M ‘— — — _____é. , ¥ __ F’— 7 A- _—_—__. ___—_ — ”—— — -i, ,7 __ — _______. - 77 7! 71-4___ — WW \ 23% MN A COM9ARISON OF THE SPEECH ACTIVWY OF SPEECH MAJORS WITH NONtSWECH MAJCRS IN S?EECH CLASSES AND EN CLASSES QTHER 'Y‘HAN BE’EECH "3516813 for £3.18 Deg?“ af M. A. EECHEGAN 3TATE COLLEGE Hazel Eileen Moritz. i946 I . If”. u _\ 'J“ l 1 W ‘4’; 3 “gin." ‘ ’ 0. I ‘\v t!“ ‘ .‘Ir pm? “I: v . Q1319“ 1“ }xml},m 5‘; 3. :"L\ ’ -3 fe‘fi‘i I, J l r! 7“ ‘fli‘ ‘ :2- 1‘?" » ‘3' .2 . \l'yV' '\ :"" ”(-53 1 £\y"”’.£'," " ”'3‘ ; 5 ’. I J ‘ 15‘ L' {Th . i's.‘ 1.. , . i 95 -. 1' r: . “(I "/ 4‘9“. 1 «u ii.” " 1“ ‘.~ ' ”'5: 'v'L' ‘1“; WINE-:21" f)'(At‘. . '11:? )3; i ‘3 ;"\\z’{‘\ ‘ fr;:’l1 k {I ' ', (iris; ,-. , , x’flrQL" . 3 ‘1": ‘ 9'. , fl :9 '1 3" fly \‘t. [93? F: .. " ‘ ' ‘ ' ' fl“ .0 I. t ‘t O ‘ ' | ' .I 5’”. 'rr . l f- . 5' ..5 ((2‘) ‘Phtfi j"; H“... ’th‘ .‘ ‘l‘t ‘04" '"f‘fi’h' :- A‘. ”n.1,; .- 4- . ' x 'i'-‘ I '1 v 1 - > o '1'. 1 " This is to certify that the thesis entitled of the Speech Activity of Speech “A Comparison n-Speeoh Majors in Speech Classes - More with No and in Glasses Other than Speech.“ presented bl] Hazel Moritz has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for d Dramatice. 331d J..L_o_____degree mime! Radio Major prof sor T. ..r...‘ .12... q... .. .xL-Y;r ._....I “I..:\.:?. ...... )- 1-1131... .. .tr,....r."....ll.wnlvt , . . . , .. ,.,. J .. 1.. {£111 .. . 311...... .. £37.152afiw14(.5...l.l.l|..l.|.nl’ L.r...| A COMPARISON OF THE SPEECH ACTIVITY OF SPEECH MAJORS WITH NON-SPEECH MAJORS IN SPEECH CLASSES AND IN CLASSES OTHER THAN SPEECH by HAZEL EILEEN MORITZ m A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate School of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech, Dramatics, and Radio 1946 THESIS PIE"ACE \ fne writer wishes to eXpress her gratitude to Donald Hayworth, Professor of Speech at Lichi- Jan St te Collere, for his Valuable assistance in writing this thesis; to Paul D. S gwell, dean of the Department of Written and Spoken Snblisn at Iicdi an State College, for his helpful suggestions; and to Donald 0. Buell, Associate Professor of Drama at Kicnivan State College, for his kind words of en- couragement. The writer also wishes to express her deep appreciation to all those instructors at Michi- gan State College who were willing to Spend time and effort rating their students. Without their COOperation this study would not have been possible. (a (2 3‘ 'k“~..l) ('3 .“’~- '5 a . ‘ -r._\./_1.{l 4 \.) TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface...................................... Introduction................................. Part I -- Method of Procedure................ Part II -- Presentation of Data.............. Part III -- Interpretation of Data........... Part IV -- Suggestions for Future Studies.... 26 44 60 LIST OF TABLES TABLE I Percentage of classes used in this study grouped according to the number of students enrOlledOOOOOIOOOOOOO.0...00.000.000.0900000000027 TABLE II Percentage of classes used in this study grouped according to percent of class time devoted to discussion and recitation.......29 TABLE III Average percentile rank of each aSpect of speech assigned by instructors to speech majors in their speech classes and in their classes other than speech.......................43 LIST OF CHARTS Figure 1 Percentage of frequency rankings as- signed to different percentiles in speech ClasseSOOOCOOOOOOO0.00........00000000000009000034 Figure 2 Percentage of frequency rankings as- signed to different percentiles in classes other than speech...............................35 Figure 3 Percentage of rankings on length as- signed to different percentiles in speech Cl‘aSSeSOOOOOOOOCOOODO0.0.0.0...00.00.00.0000000036 Figure 4 Percentage of ranking on length as- signed to different percentiles in classes Other than SpeeChOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.......000000000037 Figure 5 Percentage of ratings on content assigned to different percentiles in speech 0134388800000...socoo-000.000.0000coo-0000000000038 Figure 6 Percentage of ratings on content assigned to different percentiles in classes other than speech................;..............39 Figure 7 Percentage of rankings on delivery assigned to different percentiles in speech ClasseSOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....0..0.00.00.00.00000900040 Figure 8 Percentage of rankings on delivery assigned to different percentiles in classes other than speech...............................4l ITTh01flKlPIOF' During the deveIOpment of our modern school pro- gr ms the needs for speech training became apparent. Over a period of years honest and sincere enthusiasts for spee h treining devised many types of courses had many praiseworthy objectives for this discipline. They worked hard and long to attain these aims and ob- jectives. The values of speech training mere gradually recognised. Finally, the advocates of Speech train- ing succeeded in securing a place of reCOgnition for it in our school proirams. One, at this point, is probably justified in saying that speech training has won itself a place of permanence. Such is the tradition that the modern speech teacher has inherited--needs, objectives, Perhaps there is no greater danger for any branch of learning than to take it for granted. Once the de- fense of a discipline is no longer necessary, its ob- Jectives and Values are too often also taken for if one is convinced of their ex- F.) _t—-’ \1 granted--e5pecia istence. lest the objectives and Values of any dis- cipline be taken for granted, it is altogether fitting that we concentrate our attention and direct our ef- forts toward discovering wh-ther our objectives actu- ally are being attained and whether the attributed values are real. This study is an effort in that direction. 2 The aims and objectives of speech teachers have been stated in many different ways. beaver, Lye, and Borchers state them thus: "A proper speech program is de- Signed to make all boys and girls more effective when they talk. It's pri- mary purpose, therefore, is not to turn out actors and actresses, platform regi- ers or public speakers; it is rather to help high-school students to partici- pate in social and business conVersation, to present skillfully their qualifica- tions when applying for jobs, to Speak effectively in buying and selling.... and to discuss intelligently vital community issues." If we were to examine the statements of other speech people, we would pTObnbly find thet the one under- lying f ctor of their aims and objectives is to make J speech training functional. Speech training aims to develOp clear-thinking individuals capable of ef- fectively eXpressine their thoughts and ideas in or- dinary life situations. This question often arises in the mind of the alert speech teacher: Are these objectives being realized? Another question inevitably follows: Is there any real evidence to indicate that they are or are not being realized? Being more concrete, the speech teacher might Andrew T. Weaver, Glen G. Eye, and Gladys Borchers, "What Speech can Contribute to High Scnool Lducation," The Bulletin of the Tational Association of_§econ- dary-School Principals, vol. 29, p. 9 (Nov, 13457 3 ask: Does the speech trained person exhibit himself to be a clear-thinking individual capable of effec- tively expressing his thoughts in ordinary life sit- uations? Does he exhibit himself as being capable of expressing himself more effectively or less effec- tively than his associates? Or is there no signifi- cant difference between the Speech trained person's ability and the non-speech trained person's ability to express himself in ordinary life situations? Obviously, to find the answer to these questions is a difficult task. In the first place, the phrase, "ordinary life situations," covers a multitude of ex- periences. Furthermore it is difficult to decide who is to Judge whether a person is eXpressing himself ef- fectively. In an attempt to find a partial answer to these questions it was decided that the "ordinary life situation" which would be considered in this study was the classroom. We would concern ourselves with the speech trained person's speech activity in his classes. Next we had to decide who was to be the one to judge a person's speech habits in the classroom. In most "or- dinary life situations" peOple untrained in speech are the ones who are making judgments and drawing conclu- sions about a person's ability to express himself or- ally. Hence, it was decided that the professor of the class, because in most cases he would not be specifi- 4 cally trained in speech, because he regularly had contact with these peOple, and because he was well acquainted with the particular subject-matter, would be the person who could most accurately give us the information which we desired--a judgment about the Speech trained person's ability to express his thoughts orally on a subject in a situation which is an ordinary one in the present life of the speech student. This study aims to uncover some evidence which has bearing on the previous questions. Its general purpose is to discover whether speech trained peOple actually do show themselves to be clear-thinking in- dividuals capable of orally expressing their thoughts in classroom recitation and discussion. More specifically, its purpose is to find out whether the speech trained people enrolled at Michi- v, gan State College Summer Q arter, 1946, showed them- selves to be individuals capable of effectively ex- pressing their thoughts and ideas in classroom re- citation and discussion according to the Judgments of the instructors of their classes. We are further making a comparison of their ability to express them- selves in their speech classes with their ability to express themselves in classes other than speech. PART I METHOD OF PROCEDURE PART I -- METHOD OF PROCEDURE The following plan of action was set up to carry out the purpose of this study: A. B. A decision was made concerning which aspects of speech would be used as a basis for judging and comparing the speech activity of speech trained and non-speech trained students in the classroom. A form was devised which would give in- structors necessary information and di- rections, and which would also provide an adequate system for recording the ratings. Students who had had speech training were selected as subjects. A list of courses, sections and in- structors of the courses in which these students were enrolled was compiled. Each instructor was contacted to: 1. Find out whether his class was suitable for the purposes of this study, taking into consid- eration: a. The size of the class. b. Type of subject matter. 0. Amount of time devoted to speech activity. 2. Secure his judgment and rating of the student's speech acti- vity in this particular class in relation to the other mem- bers of the class. In order to carry out the purpose of this study it was first necessary to decide upon those aspects of speech which could be used as a basis for judging and comparing the student's speech activity in class- room recitation and discussion. In making the de- 6 cisions about which aSpects of speech would be chosen as a basis for judgment and comparison many factors had to be considered. Our first consideration cen- tered around choosing those aspects of Speech which would be readily demonstrated in the classroom. Next, we had to consider which aspects could be easily de- tected by the instructor in the classroom recitation and discussion. Furthermore, we had to consider those aspects which are related to the basic fundamental aims of most modern speech teachers. Those aspects of speech which were finally sel- ected were: the frequency, the length, the quality of the content, and the quality of the delivery of the student's speech activity in the classroom. These four aspects were chosen primarily because they are de- tected easily by the classroom instructor, are demon- strated readily in class recitation and discussion, and because they are factors directly related to the fun- damental aims of speech training. In the following paragraphs the meanings of these aspects are discussed along with their relation to the fundamental aims of speech training. The ease with which the instructor could give a rating on these aspects is also pointed out. FREQUENCY By the frequency of the student's Speech 7 activity we mean the number of times the student enters into class recitation, discussion, or other speech activity. The instructor who conducts his class in a man- ner which permits discussion or recitation would be aware of this aspect of the student's speech activ- ity in the classroom. If the aims of speech training are being rea- lized, and if speech training has had any effect on the student, we might expect him to be reasonably free from inhibition, capable of and willing to ex- press his thoughts and exchange ideas in the class- room. Yet, on the other hand, because speech training involves in an indirect manner the development of the listening habits, we might expect that the speech trained person would not enter into speech activity excessively. One of the purposes of this study was simply to find out whether speech trained peOple enter into class discussion and recitation more often than, as often as, or less than the non-speech trained people in a particular class. The writer realizes that there may be many reasons why speech students do or do not participate in speech activity in the class- room. However, to discover the reasons why is not in the realm of this study. LENGTH By length we mean the amount or the duration of the student's speech activity. The instructor who conducts his class in a man- ner which devotes time to class discussion and recita- tion would be aware of how long the students took to express their thoughts and ideas. He could quite accurately give us a picture of those students who spoke to great length and of those students who spoke briefly in class discussion and recitation. This aspect of a student's speech activity is another which is closely related to the fundamental aims of speech training. We might be led to believe that the person trained in speech, because he has had training in economically wording and phraSing his thoughts and ideas, would not Speak to great length. However, we would expect him to Speak long enough to develop adequately his particular idea. Here again we merely tried to find out whether the speech trained people speak longer than, as long as, or shorter than those people of their classes who are not trained in Speech. QUALITY OF CONTENT By effective speech content we mean that wnich is characterized by questions, answers, and explanations which are relevant to the subject at hand. A student's speech activity is effective when it is governed by a controlling idea which is deveIOped adequately by the 9 use of facts, reliable judgments, specific examples, and logical reasoning. When a student enters into speech activity with an Open, inquiring mind, when his answers, questions, and discussions are reasonably free from hesitations and "mental rumblings", then the content of his speech activity is effective. By ineffective speech content we mean that which is characterized by "beating around the bush," talking "around the point but not on it,” the main idea is not easily detected. Speech activity which is char- acterized by assertions and Opinions unfounded on fact and good judgment is considered ineffective. Those questions, answers, and explanations which are irre- levant to the subject at hand and those which show evidences of "jumbled thinking" are indicative of in- effective speech content. The quality of the content of a student's speech activity as defined above could range all the way from highly effective to extremely ineffective. The in- structor, who has a comprehensive understanding of his subject matter, is the one who probably is best quali- fied to make judgments about this quality of a stu- dent's speech activity in the class room. Furthermore, as a teacher, he is undoubtedly paying the closest attention to this aspect of the student's speech activity. 10 It is probably not necessary to point out how closely this aspect of a student's speech activity is related to the fundamental aims of speech training. Practically all speech training of tqis day and age aims to teach the importance of having a central, con- trolling idea, and of develOping this idea by the use of facts, judgments, examples, and reasoning. Speech training aims to develop thinking habits which will be demonstrated by a freedom from hesitation, "jumbled thinking" and mental biases and prejudices. Another of the purposes of this study is to find out whether speech trained people demonstrate in their class dis- cussions and recitations the ability to formulate and develOp ideas more effectively than, as effectively as, or less effectively than do the non-speech trained people in their classes. QUALITX OF DELIVERY By effective speech delivery in the classroom we mean speech that which primarily can be easily heard and understood. Effective delivery should be charac- terized by a certain amount of physical poise, such as looking at the class, using an acceptable sitting pos- ture, and using meaningful gestures and facial ex- pressions. Furthermore, effective delivery should be characterized by a desire to share, to communicate, ideas and thoughts with the class. ll Ineffective delivery would be characterized by a voice which could not be easily heard and understood, by indistinct mutterings and mumblings. A lack of poise, such as, looking out the window when speaking, shuffling the feet, and wiggling in the seat, is indi- cative of ineffective delivery. "Parroting" answers and remarks with little or no attempt to share and communicate thoughts and ideas with others also indi- cates ineffective delivery. The quality of the delivery of a student's speech activity as defined previously may be the one aspect to which many instructors pay little attention. If the student's voice can be heard, that may be all the iné structor notices. However, inasmuch as most peOple usually appraise individuals and make judgments about their voice, poise, posture, and communicativeness, we felt that instructors would be able to adequately give us judgments about this aspect of the student's speech activity. This aSpect of speech is another which is closely related to the fundamental aims of speech training. Speech training aims to deveIOp poise and confidence which will be reflected in the voice and the body. Fur- thermore, speech training aims to deveIOp the desire to communicate along with the ability to wisely adapt this communication to specific situations. A further 12 purpose of this study was to find out whether Speech trained people are considered more effective than, as effective as, or less effective than their non-Speech trained class mates in the aspect of delivery. After deciding that these aspects of speech formed an adequate basis for making judgments and com- parisons because they were readily demonstrated in re- citation and discussion, because they were easily de- tected by the instructor, and because they were dir- ectly related to the fundamental aims of Speech training, we were ready to begin our next step. Our next step involved the problem of devising a form which would give the instructors who were to make the judgments the information and instructions they needed and which also would provide an adequate system for recording the information we desired. We are including a copy of the form which was used in this study. Following it we will discuss each part of it in turn. 13 I would be most appreciative if you would supply me with the following information about Sec. , which meets . 1. Is this class primarily a lecture course, a recitation, or a lecture-recitation course? (Encircle one; specify if othen) 2. Approximately how much daily class time is allowed for student discussion? fl (Indicate by percentage.) I am interested in securing your Opinion about certain aspects of the recitation and class discuss- ion of the students in this class. The specific aspects of the student's recitation and discussion in which I am interested are listed below. Using these definitions as a guide, would you rate your students from the highest to the lowest in each of these respects? 1. The frequency of the student's recitation and discussion. By frequency I mean the number of times the student recites and enters into class dis- cussion. Does the student voluntarily re- cite and enter into discussion often, or does he recite and discuss only rarely? 2. The length of the student's recitation and dis— cussion. By length I mean the duration or amount of this recitation or discussion. Does the student re- cite and discuss briefly, or does he go into lengthy discussions and explanations? 3. The quality of thg_content of the recitation and discussion. Effective Content: a. Student enters into class discussion with an Open, inquiring mind. b. Student asks questions and gives answers which are relevant. c. Student's recitations and discussions are governed by a controlling idea which is developed adequately by the use Of facts, reliable judgments, Spe- cific examples and logical reasoning. d. Student's answers, questions, and dis- l4 cussions are reasonably free of hesi- tations and "mental fumblings." Inneffective Content: as b. Student puts forth assertions and Opin- ions unfounded On fact and good judgment. Student's recitations and discussions are characterized by irrelevant questions. 4. The quality of the delivery of the recitation and discussion. w Effective—Delivery a. Student demonstrates a certain amount of physical poise--i.e., looks at the class, uses an acceptable sitting pos- ture, utilizes meaningful gestures and facial exnressions. Student speaks in a manner so that his voice can be easily and distinctly heard and understood by all members Of the class. Student shows a desire to share his ideas with the class. Ineffective Delivery 8.. Student's recitation and discussions are characterized by a voice which cannot be heard and understood, i.e., he mutters and mumbles indistinctly. Student demonstrates little physical poise, i.e., he looks out the window when talking, he shuffles his feet, slumps and wiggles in his seat, and otherwise evi- dences a lack Of poise. Student "parrots" Off his answers and discussions with little or no attempt to share his ideas and communicate his thoughts with the members of the class. Using the foregoing definitions as a guide and using the attached form, would you rate the students Of this class in these respects? You have been see- ing and hearing the students recite several hours per week for over a half a quarter. SO considering the facts as you see them, give me your best judg- ment. In order that all questionnaire will be filled out in a similar manner, I am asking that you indi- cate the students' relative ranks from highest to lowest in each of the aforementioned aspects. That is, rate your students from one (1) (indiCating the 15 largest number of recitations, the longest recitations and the best quality of content and delivery) to twenty-four or twenty-five (24 or 25) as the case may be (indicating the lowest number of recitations, the shortest recitations and the poorest in quality of content and delivery). I want to thank you in advance for your time and effort. Student's yams 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ggntent Delivery] 16 17 The introductory paragraph of this form merely identifies for the instructor the class in question. The correct name and title of the course are very im- portant. It is equally important to designate the correct section, for many courses at Michigan State College are divided into several sections each. The next two questions were included because it was necessary to secure this information before de- ciding whether the class would be suitable for the purpose of this study. Obviously, a lecture or a laboratory class would not be of interest to us; for the instructor would not be able to give us the infor- mation we desired, nor would the students be demon- strating the characteristics in which we were interes- ted. A class which devotes too little time to dis- cussion and recitation would not be of interest to us either. Because so many different meanings are attached to words, and because so many different interpreta- tions of words are made, it was not very feasible to merely name the aspects of speech. In order to avoid confusion and misinterpretation, and in order to in- sure a similarity of Judgment, definitions of the aspects of speech were written out and included in the form. The next problem to be met was that of 18 devising a suitable form and set of directions for rating the students. This form must be one which would meet the following qualifications. The form should be: (1) one whose directions would be clear and simple; (2) one which would give a uniformity of type of judgments from the raters; (3) one which would not be too time-consuming for the raters; (4) one which would give the most specific information possible; (5) one which permitted for ease and accur- acy in compilation and interpretation of the data revealed. After a form was devised which we felt met the above qualifications, four instructors were asked to fill it out in order to find out wnether the direc- tions were generally understandable, to find out approximately how long the rating process actually took, and to receive any-comments and suggestions they might have. Ve learned that the definitions and dir- ections for rating were generally understood. The entire class was to be listed in the left-hand column; then the instructor, using the included definitions as a guide, would rate his students from the highest to the lowest on each aspect of speech activity. The time required to make the ratings ranged from twenty to thirty minutes depending on the size of the class, 19 the amount of speech activity in the class, and the professor himself. This did not seem to be an undue request of an instructor‘s time. Because the in- structor had to consider each student in relation to the whole class in regard to each aspect of speech activity, we were getting the most specific information possible. After the ratings were made by the instruc- tors, we could encircle the names of the speech majors and note their relative rank in each aspect. Then the raw ranks could be transposed to percentile ratings, and statistical compilations and comparisons could be made. We were satisfied that this form provided an ade- quate system for collecting the data we desired, so we proceeded with the next steps-selecting those stu- dents who would be our subjects. From the Speech De- partment at Michigan State College we were able to obtain a list of the students majoring in speech. Only those of Junior or Senior standing were selected, for students of Freshman or Sophomore standing do not of- ficially declare a major at this institution. Further- more, we are interested only in students who have had a sufficient amount of training to be significant. During the Summer Quarter, 1946, there were enrolled thirty-seven students majoring in Speech who were of either Junior or Senior standing. These students were 20 used as subjects in this study. The next step of this study was to secure a list of the courses in Which these students were enrolled. It was also necessary to find out the section in which the student was enrolled and the name of the instruc- tor teaching that particular section. Off hand, getting this information seems to be a relatively sim- ple matter. However, this is not the Case; it is rather difficult to obtain this information accurately without a good deal of lost motion. After trying var- ious methods which only resulted in giving us very in- complete information about the student's courses we followed this procedure. In the Speech Department offices there is a folder filed for every speech major. There is con- tained in the folder a list of all the courses (title and number) that the student is taking. Nearly every student was taking at least one speech course. The speech professors in question were then asked to se- cure a COpy of the students' schedule for the Summer Quarter. The following form was used for this purpose. 21 Dear Professor, Would you please have ___ give you a copy of his schedule for the summer quarter? I'd like to know the title and number of all the courses he is taking this quarter, the instructor's name, and the hours and days on which the class meets. Following is an example of the information I desire: Child Psych. 303a Newman MWF 8-10 If you would have the student do this at the earliest possible time, and if you would drOp this in my mail box, I would be most appreciative. I need this information before I can begin collec- ting data for my thesis study. Thank you very much. Hazel Moritz Course Title and Number Professor Days & Hours 22 In this manner we were able to obtain a fairly accurate list of the courses, the Specific sections, and the professor's names. This method was not al- ways entirely accurate, however, because some stu- dents didn't remember course names and title, didn't know and often mispelled instructor's names. If students were not enrolled in a speech course, it was necessary to secure that student's schedule from him directly. After schedules of the students were secured, an alphabetical list of professors and their classes was compiled. we found that these thirty-seven speech majors were enrolled in sixty-six courses in the following departments: Psychology, music, English, Physical Education, History, Political Science, Journalism, Foreign Studies, Horticulture, Sociology, Foreign Language, Geography, Basic College, Business Administration, Education, Animal Husbandry, Land- scape Architecture, and Speech. It was easy to perceive immediately that some of these courses would not be suitable for the purposes of this study because of the nature of the courses. Hence, the two physical education classes were drOpped from our list. The one music class, which was an individual voice lesson, was drapped. Likewise, eight foreign language classes, one honors course, one 25 clinic course, and one course in horse management were dropped. The remaining fifty classes were retained on the list. We felt these classes would give us an ade- quate picture of the speech major's speech activity in the classroom. Our next task was to contact each of the pro- fessors teaching these classes in order to enlist their c00peration in this study. This phase of the study presented a variety of problems. It also pre- sented a wonderful opportunity for personal growth and develOpment for the person who had the visits with tne instructors. The procedure which was followed in this phase of the study was rather haphazard; for whenever one deals with human beings, a standardized procedure is seldom possible. Generally, the secretaries of the various de- partments were called upon either by phone or in person to secure information about the office hours of the instructors. Then an effort was made to secure a definite appointment with the instructor. If this was not possible, I went to the office or called dur- ing the specified office hours in the hopes of finding the professor there. Throughout the quarter I was able to reach either by phone or in person the instructors teaching fifty classes. I was able to secure ratings and 24 judgments from these instructors about the students in thirty-six classes. There are many reasons for the difference between the number of instructors contacted and the number of class ratings secured. This study was begun on the assumption that stu- dents engage in Speech activity in practically all classes. However, we soon learned that in some classes students did not participate orally. The (reasons why students do not engage in speech activity in the classroom are probably as significant as the other data we will present. In the visits with pro- fessors the following reasons for not having speech activity in the classroom were most frequently given. 1. The class was conducted purely on a lecture basis because: a. Of the large size of the class. b. Of the type of subject matter. 0. Of the purpose of the course. d. Of the large amount of mater- ial it was necessary to cover in a limited time. e. Students didn't respond to dis- cussion and recitation anyway. 2. The class was mainly devoted to laboratory performance. In other classes, we learned that students did not participate to an extent great enough for instruc- tors to make judgments adequately. In other classes we learned that instructors even though they had dis- cussion and recitation, did not associate the names of the students with the discussion because: 1. Of the large number of students in the class. 2. Oral work was not used as a basis for marks and grades anyway. Hence, it is easy to see then that there are many reasons why our original assumption was not sound. We had to accept the fact that still more classes would have to be drOpped from our list be- cause they did not adequately reveal the information we were seeking. It is not the primary purpose of this study to find out in how many classes students entered into speech activity. Nor is it within the purpose of this study to uphold either the advan- tages or disadvantages of student speech activity in the classroom. Our purpose rather is to find out about the speech habits of students when they do enter into speech activity in the classroom. Because of the above reasons fourteen more classes were eliminated from our list. That left us thirty-six classes or fifty-four and a half percent of the total possible number of classes that were finally deemed suitable for the purposes of this study. The data which are presented in Part II are bases upon seventy ratings received from the thirty-six suitable classes. PART II PRESENTATION OF DATA PART II -- PRESENTATION OF DATA Perhaps it is well to point out in the very be- ginning that there was a good deal of variation among these classes in regard to the number of students enrolled in the class and the amount of class time devoted to speech activity. For example, the small- est class used in this study contained eight stu- dents; the largest class had fifty-four students enrolled. The least amount of class time devoted to discussion and recitation was ten percent; the greatest amount of class time was one hundred per- cent. In order to present a more detailed picture of the variations of these classes which were used as a basis for this study, we have prepared two tables. Table I gives detailed information about the variations among these classes in regard to the number of students enrolled. Column one of this table shows the number of students enrolled in the class. The number of students is grouped into in- tervals of ten. Column two shows the percentage of speech classes which have enrollments in the different intervals. Column three shows the per- centage of classes other than speech which have enrollments in the different intervals. In column four we have presented the percentage of all classes 27 --speech and classes other than speech combined-- which have enrollments in the different intervals. See Table I below. Number of Percent of Percent of Percent of students en- speech classes other classes all classes rolled in having differ- having differ- having differ- class ent numbers ent numbers ent numbers l-lO 25 O 11 11-20 56.5 15 55 21-50 18.7 50 57 51-40 0 10 5.5 v 5'. 41-50 O 10 /.5 51-60 0 l5 8 Table I Percentage of classes used in this grouped according to dents enrolled. L . ‘ v o 1 -r U era.) he number of stu- Table II, which appears on a following page, gives detailed information about the variations among these classes in regard to the amount of class time devoted to discussion and recitation. g 28 Column one of this table shows the percent of class time devoted to discussion and recitation. The percent of class time is shown in groups of ten. Column two shows the percentage of speech classes which devote different percents of class time to discussion and recitation. Column three shows the percentage of classes other than speech which de- vote different percents of class time to discuss- ion and recitation. In column four we have pre- sented the percentage of all classes--both speech classes and classes other than speech--which devote different percentage of time to discussion and re- citation. See Table II on next page. 29 F Percentages of Percentaccs fn Percent of w o Percentages of class time speech classes other classes all classes de- devoted to devoting differ- devoting differd voting different discussion ent percents of ent percents of percents of else and recita- class time to class time to time to discus- tion dis vssion and discrssion and sion and reci- recitstion recitation tation 1*— 10-19 18.7 20 ll (“-6 7n c: g: 7) 2‘ ‘ b /\"/ / / 5C-59 3.7 O 8 5C-59 C 20 ll «so-co 6.7 5 6 7w-79 3-7 l5 17 8C'59 0 25 28 9C-lCO C 10 15 Table II Percentage or classes 9rd in this stxd; grouped according to rccnt of class time devoted to disc csion ad recitation. 50 The data which were used in this study were received from the instructors of classes which pre- sented variations as shown in Table I and Table II in regard to the number of students enrolled and the percent of class time devoted to discussion and recitation. The data collected gave us infor- mation about the relative rank of the speech majors concerning the frequency, the length, the quality of the content, and the quality of the delivery of his speech activity in a particular class. Follow- ing is a sample of the data collected. The treat- ment of these data is discussed later. 31 -§tudent's L3229 1. Student A 2. Student B t3:mwstuéenfi_cwn 4. Student D 5. Student E 11 11 11 11 6. Student F 10 10 9 16 7. Student G 2 1 4 5 " "": 9. Student J 12 12 14 8 10. Student K 14 14 15 12 11. Student L 16 16 17 17 12. Student M 17 17 16 15 13. Student N 9 1 9 13 l4 14. Student 0 13 13 8 13 15. Student P 3 4 7 7 16. Student Q lu 18 13 18 17. Student R 7 7 1 3 18. Student S 19 19 19 19 19. Student T 4 3 6 10 -: After collecting as much data as possible, we encircled the names and ranks of the speech majors in red pencil as indicated. At a glance one can see 32 that a study of particular ranks in different groups is very difficult and extremely misleading unless the rank in each group is reduced to the basis of what it would be if the groups contained the same number of cases. Therefore, we determined the percentile rank for each of the individual ranks given to the speech majors. We could then make comparisons of these ranks. Next, we tabulated these percentile ranks for each aspect of speech activity to find out what per- centage of the total rankings fell in the different percentiles. We have kept the rankings assigned in speech classes separate from those assigned in other classes in order to make a comparison between perfor- mances in the speech classes and in classes other than speech. The following charts show what percentage of the total rankings for each aSpect of speech was as- signed to the different percentiles. Figure 1 shows what percentage of the total fre- quency rankings was assigned to different percentiles in speech classes. Figure 2 presents the same infor- mation about frequency ratings in classes other than speech. Figure 3 shows what percentage of the total rank- ings given concerning length was assigned to different percentiles in speech classes. Figure 4 presents the 33 same information about rankings on length in classes other than speech. Figure 5 shows the percentages of the total rankings on the quality of content of the speech ac- tivity which were assigned to different percentiles in speech classes. Figure 6 presents the same infor- mation about rankings on the quality of content in classes other than speech. Figure 7 shows what percentages of the total rankings on quality of delivery of the speech activ- ity which were assigned to different percentiles in speech classes. Figure 8 presents the same infor- mation about rankings on the quality of delivery in classes other than speech. 50 N a * 0 o O l 1 PERCENT (OF RANKINGS) 8 54 125% 17.52 0 IO 20 30 4-0 50 60 7O 80 90 ’00 PE RC E N TILE FIG. I PERCEN TA GE or FREQUENCY RANK/~65 ASSIGNED T0 DIFFERENT PEPOENTILES IN SPEECH CLASSES 35 5O 40 .. ‘6} g 35% \‘c S Q30- u. Q t E20 P m Q (0 - 0%lo% o (02030405060706090100 PEPCEN TILE F161 PEECENTA GE OF FREQUENCY RANK/M9: ASSIGNED To DIFFERENT PERCENTILES IN CIA ss 55 o 7.745;? THmvsPamw 50 § 0 8 PERCEN r (op RANKINGS) , N o 8 O 36 T 1152 IO 20 ASSIGNED TO DIFFERENT PERC 30 1252 40 50 60 PERCENTILE F163 PERCENTAGE or RANKINGS ON LENGTH CLASSES 125% xvz an: 70. 80 90 I00 EN TILES IN SPEECH 37 3 (I O PERCENT (OF RA NK/NGS) IO 0102030405060708090I00 PERCEN TILE F 16. 4 PERCENTAGE or RANKINGS 0N LENGTH A SSIGNED To DIFFEREN T PERCEN TILES IN (LA 5555 O THER THA N SPEECH 38 50 8 (a 0 F L 202 PERCENT (OF RANKINGS) N 0 IO ° (0 20 30 40 5o 60 70 so 90 I00 PERCENTILE FIG.5 PERCENTAGE OF RANKINGS ON CONTENT ASSIGNED To DIFFERENT PERCEN TILES IN SPEECH CLASSES 39 50 § 0.: O T 201 20% N O F PERCENT (OF RANKINGS) 6 1 0%. 07. 0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 (00 PERCENTILE FIG. 6‘ PERCENTAGE OF RANKINGS ON CONTENT ASSIGNED TO DIFFERENT PERCENT/LE5 IN CLASSES OTHER THAN SPEECH $5) PERCEN T (OF RANKIN ' 8’ U N . o —l' IO 0 IO F IG. 7 20 3O 40 PERCEN TILE ‘ PERCENTAGE OF RANKINGS ON DELIVERY 357. 50 8O 90 40 I00 ASSIGNED TO DIFFERENT PERCENTILES IN SPEECH CLASSES 41 5'0 p RA NKING S) (OF 8 l' 247. 24-79 PERCENNT o I s. O 1 o7. .07. O mzoaomsoaommeomo PERCENT/LE FIG. 5 PERCENTAGE OF RANKINGS ON DELIVERY ASSIGNED TO DIFFERENT PERCENT/LES IN CLASSES OTHER THAN SPEECH 42 Although it is valuable to note the exact per- centage of rankings which was assigned to different percentiles, it is sometimes more valuable to des- cribe the central tendency or the general trend of the ratings. We often ask, "What's the average?" In this study we want to know what was the average per- centile ranking assigned to the speech majors in their speech classes and in their classes other than speech. Table III presents that information. The average per- centile ranking of each aspect of Speech assigned to speech majors in speech classes and in classes other than Speech is shown. However, before we present the average percen- tile ranking, we should first designate the kind of average we are discussing because there are several common measures of central tendency. The averages pre- sented in Table III were computed by the method pro- bably most well-known--dividing the sum of the rank- ings by the number of rankings to get the arithmetic mean. See Table III on following page. ‘rTfi A H“““ fir? ‘f, I a“ m r- s ,- -. -v - AVA—Jndtdl «HA-(\Jg.uLLEJL fut-.-.l..r-:0 - ~‘ _ ~ . 3 . n r‘.n+‘ ,"\ n r L”; r‘. I" ‘ , VJ. r "fx . «.4 J l; a... '4 JV . -L \J . J - .L 01“ ‘\\' ‘ _‘~r 4"— FA La .fi-v '(r) r. .4-._AL-..OOOO.....OOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOV..Ok. l, . . T -.5. .z. '.‘ q (.1 ("3 CC- ,V L..J..-l. -L -v - ..oooooooooooooooooOOLILO , - ,- ‘-‘. . --.~ - V, . 1‘.— ._~‘b._‘,-.h Va 4}<—4H—_l-‘\‘..................\J/../ - __ L _’i ‘v _ 1 r -. 'w 11“ -r:.3..n, _v~r 410- C 49 F); u chv-. .LV IL .1 ’3 . L -D ,;‘A-‘l. r -filn 5": 7 LAX-J ._. 4.00.0...coooooooooooooooooooo//Io/ 7'? vr._, “A 7 .4....J‘..oooooooocoo.00000000900000.0000’,/0/ . - . cc v...“..-.l.-.. .. l‘v- -_-.LooooooooooooooOoooo\4 o .- u. A v v a - ~ - 1 v—wr—ewe ’In / .VV.L.I.L-.L LI ..'.”l_._L.‘..,_[\..ooooooooooooooooooLMo‘L'VJ . t \ Table III "t a “.3 “rs- r *‘7;. - r —5" -~ ‘4 ra~ I I. A i 4' . ALIVKar—x v >'.’ACV.1U—~u~~l ru~1AL -.).L 10;: L~J QC u-J - x C .. ‘- - c. ‘1 r n A .... _ H. | . L SJF'uC'l JCPL ...'-z~i Ed 1nd. C‘CUQFS Q :7": a U . V-‘P ' ya . L,» . Or ‘- 1 n (s h‘fi" . fl _, ,1 .I”! I - I .aiJO; (3 1n 9.. ..r v "Jizvll C lat-seq RA A“ 1.. 1 {j P r .~ 4-- ' “ ."‘," r.<- “2.: "x C 4.2» fl “J 3 O ‘J be r U. L111 (Jr {1 :./‘ Cat . PART III INTERPRETATION OF DATA PART III -- INTERPLETATION OF DATA Before we draw any conclusions or make any interpretations of these data, perhaps it is well to make a few general comments about the data. The first comment to be made is that the data are nothing more than a collection of judgments about the speech acti- vity of selected individuals. These judgments may or may not have been accurate, for it is obvious that the task of making judgments about such an intricate as- pect of human behavior is a very difficult and unsci- entific process. We recognize further that the peOple who made the judgments vary from time to time within themselves. If asked to rank students at another time, their judgments might not be exactly the same. However, the judgments are probably as accurate ones as a person could get. Even though this collection of data is highly subjective, it does have significance to the alert speech teacher. For, in the last analysis, the speech teacher must accept the fact that just such highly subjective judgments are being made every day about the effectiveness of a person's speech activity. Judgments, which are not nearly as carefully made as those used in this study, often determine whether the person who is speaking will be elected to office, whether the person who is speaking will sell his 45 product, whether the person who is speaking will be accepted by a certain social group, etc. Hence, a collection of judgments about the Speech trained person's Speech activity in functional situations may be highly significant to the speech teacher. The second comment to be made is that the amount of data included herein is very limited. However, perhaps these are sufficient data to show the general trends about this particular group of speech trained peeple. More judgments about the same group of stu- dents in similar circumstances probably would do no more than substantiate the picture already presented. If we hope to make definite conclusions about speech trained people in general, it would be necessary to secure ratings and judgments such as these about a number of different groups of Speech majors in a num- ber of different schools. The conclusions which we will draw will be specifically about the particular group of students used in this study. If this group can be assumed to be typical of most Speech trained people, then we might further generalize our comments and extend them to apply to speech trained peOple in general. The third comment to be made is that these data are not collected from classes of similar size. The classes varied in size considerably as Table I _46 indicates. Nor were these data collected from classes too similar in percent of class time devoted to dis- cussion and recitation as Table II indicates. How- ever, each rank was assigned on the basis of com- parison within the class and each rank Was reduced to the basis of what it would be if the group were of the same size, so we feel justified in making com- parisons. By asking instructors to rate their students in regard to the various aSpects of student's speech act- ivity, we were trying to find the answer to certain specific questions which we stated previously. he will restate them now. By securing ratings on the frequency of the student's speech activity we were trying to find out whether speech majors enrolled at Michigan State College Summer Quarter, 1946, gener- ally entered into class discussion and recitation more often than, as often as, or less than the non- speech majors in their classes.' By asking instruc- tors to rate their students in regard to the length of their speech activity we were trying to find out whether the speech trained peOple speak longer than, as long as, or shorter than the non-speech trained peOple in their classes. By asking instructors to rate their students in regard to the quality of the content of their speech activity, we were trying to 47 find out whether speech trained people demonstrate in their class discussion and recitation the ability to formulate and deveIOp ideas more effectively than, as effectively as, or less effectively than do the non-speech trained people in their classes. By asking instructors to rate their students in re- gard to the quality of the delivery of the student's speech activity, we were trying to find out whether speech trained peOple were considered more effective than, as effective as, or less effective than their non-speech trained classmates in the aspect of delivery. Because these aSpects of speech activity are closely related to the fundamental aims of speech training, we felt that evidence having bearing on these points was significant. It is very difficult to make any blanket statement which will conclusively state our findings. However, as we examine the data critically, we find evidence of certain trends which may be significant. The charts presented in Part II showed what percentage of the total rankings on the four aspects of speech were in the different percen- tiles. We will discuss more fully the evidence re- vealed in these charts concerning the frequency, the length, the quality of the content, and the quality 48 of the delivery of the speech activity as revealed in speech classes and in classes other than speech. We will discuss the findings about each of these four aspects in the order just named. FREQUENCY -- IN SPEECH CLASSES The data as presented in Figure I reveal that some of the speech majors used in this study were ranked as speaking more often than, some as often as, others less than the non-speech majors in their speech classes. Seventeen and a half percent of the rankings were in the first, second, and third deciles indica- ting that some speech majors entered into class dis- cussion and recitation considerably less than non- speech majors in the class. Forty-two and a half per- cent of the rankings were in the fourth, fifth, and sixth deciles showing that other speech majors defin- itely entered into speech activity more often than other members of the class. When ranking any group of individuals, we could probably expect a wide range of distribution such as this one is regardless of the basis for ranking. However, in a normal distribution, we would not expect to find forty percent of the rank- ings in the top three deciles. It is significant to note that this was the case with these speech majors. It is interesting to note also that even though the 49 t0p three deciles were heavily weighted, the general trend or average of these rankings fell in the sixty-V/ fifth percentile as was shown in Table III. In view of these facts we are probably justified in drawing the conclusion then that speech majors used as sub-,. jects in this study generally entered into class dis- cussion and recitation as often as or more often than non-speech majors in their speech classes. Perhaps this is a trend which could have been assumed, for in speech classes the major is in his field of specialization-~a field in which he is in- terested, with which he is familiar, and for which he assumedly has talents and aptitude. Perhaps it is strange that he did not enter into discussion and recitation to an extent greater than that indicated by this evidence. FREQUEPCY -- IN CLASSES OTHER THAN SPEECH The data presented in Figure 2 reveal likewise that at times speech majors in classes other than speech were ranked as entering into class discussion and recitation less frequently than, as frequently as, and more frequently than other members of the class. However, the greater share of the frequency rankings assigned to speech majors in classes other than speech is found in the fourth and fifth deciles 50 where fifty-nine percent of the rankings fell. It is interesting to note, though, that twenty-seven percent of the rankings fell in the eighth, ninth, and tenth deciles. These facts lead us to conclude that some speech majors do enter into class dis- cussion and recitation more often than non-speech majors in their classes other than speech. However, inasmuch as fifty-nine percent of the rankings fell in the fourth and fifth deciles, the only over-all conclusion that we could make is that on the average speech majors enter into speech activity in classes other than speech as often as other members of the class. Table III also indicates that this conclusion is justifiable, for the average ranking assigned speech majors in these classes other than speech was in the fifty-fifth percentile. LENGTH -- IN SPEECH CLASSES Figure 3 presents the data about the rankings as to the length of speech activity in Speech classes. We find seventeen and a half percent of the rankings assigned to the first, second, and third deciles indicating that some speech majors speak to a considerably shorter length than non- speech majors in their speech classes. Forty-five percent of the rankings fell in the fourth, fifth, 51 sixth, and seventh deciles. These rankings are in- dicative of average length. However, an important fact to notice is that thirty-seven and a half per-V, cent of the rankings were assigned to the eighth, ninth, and tenth deciles indicating that some Speech majors do speak to greater length than the non- speech majors of their speech classes. This also is a considerably larger percent of rankings assigned to the top three deciles than one would expect in a normal distribution of rankings. Perhaps we are justified in drawing the conclusion that in Speech classes the speech majors used as subjects in this study generally spoke as long as, or to greater length than the non-speech majors in their Speech classes. The evidence presented in Table III sub- stantiates this conclusion, for the average per- centile ranking assigned to Speech majors for length is sixty-two. LENGTH -- IN CLASSES OTHER THAN SPkSCH The data in Figure 4 reveal evidence which de- finitely has a trend in one direction. Seventy-Six percent of all the rankings assigned to speech majors in regard to the length of their recitations and discussions in classes other than Speech fell in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh deciles. This 52 evidence tends to point out quite conclusively that Speech majors' recitations and discussions generally are of average length in classes other than Speech. The general trend or average ranking assigned to speech majors in regard to the length of their Speech activity fell in the fifty-third percentile as was shown in Table III. QUALITY OF CONTENT -- IN SPEECH CLASSLS In Figure 5 we have presented those data which deal with the rankings on the quality of the content of speech major's discussions and recita- tions in their speech classes. he find fifteen percent of the rankings in the first, second, and third deciles; fifty-five percent of the rankings in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh deciles; and thirty percent of the rankings in the eighth, ninth, and tenth deciles. It is easy to see at a glance that the average percentile ranking is slightly above average.‘ Table III shows that the average percentile ranking is sixty-two. However, even though the average percentile ranking assigned to Speech majors on the quality of the content of their speech activity is slightly above average, fifteen percent of the rankings was definitely below average. We pay particular 53 attention to this aSpect of speech activity, for it is probably the most primary aim of speech training. It seems strange that some students in their major field of specialization should be rated so much lower than those not specializing in the field. On the other hand, when we realize that this aSpect of speech is very closely related to the thinking pro- cess which is dependent to a certain extent upon one's native intelligence, this fact does not seem so strange. Perhaps in this group of Speech majors, we have students who by native intelligence are not capable of competing favorably with other people regardless of the basis for competition. We might make a number of suggestions in view of these facts. Perhaps these pe0ple should not be majoring in Speech; they should select some other field for Specialization. However, we could put forth an endless chain of arguments both for and against this suggestion. Until we have many more related facts at our diSposal, we can not justifia- bly make any suggestions. he can only draw the con- clusion that some speech majors are rated lower than those not majoring in Speech in regard to the quality of the content of their speech activity; others are rated distinctly higher; but the major- ity of speech majors are ranked as being as effective 54 as non-speech majors in regard to the quality of the content of their Speech activity in Speech classes. QUALITY OF CONTENT -- IN CLASSES OTHLH THAN SPEECH Figure 6 presents these data. Here we find the rankings quite evenly distributed among the three groups of deciles we have been considering. Thirty-three percent of the rankings assigned to Speech majors concerning the quality of the content of their recitations and discussions fell in the first, second, and third deciles; thirty-four per- cent fell in the fourth, fifth, Sixth, and seventh deciles; and thirty-three percent fell in the eighth, ninth, and tenth deciles. It is easy to see again that the general trend of these rankings would be only slightly above average. Table III shows that the general trend of rankings is the sixty-first per- centile. However, perhaps it is significant to note that the rankings on quality of content are very evenly distributed and divided into three groups-- above average, average, and below average. When speech majors are compared to non-speech majors in classes other than speech, we find approximately a third of the rankings Showing that Speech majors are superior in the content of their Speech activity, 55 another third showing they are average, and an- other tiird showing that they are distinctly be- low average. QUALITY OF DELIVERY -- IN SPEECH CLASSES Figure 7 presents the data which deal with the rankings on the quality of delivery of speech act- ivity in speech classes. The data revealed that only two and a half percent of these rankings were in the first, second, and third dec11es. he would hardly expect to find very many rankings on this aspect of speech in these low deciles, for success in the field is greatly dependent upon mastering the Skills of delivery. However, in a normal dis- tribution, we could expect more than two and a half percent to be in these deciles. Sixty-two percent of the rankings were in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh deciles, and thirty-five per- cent were in the eighth, ninth, and tenth deciles. Because the percentage of rankings assigned the first, second, and third deciles was so low, we had to expect that the percentages in the other groups of deciles we are considering would be higher. We would expect the average percentile rankings to be above average also. Table III Shows that in this aspect of speech, Speech majors 56 received rankings higher than in any other aSpect. The average percentile ranking was the sixty- sixth. However, we are not Justified in drawing the conclusion that speech majors on the average are more effective in the matter of delivery than are non-speech majors in their Speech classes, for a sixty-sixth percentile ranking does not signi- ficantly deviate from the mid-point. QUALITY OF DELIVERY -- IN CLASSES OTHER THAN SPLECH Figure 8 presents the data about the rankings on the quality of delivery in classes other than speech. The same general trends about the quality of delivery are noticeable in classes other than speech as in speech classes. Seven percent of the rankings were assigned to the first, second, and third deciles in classes other than speech. Per- haps it is significant to note that the percent in these deciles is greater than the percentage assig- ned to the same deciles in speech classes; The general trend is quite conclusively shown by the fact that seventy-one percent of the rankings were assigned to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh deciles indicating that in regard to the matter of delivery speech majors in classes other than speech generally received rankings which were average. 57 However, twenty-two percent of the rankings were assigned to the top three deciles, so the average percentile ranking would be slightly above aver- age. Table III indicates that the average percent- ile ranking assigned to speech majors in classes other than speech was the sixtieth percentile. Now that we have examined more closely the data which we have presented in Part II, it is possible to state our general conclusions thus: In speech classes the Speech majors used in ”this study generally entered into recitation and discussion as often as non-speech majors in their speech classes. On the average speech majors Spoke as long as non-speech majors. On the whole, they 'were ranked slightly above average in regard to the quality of the content of their speech activity. Generally they were ranked slightly above average in the matter of delivery. The average rankings on each of these aSpects fell in the sixth decile which, however, statistically is neither high enough nor low enough to be significant. In classes other than speech the Speech majors used in this study generally entered into recitation and discussion as often as the non-speech majors. They generally spoke as long as the non- 58 speech majors in these classes. On the average they were ranked slightly higher in regard to the quality of the content of their speech activity. Generally they were ranked slightly above average in regard to the matter of delivery. The average rankings in regard to frequency and length fell in the fifth decile. The average rankings in regard to quality of content and delivery fell in the sixth decile. Again it is necessary to point out that these decile rankings do not deviate far enough from the mid-point to be significant. From the evidence which we have collected then, we are able to say only that the Speech majors used in this study did not on the whole demonstrate themselves to be significantly inferior or sig- nificantly superior to their non-speech major class- mates when compared on the basis of these four aspects of speech activity in the classroom. Perhaps in the last analysis we cannot ex- pect the findings to be any different, for success- ful recitation and discussion in the classroom are fundamentally related to many other factors besides the ability to speak. Such other factors as in- terest, I. Q., health, motivation, studying, etc. can not be over-looked as being very influential. These forces are continually exerting their influ- ence on the speech majors as well as on the non- 59 speech majors. It is entirely possible that these are factors which are far more influential deter- minants of classroom discussion and recitation than speech training. It is rather obvious that the speech activity of a person who is not interested in a particular subject and who never reads the assignments, would be ranked lower than that of a person who is keenlyinterested and well-read re- gardless of the fact that he has had speech training or not. Perhaps we could make the inference that Speech activity in the classroom is conditioned by so many factors other than speech training that we can't expect speech majors by virtue of their train- ing alone to be ranked significantly higher than non- speech majors. The evidence which we have collected shows that this group of Speech majors did not Sig- nificantly enter into class discussion and recitat- ion more often, to greater length, or with more superior quality of content and delivery than did “1 their non-speech major classmates. In this study,we at no time tried to find out the reason why this waSL/ so. Finding out the reason why is a problem for further research. It also remains for further re- search to determine whether this particular group of speech majors is typical of many groups of Speech majors or whether it is peculiarly different. PART IV SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES PART IV -- SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES It is always easy to see that there is room for improvement in a study after it has once been carried out. If we were to make a study of this nature again, a number of difficulties could be avoided; and a number of improvements could be made. The following suggestions may be helpful to others planning similar studies. In the first place, before undertaking such a study, one should make an approximate estimate of the amount of evidence he will be able to collect. The person making the study Should find out first of all how many speech majors are enrolled that quarter. Realizing that there will be some dupli- cation in the classes these students are taking, the person who is deciding whether or not to carry out the study might anticipate (in view of our exper- ience with this study) that there would be almost twice as many separate classes involved as there are Speech majors. Inasmuch as many students do not carry a full load Summer Quarter, this estimate may be low. So, it would probably be wisest to compile the list to be certain how many classes would be involved. The task of compiling an accurate and com- plete list of courses which the students are taking 61 presents its own difficulties. It is probably not wise to try to get their schedules during the first week of the term because many students Shift sec- tions or drOp and add courses during this time. At the beginning of the second week the speech in- structors can be asked to get the schedules from the speech majors in their classes. This method saves time, because the rest of the schedules will have to be secured from the students individually. When the complete list of classes in which speech majors are enrolled is compiled, one should realize from the beginning that this list does not constitute the final number of classes which will be suitable for this study. A certain number of classes, such as physical education, voice les- sons, practice teaching, etc., because of their nature will automatically be eliminated from the list. One should also realize that it is not wise to make the assumption that the remainder of the classes will be suitable for the purposes of this study. At least, it is not wise to make that assum- ption at this particular time, for during this pre- sent stage of rapid expansion a certain percentage of the classes at this institution is too large to lend themselves to much student speech activity in the classroom. We found in making this study that 62 in the last analysis nearly fifty percent of the classes in which speech majors were enrolled had to be eliminated from our list for one reason or another. So, if we were to undertake this study again, we could quickly make an approximate estimate about the number of classes wrich possibly would be suit-' able for securing information about student's speech activity. If the estimated number of classes was con- sidered to be too few to reveal a significant amount of evidence, then plans Should be made accordingly either to drOp the study or to carry it out over a period of more than one quarter. Besides making the aforementioned estimates and plans, there are certain other changes which should be made. If we were going to use the same form again, the one major revision that should be made in it con- cerns the directions for ranking the students. It would be advisable to have the rankings given in the reverse order, i.e., the highest rank Should be in- dicated by the highest number; the lowest rank should be indicated by the lowest number. Following this practice would make for greater ease and less confusion in handling the statistical work. much time could be saved if this change were made. Perhaps the greatest difficulty one encounters 63 in carrying out this study in this manner is the difficulty of contacting personally all the instruc- tors of the listed classes in such a limited Space of time. One is virtually caught in a dilemna. If the instructors are approached early in the term, they justifiably say they are not able to make such detailed judgments about their students. If one waits until late in the term, there are simply not enough hours in the day for one individual to make as many appointments as are necessary to secure a sufficient amount of data. As we look back over the situation, we can see that there are probably a number of different ways to meet this inevitable difficulty. In the follow- ing paragraphs we will suggest several procedures which could be followed. However, it is very diffi- cult to predict the success of any one procedure until it has once been tried because there are so many variable factors. We would suggest that no matter what method of procedure is decided upon, it be tried out on a small scale first before it is accepted finally as the most effective. Probably the most desirable Way to solve the difficulty encountered in our procedure would be to secure other pe0ple to help contact the instructors. It would be very important to remember that these 64 peOple who help should understand thoroughly the pur- pose of the study and the type of information they are seeking. Speech students in the department would not be desirable assistants, inasmuch as the infor- mation you are seeking is about them. Other peOple who have the time and willingness to c00perate must be secured. Another way to solve the difficulty, if it is not possible to secure other interested individuals to help, would be to set up a questionnaire. We feel definitely that this questionnaire would necess- arily have to request information which is more gen- eral, less specific, and less exacting than that se- cured in this study. Otherwise the percent of res- ponses to the questionnaire would be very low. The following sample questionnaire was devised which might be an effective method of securing less speci- fic information about student's speech activity in the classroom. Inasmuch as the percent of responses to impersonal questionnaires is always very low, we would not recommend this method very highly. How- ever, because the questionnaire is set up to secure less information which is less specific in nature than that sought in the personal interview, there is the possibility that this procedure might be effec- tive. We submit the questionnaire for consideration. 65 In order that one will understand why and how this sample questionnaire varies from the procedure used in this study, we are discussing each part of it in detail following it. 66 Dear Instructor, I am a graduate student in the department of Speech, Dramatics, and Radio doing a thesis on a subject which is considered pertinent to the work of this department. I have carefully selected a group of students in whom I am interested, obtained their schedules and find that several of these students are enrolled in your , Sec. , which meets . Before going on to the next phase of this study, it is necessary to se- cure your COOperation. Would you please assist me by filling out the following questionnaire? The information given will be treated in a confidential manner. If for any reason you are unable to give me this information, would you please indicate the reason and return to me in care of the Speech Dept., 149 Aud.? I am interested in securing your Opinion about the Speech activity of these students in comparison to the other members of this particular class. Speech activity should be understood to mean: discussion, recitation, asking questions, criticisms, and any other speech performance in the classroom. The spe- cific aspects of the student's speech activity in which I am interested are listed below. 1. The frequency of the student's recitation and 67 discussion. By frequency I mean the number of times the stu- dent recites and enters into class discussion. Does he voluntarily recite and enter into dis- cussion often, or does he recite and discuss only rarely? The length of student's recitation and discussion. By length I mean the duration or amount of this recitation or discussion. Does the student re- cite and discuss briefly, or does he go into lengthy discussions and explanations? The qualitygof the content of the recitation and discussion. Effective Content: a. Student enters into class discussion with an open, inquiring mind. b. Student asks questions and gives answers which are relevant. c. Student's recitations and discussions are governed by a controlling idea which is develOped adequately by the use of facts, reliable judgments, specific ex- amples and logical reasoning. d. Student's answers, questions, and dis- cussionsare reasonably free of hesita- tions and "mental fumblings." Ineffective Content: a. Student puts forth assertions and opin- ions unfounded on fact and good Judgment. b. Student's recitations and discussions are characterized by irrelevant questions and answers. c. Student's recitations and discussions are characterized by "beating around the bush", talking "around the point but not on it"; the main idea is not easily de- tected. d.. Student's recitations and discussions show evidences of "mental fumblings" and "jumbled thinking". The quality of the delivery of the recitation and discussion. Effective Delivery: a. Student speaks in a manner so that his voice can be easily and distinctly heard by all members of the class. b. Student demonstrates a certain amount of physical poise-~i.e., looks at the class, 68 uses an acdeptable sitting posture, utilizes meaningful gestures and facial expressions. 0. Student shows a desire to share his ideas with the class. Ineffective Delivery: a. Student's recitation and discussions are characterized by a voice wnich can- not be heard and understood, i.e., he mutters and mumbles indistinctly. b. Student demonstrates little physical poise, i.e., he looks out the window when talking, he shuffles his feet, slumps and wiggles in his seat, and otherwise evidences a lack of poise. 0. Student "parrots" off his answers and discussions with little or no attempt to share his ideas and communicate his thoughts with the members of the class. In order that all judgments will be recorded in a similar manner, I am asking that you think of your class in terms of the upper, middle, and lower thirds in regard to each aspect. The students of this class about whom I am interested in securing your judgment are listed in the form below. Write in the particu- lar columns the word--upper, middle, or lower--which best ranks those aspects of the student's speech acti- vity in comparison to the other members of this par- ticular class. 69 ‘Student's Name Fre uenc Len th l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. In order to aid us in understanding the range of the terms-~upper, middle, and lower thirds--would you please supply us with the following information? 1. How many students are enrolled in this class? 2. How much class time would you estimate is generally devoted to student Speech activity? I want to thank you in adVance for your kind c00peration. Just return this questionnaire via campus mail to the Speech Department, 149 Auditorium. Sincerely, signed 70 The first paragraph was included because it introduces the person making the study and his sub- ject to the instructor briefly. It gives approxi- mately the same information that would be given when the instructor is met personally. It also identifies the class in question. Though the primary purpose of this study is not to find out why the instructor is not able to give the desired information, getting a reason is much more revealing than to merely state that a certain percent of the questionnaires Was not returned. Hence, this request is included. The second paragraph defines more Specifically what one is trying to find out. It gives a clearer picture to the instructor about the kind of informa- tion being sought. The definitions as used in the original form are retained because we feel that they adequately define the aspects of Speech in which we are interested. The directions were changed considerably, be cause we felt that if an impersonal questionnaire is to be sent out, we could not expect to secure infor- mation as specific as we were seeking before. Like- wise, we would not ask the instructors to rate the entire class. If the instructors were asked to rate only those students in whom we are interested, they 71 would probably be more apt to return the ques- tionnaire with the desired information. Otherwise, they might be the victims of a universal human ten- dency to put off a task which seemsquite large until a later time--until the task is completely forgotten. ‘He asked the last two questions about the size of the class and the amount of time devoted to speech activity to secure additional information which would be pertinent when compilations and comparisons of ranks were made. We would suggest that this questionnaire be salt to the offices of the various instructors after a telephone contact has been made. Shortly after mid-terms, when there is a comparative lull in the school year, would be a desirable time to do this. So far, then, we have suggested that one can either follow the procedure used in this study to secure smaller amounts of information which is more specific and probably more exact, or one can follow the other procedure suggested to secure information which is more general with the possibility of secur- ing much more of it because the latter procedure is less time-consuming. 72 There is still another suggestion which might ‘increase the effectiveness of the procedure and the reliability of the judgments. Instead of asking the instructors to rate their students after mid-terms, it might be better to approach them at the very be- ginning of the term. Tell them then which students you want them to rate, and ask them to pay particular attention to those students' speech activity as it was defined in this study. If the procedure were followed, the instructors in classes other than speech could be paying more attention to speech activity than they ordinarily do. Hence, their Judgments might be more reliable. Because this activity could be begun very early in the term, the person making the study would have a longer period of time to collect his data. Therefore, many more rankings could be secured. There is one major change which should be made regardless of the procedure that is followed. That change involves setting up a control group which I would be composed of non-Speech majors whose age, sex, and intelligence or all-college average is com- .parable to that of the speech majors who would be used in the study. Rankings on the Speech activity of these students should be secured in the same manner that rankings about the Speech activity of 75 speech majors is secured. Then we would be able to compare the average rankings which were assigned to the group of speech majors with the average rank- ings which were assigned to the specific group of non-Speech majors. If this study had been set up in this manner, we would know whether the average decile ranking of six assigned to Speech majors was high or low when compared to the average decile ranking assigned to a comparable group of non-Speech majors. AS our data now stand, we only know that the average decile ranking assigned to this group of speech majors is six. we know that the average decile ranking assigned in speech classes was practically the same as the average decile ranking assigned in classes other than speech. On the basis of the limited evidence collected in this study we can not justifiably offer even a ten- tative answer to the question raised in our introduc- tion--Are the objectives of speech training being rea- lized? Recitation and discussion in the claSsroom is just one of the many "ordinary life situations" that could reveal evidence pertaining to the above question. It is hOped that this chapter will offer helpful suggestions to others planning Similar studies. y!” 1“ ' ' >311! .- 1‘ ‘4 | I Iv an 8 I" , f - J ' Oct 24. 47 Feb 20 1948 «let 18 1943 Gay 16950 . Jul 1! '50 Oct 31 . I! IV 4%: as (31 No 5 ‘fl We 28 '5! in ‘L' . II S~ ' ‘ ' .‘| u .. R .<‘ g “3' .1 ' I . I. I I t " I" ' l ‘ ‘ I l . .J . I , " A 1' ‘ 'I ' . , ..' “ . a v \ . ' ‘ o , A. . ' . '. .- - -. . i I. ‘C ' . . ., . l _ _ _ . I I' I - .5 1; .u ‘ . I ~ ., - I . . . r ‘ 4' ‘ » . 4 '- ' l- ‘ - , - u’ . ‘7' , \ ‘ . _ ‘ , . l . l v ' ‘c _ g .:. .:.v v n ' ’- ._. ~ .. I 1 ' . 7. f I .V ,, ‘ ' ' ' . ' 1 2'. - .I f— . n V I . 1 I. | p ‘1 i - " . . ' , a l . . u h ‘ I r ‘* . ' o . .' ‘ . ' ‘I I ‘ v I v ‘1 — v ' l ' f. . ‘ V A l i: . _ ~ I 1‘ K. v . . l ‘l - - I , t I ‘ - . - If ' . ! . J O .v 'c ..‘lgxr».‘s cm- : ~ ' K ‘ 9"“; ‘ .- w”. . tolv v .A k ‘ ". ‘ ‘ '..' >‘fir' , $t’,‘ ..u‘ . ‘ . . A- T v -' ‘.. v. .‘ V' . rk‘-_;... " ‘ ,_"" - ' n n .v #2 .‘vl ,‘u < . u ' ’. . “’Tf‘z‘s . K’Qfl“ , ;‘ \‘t } 3}". ."r‘ ‘ a, ‘1 5) ‘. ‘ ‘ O." a 3’4"" - ‘_ . IA '1 , . - - ' . .—-.:~, ‘ -. .- ‘ l t._ f h". .. ‘-. s.‘ ‘2‘...“ ‘ . .‘ ._, .. , - v.‘-.'-\ . J _. _ M}: M. -.' “am - - a - ,' ‘ ' ' .- ' ~ ‘ ' .- -. ‘4 k. ,- . . ’ . -n—‘fi .' . ‘ g l . n. .. = A .1 b ‘4‘ .1 ”A ' L‘? . ‘c . L‘ .1 _ . A ‘ l n - | . I" l . _ ’ . A 0 -‘ : . R H " II". ‘ A -" o - , ‘v "'.- ‘ .‘. .H.. AI ~ . .‘ * '~‘,- .' ‘ . .,a-£ m _ . f . J v. ' ..- ‘4‘4" a) '.‘ls1 I' ' I 3': A. 7“ an} "- . i” 'e. i \ \ m" ‘ \j bf '| ’Iv‘ '. - . I, ‘ ‘3 "3”). If . ‘r ‘ I , "- Y; v ,' .‘fi' ‘H ‘lkfi. |"" “'o‘ giff‘ngg 3v ‘ Y ‘ ' 1 p ‘43.. J‘": 5135’wa 21.2131 . l‘ I. o , ' ' ‘ ‘ .". U": ‘ I ' a I? .3 WW? “'- ' .:. K 51:3“ .- I’HH‘ 1 5' ‘11., t’ y I, :‘r r EMMY-'5. . "‘ ‘ .lfi . ‘ h. '1 \u 'I .‘l m. .~ L I f" ‘7‘,“ j w? t I I’ ' , 17. c J 1' :1. _. I ‘ ‘. I~ . ‘ . . l b I ‘ fl ' . t ' s ' ‘ " ’ ' 'b ‘%,.’€‘- ”01‘, I" u 1 v ' "VV‘ lfit{ I V- r ‘ '§ f'i .' ' y> V ' | w‘ 33,63; ~-*,,;::,:, -- 'lufl",¥l ‘ ,,I .." .t 53‘ Mi 3 .~.- I ,,,§., ' . u .‘ . . ‘ '- h ‘ “I , ‘f ‘ . ...I_' \ . ' . ' V ‘- _ .' , . , .-‘ ,. ' . p-‘ n . ., . . . 1“ v. t , Q.” i ‘.‘%' ’33.". 1.." .p. " _;.§'2. V? . :,-.,v . . ‘3: 7A 4 t" v '1 k“: \ 1 it" I W ‘ fig, ,. I 5 ' ". "fi'. ané: -r \J , 1‘... . ‘ - ' {invt -. " I' ' .' "L‘ K " I I ll. l i I II- I. 'I. l III l l l '- l I, III II I'll I III I! l I I l I II I I III I III. I II III] II I l l l 142 8950 3 1293 O3