in known-groups at the high schoollevel. U.S. Office of Education Contracts 538, SAE- 6176 and 538A, SAE-8660,1961, 59.

of the reciprocal interactions that be going on amongthe variables.

In addition to hierarchical organization of sub-systems' reciprocal causation is a need to reformulate thedependent-independent variable nexus. The dependent vari-able-is (a) the response or criterion; and/or (b) thesymbol whose values are determined by the other variableslinked with it in an algebraic equation. The independentvariable is (a) any variable which is not the criterionvariable; and/or (b) the variable which is not dependentupon changes in any other variable.

However, in educational psychology there is no suchthing as an'absolutelyindependent variable. The "inde-pendent" variables usually identified.with environmentalconditions or_personal.characteristicsare reciprocallydependent-and often statisticallyrelateth

The fundamental relation of all variables may beexpressed in the form Y f(X), which reads "Y is afunction of X", and means that Y changes in a way to bediscovered and/or stated whenever X changes (English &English, 1958, p. 578).

The question of when a variable should be regardedas an independent or "causal" variable and when as thedependent or "resultant" variable is, in the final analysis,left to the judgment of the experimenter. (Ezekiel & Fox,1959).

The choice of the metaphors used by General OpenSystems Theory and the Substrata-Factor Theory for thisinvestigation has been guided by the following character-istics of human beings which Hearn (1958) outlined so well

1. Huwains exchange material with their environmentin the form of both energy and information.

2 This energy may arise either from within thesystem or from the environment of the system.

Human behavior is purposive.

4. When considered both as individuals and asspecies, humans have a characteristic statetoward which they move.

96.

5. Humans may achieve their same characteristicstate from different initial conditions andfrom varying inputs of energy and information.

6. .In the human individual as well as in humanaggregations such as groups and communities,there is a dynamic interplay among theiressential functional processes enabling themto maintain a steady state.

7. There is a tendency in human systems towardprogressive mechanization; that is,-im:thecourse of human development, :certain humanprocesses tend to operate more and more asixed arrangemcnts.

Human systems show a resistance toion of their steady state.

9. They are capable, within limits,to Internal and external changes.

10. They can regenerate damaged-parts

11. They:can reproduce their own kind.

Part II

any disrupt-.

adjusting

The empirical aspects of this study are related to asystems analysis as defined by Peach (1960) and Ryans(1964):

By systems study or systems. analysis willbe meant observation directed at the de-termination of relevant elements of a sys-tem and their operations and interactionsas they contribute to the relative efficiencywith which the system outcome is produced.It will be necessary to identify and ana-lyze properties and subsystems in order todetermine chains of influence which con-tribute to activities and elements, andit will be necessary to put these piecestogether and to synthesize the informationto describe the larger systems in whichour interests may be focused (Ryans, 1964,p. 23).

97.

Specifically, Part 11 is concerned with determiningthe answers to this problem: When each of the contentareas are in turn used as criterion tasks, how do theremaining content area subsystems relate to the particu-lar subject matter under consideration? To what degreedoes each of the content areas Co-vary -ith the rest ofthe inderm:ndenL variables?

It is hypothesized that working system hierarchies foreach of the content areas will manifest quantitative andqualitative differces-4nthe.organization sequences aswell Magni-tildes Of the Various. subsystems.-:

The Substrata Analysis Method

The statistical method used to infer working-sy _emsis a substrata analysis, an extended form of the Wherry-Doolittle Multiple Test Selection Technique. Wherry(1931, 1940a & b, 1947) and Stead and Shartle (1940)modified the Doolittle least squares technique (1878) sothat the variables selected would be only those whichwere most independent of those already chosen and would,therefore, tend to make a maximum contribution to themultiple prediction of a criterion. The selection processstops when more chance error than predictive variancewould have been contributed by the selection of anotherpredictor.

Holmes' (1948) extension, the substrata analysis,repeats the Wherry-Doolittle procedures using each pre-dictor as a subcriterion. The preferential predictorselected at each level becomes in turn a suberiterion ata subsequent level to be analyzed by predictors selectedfrom the remainder of the correlation matrix. Reiterationat presobt extends to three levels.

Consistent with the second major purpose of the studywhich forms the basis of this paper, nine substrata analy-ses took each content area as a criterion in order todetermine ,What proportion of intraindividual variance isaccounted for by the remaining content area subsystems.Two of the nine areas analyzed, Power of Reading andVocabulary in Isolation, are presented here.

9

Table 1

Intereorrelaci ns, Means, and Standard DeviationsContent Areas for subsystem Interaction Analysis

(N /20)a

IndexNo. Variables 9 of

reliabc

1 Power of Rdg. .693 .718 .576 .695 .663 .486 _548 .93.823

2

3

Vocab. in lsol.

dGeneral info.-

.734 .795

.720

.713

.587

.664

.721

.679

.697

.387

.357

.499 .95

.501 .87

4 English Lit., -565 .691 .649 .312 .465 .90

5 Grammar .511 .528 .280 .371 .90

6 Geography .769 .296 .441 .93

7 History-Civics .311 .450 .84

8 Arith. Rang. .586 .91

9 Arith. Fund' la .95

Mean

Std. Dev.-

101.01 99.72

.11.59 .11.89*

13.28 95.49 95=37 89-34 85.65 91.97 90.99

4.07 13.15 6.50 19.74 15 32 12.35 19.32

aCorrelations must be .24 to be significant at the 1% level of confidence.

bBased on Stanford Achievement Tests administered in Adolescent GrowthStudy as part of longitudinal analyses at Institute of Human Development, Uni-versity of California. Herkeley.,: See: Jones, 1938, 1939a & b, 1958. Testa re-named for theciretieal consist2ncy,.

. .

cThe index of reliability gives the maximum correlation possible betweenthe obtained scores and their theoretically true scores. See Garrett, 1958,p..349.

A aubtest from the Terman Group Test of Mental Ability.

99.

Working ystem Hierarchy of Power of Reading

An examination' of the correlation matrix in Table 1reveals that Vocabulary in Isolation has the highest zero-order correlation with the criterion Power of Reading(r - .823). Therefore, Vocabulary in Isolation will beselected as the first predictor test by the Wherry-Doolittle Test Selection Method. Since r2 in this in-stance equals .6773, Vocabulary in isolation cannot ac-count for more than 67.73 per cent of the criterion'svariance. However, 67.73 per cent needs to be correctedin terms of the other predictors which the method selectsas well as the bias which arises from chance factorscharacteristic of sampling and selection techniques.

Specifically, when the contributions of all theselected predictors to criterion variance are computed,Vocabulary in Isolation will account for less of thatvariance than the value of r2. This is due to the calcu-lation of the beta weights for this particular predictorin addition to the other variables which make independentcontributions to the variance of the criterion. Thesevariables will take from the Vocabulary in Isolation sub-system some of the variance which this "most valid" pre-dictor appears to have contributed to the Power of Readingcriterion by being selected as the first test. In termsof the Substrata-Factor Theory the ". immediate prob-lem is to discover which of the other variables in thematrix will be selected along with (Vocabulary in Iso-lation) as those variables at Level I which can be thoughtas having a direct =and joint Influence" (Holmes and Singer,1961, p. 81) in the variation of ninth grade students'scores in Power of Reading. After Level I predictorshave been selected, the next step is to use these pre-dictors as subcriteria and determine what preferentialpredictors underlie these at Level IT.

A pictorial display of the interaction among thevarious subject-matter subsystems in the working systemof Power of Reading is presented in Figure 2. The majorcriterion, Power of Reading, is placed on the left underLevel 0. Arrayed from left to right are the subject-matter subsystems selected by the substrata analysis.The path of the regression relationships between subsys-tems is indicated by unidirectional arrows. Mutual inter-action representing interaction equally assigned in bothdirections is shown by double-ended arrows. The numbersadjacent to the unidirectional and bidirectional arrows

100.

Level 0

Power oReading

Level

Vacab.inIsolation

Leval II Level III

1_06 Gen'L Info.

Literature'4 Geography

ca03to 13.6.1 Geie Info.

10.90 Grammar 8.4 2(Z74)English Lit.

2(9.69)

2(4.08)

GeneralInformation

History-Civics

16.39-41-12-89

2(7 69)

Geography2(8.97)

English Lit.:2(3.79)

Grammar

Ge 'I.Info.2(11.30)

Voc. in lsol.

Voc. in !sal.2(6.30)General Htis-CivicsInformation iflist. 12(5.56)

English Lit.2(3.80)

33.15 Voc. in Isol.EnglishLiterature a-67 2(12.44)

Gerel. Info.

Arithmetic 33.80 Arithmetic 24.44A- -Reasoning Fundamentals Gong. Info.

Fig. 2. Schema showing interaction among subject matter subsystems in theworking system of Power of Reading; figures represent adjusted proportionalvariance as per cent.

indicate the relative strength of the interaction ac-counted for by each subject matter subsystem.The content area subsystem, the substrata sequence,and the per-cent contribution to variance in Power ofReading at the ninth-grade level can be read from _Fig. 2as follows:

Beginning with Power of Reading, the major criterion,one can see that three subsystems precipitated from thesubstrata analysis to account for 73.84% of the variancein Powev of Reading. The total contribution (direct plusshared variance) to Power of Reading made by each of thecontent areas is 47.55% by Vocabulary in Isolation, 17.387%by Geography, and 8.91% by Arithmetic Reasoning. By re-ferring to Figure 2 one can see that

Vocabulary n isoiation can be furtheranalyzed into

Direct variance to Power of Reading wiw4. 33.72Shared variance with Geography.. 9.69Shared variance with Arith. Reasoning....... 4.14

Direct plus Shared Variance .47.5nalyzed into

_rap tly can be

Direct variance to Power of R ading., 6.32Shared variance with Vocab. in isolation...... 9.69Shared variance with Arith.

Recsoning......... 1.37

Direct plus Shared VarianceArithmetic Reasoning can be broken down into

DirectSharedShared

variance to Power of Readin .......variance with Vocab. inisolation......variance with

Geography.-........

3.404.141.'37

Direct plus Shared VarianceTotal contribution to Power of Reading

11.38

8.91

73J34%At the Level II analysis, with Vocabulary in Iso-lation as the subcriterion, English Literature, Grammar,and General Information account for 74.77% of Vocabularyin Isolation's variance. Now, with English Literature as

the subcriterion, two subsystems, General. Information andGeography, account for 57.13% of English Literature's vari-ance. The other branches of the schema shown in Figure 2can, be read in a similar manner.

102.

Summary of Substrata Analysis of Power of Reading

Power of Reading is a complex suprasystem dependentupon interrelationship s of various subject-matter sub-systems. Vocabulary in Isolation accounts for nearly halfof the variance which creates individual differences inPower of Reading at the ninth-grade level. Geography andArithmetic Reasoning, functioning either directly or in-directly, account for another 25% of the variance inPower of Reading. -Not-accounted-for and probably intrinsicto Power of Reading or net measured in this study, isapproximately 24% of the variance in Power of Reading=The remaining subject-matter subsystems are systemswith-in systems, and the substrata analysis reveals the extentto which these subsystems interact with each other as wellas the major criterion, Power of Reading.

Working System Hierarchy of Vocabulary in Isolation

The substrata analysis of Vocabulary in Isolationwill provide information about the hierarchical organi-zation of this suprasystem. Although Vocabulary in Iso-lation and Power of Reading correlate .8226 with eachother, the major concern is with the substructural re-lationships underlying each of these complex subject-matter areas. While it is expected that there will bemuch overlap between Vocabulary in Isolation and Powerof Reading, it is also anticipated that the substrataanalysis will reveal constellations of subsystems whichwill show quantitative and qualitative differences ininteraction among the various subsystems.

Level 1: Substrata Anal sts of Vocabular in Iso-lation. The correlation matrix, Table 1, was submittedto the W-D-H Test Selection Method in order to determinethe primary subsystems which underlie the ability to dowell in a Vocabulary in Isolation test appropriate tothe junior high school level.

Table 2 section A, presents the direct and sharedvariance among the subsystems selected to predict thecriterion, Vocabulary in Isolation. When the beta weightsare combined with the zero-order correlations, correctedfor chance fluctuations according to the shrinkage formu-la and multiplied by 100, it is found that three subject-matter areas account for 80.77% of the variance of Vo-cabulary in Isolation and break down in the followingmanner:

103.

(1) Power of Reading contributes 34.35%,(2) English literature accounts for 26.45%, and(3) Grammar explains 19.97% of the variance.It is interesting to note that the variance whichEnglish Literature and Grammar share indirectly withPower of Reading is about equal to the direct associationof these subsystems with Vocabulary in Isolation. It isreasonable to infer that proficiency in. these subjectmatter systems in itself is not sufficient basis for theattainment of high achievement In Vocabulary in Isolation;relationships among the subject-matter systems will en-hance performance on Vocabulary in Idolation.

Level II: Substrata Anal sis of Vocabula in islation. Consi.stent with the statistical model of the sub-strata analysis, it is relevant to ask what subsysteml ofsubject-matter variables underlie each of the predictorsjust reported for Power of Reading, Englilh Literatureand Grammar?

To answer this question, a_substrata analysis wasmade deleting Vocabulary in isolation from the zero-ordercorrelation matrix in Table 1 and allowing each of thepredictors for Vocabulary in Isolation to become a sub-criterioo for a Level Its substrata analysis on all theremaining-variablea.

Table 2, Section 8, presents the regression re--lationship of the various subject-matter subsystemsse-lected to predict the subcriterion, Power of Reading.This portion of the table is read the-ame way as theprevious analysis of Vocabulary-in Isolation at Level I.Three content areas, English Literature,ArithmeticReasoning, and Geography,, account for Power .cof Reading.The three predictors directly indicate that 'a..bit morethan half of the-variance is- accounted for by Power ofReading. The remainder of the variande is distributedamong the content areas.

The secondsubsystem-predicting Vocabulary in Iso-lation is English Literature, which is now used as asuberiterlon. General Information-and-Power of Readingaccount for 60.41% of the. direct and shared variance of.English Literature -Each.pfthese subsystemsiaccountsfor about:an-equal amount of thevariance or 30.53% and29:.88%, respectively.

104.

Table 2

Substrata Analysis of Vocabulary in Isolation- =Subsystem in the OrderSelected and the Accounted-for Portion of Variance Directly

Associated With, and Shared Among, the Subsystems at Levels I, II, III(N 120)

Criterion Subsystem Carrel. Adl. Prop. Variance as p cent)selected w/crit, Bata Direct Shared

to: from:Section A

Level 0 Level I Voc.I Power L it. Gram. Total

Pwr. of Rdg.Voc. in Isol English Lit.

GrammarVariance accounted for:

.8226 -42

.7992 .33

.7129 .28

17.54 0.00 10.0311.13 10.03 0.007.90 6.78 5.29

6.78 34.355.29 26.450.00 19.97

36.57 16.81 15.32 12.07 80.77

From VocabuSection.

ary in Isolation at Lev 0 tc

Level I Level IIEnglish Lit. .7177 .40

Pwr. of Rdg. Arith. Rsng. .4855 .26Geography .6947 .34

Variance accounted for:

Level I Level IICen'l Info. .7201 .43

English Lit. Pwr. of Rdg. .7177 42Variance accounted for:

Level I Level IIGen'l Info. .5869 .36

Grammar Pwr. of Rdg, .5765 -33

Variance accounted for:

cc on C

Power Lit A R- Ge T15.906.6511.43

0.003.209.31

.20 9.310.00 2.582.58 0.00

28.4112.4323.32

33.98 12.51 5.78 11.89 64.16

Lit. G.Inf Po

18.17 0.00 12.3617.52 12.36 0.0035.69 12.36 12.36

Total

30.5329.8860.41

Gram12.67 0.0010.40 7.9523.07 7.95

.Inf Powe-

7.950.007.95

20.6218.3538.97

From Vocab. in Isol. through Power of Reading at Level I to:Level II Level III Lit. G.Inf. Geog,

Genii Info. .7201 .46 21.06 0.00 11.78English Lit. Geography .6912 .36- 12.69 1.1.78 0.00

Total32.8424.47

Variance accounted for: 33.75 11.78 11 78 57.31

Level II Level III

Arlth. Rsng. Arith. Fund. .5861

Variance accounted for:

A.Rsg

.59 33.80 0.00

33,80

Total

33.80

33.80

(Table continued on next page

105.

Table 2 (Continued

Criterion Subsystem Correl_ Adj. Prop. Variance (as percent)selected w/crit. Beta Direct Shared

to: from:

Level Level III Hs -Ov G.Inf. Lit. Total

GeographyHist.-Civics .7693 .46 20.63 0.00 7.69 6.41 34.73Gen'l Info. .7205 .24 5.90 7.69 0.00 3.80 17.39English Lit. .6912 _22 4.72 6.41 3.80 0.00 14.93Variance accounted for: 31.25 14.10 11.49 10.21 67.05

_rots call. in Isol. through English Literature at Level I to!Level II Level III C-Inf. Ceog. Power. Gram. Total

Genii Info.Geography .7205Pwr. of Rag. .6925Grammar .5869

Variance accounted for:

.42

.28

.21

17.157.744.4129.30

0.008.004.45

12.45

8.00 4.45 29.600.00 3.37 19.113.37 0.00 12.23

11.37 7.82 60.94

Level II Level III Power- Geog. .Rsg G.Inf Gram.TotalGeography .6947 .35 12.24 0 00 2.49 6.05 3.29 24.07Arith. Rang. .4855 .24 5.77 2.49 0.00 2.06 1.24 11.56

Pwr. of Rag. Genii Info. .6925 .24 5.76 6.05 2.06 0.00 2.59 16.46Grammar .5765 .19 3.38 3.29 1.24 2.59 000 10.50

Variance accounted for: 27.15 11.83 5.79 10,70 7.12 62.59

From Vocab. in Isol. through Grammar at Level I toLevel II Level III G.inf Ge Lit. Hs=Cv Total

Geography .7205 .28 754. 0.00 6.98 5.12 19.64Gen'l Info. English Lit. .7201 .37 13.52 6.98 0.00 5.78 26.28

.6974 .24 5.87 5.12 5.78 0.00 16.77

Variance accounted for: = 26.93- 12.10 12.76 10.90 62.69

Level II -vel III er Lit. A.Rsg Geog. Total

English Lit. .7177 .40 15.90 0.00 3.20 9.31 28.41Pwr. of Rig. Arith. Rang. .4855 .26 6.65 3.20 0.00 2.58 12.43

Geography .6947 .34 1.1.43 9.31 2.58 0.00 23.32

Variance accounted for: 33.98 12.51 5.78 11.89 64.16

106.

LI

1410

'0'01

4.

O 0r1

E 14

1>' 0 14

010 94

1:1I

c14.14

41 1H. 3 fa

.o9.41 o

O01 ,10:

Jul

O 5 N

I01011

cpt:p;

r.4"01.

rcta 4

t":1.0 0

e 0r1141

4.1

01'U

04 01.4114,1'

.A1

'HI 41 .4j

114

40fN

0 .014.

FY

I"0

14

E0 o4-1 ,4.1.1

14144

4V91

H 0

00, 0 t4, 0

141:L.7:3 ,4:

qy,C

SI

1r4101

C41 N

.144 0,s4

GyI

Ich,.rt

41110

(11.1

J4J1O

0 Ilk 17:1,1H

4O

10 ,c0 0to

5,co

In441I

10, 0411 ,

4.1"IJ

0'1144

,qpi

O 0 .4. 0 u

I')>

t,O

0 1411144.

151w

elell 0 441

424 vry4111.1444: H qs

.101-11

011

'1101:1 0 ift C

C1: 41

0 0 0 114041

tral

> 0 341 4

LIH

U101

A

4;4

cal E4 W

I.r1

rrtL

41141

tt010 0 "C

11

1,0141 0 U

tti4 1411111

111Ird

111.11IQ

,lw

14 0 cd .4 14 04.1

4r4.10,

140 4L

14tla 144 4kil

>1,4

1

0U

'J3 .(7.11

E cd

0:'10 1440 0jj

1J '041 0

0 .0 0 144

0o

01140

.00 L

i014

0 0>

3.rI,0 P

CI

0141

0141

0 .0Jui

D o.

1,4

LH

.3

.1.4. 00.1.4

101.

1111 r1

.M1

IP4

UO

1H sr'

0 .4s4

.M1

4

Hi

DI 0 H

;0r1 p.4

r-11>

+1.4

01Hite

4110010 0 4

0,N

I

ol LI

kjilo

100 141callu ".1

..11.1.

01114. 0 0(13

011 04j1

'y1

100

H 4

.4 0H

, EH

0,0

H4

4.1'M

I14

'1>19rN

lC

O

111'1 0 14 tml

>I

1M0441

04141!4

,1-11 0 .14r-1 u

41

r..1 0 0 0,'0 0 w0 0H

11h-111

0 CI

0r1101-1

I

t14

14

U

0 co 90P4,

4JJ o0

0 o10

145

4 4.113

449110

901 rf15C

UI 'r1

4.4

1>11

.1A14

H 011

1C14

0 !HI

0 to

.r101

01S.4

14

14 0 NI M

I.r1

114114

4-1

11 11

4.1 sr!IA

0IL

I 0 'HI

11HHI

1.41.1.1

H0 011irt

111111:14

5 5 "I0

01 4

44 oo,

0 14,4,3 N

41.

wH

0.L1 'o

.1%

to .144.1

r-1 r4.

S411

.01 o1p,4

4,41

u 0 col1,4

itt

4 .01, 0 0U

14141

.1j1

cd -.11 -rtcr,1

..01414. 0

irt41.4

0:11.

14 .041

11111 0 0 1014O

a' *rill

4.111

4 rd.U

,

0,0

0 'O.

14.1 1441114

4 0 41U

0.J11111 4.

4.4101

al)11141 0 .1.4'

4 Ito 0rr-41

141

Ij PN 0

III10

1".U

0 to ,,,J0N

ctil

Q.J

101H

I1111

411)

blE1

.110

H 14

i41 0 4; k :0114, 0

0 0161111

H10

c0;10

144? 111 rd.

I'dIJ

44,.7ic11 H

to 1.414

10 0sx:

O .'JJ 0

4-1II;

01 044114 '0' 0

4 0 LI'

t1

ui

..irrt/H

IU

I0 rd

1111to

tai, 4 ILI

i>

1. CU

Ig

A ril

'1r-1.111

.,14 00

4,'4

1L.10 ,r4

0.0 u

.11,P

,"111 0 Iri

4, 010 1:4,

..r41,.14; 0 'LI 0

co 0 H 1:1

'

041

c114

.1-1IC

L4

0, 00

0 o wL

ICi

(Ili01

0 " el 1,0 0 crd0

la,otow

ow

iw

owiirt

14o ili

cd ,0,10 0 0

0 01w

o 54 1-4

w .14 >

t,Imii

44114

titel

0 ,i0t.i

00

44411 0 4.11

i'r-II

ind 0n

0 0 44o0

to160

°H ;14 0 el

(4 1.1 LH

Hut 0 41

tli ,0 0w

>1 (1

wI-I

U'

U0

o !AU

144to

Z.

crJ'1:1

0 >i P

to '0411 0

0., >

0 rir4E

g 41 0 410

0>

or.A1

>,,

LIII

01(111

5eil o w

laoto r-1

1,NI

,o0111

0 >14

U1

141 0 4.0 4 134lir1 0

004 4 0 0

1114-4

1e"J3. 4

4.107 0 >

(t14.11

0 11.1,11.1

14 r41144

isP.)

/4U

00al

loIt

to 0 0(111H

01 el11101

rhUa

.0 5 .1.4

1.3rm

l irl0 C

O4 4

0H

I RI

Et1

IA'

441 4 4 .01 014

LI 4.

OH

''0

0.1.J1

.4J1,r11

cd10

10Id'

),0H

0 ,.riU

.,H5

H ..,4 3

4D

I 4441Q

II 41IL

I.1H

14 0 01 0 14 04.1 0 4-11 0

10 H 0 0+

000114 u "0

Li

CU

';14N

4.011 0 inj

,ctli 49H

la.11-1

Id1J1

0V

IC

U1141

:¢09.:>

11-11411

kriU

1A

>1

1y,A

1 44,,1

9-:1,4 r4 0

1001111

WI be 14

4]11W

IIt11

0114

Li 0c004000

1414

0 0 Qbil) !A

11-10

0141>

0112,

pbp

s.4 A0 4 0 iril

14.1J10/4

4401 /44 0 0

.rt 0 el CI

CD

RI r;H

0ca, 0 'rill 0 IF

I 0 wi

0 0,5

ul0 14

.T-11

;41p, a itul

too

cti141

44 lio0 o

0 0 1.4o >

,col

cg, mil

0,Li

11,11U

ll14141 5

u u 0 u.

tirlto

el 4 0,11IL

I N 0

U1 0141 3

g 0 coC

I+.11 0

A0 V

ol.141

141p 0

tood

44 140 H

0 Z. 4

'¢910 0 0

00

0.to 0

5 v 4.1w

o ,0 0 0 WI 0r1

U 0e,11 Q

01140 C

1:1 014

'VI 4 lu .H

a gN

mil

.iri4

"P 0

4-1oti

por40

1,41o w

uu

g,1.4

100

11-11 g10

4.1 04 0 0

.1-Ito

i4 oco a 4-1 0

to

1

4 .1r1.w

l0)

4 00

w0cil

0 it4.1 44

in.r4incIll

01 04.11

s 41C

.)g 1:1

4 101>

), ae A

l4,.1H

-01 .ri 0c) 0 0 u 4-I

1-11ri 4, 0 P

i 0 41114 0 i4

.4 4.101

it!,ia

to011.41 0 E

ni(t.

N. .44

INH

In0 0

<4 5 0 0 4

144..,

r0N

T1 U

010 )41 0 071 0 0

r-1ci

00

g41.1g

60 H'D

Iw

4 43 HI

1011 0'10 0 M

Igi

10,co

0 0 0 '4.41N

00 0

4 1140 0r1

141114

.111IU

1 0O

rt1 IL

I 0HI1 0 .11 0

O U 11 la 0 0ul H, in 0 0 0 W 1I H 4 to 0 IA 0 1:11 0 'irl

3 3 0 1--,i U 0 LI 114I 1,14

0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 421al ,,,r1, 0, bp g .4 ,0 01 114 ' 4in iril g .14 .Irt 4 00 a aZ1 114 011 a >,,, it,1 401 o .A ..0 4 'Cl

co 0 4 04I 0 10 1:11 0 '4.111-1 10 0 '03 ql 0 Lill 01 AI 'E

al 0, 0 3. Tr( 43 1L1 41 '11:1 .141, 0'4 4 0 .1011 g CO 0 343.3 0 re 0 .0 0., 4 H A J.14 344

u 0 A ol irl, 0, 0 11w: .4 4J.60 0 01 43 0 0 0 linil 0 Al '00 > 0 10 1.4 II 3 111 00 to 101 > k 0 'Colt 14 0 0 irt.s ,. u .,H 114r11 14.. 0 ,,C. 14 .140 a to Til 3441 0 3: to 0, .01)

O .1.1 .0 o to mil ai. o :410 .43 4 IOU Iti Li VI .A41 0 13 *ri0 it to 4,./ 0 ili 4.1 4J, 0 Li

.01 p.t.xl 0 00 4u, 0 .14 ,0 144 '144 C.1

0. 10 lo 0 .,;. 34 el 0 14ti Ca In .0) mH1 Ivi co 0 , 0 to 14

1m :w 0 ,0 ro El 4.3 of to '101:.rl 014, -0. 0 1! 0 IV ilri H 4) 14 1411) .Iri0 0 4 tai 0 14 0 14 0 .r4 01 0, 0,41 0 41.3 CO rd, 0., 0 10 1411 .41 4 El,r1 0 0 4-1 01 ca 141 ,oll NI i to 0.

4 in 0 0 4 0 4 1rt

.00 .4J 0 1.4 .44 to-ri .43 14 0, al. 434 0 0 $.1 5 0 0 0 40u 'Fa u iti) .- 0 S to yip iri *H '0 *

0 ID II1 ILLI LI .0 A u > .rl H'01 .41 9 o o to 0 o 0 H

0 134 0 ,P.,;' , 0 Eil r-3 14 :10i H.0 0 A 43 $411 'MI +14 '01 'a a all 0.4 El. 14 MI tH fill XI .4UI 0 41.1 0 'NU 14to, Cal 0 s: 0 11-I, '0 u 141 to H 4 0

.4J, ,>, t O 1 1 1 1 4 , 0 'al pi 'i.% U 'el 101 ID ,0 -ori ot

ti 0 .4 '11 1R0 in 7 H4 :r10 2 1,4701 ozil 0 LI U 10 0 . 00 '0 Int14 I.O 1:111 $4 Ill' &41 l'ieo COI 0 >10 01O' 0. Q1 cti !W 14 Hil.r4 '14, to 0 li.

t o c o ':4 043' :1.4 .0 ...sd 0 le 0 H

14 1 T1' 1 H0011 P.18 51' .8' Ilo 0 44'

r toA 0 r4

.1.1 '44J *HI 41.1 4J 0 p 0 o0 ,14 0 9 .u. 0 0 iv' U

I t .0 0 044 0 4 0 0 0 10

ti 0,.0 ID) ...rt 0Ca. 0111 H 01 0,41 X140 Ar.1 4 34 0...i43 -a.-1 44, 0 o3 0 Pcl 4.1 0 0.1 U.-01 Irti 4 .',0C3 ioi u i. I MI 0

tz9 00PI' .0 I) tk.

'al Ilk 4.I .4.4

0 IVI

4U. 1, 0 al Al " ,

0 >11 0.1, 14 ,L1 0 to 01 0 >1.110 ...0110 40, -1.1' ,0 ..4J0

.ril .1r4 0 H Mt 0 A o1H 41 0 CI QJ 0 14 0 0 .431, S

0, 0 .0 414

'14. r13 *ri 4101. Ord

09' 0 O. !col In re_i'

H. 44 0 ct. 0 01 U 0141111 cd. ,10

1'4 .1j1'.4 >1 a .>1/2..0

4 0 ...4 0 tri 34 oci. ,u 0 to eLl,r4 eo 4 u iri, El, 4.3 Al 0 0 0 4 .114 'Lll 111

0 41 0 4 '3-1 "011 44 1.41 U ,I.0 NI a !i0 0 'W. .,L.I1

:10 ILIC1j+4 irlilli 09 niTLI

C41 , 0 0 0.41 A Cli .,,. o '.0

0 lel0 ID

^. *MI 6 4.1I .,IZLi I; lip c.) 0 o > .0 0 ''A 44

I

2 !. !..1.1

''°C..!'r'I' ICF141.0t,i,

r4r4

.1j1' r.4

14Li A.

0 r.114 1011 ON

.p. 0 0

4.1!3,411111 1.1.!,1 iVIA111:11-014111'.41:111.11

:WI to g oii 43

H. 0 DO 0 IC IO '11 14 !'0I . tili 0-44 0

Hoj 4.1 tpa i 0 nji lejl 01 101 0 1,4 .5

4J U > 3J 3 0 u A 0 0 HI (1) V)

0 4 0 4.4 0. ail IA VI 0 ill ,14,eGl

C

U 0 103 41 Oh 15 "IN IU

rti g g >1 vel 'Ull V ' 41.1:11 0

14 0 H 9 41r41 111 0 td u A *IA '' ItI7', 0 iril

,r4 U U 1:11

"14 0 bo til .,14 0 iir11 . WI 41.1[ > >41

it p 44 to .0 r-I1 .1) 0 :la .01i'H mil

C o o al 4o Lii to

,u 14 4.1 0 LII 10 0 .11.31tj' 09 r4.01 .4.4.3

in' ill

0 tie

0, ,$, "ICI Ho. esa U U 04 0 4 14 *14

0 0 0 4) 1r0 al, 10

0 4.1 141 141. 0 0 01 to, ...0 to 41 loll

'0. A 14o A .r4

0, lir-1 M11 14 144 0 0' 0 44(11, 0 0, .4 .4 0 (13 P 0 0 to 0 .4 c3 p o 4.11 to 4.). o0 '4-1. 41.I 4.JI 14 4.11 0 14 ILI A A u 34 0 .4.1 ,0 0 CP 0 0 . cd1 0, i 0Cr" 01 0 0 141 a 10 4.t U 0 43 ' 0 U W. I .1r1 1.41 VI itl r4 0 .

O 0 ulj.111' +rig 70 14401 '0 0 0 .111.1 0101'

i00.',0114 -..t1,1, o o ,,, to a AI ig '1.1 r4 C. iti U .4.11

S 110 0 0 0 1:1 0 0 0 0 , 0 0, 10. ,11, co 44 0 ...r.l. coW to A 0 !to 0 r4 1.-t! 0 0 ta: W

4 't11Ill 0 0' 0 0 0 0 4' u0 0 0 . Ell 41 0 VI .0 .4.:11 0 irl, . birl 14 0 all 1111 0 'H 0 .... Z orlU to o 0. 14 .1,4 ,... 341 :Vu u oi :34 14 kto 0 ir^1 0 4 -'

0I >, r4 ILI 1:11 174 r41, 0 0 cL, .01 14. p. 0 0 .1.4 :10 i 104 H1 ..r111 fra ,trlil .,01 4.) IQ) 0 +.31 O. 0 1,X 3 O. 0 4LJ 00 z 1,0 u Li. to 14 !O. 0 14 S.,1 S, U ,E. 114 34*ri. '**0 CO 1 0 0 IA 0 0 0 -.p. .r1, 0 4.3 0 ta

0 p'1.40 uol 4.13,

i4o 1,0 41, , 11 'WI 'U'licd' 114 S U 0. 0 to 0 0 4.3..H, to ii bi) 1.1p ot :44 0 41.1 al 0 44

0 mrll tto ig 1 0 Al 0..0.. S ,r-lrtl :HI 1061 r4

0 ,s,Cell

, I

6 6.

I.1 .0 pi u p, 0 'X ; iril ^a tr4 co u A.:34 ... .

CO CIT'' 0 30 ta060

on RI girt td id CI3 >4 4 03 Ch,

in WI 1-1

>1.4.1 *r1 01.111

cl i4 If4 g .H! 0lU rd 0

U0 'Mir"0 0H .0 60

.44 A 01 co 0 mr410 0, 0

'14!

r4

Level 0 Level I

Power ofReading

6.65

Level II Level III

Gang. Info.EnglishLiterature 12.6 12(4.28)

:2(3.20)Arithmetic 33.80Reasoning

2(2.58

graphy

2(10.03)

Vocab in I1.1_ EnglishIsolation Literature

2(5.29)

mmor

GeneralInformation

Geography

Arith. Fund.

i -7 Civics12(7.69)

G n'1. Info.12(3.80)

English Lit.

Geography

12(8.00)ewer of Rdg.

12(3.37)rammer

2(12.36)

VPower ofReading

Geography22(2.49)

Arith. Rsng.12(2.06)

G n'1. Info.12(2-59)

Grammar

ography2(6.98)

nglish2(5.78)la-Civics

GeneralInformation

2(7. 5)

Power ofReading

English Lit.2(3.20)

Arith. Rsng.2(2.58)

grophy

Fig. 3. Schema showing interaction among subject matter subsystems in theworking system of Vocabulary in Isolation; figures represent adjusted proportionalvariance as per cent.

109

Table 3

Comparative Substrata Sequences and Prorated Distribution ofPercentage of Criterion Variance in the Working Systems ofPower of Reading and Vocabulary in Isolation

Sequences of substrata factors and theirper cent contributions at each level of analysis Prorated Dist. ofpercentage of

criterion varianceLevel 0 Level 1 avel IILevel IIIPower 1. Voc-I 47.55 a. Lit. 35.94 1)G.Inf. 32.84 5.61

(See

)Geog. 24.47 4.18Fig. 2)

57.31 9.792. Geog. 17.36 a- Hs-Cv 34_736-04b. G.Inf 17.393.02c. Lit. 14.932.5967.05

11.65A.Rsg 8.91 a. A.Fun 33.803.01=vet 1 I Level II % Level IIIVoc.I I. Power 34.35 Lit_ 28.41 1) G.Inf 32.84 3.21

(See

2) Ceps. 24.47 2.38Fig. 3)

57.31 5.59b. A. Lag. 12.44 1) A.Fun 33.80 1.46c. Geog. 23.32 1) 11s-0v 34.73 2.842) G.Inf 17_39 1.413) Lit. 14.93

67.a -571ZaThe prorated distribution of percentage of criterion variance is calcu-

lated by multiplying together the contributions to variance at each successivelevel by analysis. For example,

General Informationcontributes 32.84% to the

variance of English Literature, which, in turn contributes 35.94% to the vari-ance in Vocabulary

in isolation, and Vocabulary in Isolationcontributes 47.55%

to the variance in Power of Reading. Thus, 3284 x .3594 x -.4755 x-100 equals5.61%, the contribution made by General

Information through this substratasequence, over and above that per cent of variance contributed through othersubstrata sequences.

Is shown by using Power of Reading as the major criterion,or dependent variable, and Vocabulary in Isolation as thepredictor, or independent variable, for an X on Y re-gression. The converse, or Y on X regression equation,is applied by using Vocabulary in Isolation as the majorcriterion, or dependent variable, and Power of Readingas the independent variable. This approach to non-symmetrical interaction is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4

Non-Symmetrical Reciprocal Interaction BetweenPower of Reading and Vocabulary in Isolation

Dependent variable

Power of ReadingVocab. in Isolation

Independent variable Corral. Adi. Prop. VarianceDv vs. Iv Direct Shared Total

Vocab. in IsolationPower of Reading

.8226

.822633-72 13.83 47.5517-54 16.81 34.35

John (1962, pp: 86-87) attempts to explain reciprocalinteraction in terms of a physiological model for simpleconditioned responses as follows:

While reciprocity of the interaction is suggested,this reciprocity need not be symmetrical, particu-larly when the associated discharges did not occursimultaneously in two particular foci. Assumethat if a definite dominant focus is establishedin an area due to associated discharge of a groupof neurons, afferent activity propagated into theregion has an increased probability of achievingmarkedly nonrandom discharge from the focal areaThe more recent the previous associated dischargewhich activated the focus, the higher the proba-bility of subsequent nonrandom discharge whichmight be expected. Thus, activity propagatingthrough a network from some region A, where as-sociated discharge of an aggregate occurredearlier in time, might occasion markedly non-random discharge of some region B organized intoa dominant focus by a more recent strong inputfrom another origin. Conversely, the activitypropagating through the network from the dis-charge of this strong focus B, established laterin time than A will subsequently enter the regionA. While some cells in region A may well be re-sponsive to this input originating at B, discharge

in region A is likely to be more random than atB because more time has elapsed since the focuswas established, excitability of neurons in theregion is more likely to have deviated from thecommon state, and thus the strength of the groupdischarge tendency is lowered.In tens of the far greater impact of Vocabulary inIsolation, 33.72% direct variance on Power of Reading incontrast to Power of Reading's impact on Vocabulary inIsolation to the extent of 17.14% direct variance, itappears that the strength of the neural aggregate dis-charge is not only a function of recency, but also ofthe followipg neurological and psychological reasoningadopted and extended from John (1962, p. 86).

I. Vocabulary is the sine qua non of reading com-prehension. If there is no vocabulary, therecan be no comprehension.

Although Vocabulary in isolation is taughtearlier than Power of Reading, its repeatedassociationwill:increase:the strength ofneural aggregate disCharge.By repeated association Vocabulary in Is - -lation reaches a more "significant level ofactiviation" (John, 1962, p. 86) than Powerof Reading.

The very high correlation between. Vocabularyin Isolation and Power ofindicate Reading maY also

a- particular-temporal-. pattern that hascharacterized :the mode .of: dischargethe:.:sYstem and

thatrvarlious.:neural aggregateWhich havebeen--associated-duringtheestablishmentof system cons titutea: -set - reciprocallyinterlocked. doMinantfoci.-

-The-'foci.andtherelationships::betweenthem

ConstitutearettreSeritationH:of''theOnfigU7,=-rationof'_::pentral-.exCitations'TwhiCh'.-haVebeen. _So

aSsociatedoSuchA7=-:systeM ofithterrelated.

-

dominant oci subsequently be': refreferredto :mss aesntationl °system JOhn:416

John's representational system is equivalent toHolmes' working system (1948). And John's neurologizingis consistent with Holmes' (1957) model of the workingsof the brain during the reading process.

A representational system of the dominant foci inthe working,systemhierarchyof Vocabulary in-Isolationis displayed in the schema shown-in Figure 3. _Theschema is read in the same Manner as Figure 2, whichrepresents the working system of Power of Reading.

Summary of Substrata Analysis of Vocabulary in isolationA substrata analysis of Vocabulary in Isolation re-vealsa complex suprasystem undergirded by subsystems with-in subsystems of dominant foci at Levels I, 11, and III.A comparison of the substrata sequences in the workingsystems of Power of Reading and Vocabulary in Isolationindicates that although the subsystems English LiteratureArithmetic Reasoning, and Geography have identical directand shared variances within their respective subsystems,a sequential proration based upon the multiplier princi-ple indicated that the three subsystems make differentcontributions to the variance of their major criterion.The logic o f the proration approach is given interms of two basic postulates which assume that substratafactors are composed of systems within subsystems and,secondly, correlation reflects a mean, reciproCal inter-action amore.mong two such subsystems.

Symmetrical and non-symmetrical interaction isfurther postulated with an analysis of X on Y and Y on Xfor Power of Reading and-Vocabulary in Isolation. Nortsymmetrical contributions to variance are found and ex-plained by ektending John's (1962) neurophysiologicalmodel and the author's psychological reasoning about theinteraction of Power of Reading and Vocabulary in Iso-lation.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Basic Postulates of General Open Systems Theory andthe Substrata-Factor Theory of Reading: Because the into-grating construct of this study was General Open SystemsTheory and the Substrata-Factor Theory, fundamentzil postu-lates common to the two theories were presented. Eightpostulates were identified.

Postulate I: Exchange of energy, information,or matter with the environmentthrough input and output channels

Postulate II: Maintenance of steady states

Postulate III= Self-regulating tendencies-re-establishment of steady statesafter being disturbed

Postulate IV:

Postulate V.

Postulate VI:

Postulate VII:

Pas

Equifinality

Dynamic interplay of the subsystems

Feedback processes

Progressive segregation and hier-archical order of subsystems

ulate VIII: Progressive integration

As

Several fundamental assumptions had to be made inorder to proceed with the substrata analyses:

1 Content areas examined in this study are com-plex.suprasystems-consisting-of many diverse-,yet functionally related and dupportive sUb-systems.

2. Substrata factors are dynamic sets of subsystemscontinually being organized and reorganized inthe brain, depending on the task confronting theorganism.

Hierarchies of subsystems upon which the sub-strata analysis is made depend on the conceptof multi-causality t-JJ: reciprocal causation.

01

>1

Li*A

1A1

0'4J

0r4

I*A

CD

oll111

MI

Cli

irS0 1

u ..0 0 1,40Li

4j1.C

3"rill

14p11

'44,;IJ

1:11IIft 14 0

.

.1:101

10 'r V?,44 >

11itli

tt31li 0 0 0

IbC3

ull3.1

01t10 A

l 0.114.1

0 31510,

rill 4 *r1110'

0 5." 0 0 14,rd

r.ililitl'

1

4el bp r4 I:1

HI'

0011

0>

11 g:4.:

Ea 0 0 0 0 0

.14' ill .4'0l.

:144r4 14

$4C

O .14

1.11

14U

1rdX

>..61

0 0C

OIII

>1

P).),

40 cH

Pl.,

al 1:1 mi4I

'CO

MI

r414) r4

C1.1 34 0 '10

0 Irq4.1

14IZ

04, diID

Al

1110

0 10 V; 0

04.1. *-41

nkl

340'

01W

'A

llU

0 0 1011Z

l0 $4

IAp0 >

° R1 H

0 'ri0 l

C'..r1

r4'461

01 3 . 1

0 OH

JJiH

Uy0 to

'U0'

41: 1,:>

,r0 0 I0341 0

*4410 IA

43 0 ad 0 JOal

0:*A

I ,X1

itll.1r11

A A

l IJZ0

'Lk0 ,r1

tllE

irtt u ivu

.'

>,,, 41

40 ILIA

1410

Cd1

1141t.E

1 VI

0 o to ri&

.1.10 >

41IL

I 0 411 "el 0

1'1 14401

.01 0 00

0 toi0 to

0 1.4 0 00 Pril

to*A

0 V0

0 0 piCli

0 9N1 0

AO

041 0;m

o 0Illl

14 01,0

MI III-4

St 0

00 0 0

Iril p,U

,Il

0Ire X

0at .0

u IDr-1

o34

4.1ii00 04,44

141 0 :1.40

.,r10 '0

'0111 0

eltni

4634.31 p0l

'14m

r11: 190H

I 10 ,clui

0:k 0 .4 0 '01

IMII

;0,4.1

14tA

lv4.

144 4L3 H

.l

0 I" 14iro

144im

*A0 iii

:4H

0II

14tO

"144 034

Ica'' 0

.. a0 >

110:

010

co 0 ,p101 . 01

Ir-ti4

'W 0

Ut

0 141 0 CO

r4 . 00 a 0 ,.rt

1-1D

o ,1014 'IC

I.1-1

to LH

40 O

. fill13,1

p,,,, Au 0 co 0

ro.1.1

il1.41

tril 140*A

r4 010 rll 0

'S..L

Y:i U

,141ILI

14' kri

C3

311:0:

341Irl

0 0 14 0,xl

oLl 0 tll 0

0I 011171

itgIT

ZI

(I)C

,Z 0 it

14 0 El

,b01:4

od 0 4.4 > til

,P 0 '1: 0

01 0 07II) 0

A1

0 0

toirl1.*

,10;A

l3

03

Al

kA

l ,,,0.14

>N

I*A

lit,01

1.41

O 101

140 U

0'4411

MI

A to 0

07.01

O0

1.11'5 0

'IA 0

4111 00 1:11 k .1114

'1""1170

:10 .4-1

to0 0 0 4J1 1E

41 04

u5

co 441 to.

0 44 04kW

0U

0 !!, 1414 0

0 0:M

I0 to

ILI to 0

113 141 VI

0411

10 0441

411.14.1 0

IC) 1t114

itl0 M

I/13

0104

'1313I1 el

O'A

1-11:4, frill

.44 0m

iri:4' 0

0 iIC

'44L

ato u

r10'

14u

HI

01 toto Ir4 U

14:try .0

01

0 0 11 4 ' 0

',

Mt

0 Go

005

.1-I1at 41 L

i114

..t.A -A

[La

01

01C

a 441LI

1141.5

14o ,.r41 g to g 0

o oiicl

1-4:14 0 co 4

0Zpc

0nal 0 U

' 0 0 U 4: u.

..Al

oi:4 0 to

to to4.:

0: .rm

r4'

0 relirt

Iptlli

O0. Iii

'01la .114

>11

ICJ

CO

IAI

0 ill. t

' AO

4 to>

11 10 4 0 r4 0130

.Iril'04 E

kllal

u ril 1-4al: V

pau

1,4 e 0 ktk

S 0at

04.110.11.1101r-1

4.1r1..A

114

VW

1.14

g to ,c to 0. RI

aa 40:14 41.3

1

0 00 >

1 Ei X

I'4-11

10',41

U31

0.'

11110410,

ea!i,.1 ,4 L

ak 60 1,1

.0 .11.4h11-1

3.1IA

0 .411ild

0lE

ig

4)4.111

MI A

0 01 0 0 ,IJ*A

0 0 j4 4' .0.0'

uis

0O

relto

1U 4: to.H

o'oti 0 to

,C117

.

ca0

U. 0:

s 431,u1 >

m4.1 44

'0... to 0 toI

,11p.

0H

11 r4i 0

U 13,1

4.37P11,11:3

"il401Ittl

01>

11 .4 8 'ca0 to

CU

>1,4

0 14L.)

to:14 4 IL

0.'0

irdl4J

,41 0'11

03111

'El 0 '174,

Q) 0

in k 01,4

alall C

k 'W 0 4 i41 'iH

'

1,10g1, H

Iad

00 .1111 0

.EH

'

0 1K(30111-41

011 0 0k' 0

IE..4 et to

.4j0 tx1 ..P.

tn.lo

.140 14.010co

c.:D144

7101Uto

ml

4L.:

1-1tri

U1

UIv

cf. to34

4:11 014 V

ZI

0 VI

'44 0V

14401

't111111

0 4,1'1

0 0 g

Oto

"rd'IuI

(i)4.J1

4.111 0.r1

njg14

Pi111

o3

al34

111 014

S4Z

a3a3

r4r3

34443

ad'I0,1

144 ucu

to 0 .T.41

0I-I>

41!

LI0

cisom

.rci:

0' oo o 4.1

In34

Ig

ll

0 Cal

*HI:

11,01

particular subsystem's impact on the suprasystem.

Limitations

This study is a first approximation, and its genet=-alities are limited to the basic assumptions, postulates,sampling, methods, and tests used. Further, theory build-ing, testing, and logical analysis as well as knowledgeof the nature of the brain is necessary to more fullyunderstand the present findings as well as subsequentfindings.

NOTES

1This paper is based in part upon a PhD, disser-tation done by the writer at the University of California(Kling, 1965). The writer wishes to acknowledge thefinancial assistance of the Carnegie Corporation of NeYork.

2On ainroads in1932 .

theoretical level Bertalan ffy made pioneeringy. See Bertalanffy) 1928,the field of blob

Personal commun a-1 n, Holmes 1964 0

REFERENCES

Allport, F. H. Theories of Perception and the Cince ptStructure. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1955.

Ashby, W. R. An Introductiorl to Cybernetics. NEw York:Wiley & Sons, 1956.

Ashby, W. R. "General Systems Theory as a New Discipline, ftIn L. von Bertalanffy & A. Rapaport (eds.) General

ms Yearbook of the Societ- for General S stemsResearch. Ann Arbor Michigan Mental Health ResearchInstitute University of Michigan, 1958, B., 1-11.

Bayl Evelyn. "Nature and Causes of Regresaive EyeMovements In Reading," Journal of Education Pschology, 1 -42, Vol. 11, 16-35.

Bertalanffy, L. von. Kritische Theorie der Formbildunki.Berlin: Verlag von Gebruder Burntraeger, 1928.

Bertalanffy, L. von. Theoretische i l lip r for Band:A11gem11112. Theo ie, !hypikorhemiet_Aufbau undEntwicklunades Or anismus. Berlin: Verlag vonGebruder Borntrae er, 1932.

Bertalanffy, von. "Zu Einar Allgemeinen Syst mlehreBlaetter f. Dtsch. Phil. 1945, 18, 3/4.

Bertalanffy, L. von. Das Biolo ische Weltbild. Bern.A. Francke 1949

Bertalanffy, L. von. "The Theory of Open Systeens in.Physics and Biology," Science, 1950, vol. 111,23-29. (a)

Bertalatiffy von. "An Outlines of General Systems- Theory," Brit. 1950, Vol'1,-134-163. --(b)

ti

I

Bertalanffy, L. von. ''Theoretical.Models in Biology andPsychology," Journal of Fersbnality 20,:24-38.

York: Wiley

Berralanffy, L. von. General Sys tens TheCurrrents odern ThptatL, 1955, vol

_ain5-83.

Bertalanffy, L. von. In L. von Bertalanffy & A. Rapaport(Eds.), Generans - Yearbook of Soc. Advanc.Gen. Sys. Theor., Ann Arbor, Mich: Braun-Brumfield,1956, vol. 1, 1-10.

Bertalanffy, L. von. "G neral Systems Theory - A CriticalReview. In L. von Bercalanffy & A. Rapaport (Eds.General Systems - Yearb. Soe. Gen. S s. Res. NewYork: The Society, 1962, 1-20. (e)

Ber _-alanffy, L. von. Modern Theories fDeve1opment.New York: Harper, 1962. (b)

Bray, H. G. & WhiteK..."Organisms as Physico-ChemicalMachines," New Biology, 1954, vol. 16, 7085.

Btodbeek, May 4odels, Meaningsand Theories, In L.GrossCed.),Symppdium o od_lologUfflTheory.Evanston, Ill.: Row--Peterson; 1959 373-403,

Doolittle, M. H. "Method Employed in the Solution ofNormal Equation and the Adjustment of a Triangulation,"U. S. Coast & Gq(2aLLELLtyilmFEEE, l878, 115-120.

Ellis, D. 0. & Ludwig F. J. Systems Philoso-hy. Engle-wood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962.

English, H. B. & English, Ave C. A Comprehensive Diet n-ary of 13ycliologicp.1 and PsyEt2p.palytical Terms.New York: Longmans, Green, 1958..

:Ezekiel,-Re

4. Foxion Anal

A. Methods of Correlation andIs Linea

New York: John Wilrd ed.

Fechner, G. T. Einige Ideen zur chgpfugsundEntwiekelungfauchichte der Organismen. Leipzig:Breitkopf and Hertel, 1873.

Fe i 1, H. "Notes on Causality," in H. Feigl & MayBrodbeck (eds, ) Readin&AattjnLLnilatar_2fScience New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 195408-4111.

Fender, D.1-1. "Control Mechanismso= the Eye," Se e tific-American, 1964, v l 211.

.Gagne!, :R. -M. cholo4aq#1- n---S stem.Development.. New York:--- Holt Rinehart- & Wins to 1962.

1,19.

Granit, R. Rece tors and Se Perce ion. New Haven:Yale Univ. Press, 1955.

Hearn,... G. .TheoxAuildingALL§pcial.Work. Toronto :.University of Toronto Press 1958.

Holmes, 3. A.- Factors ULialaztANL211-1-- Disa-bilities at:the College Level. Unpublished-doctoraldissertation, Ufiiversity.. of California, Berkeley,1948,

Holmes, 3. A. The Substrata- factor Theor of ReadinBerkeley: California Book Co. 1953. (Out of print

Holmes, 3. A. "Factors Underlying Major Reading Disa-bilities at the College Level," Genetic PsychologyMonograpth, 1954, vol. 49, First half, 3-95.

Holmes A. "The Brain and the Reading Process, inClaremont C2112a219adinsEmf2EinEsnLy- SecondYearbook. Claremont, Cal.: Claremont CollegeCurriculum Laboratory 1957 p. 49-67.

Holmes, 3. A. "The Substrata-factor Theory of Reading:Some Experimental Evidence," New Frontiers inReading, International Reading AssociationConference Proc., 1960, vol. 5 115-121.

Holmes , 3. A." Creativity and the Substrata-factor Theory."Paper read at American Association of School Adminis-trators, an Francisco February, 1961. (a)

Holmes , d.abled,1961,

A. Personality Characteristics of the Dis-Reader," ournal of Developmental Readinvol. 4, 111-122. (b)

Holmes, J. A. "Public Education and Children With Reaing Problems." Paper read at Symposium an ReadinDisorders, University of California School ofMedicine, San Fr ncisco, February, 1963 (a)

Holmes, .1 A. Creative Writing and Power in Reading,"Paper read at National Council for Research inEnglish and the International Reading AssociationMiami, May, 1963. (b)

Holmes, J. A. sB sic Assumptions Underlying the Sub-strata-factor Theory." Paper, read at joint meetingof International, Reading Association and AmericanEducational Research Association, Philadelphia,May, 1964.

120

Hol es, 3,. A. Personal communicatio July, 1964. (b)

Holmes, A. 6, Singer, H. The SubsteLEEEEsE1-1E2Lx:substratatr fac for differencesat the hi-h school level.U. Office of Education, Cooperative Res. ProjecCont acts 538, SAE-8176 and 538A, SAE-8660, 1961.

Holmes, J. A. & Singer, "Theoretical Models andTrends Toward More Basic Research in Reading, rrReview of Educational Research, 1964, vol. 34,127-155.

Holmes, J. A. 6. Singer, H. Seed and Pol,,EE.fasacladin Hi h School. U. S. Dept. of Health, Educationand Welfare. Washington: Gov't. Printing Office,In press. (1965)

Hook, S. "Determini m," in E. A. Seligman & Johnson(eds. Ens elc aedia of the Social Sciences, vol.New York: a millan, 1937, 110-114.

John, E. R. "Some Speculations on the Psychophysiologyof Mind," in J. M. Scher (ed.), Theories of theMlnd. York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962, 80-121.

Jones, H. E. "The California Adolescent Growth Study,"Journal of Educational_Research 1938, vol.

Jones, H. E. "The Adolescent Growth Study: I. Principlesand Meth°ds." ArmsRalganaalLinaEaxnalaax, 1939,vol. 3 157-159. a

Jones, H. E. "The Adolescent Growth Study: II. Pro -c'duras-" /212P2912fenEmllinzEaxshalgax. 1939,vol. 3 177-180. (b)

Jones,. H. E. .."Problems ofVita HuMana 1958, of

th d in Longitudin93-99.

Research-,"

Kling, M. The Genera ization of the Substr11f2USP el2EE11122Etn§2212m2IhnaL'z- UnPubliaheddoctoral dissertation University of California,Berkeley, 1965.

E.D.,_et al.-- "Mode: PsychosesAmerican'242MEEAIREZglitSEYi68.

McEwen, W. P. The Problem of Social- Scientific Knowles. e.Totowa, N. J.: Bedminster Press, 1963.

Maclver, R. Vii. Social Causation. Boston: Ginn, 1942.

Maupertuis P. L. M. de. Cited by K. Menninger, M.Mayman, & P. Pruyser, The Vital Balance. New York:Viking Press 1963 81.

Menninger, Mayman, M & Pruyser, P. The VitalBalance. New York: Viking Press, 1963.

Miller G. A., Galanter,Structure of Behavior.

PJbram, L H. Plans andHoltDryden, 1960.New York:

Neurath, O. "Encyclopedia and Unified Sci ence," Internattl.Encyclopedia of Unified Science vols. I, II.,Foundations of the unit of science. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1938, vol. I, No.

Peach, P. "What is Systems Analysis?" SP-155. SantaMonica, Calif. Systems Development Corp., 1960.

Ryans,- D. G "System Analysis in. Educational Planning."Paper read at Sixth Annual Institute on College Self-study, Berkeley, July, 1964.

Sells, S. B . (ed.) Stimulus Determinants of Behavior.New York: Ronald Press, 1963.

Stead, W. H. Shartle, C. LCounseling: Techniques.Co., 1940.

et al. OccupationalNew York: American Book

Werner, H. Comparative Psychology of Mental Development.New York: -Pallet, 1948.-

Werner, __ & Kaplan, R. Symbol Formation.Wiley, 1963.

York:

erry, R. J. 'A New Formula for Predicting the Shrink-age of the Coefficient of Multiple Correlation."

math. Statist. 1931, 2 44O.451.

Wherry, R. J. "An Approximation Method for Obtaining aMaximized Multiple Criterion." Psychometrika 7 1940,vol. 5 7 09 a1-115. ()

Wherry, R. J. "The Wherry-Doolittle Test SelectionMethod. in W. H. Stead, C. L. Shartle, et al.Occu ational Counselin Techni ues. New York:American Book Co., 1940. pp. 245-252. (b)

Wherry, R. 7. "The Wherry-Doolittle Test SelectionMethod.' In H. E. Garrett, Statistics in Psychologyand Education. New York: Longmans, Green, 1947,435-451.