AN MékLYSIS 0F SELECTED 35-5035 IN FAMSL‘! LEFE EfiUCATION, 1958 Mb #0: HM Dag?!“ of Ed. 3. MiCWGAN $TA‘JE UMVEREW Gian A. Christensen 1958 | L.- \ -.1‘!’n"e a,“ 33" ‘ IIHIJHHIIHIHJHIIUHHIUNHHIHIll'llHllUllHlUlHfl 923 10687 4989 This is to certify that the thesis entitled An Analysis of Selected Issues in Family Life Education, 1958 presented by Glen A. Chri stensen has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for EdoD degree in A. E. S. (Counseling & Guidance) 1 La” I , --/« “’1’ .1 - ’ ’ .‘l , I]: 'I / :\ l;/ / 1 fl/ :li/ ’// //L " / r " ’ r—r’x wL j: i r .‘ /xiajor professor / / Date September 9, 1958 0-169 "‘1 LIBR A R Y ‘ _ Michigan State :r ‘ . University g. '1 f“ MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from LIBRARIES 535—. your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. I 4 '1 AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED ISSUES IN FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION, 1958 by Glen A. Christensen AN ABSTUACT Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOP OF EDUCATION Department of Administrative and Educational Services Guidance and Counseling 1958 K K A, .' I \l '1 ’1/"' if, i it“ / / / , ( c, ,. [a Approved: ' ,/ [1213“;7= / (.KJA 7 ii. , - - / f / / 2 GIJEN Aw CHRISTENSEN ABSTRACT The literature in the newly developing field of family ilife education reveals a confused and uncertain condition in Iwalation to such crucial issues as the goals and objectives of family educators, what they should be trying to accomplish, arui how they should go about accomplishing it, in short, their raison g3 etre. The present study was an attempt to collect and process data that would help in clarifying these issues. The data of the study were collected through the use of a structured questionnaire, which was sent to 855 members of the National Council on Family Relations. The total number and percentage of returns were 686 and 80.2 per cent, respectively. The results of the study tend to confirm the confusion that is depicted in the literature. This situation is clearly reflected in such findings as those relating to the heterogeneous objectives of family educators, to the differ- muflal emphases on subjeCt-matter, to the fact that the respondents tend to feel more closely identified with the Dmflessional organization of their own parent disciplines tflmn they do with the National Council on Family Relations, muito the fact that they tend to favor their own background andineining when responding to the various items composing .lfiw questionnaire, including especially those relating to tie academic areas that offer the best basic preparation 3 GIJEN A, CHRISTENSEN ABSTRACT fine future family educators, and to the most logical depart— nmnit for the teaching of marriage and family life classes. TWNJS, while it is clear that the family life movement has begun to assume some of the characteristics usually asso— ciated with an established discipline, it is equally clear that the field is as yet more divided than it is unified, that the loyalties of the family educators themselves are expressed more strongly in the direction of their own parent disciplines than they are in the direction of the new and developing field of family life education. A finding that is related to and illuminates the one just discussed is that family educators whose degrees are in home economics and family life tend to be more democratic and functional than do educators whose degrees are in socio- logy. Thus, the latter tend (l) to hold to objectives that are specific and academic in nature, (2) to make the greatest Lme of the lecture method of teaching, (3) to decide course content on the basis of a syllabus or the outline of a text— book, (A) to favor the content approach to teaching, and (5)tx>select the more theoretically oriented tasks, whereas tfiw former tend (l) to hold to objectives that are general muifunctional in nature, (2) to make less use of the lecture Hwthod of teaching and more use of other methods, (3) to (fixflde course content on the basis of joint instructor-class nemmnidecisions, (A) to favor a combination of the u GLEN A. CHRISTENSEN ABSTRACT functional and content approaches to teaching, and (5) to select the less theoretically oriented tasks. Still another related finding is that educators on the high school level tend to be more democratic and func- tional than do educators on the college level. Also, although this is somewhat less clear-cut, female educators tend to be more democratic and functional than do male educators. The results of the study further indicate that the field of family life education seems to be moving in the direction of a counseling orientation. This movement is reflected not only in the large number of respondents who are doing personal counseling, but also in the fact that the majority of them feel that training in counseling should be included in the academic preparation of future family educators, and in the fact that counseling is considered to be one of the five academic areas offering the best basic preparation for persons interested in becoming family educators. AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED ISSUES IN FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION, 1958 by Glen A. Christensen A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administrative and Educational Services Guidance and Counseling 1958 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author's sincere appreciation is extended to the members of his guidance committee for their many contri- butions to the development and completion of the present study: these members include Dr. Buford Steffere, Chairman; Dr. Walter F. Johnson; Dr. Harold I. Dillon; and Professor Ben Ard. Appreciation is extended also to Dr. Mildred I. Morgan, President of the National Council on Family Relations, and to Mrs. Ruth Jewson, Executive Secretary of the same Council, for their cooperation and support. Finally, appreciation is extended to Drs. Richard Kerckhoff, Reuben Hill, and Evelyn Duvall for their help in the con- struction of the instrument used in collecting the data for the present study. Glen A. Christensen candidate for the degree of Doctor of Education Final Examination: September 9, 1958, 10:00 A.M:, College of Education Building. Dissertation: An Analysis of Selected Issues In Family Life Education, 1958 Outline of Studies: Major subject: Guidance and Counseling Minor subjects: Marriage and Family Education Adult Education Biographical Items: Born, May 2A, 1928, Preston, Idaho Undergraduate Studies, Utah State University, l950-5A. Graduate Studies, Utah State University, 195A—55. Michigan State University, 1955-56 . Merrill-Palmer School, Detroit, Mich.,l956-57 Michigan State University, 1957-58 Experience: Special Lecturer, Annual School of Alcohol Studies, University of Utah, Summer, 1955; Instructor,Michigan State University, 1957-58. Personal Affiliations: Member of National Council on Family Relations, Merrill-Palmer Association, Phi Kappa Phi, and Phi Delta Kappa. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . 1 Historical Development of the Family. . 1 Historical Development of the Family Life Movement in the United States . 13 Historical Development of Family Life Education in the Schools and Colleges 19 Statement of the Problem. . . . . . 25 Importance of the Study . . . . . . 28 Limitations of the Study. . . . . . 29 Clarification and Use of Terms. . . . 30 Summary . . . 32 Overview of the Remaining Chapters . . 33 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 34 Major Studies of Direct Pertinence . . 34 Articles and Minor Studies . . . . . A7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 72 III. METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES . . . . . . 73 Selection and Nature of Sample. . . . 73 Method of Data Collection . . . . 81 Method of Data Analysis and Use of Statistical Techniques . . . . . 8A IV. GENERAL FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . 87 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 13A V. SPECIFIC FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . 136 Findings in Relation to Item One of the Questionnaire-~Summary . 137 Findings in Relation to Item Two of the Questionnaire--Summary . l6O Findings in Relation to Item Three of the Questionnaire—-Summary . 168 Findings in Relation to Item Four of the Questionnaire—~Summary . . . . . 176 iv CHAPTER PAGE Findings in Relation to Item Five of the Questionnaire--Summary . . . . . . 190 Findings in Relation to Item Six of the Questionnaire-—Summary . . . . . 19A Findings in Relation to Item Seven of the Questionnaire--Summary . . . . . . 211 Findings in Relation to Item Eight A of the Questionnaire--Summary . . . . . . 217 Findings in Relation to Item Eight B of the Questionnaire-~Summary . . . . . . 218 Findings in Relation to Item Nine of the Questionnaire—-Summary . . . . 220 Findings in Relation to Item 10 of the Questionnaire--Summary . . . . 22A Findings in Relation to Item 11 of the Questionnaire—-Summary . . . . 228 Findings in Relation to Item 12 of the Questionnaire--Summary . . . . . 235 Findings in Relation to Item 13A of the Questionnaire-~Summary . . . . . 239 Findings in Relation to Item 13B of the Questionnaire—-Summary . . . . 2A2 Findings in Relation to Item 15 of the Questionnaire--Summary . 2A3 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 250 The Problem . . 250 Methodology and Sample 251 Summary of General Findings. 253 Summary of Specific Findings 259 Conclusions 271 Recommendations for Further Study. 274 BIBLIOGRAPHY} 277 APPENDICES 282 Appendix I--Questionnaire . . 283 Appendix II-—Initial Letter on Pilot Study. 28A Appendix III--Dr. Morgan' 8 Letter. . 285 Appendix IV—«Initial Letter on Final Study. 286 Appendix V--Followup Letter. . . 287 Appendix VI-—Tab1es Relative to Personal ' Data of Educators. . . 288 10. LIST OF TABLES The distribution of sample by sex and by respondents——non respondents. . . The distribution of sample by level of teaching and by respondents--non respondents . The distribution of sample by geographical location and by respondents—-non respondents The goals and objectives of family life edu— cators, ranked in order of importance from 1 to 5 . . . . The teaching methods and techniques of family life educators, ranked in order of frequency of use from 1 to 5 Factors or experiences which respondents con— sider to have been important in their decision to become family life educators. The subject-matter areas of the field of marriage and family education, ranked by the respondents from 1 to 11 in terms of the relative amount of time normally spent on each of them The subject-matter areas of the field of marriage and family education considered by the respondents to be so important that they must always include some discussion of them in the classes that they teach Procedures used by respondents in deciding what content should be included in the classes that they teach Views of respondents regarding some of the desirable qualities and characteristics of family life educators, expressed in terms of agreement, doubt, and disagreement. 8O 8O 81 89 95 99 10A 107 109 112 vi rI‘ABLE PAGE 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Academic areas offering best basic preparation for future family life educators, ranked by respondents in terms of their importance from 1 to 5. . . The response of the educators in terms of whether or not they actually do personal counseling with their students Opinion of respondents in terms of whether or not training in counseling should be included in their academic preparation. Opinion of respondents in terms of the extent or degree of encouragement that should be exer— cised in getting students to enroll in intro- ductory courses in marriage preparation and family life. . The opinion of the respondents in terms of the most logical location (department) for the teaching of marriage and family life classes. The opinion of respondents in terms of the most important tasks that need to be accomplished to improve the position of the family life profession and the quality of its product. Teaching approaches used by respondents in their marriage and family life classes. Opinion of respondents in terms of how often boys and girls should meet together in family life classes . . . The response of the educators in terms of whether or not they teach classes in which boys and girls meet together . The opinion of respondents in terms of how much freedom they feel they have in deciding what content to include in their classes, and in deciding in what manner to teach their classes . . . . . Sources of hindrance to the freedom of respon- dents in deciding what content to include in their classes, and in deciding in what manner to teach their classes. . . 115 118 119 121 122 124 128 129 131 132 133 'PABLE 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 36. The opinion of respondents in terms of the con- ceptual or theoretical approaches of most relevance to family researchers. The relationship between academic background and the ranking of objective A The relationship between teaching level and the ranking of objective A. . . . . The relationship between organization most closely identified with and the ranking of objective A . . . . . . . . The relationship between academic background and the ranking of objective C The relationship between teaching level and the ranking of objective C . . The relationship between organization most closely identified with and the ranking of objective C . . . . . . . . The relationship between teaching level and the ranking of objective D The relationship between teaching level and the ranking of objective E . The relationship between organization most closely identified with and the ranking of objective F . . . . . . . The relationship between academic background and the ranking of objective H The relationship between number of years in the family life field and the ranking of objective H . . . The relationship between organization most closely identified with and the ranking of objective H . . . . . . . The relationship between academic background and the ranking of objective I . . . The relationship between organization most closely identified with and the ranking of objective I . . . vii PAGE 134 138 138 139 142 142 143 um 145 146 148 148 119 150 151 viii TABLE PAGE 37. The relationship between academic background and the ranking of objective J . . . . . 151 38. The relationship between organization most closely identified with and the ranking of objective J . . . . . . . . . . 152 39. The relationship between academic background and the ranking of objective K . . . . . 154 40. The relationship between teaching level and the ranking of objective K . . . . . . 154 41. The relationship between organization most closely identified with and the ranking of objective K . . . . . . . . . . 155 42. The relationship between academic background and the ranking of objective L . . . . . 156 43. The relationship between church attendance and the ranking of objective L . . . . . 157 44. The relationship between academic background and the ranking of objective N . . . . . 158 45. The relationship between teaching level and the ranking of objective N . . . . . . 158 46. The relationship between organization most closely identified with and the ranking of objective N . . . . . . . . . 159 47. The relationship between sex and the ranking of the lecture as one of the five most frequently used teaching methods . . . . 162 48. The relationship between academic background and the ranking of the lecture as one of the five most frequently used teaching methods. . . . . . . . . . . 162 49. The relationship between teaching level and the ranking of the lecture as one of the five most frequently used teaching methods. . . 163 50- The relationship between sex and the ranking of audio-visual materials as one of the five most frequently used teaching methods. , , 164 ix TABLE PAGE 51. The relationship between teaching level and the ranking of audio-visual materials as one of the five most frequently used teaching methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 52. The relationship between teaching level and the ranking of the textbook and other readings as one of the five most frequently used teaching methods. . . . . . . . . . 166 53. The relationship between sex and the ranking of individual counseling as one of the five most frequently used teaching methods. . . 166 54. The relationship between academic background and the ranking of individual counseling as one of the five most frequently used teaching methods. . . . . . . . . . 167 55. The relationship between age of respondents and the importance of factor A in their decision to become family educators . . . . . . 169 56. The relationship between first job in the field and the importance of factor A in influencing the respondents in their decision to become family educators. . . . . . . . . . 169 57. The relationship between first job in the field and the importance of factor B in influencing the respondents in their decision to become family educators. . . . . . . . . . 170 58. The relationship between first job in the field and the importance of factor E in influencing the respondents in their decision to become family educators. . . . . . . . . . 172 59. The relationship between age of respondents and the importance of factor G in their decision to become family educators . . . . . . 172 60. The relationship between first job in the field and the importance of factor G in influencing respondents in their decision to become family educators. . . . . . . . . . 173 61. The relationship between age of respondents and the importance Of factor I in influencing the respondents in their decision to become family educators. . . . . . . . . . 174 TABLE 65. O\ O\ 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. x PAGE The relationship between first job in the field and the importance of factor I in influencing the respondents in their decision to become family educators. . . . . . . . . . 175 The relationship between academic background and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of dating . . . . . . . . . 177 The relationship between teaching level and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of dating . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 The relationship between academic background and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of description of families. . . . 179 The relationship between teaching level and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of description of families . . . . . . 179 The relationship between titles of classes and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of description of families. ., . . 180 The relationship between academic background and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of family disorganization. . . 181 The relationship between academic background and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of physical development. . . . . 182 The relationship between teaching level and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of physical development . . . . . . . 183 The relationship between titles of classes and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of physical development. . . . . 183 The relationship between academic background and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of sex . . . . . . . . . 185 The relationship between academic background and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of social development . . . . . 185 xi TABLE PAGE 74. The relationship between teaching level and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of social development. . . . . . 186 75. The relationship between titles of classes and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of social development . . . . 186 76. The relationship between academic background and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of personal hygiene . . . . . 188 77. The relationship between teaching level and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of personal hygiene . . . . . . 188 78. The relationship between titles of classes and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of personal hygiene . . . . . . 189 79. The relationship between teaching level and the use of an outline or syllabus in deciding on course content. . . . . . . . . . 191 80. The relationship between academic background and the use of both instructor and class members in deciding on course content. . . . . . 192 81. The relationship between teaching level and the use of both instructor and class members in deciding on course content. . . . . . . 192 82. The relationship between academic background and the use of the outline of a textbook in deciding on course content. . . . . . . 193 83. The relationship between age and response to characteristic A . . . . . . . . . . 195 84. The relationship between sex and response to characteristic A . . . . . . . . . . 195 85. The relationship between church attendance and response to characteristic A . . . . . . 196 86~ The relationship between age and response to characteristic B . . . . . . . . . . 198 87- The relationship between sex and response to characteristic B . -. . . . . . . . . 198 xii TABLE PAGE 88. The relationship between church attendance and response to characteristic B. . . . . . 199 89. The relationship between sex and response to characteristic D. . . . . . . . . . 200 90. The relationship between age and response to characteristic F. . . . . . . . . . 201 91. The relationship between church attendance and response to characteristic F. . . . . . 201 92. 'The relationship between age and response to characteristic G. . . . . . . . . . 202 93. The relationship between sex and response to characteristic H. . . . . . . . . . 203 94. The relationship between church attendance and response to characteristic 1. . . . . . 205 95. The relationship between age and response to characteristic 1. . . . . . . . . . 205 96. The relationship between sex and response to characteristic 1. . . . . . . . . . 206 97. The relationship between age and response to characteristic J. . . . . . . . . . 206 98. The relationship between church attendance and response to characteristic J. . . . . . 207 99. The relationship between age and response to characteristic K. . . . . . . . . . 209 100. The relationship between sex and response to characteristic K. . . . . . . . . . 209 101. The relationship between age and response to characteristic L. . . . . . . . . . 210 102. The relationship between academic background and the ranking of home economics as one of the five most important areas of academic prep- aration for future family educators . . . 212 103~ The relationship between academic background and the ranking of psychology as one of the five most important areas of academic prep- aration for future family educators . . . 213 xiii TABLE PAGE 104. The relationship between academic background and the ranking of sociology as one of the five most important areas of academic prep- aration for future family educators. . . . 214 105. The relationship between academic background and the ranking of child development as one of the five most important areas of academic preparation for future family educators . . 215 106. The relationshu) between academic background and the ranking of counseling as one of the five most important areas of academic preparation for future family educators . . . . . . 216 107. The relationship between academic background and whether individual counseling is done . . . 218 108. The relationship between academic background and the desirability of including training in counseling in the academic preparation of family life educators . . . . . . . . 219 109. The relationship between sex of educators and the amount of encouragement that should be exercised in getting students to enroll in introductory courses in marriage and family life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 110. The relationship between teaching level of educators and the amount of encouragement that should be exercised in getting students to enroll in introductory courses in marriage and family life . . . . . . . . . . 222 111. The distribution of educators by academic back— ground and by their feeling in regards to the amount of encouragement that should be exercised in getting students to enroll in introductory courses in marriage and family life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 112. The relationship between sex of the educators and their feeling in regard to the most logical department for the teaching of marriage and family life classes. . . . . 226 113- The relationship between teaching level of the educators and their feeling in regard to the most logical department for the teaching of marriage and family life classes. . . . . 22o TABLE 114. 115. 116. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 127. 128. xiv PAGE The distribution of educators by academic back- ground and by their opinion in regard to the most logical department for the teaching of marriage and family life classes. . . . . 227 The relationship between academic background and importance of task A . . . . . . . 229 The relationship between teaching level and importance of task A. . . . . . . . . 230 The relationship between teaching level and importance of task B. . . . . . . . . 231 The relationship between length of time in the field and importance of task C . . . . 232 The relationship between teaching level and importance of task H. . . . . . . . . 233 The relationship between academic background and importance of task I . . . . . . . 233 The relationship between teaching level and importance of task I. . . . . . . . 234 The relationship between sex and teaching approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 The relationship between academic background and teaching approach . . . . . . . . 236 The relationship between teaching level and teaching approach. . . . . . . . . . 237 The relationship between titles of classes and teaching approach . . . . . . . . 237 The relationship between sex of educators and how often they think the sexes should be mixed in marriage and family life classes. . 240 The relationship between teaching level of educators and how often they think the sexes should be mixed in marriage and family life classes . . . . . . . . . 240 The relationship between marital status of educators and how often they think the sexes should be mixed in marriage and family life classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 TABLE PAGE 129. The relationship between teaching level of educators and whether they teach classes in which the sexes meet together, separately, or both. . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 130. The relationship between academic background and the appropriateness of the interactional- role analysis conceptual system for accom- plishing research in family life . . . . 244 131. The relationship between academic background and the appropriateness of the structure— functional conceptual system for accom— plishing research in family life . . . . 245 132. The relationship between academic background and the appropriateness of the situational- psychological habitat conceptual system for accomplishing research in family life. . . 246 133. The relationship between academic background and the appropriateness of the learning theory-maturational conceptual system for accomplishing research in family life. . . 247 134. The relationship between academic background and the appropriateness of the family life cycle conceptual system for accomplishing research in family life . . . . . . . 248 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Historical Development of the Family As so amply demonstrated by such eminent anthropolo— gists as Ralph Linton (39) and George Murdock (47) the fundamental and universal social unit (social system in the Parsonian sense) articulating the individual and his society has always been and continues to be the human family. This analysis is true irrespective of the manifold differences, in both the structural and functional dimensions, between families of different historical and contemporary periods and cultures. 'Because of this fact, then, at least a cursory look at and some understanding of the historical development of the family is indicated. The permanence of human mating (the family), contends H. E. Barnes (6), is in no small way accounted for by man's simian heritage. Aspects of this heritage include the unique physiological traits of the absence of seasonal mating, the production of fewer offspring than most other animals, and, perhaps most important, the relatively long period of dependence of the young on its parents. Physio- lOSical facts and tendencies which antedate the origin of the ”when race as an aggregate, then, account for the human family. However, cultural and institutional experience and change are at the basis of the great diversity of forms of sex and marriage relationships. This variety, says Barnes, is a distinctly human or social contribution, quite unrelated to biology or physiology. Another of the variety of explanations of the persis- tence of the human family is the theological explanation; as used here particularly Judeo-Christian theology. This explanation holds that "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (28:62). This explanation of the permanent quality of human mating is rooted in supernatural intervention, and the biological and social qualities, if relevant at all, are only incidental. Irrespective of the particular explanation of the human family to which one commits himself, an indisputable fact is that the family has had a long, evolutionary history. As indicated by Burgess and Locke (15) there are logically four theoretical possibilities in terms of the way marital relationships can be and have been structured. The first of these, but not in.any logical priority, is known as monogamy, the pairing of one husband and one wife; the second is polygyny, the pairing of one husband with two or more wives; the third if polyandry, the pairing of two or more husbands with one wife; and the fourth is group marriage, the uniting of two or more husbands with two or .more wifes. The earliest theories of family organization were predominantly in favor of a monogamous basis of family life, as Barnes has pointed out (6). These theories held that one of the inherent characteristics of man is the desire to mate monogamously. This notion, of course, was fundamental in Christian theology; in fact, remains so today. However, the convergence, in time at least, of the science of anthropology and the enunciation of the Darwinian doctrine of evolution seriously challenged the earlier theories regarding the predominance of monogamy (6). In fact, the evolutionary school of anthropology came to postu— late the theory that the first stages of human society were generally characterized by sexual promiscuity; that, in fact, group marriage, characterized by a continuing realign- ment of men and women, was the predominent family type. This school held,then, that there was probably little, if any, permanent mating, particularly between two people only. Perhaps one of the most interesting proponents of the evolutionary theory of the origin of the human family was Lewis Henry Morgan, an anthropological evolutionist of the most serious type. In his book Ancient Society, which is generally considered to be his magnum opus, Morgan succinctly develops his evolutionary theme. He says: We have been accustomed to regard the monogamian family as the form which has always existed; but interpreted in exceptional areas by the Patriarchal. Instead of this, the idea of the family has been a growth through successive stages of development, the monogamian being the last in its series of forms it was preceded by more ancient forms which prevailed universally throughout the period of savagery, through the Older and the Middle period of barbarism; and that - neither the monogamian nor the Patriarchal can be traced back of the Later Period of barbarism. They were essentially modern. Moreover, they were impossi- ble in ancient society, until an anterior experience under earlier forms in every race of mankind had pre- pared the way for their introduction (45:393). Morgan continues by suggesting that there have been five different and successive family forms or Stages that can be distinguished, each having an institution of marriage peculiar to itself. The first of these he calls the Consan- quine Family. The essential characteristic of this family form is that it was composed of the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, in a group relationship. The second form, and emerging from the first, Morgan calls the Punaluan Family. This family was founded upon the intermarriage of a number of sisters, own and collateral, with each other's husbands, in a group. It was also founded upon the intermarriage of a number of brothers, again own and collateral, with each other‘s wives, in a group. In each case the group of men were conjointly married to the group of women. The third family form is called the Syndyasmian or Pairing Family. The essential characteristic of this form is that it had its basis in a marriage between single pairs, but without \ll the right of exclusive cohabitation. The marriage continued only so long as the parties willed it to continue. Its dissolution was simply by agreement. Morgan's fourth family form is called the Patriarchal Family. It was based on the marriage of one man to several wives, generally followed by the seclusion of the wives. The fifth and final of Morgan's family forms is, of course, the Monogamian Family. This form, like the Syndyasmian, is founded upon marriage between single pairs, but, unlike the syndyasmian, has inherent in it the right to exclusive cohabitation. Morgan‘s evolutionary theories in regard to family development, along with similar theories of other evolution— ary anthropologists, were soon subjected to devastating scrutiny by Edvard Westermarch, an anthropologist-socio- logist from Finland. In his History 9f Human Marriage (55), Westermarck discusses the material of his monumental studies of marriage relations among primitive peoples. The results of these studies convinced Westermarck that from the very earliest days of human living the most prevalent form or type of family organization was monogamy. That other forms existed among the primitives that he studied he readily conceded; but that they were prior in origin to monogamy he readily denied. In fact, he considered them to be ex- ceptional, if rather frequent at certain times and places. Westermarck's general conclusions, as Barnes has indicated (6), have received widespread acceptance. In fact, with but few qualifications his interpretation of the nature and development of the human family is considered to be reason- ably valid by most contemporary students of the family. This interpretation, as already implied, sees the human family as having always been predominantly monogamous in structure, and deviating from this general structure rather infrequently and then only under peculiar sets of socio- economic circumstances. As the writer has indicated above, two other types of family relationships have been, and to some extent continue to be, important historically. These, of course, are poly- andry and polygyny. The former has been relatively rare as a permanent structural form of human living. It was perhaps most common in Tibet, where it was usual for several brothers to be married to one woman. Barnes (6) suggests two possible explanations for the existence of polyandry. The most likely reason is that universal monogamy is practically precluded in areas of extremely low economic productivity and inade- quate community resources, thus making it necessary for several men to work cooperatively together in the support of one family. The second explanation, not entirely unre- lated to the first, is that in any given locality where there is an excess of males over a prolonged period of time the psycho-physiological tendency would be for several men to share the favors of one woman. The factors tending to account for the existence of polygyny are quite the opposite of those accounting for the existence of polyandry. This is particularly true in rela- tion to the economic base for its existence, for wealth and prosperity not poverty are usually associated with polygyny. In addition to wealth, sexual prowess, adverturesomeness, the desire for prestige and display, and novelty are factors in favor of the practice of polygyny. Further, both politi- cal and military considerations have been important, parti- cularly in those instances where the ruling class needed more children than was possible under a monogamous system. Despite the existence of influences favorable to the perpe- tuity of polygyny, however, apparently more and stronger influences have operated to undermine its practice on a large scale, and to encourage the more widely institutional- ized practice of monogamy. As Barnes points out (6), the. historical factors exerting the main psychological pressures in favor of monogamy as the predominant family structure are: (1) the sanction of Jewish and Christian religions; (2) the relative numerical equality of the two sexes; (3) the physical and affectional demands that the human young makes upon its parents; (4) the potential for greater pro— tection and solicitude for the'wife under monogamy; and (5) the fact that the extremes of poverty and prosperity which favor polyandry, polygyny, or group marriage have not been characteristic of human experience as a whole. The family was peculiarly central among the Greeks, especially the Attic Greeks (6). Unlike the modern family, the older Greek family did not revolve around the qualities of romance and sentiment. It was, in fact, based almost entirely upon what might be thought of as more practical considerations, such as the breeding and rearing of children. Moreover, the wife‘s place was rigidly confined to the home; and she was not permitted any sexual freedom outside of the home. The Greek husbands, on the other hand, experienced considerable, and at least semi-legitimized, sex freedom outside of the marital relationship. Thus, in Sparta, adultery was endowed with quasi-institutional sanction. The historical evolution of the Roman family is notable for its cyclical nature. Its earliest form was characterized by a rigid manifestation of patriarchal monog- amy. Inherent in this form, of course, was the almost absolute rule of the eldest male in the fanily, whether father or son, over all of the family. The extreme cohesive- ness of this family emerged primarily from the fact of religious, social, and military considerations. During the period of the Later Republic and Earlier Empire, IlOwever, as Barnes has pointed out (6) this family form was I"Eidically changed, almost completely eliminated. This con— dition obtained from the fact that the influences which faV’Ored the existence of patriarchal monogamy were nearly eljIninated by such factors as severe wars, the emergence of large estates, the working of the land by slaves, and the flocking to the cities of dispossessed peasants. With these conditions undermining the decaying religious and patriarchal family, marriage lost its sanctified quality and became instead a simple civil contract. Under these condi- tions divorce became common and sexual promiscuity quite the rule, particularly among the wealthy. The restoration of the old Roman family, with its emphasis once again upon sanctity, cohesiveness, and patri- archal monogamy, occurred during the latter part of the Roman period. The influences which operated to restore the original family relationship are all more or less rooted in the Christian triumph. The sex purists, including Paul and Augustine, were successful in making a sacrament out of marriage and in bringing the whole marriage—family com- plex under ecclesiastical control. As a result, divorce was dealt a severe blow, in fact was made illegal, patriarch authority was defined by church doctrine as the correct type Of family government, and chastity was extolled (6). In time, other important changes in the family resulted from the principles and practices of protestantism. Protes- tantism was not unlike Catholicism in its official attitude toward sex practices and ideals. The fact that much of PmDtestant social morality derived from the tenants of Old ikfiitament philosophy resulted in an emphasis upon patriarchal famlly authority. The social and moral values of thrift and hard work were emphasized. These values were as pertinent to the Protestant wife as to her husband. Consequently, the ideal of a good wife included being obedient to her husband, industrious, and thrifty. This Protestant family philosophy found its way to America and was most thoroughly implemented on the rural frontier. Perhaps the factor most responsible for this implementation was the relative iso- lation of the rural family. The fact that the family was isolated, of course, resulted in it becoming the absolute center for the social, economic, educational, protective, and recreational life of its members. The current pre— eminent position of the American family in the institutional structure of this culture is in no small way related to its two hundred years of rural experience, during which it, along with the church, was the primary focus of social re- lations and community living. While it is perhaps somewhat arbitrary to indulge in t‘Jpological descriptions, another dimension of significance in the developmental history of the family relates to its general movement from the early, large patriarchal family thrOugh the small patriarchal family of the medieval period to the so-called modern democratic family (15). It is the COptention of contemporary students of the family that the large patriarchal family was the characteristic familial form throughout the period of ancient society (15). It was paPticularly prevalent in such countries as China, India, 11 and Japan. In fact, it is still true that a large segment of the human race is characterized by a family structure in which the father acts as a patriarch in his almost absolute control over his wife, his unmarried daughters, his sons and their wives and children. This familial structure had its genesis in the transitional stage to the agricultural and pastoral economy. Burgess says, It is interesting to make a preliminary attempt to rank historical families in the degree to which they approximate the absolute power of the patriarch. As we have seen, the patriarch of the Ancient Roman family was a very close approximation. Among the Greeks the power of the head of the house was less absolute, since it was considered a trust to be administered for the welfare of the family. In the Hebrew patriarchal family the power of the father as supreme authority was limited by the Mosaic Law (15:20). The large patriarchal family gave way to the small patriarchal family during the period corresponding to Medi- eval society. The influences at work in this transition :hiclude (l) the developing guild system, in which single jcnlrneymen, as well as apprentices, frequently lived with the: family of the master craftsman, and (2) the skills re- Cnrired by the crafts. The latter was particularly important in cautmoding the large patriarchal family as an industrial insiyrument. Under the pastoral~agricultural mode of eXi£3tence the extended family was an economic asset, but not So under the guild system. In the small patriarchal family the male head of the family was as dominant and his aUttuority as unquestioned as under the large patriarchal famifily, In the former, however, the family was usually l2 composed of only the husband, wife, and unmarried children, with perhaps the presence of one or two grandparents; whereas, the latter included, in addition to these, the father's married sons and their wives and the grandchildren. Marriage in the small patriarchal family was contracted primarily on economic considerations, and the contractual arrangements were in the hands of the parents (15). The factors making for the decline of the small patriarchal family and the emergence of the modern democratic family were rooted primarily in the industrial revolution. In the United States this transition was expedited by the availability of free land and factory jobs, by the develop- ment of a public system of free education, and by the extension of democratic principles. It is the contention of Burgess and Locke (15:21) that the modern democratic frunily has the following characteristics: (1) freedom of (flioice of a mate on the basis of romance, companionship, ccxnpatibility, and common interests; (2) independence from thmeir parents of the young people after marriage; (3) the astmption of equality of husband and wife; (4) decisions Peeuzhed by discussion between husband and wife in which Chiildren participate increasingly with advancing age; and (5) the maximum of freedom for its members consistent with the eachieving of family objectives. This historico-developmental picture of the family illLlStrates clearly the constantly changing, fluid character 13 of the human family. Perhaps not so clearly illustrated but of no lesser significance is the profound complexity of this change and the implications it has for the adjustment problems of family members. In fact, it has been a deep concern for the latter which has given rise to the family life movement in this country, and to education for marriage and family living. These two movements are considered in the sections immediately following. Historical Development of the Family Life Movement in the United States As Hudson has indicated (29), the dating of the begin- nings of a movement is fraught with many difficulties. Its emergence is usually the result of a multiplicity of factors, operating within the totality of a social matrix. Thus, the social forces of industrialization, urbanization, enuiancipation of women, and an increasing horizontal mobility tnnjught with them profound changes in the family and in fanuily living. Initially, the immediate interest in the imFMact of these forces upon the family was confined to the diffificulties they presented for the growing child. Ulti- mateily, however, it became obvious that the behavior of Chilxiren could not be understood in isolation from the total familycontext. The family life movement, then, had its begiJlrling in a concern for one segment of the family and gPaCh461lly developed to the point of including consideration of the whole or family relations (15). 14 One of the first organized efforts that can be seen clearly as a contribution to the family life movement and to education for family living was the establishment of the Child Study Association of America in 1888. This Association grew out of the interests of a group of parents in obtaining and making available the most scientific knowledge that was relevant to the rearing of their own children. This organ- ization continues yet today to develop and prosecute extensive educational programs of direct pertinence to various aspects of marriage and family living. In fact, it became so family oriented that in 1939 it changed its title to the Association for Family Living, a title more descrip- tive of its continually expanding activities (20). Another organization of national scope which was founded for the purpose of studying the child is the National Cknagress of Parents and Teachers. This group, established 111 1896, channeled its efforts in the direction of devel- opjnag a cooperative association between the two institutions Wiealding the greatest influence upon the life of the child, the: home, and the school. Largely as an outgrowth of this COCHDerative association came the emergence of two signifi- cant; activities. The first of these was the initiation of the ‘Visiting teachers program. The development of this prognramivms an attempt to change the work of truant or atteflflCiance officers, who were charged with the enforcement OfcOmpulsory education, to that of home visitors who tried to see the child and his problems in terms of the total family situation. The second of these activities was the development of departments of child study. The adjustment teachers in these departments were supposed to study the child‘s total situation in prescribing and recommending individualized treatment. It was, and is, the conclusion of these teachers, consistent with the findings of psycho- logists and child psychiatrists, that the genesis of behav- ior problems in children often derive from the marital and personality problems of the parents (15). A third organization that has played a key role in the development of the family life movement in this country is the American Home Economics Association. This Association, founded in 1908, emerged out of the concerns of a growing gyroup of both men and women for the appropriate kind of emiucation for women, an education which would be equal to tkuat which the men received but which would be tailored to Stuit the peculiar needs of women in a rapidly changing cul:ture. Ultimately the home economics programs came to hicZLude an increasing emphasis upon the human factor in socxial and family relations. In fact, the most recent trend 31 kname economics is the implementation of family living as a Cedltral theme rather than a peripheral notion. Thus, it is Ilcrt uncommon to see both boys and girls enrolled in home econOrnics courses (20). Still another organization which has had a specialized jflmnicrt on the family life movement is the American Social 16 Hygiene Association, founded in 1914. This Association, founded by the amalgamation of three groups interested in sex education, disease prevention, and the prevention of prostitution, has expanded its activities to include educa— tional programs on the positive aspects of sex life and on the broader aspects of family life in general. The Associ- ation has promoted programs that consider such topics as the role of the church in social hygiene, the character education of high school and college students, and the social health and family education of young people. Thus, the emphasis has changed from a provincial concern with unwise six relations to a broader concern for the more phenomeno- logical nature of marriage and the family (20). Not unlike the Social Hygiene Association in its family related concerns is the American Eugenics Society, with its arniounced purpose being the ". . . improvement of the racial stxbck with recognition that both heredity and the social enirironment play important roles in human behavior" (15:724). Thea Society urged that for both biological and sociological resiscms there should be more children in the better home mQVtironments. A 1937 conference that brought together meflflaers of the Society and a group of educators resulted in the IPecognition that much of the program of the Society was fundamentally in harmony with the schools' educational ppcMgl‘ams for family living. It was the opinion of the edu- caTNDI‘S, however, that the most effective way of realizing 17 the eugenic objective was to simply let it emerge as a by— product of better family life. The eugenicists, on the other hand, felt that it could be best achieved by working on it directly as a central goal (20). Another organization which was established for the purpose of dealing with a specialized phase of family life was the Birth Control Federation, later renamed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. After having had to fight legal repression in its infancy, this Federation has now gained wide acceptance and support in this country. Its current central purpose, as its title implies, is the promotion and dissemination of information and materials on the control of birth and the planning of family offspring. While most of its work still originates in and is facilitated by birth control clinics, other sources and agencies are txecoming increasingly active in their participation in Euflograms for planned parenthood. These include marriage COLu1selors and related professional persons, publishing firnns, and, to a limited extent, schools and colleges. Thus, it aappears not unlikely that the birth control clinics will Iflrtjxnately become a part of the larger child and maternal healthcenters, or perhaps even a part of the still more bPOEuily conceived family-service institutions (20). Other organizations have been created for the specific puPpOse of coordinating and integrating the activities and programs of both individual persons and agencies dealing 18 directly with the family. The first of these, The Family Welfare Association of America, was organized in 1911. Initially, the work of these welfare agencies was confined primarily to the administration of relief, with a secondary emphasis upon case work and social psychiatry. With the assumption by the federal government of the relief function of these agencies, however, they have been freed to develop broader and more skilled personal services. With these services the welfare agencies are competent in working with a wide variety of family difficulties and in developing a number of preventative programs (6). A second organization with an integrative—coordinative purpose is the National Council of Parent Education, founded in 1926. Initially, the central focus of this council was research and training in child development and parent edu- cation. As the interests of the members of the Council ngadually broadened, however, the scope and purposes of the Ccnancil broadened, including increasingly wider dimensions Of‘ the family and its relationships. In general, then, the Shigft has been from an emphasis on techniques to a concern Witfld issues and problems (20). One of the most significant steps of direct relevance “3 tune marriage and family life field was taken with the CPeEftjrmiin.l936 of the New York State Conference on Mar“93.age and the Family, an organization which served as Sonmivfhat of a model for the organization two years later of 19 the National Conference on Family Relations. Under the direction of Sidney E. Goldstein, the State Conference devel- oped a broad program of activities which included the total family and its relationships. In 1938 the National Confer- ence on Family Relations was organized, now known as the National Council on Family Relations. This organization brought together into one group teachers of marriage and family courses, professional persons rendering service to the family, and research people from all fields dealing with marriage and the family. The Council, which is now the of- ficial national organization of the marriage and family life field, has a great Variety of divisions dealing with all aspects of marriage and family living. In summary, the development of the pertinent and im- ‘portant organizations in the family life movement in this (country has proceeded through four stages. As indicated by Ihlrgess and Locke, these stages are: (l) the formation of specialized agencies to deal with different problems of the family, some of which at the time were not perceived as such; (2) a growing realiz— ation that the specialized problem has vital relations with the total family situation; (3) the redefinition of the problem in the context of its meaning in terms of family relations as a whole; and (4) the integration of persons and agencies engaged with families into con- ferences and councils which seek to achieve a unifi- cation of the family life movement (15:736). glfiiEEErical Development of Family Life Education in the .21525318 and Colleges Two of the significant characteristics of educational eVCXllltion in this country have been, and to some extent 20 continue to be, an increasingly expanding and more inclusive curriculum, and a student body characterized by an increasing heterogeneity. Originally, the American college had the function of educating only a small minority of the elite; and of this small minority, the ministerial groups consti- tuted one of the largest segments. One of the college‘s central objectives was the production of scholars. The curriculum, then, tended toward the classical and academic; and the concern of the curriculum was primarily its rela- tionship to scholarship rather than its relationship to everyday living (12, 50). As higher education evolved, however, there was a multiplication of subject matter areas, resulting in a broadened curriculum, as well as changes in the qualitative dimensions of the curriculum. The latter is reflected in a general movement away from the strictly classical, aca- demic, traditional in the direction of the functional, everyday, applicable. Occupational training in an increasing number of areas began to appear. An emergent of this movement or process was a more clearly defined distinction between specialized education and general education for living. Moreover, an incipient recognition of the differ- ences in educational roles between men and women began to crystallize (12). Along with these changes in the curriculum, perhaps as a concomitant of them, occurred changes in the composition 21 of the student body; it multiplied numerically, included persons from differeing socio-economic classes, and in other ways became more nearly representative of the total popu- lation. It was perhaps inevitable that sooner or later this evolutionary process would result in the recognition of marriage and the family as a legitimate objective of the educational endeavor. In fact, with sociology departments emphasizing the family as the basic social system in society, with psychology departments pointing to the dynamic significance of interpersonal relationships and to the im— portance of early familial experiences in the growth of human personality, and with biology departments recognizing that humans, as well as invertebrates, reproduce themselves, educational institutions were almost forced to bring into fruition curricular offerings which have as their special objective the helping of students in their preparation for participating meaningfully in marriage and family life (12). Educational efforts of direct relevance to the marriage and family life area had their general inception in the early 1930's. While some work was done prior to this time, notably the pioneering work of Ernest R. Groves (24), the courses were few in number and limited in both conception and scope. In fact, Wells‘ studies (2), done in the early 1920's, revealed that, prior to 1910, only four of the colleges he contacted had a course that considered the 22 family as its primary focus; by 1920, fifteen had such a course. An analysis of these courses revealed that most of them were sociology courses which emphasized the historical development of the family, as well as family disorganization. A 1933-1935 study, by C. E. Haworth (25), showed that the number of colleges offering courses in the family had increased rapidly since 1920; of his sample of 403 colleges, 225 were offering such courses. Of these 225 courses, 105 were subjected to an intensive analysis; the analysis revealed that, while most of them were still primarily sociological in nature, a few of them were beginning to consider adjustment problems indigenous to marital and family relationships. Along with this emerging trend in focus, perhaps as a concomitant of it, occurred a trend in the teaching process which resulted in less emphasis on the lecture method and more emphasis on class discussion. A study sponsored by the American Home Economics Association in 1933 revealed that 189 home economics depart- ments offered marriage and family life courses, and that 65 more gave recognition to marriage and family life courses offered by departments of social science and sociology (2). A subsequent study of 250 colleges revealed that in 75 per cent of the colleges that responded, the undergraduate courses in marriage and family life were being offered by Sociology or social science departments (8). As pointed out by Anderson (2), the interest of women Students in marriage and family life as a subject of study 23 has consistently been greater than that of men students. This trend is reflected in the fact that more women's than men's colleges offer marriage and family life courses, and in the fact that in coeducational institutions more women than men students enroll in such courses, even when the courses are offered in such departments as sociology and psychology. As the marriage and family life field has continued to grow and to develop, conceptually as well as numerically, increasing numbers and varieties of academic departments and specialists have become interested in it. This interest is reflected in the fact that these departments have begun to offer their own courses and to point to the unique con- tribution of their respective disciplines to an understanding of marriage and family life. Thus, as early as 1936 the departments of home economics, sociology, psychology, religion, and education were sponsoring family life courses. In addition, these courses were occasionally offered on an interdepartmental basis. The most recent study of the marriage and family life courses taught on the college level was done by Henry Bowman. This study, done in 1949, revealed that of the 1270 colleges responding to the questionnaire, 632 indicated that they did offer at least one course on marriage and family life. The main results of the study, as summarized by Anderson, include the following facts: 24 . . . 37 per cent of the courses have been initiated in the last five years: 55 per cent since 1939 and 79 per cent since 1934. In the 632 schools with a course, there were 661 different courses indicated, with three courses being the largest number given by ' any one school. Seventy-three per cent of the COUrses were elective, 10 per cent required, and 17 per cent required of certain majors; few arbitrary limitations on enrollment were imposed, but there were many re- strictions resulting from limited instructors and space. An increased emphasis on functional courses dealing with preparation for marriage was clearly revealed by this study. Enrollment varied from less than 25 in 102 schools to 1800 in one school; an estimated total national enrollment of 50,000 was made by Dr. Bowman, which would seem that only one out of 50 college students was taking the course (2:47). While no formal study more recent than Bowman‘s has been done on the growth of marriage and family life courses, it is a known fact, deriving in part from a knowledge of the rapid growth of the membership of the National Council on Family Relations, that the field is continuing to grow at an extremely rapid pace. More and more universities and colleges are creating departments of home and/or marriage and family relations, and a few are even offering masters and doctors degrees directly in this field. Another appar- ent trend, not proved by any systematic research but reflected in the growth of departments, in the gradual crystallization of a common subject matter area, in the increasing volume of literature, and in the research efforts of family oriented researchers, is the trend toward the marriage and family life area becoming a field in its own right, perhaps even a discipline (2). 25 Secondary education has been somewhat slower in in- corporating curricular offerings in the family life area into the total school program. This has apparently been due to the shortage of trained personnel and to the reluc- tance of communities to approve of this type of program on the high school level. While it is difficult to obtain information on the early offerings in marriage and family life in the secondary schools, it is known that prior to 1936 only homemaking and domestic science courses were included in the school program. By 1936, however, some high schools had core programs that inclwflaieducation for marriage and family life. In 1947 about half of the girls but only one per cent of the boys were involved in classes which included material on marriage, family life, and parent- hood. Again, as in the case of the colleges, if a current study were done in the high schools it is likely that we would see a much larger percentage of the students taking courses that are either primarily marriage and family life in focus, or that include units on these subjects (29). Statement of the Problem From the background and historical material included above one readily discerns that the family life movement is a relatively new movement, and that education for marriage and family living is even newer. In fact, so new is the latter that even though the family life movement has begun to assume some of the characteristics usually associated 26 with an established profession (such as a national organi- zation, a common area of literature and subject matter, relatively sophisticated research efforts, and the acceptance of the field by both its professional colleagues and its consumers) the family life educators themselves appear con- fused and uncertain in relation to such crucial questions as what their function is, what they should be trying to accom- plish, and how they should go about accomplishing it. This confusion and uncertainty is reflected (l) in informal dis- cussions among the educators themselves, many of which the writer has participated in; (2) in the deliberations of the various state and regional family life curriculum committees; and (3) especially, in the literature produced by the writers in the field. A relatively recent article appearing in the national journal Marriage and Family Living is particularly to the point, and is a typical example of this quandry. The article, "What Are We Doing In Marriage Education," begins by the authors saying, Teachers of family life cannot afford to be a com- placent lot. We have a comparatively new baby in our arms and no Gesell who has chartered its devel- opmental course. Ours is a constant quest. What are we wanting to do with our courses in family life? What are we wanting our courses to do £93 our students? How are we going to do it, and what right have we to do it anyway? Are we getting results? What kind are they or are we getting any at all? And how do we know we are getting them? What are we doing in this business of teaching family life anyway? (41:349). Added to this is the writer's own experience of sitting in a number of marriage and family life seminars in which the 27 recurring theme was a consideration of the ever-present questions regarding the objectives, the methods, the per- sonal and academic qualifications, and the subject—matter areas of family life educators. It was perhaps in these seminars that the urge to try to find the answers to these questions crystallized. The problem of this study, then, is an investigation and an analysis of selected aspects of marriage and family life education as these aspects are viewed by the family life educators themselves. Specifically, these aspects logically group themselves into six areas, covering specific questions relating to: (l) the aims and objectives of marriage and family life educators; (2) the classroom and teaching methods and techniques used in facili- tating the accomplishment of these objectives; (3) the desirable personal and academic qualifications of family" life educators; (4) the subject matter of classes, the way in which classes are conducted, and whether classes should be elective or required; (5) the most logical administrative location for the teaching of marriage and family courses; and (6) the direction in which family life education should move, as well as the desirable theoretical or research framework for facilitating this movement. In summary, then, it is the purpose of this study to obtain information that will at least begin to answer some of the most pressing questions of the newly emerging profession of marriage and family life education, and to yield data that will provide a base upon 28 which more theoretical studies can be built. The study, then, is exploratory-descriptive in nature (30), and is obviously more of a quantitative than a theoretical study. Importance of the Study The reasons for the study, indicated in the previous section, point most effectively to its importance. The fact that the questions and issues researched in the present study are the questions and issues with which the members of the family life profession are currently struggling is poignantly indicative of both its significance and approprie ateness. Thus, in the May 1958 issue of Marriage and Family Living, the announcement of the annual conference of the National Council on Family Relations to be held August 20-23, 1958, reads, The National Council on Family Relations is cele- brating its twentieth anniversary. As we take a twenty-year look in either direction, what develop- ments with regard to marriage and family living have occurred, where do we now stand, what are the issues to be faced, the problems to be solved, the challen es to be met in the decades immediately ahead? %3:l89). The results of this study are extremely pertinent to an understanding of the questions raised in this announcement. In fact, this study represents the first systematic attempt to identify the aims and objectives and the major tasks of the members of the newly emerging profession of marriage and family living, as well as to present a more current and valid picture of other selected aspects (explained under . 29 "Statement of the Problem") of family life education than has been done up to the time of the present study. (Chapter II reviews the relevant studies that have been done to date and illustrates their fragmentary and obsolescent nature.) Finally, the importance of the study is reflected in the specific recommendations for study in the field made by researchers and writers alike (2, 15, 37). Limitationsiof the Stud The first limitation of the present study is not different from the kind of limitation that inheres in any questionnaire type of research (30). Certain weaknesses of the questionnaire as a technique of research are immedi- ately recognized. First, fixed-alternative responses may force a respondent to compromise his opinion or feeling to fit a predetermined category. Moreover, some individuals have no crystallized or clearly formulated opinions about inany issues, even issues which are supposedly close to them. 'Ihirdly, the respondents' perception of the meaning of a classes; (5) the high school teachers with graduate deggrnees (masters) received their degrees, in order of c>1s represented all the institutions of higher education M2 that could be located which had programs of such a nature that marriage and family life courses might be available to students. Further, the questionnaire in each case was sent to the registrar of each school since there was no way of knowing the names or addresses of the instructional personnel. 0f the schools that responded 632 reported having at least one curricular offering in the general area of marriage education. Bowman found that of the universities and colleges offering marriage education courses over half of them (55 per cent) had instituted their courses since 1939, and that 79 per cent of them had inaugurated them during the fifteen year period beginning with the year 1934-1935. It is his speculation that since functional marriage education had iiss inception in 1927 that many of the courses which had trueir genesis prior to 1934 either were, or perhaps still arms, courses in the family, with primarily a sociological orixentation. A somewhat related finding is the fact that alizkiough courses in marriage education may be the main irrtearest of the instructor, they are, as a matter-of—fact, SO ITar as his teaching is concerned at least, something of a ESixie line. Thus, in only three per cent of the cases was the? rnarriage course the entire teaching load of a full-time inStructor. The general pattern for an instructor, then, i s t3C> teach one, sometimes two, courses in marriage edu- Cai3i.cxn, and two or three courses in some other field. 43 Bowman‘s study further revealed that the most popular titlescfi‘the family courses were, from most to least pop- ular, (1) Marriage and the Family, (2) The Family, (3) Family Relationships, (A) Preparation for Marriage, and (5) Courtship and Marriage. In terms of the general nature of these courses, it is Bowman‘s contention that they are becoming increasingly functional in their orientation, with the affective components of education for marriage and family living becoming increasingly important. Further, in the great majority (73 per cent) of the schools the courses are elective, with only 10 per cent of the schools requiring their students to take them and 17 per cent of them requiring certain groups of students to take them. A final finding of the Bowman study reveals that while only all extremely small per cent of the instructors of marriage arud family life courses taught more than one course, approxi- nmitely'76 per cent of them were engaged in counseling stu- derits on individual or personal problems. The great ma‘jcudty'of these counseling contacts developed as a result 01‘ ‘the student's presence in the marriage course. While Bowman‘s study is generally considered to be a S011r1d.study--well developed, appropriate use of techniques, aruj Egood sample --it perhaps suffers from one weakness, a WeélL accomplish the task indicated by Foote and Cottrell. TWKB job would be tremendous even if we knew what these cmnnponents were, or, perhaps more accurately, if we knew of inhat the components consisted. The fact that practically notflaing is known about any of them influences some educators to vwork toward objectives which are of lesser ambition and Conflilicity, and are a little more focused and societally OPienlted. Thus, Elizabeth Force (22) says of the family C} r'53‘18.tionship course in Toms River, New Jersey, that the deVCNJt hope was that the course would accomplish or contri- bUt€3 to a reduction in the divorce rate, to a reduction in the ITumber of broken homes, to a reduction in the amount 50 of delinquency, and to a reduction in the prevalence of unhappy children and parents. She goes on to say that the more positive aims of the course were to help young adults consider the seriousness of establishing a good home and family, and to help them face the opportunity more hopefully and positively. Another more focused goal is expressed by Fannie Masten, a teacher of family life education at Central High School in Charlotte, North Carolina (AA). She indicates that the family life teachers at Central High School try consistently to keep two primary goals before them: (1) to help students gain self-under- standing as a first step in understanding others, and (2) to encourage students to grow into maturity of understanding for'marriage and parenthood. The major theme that runs iflaroughout the course, says Masten, is growth and develop- ment. A set of objectives which seem to be both general armi specific in nature are those discussed by Blood (10). It :is his contention that, when seen as a whole, the aims of nuarriage eeucation include the usual specific element Of nuastery of factual material as well as the more general elenuent of individual growth and development. In terms or tune former, that is, the mastery of factual material, BIOCxi suggests that students should gain knowledge in five aree”3. These include knowledge of the behavior of others, knoWledge of the consequences of behavior, knowledge of 51 social norms, knowledge of potential problems and achieve- ments in marriage, and knowledge of achieving marital goals. In relation to the general element, that is, growth and development, Blood says self-insight (by which he means an increased awareness by the student of his own scale of values, his unique needs, and other aspects of his person- ality) and personal growth (by which he means the continued development of the student in the direction of social and emotional maturity) should be an integral part of the stu- dents‘ experience in marriage and family life courses. For many family life educators, on the other hand, increased self-insight, or increased self-awareness, constitutes the central goal of marriage and family education. Thus, Iglwrence Bee (7) suggests that the objectives of education ier marriage and family living consist of, first, recog- nitzing the inadequacy of the faulty thoughts and feelings thert people bring to the central experience of marriage and fanuily relations; second, helping the student make an adjust- meni: from an attitude in which he projects praise and blame and Inakes use of verbal formulas to one in which he learns 11> ccnlfine himself to description alone for the time being; and 13hird, assisting the student in developing his own unique perceptual mode and way of thinking about marriage and family experiences so he can handle these experiences in a mean- ingffill way himself. In the final analysis, says Bee, the ObJe’Ctive is to help each student gain insight into and 52 accept his own unique style, a style which emerges from his own nature. A similar notion regarding objectives is proposed by Laura Drummond (18). She suggests that inter- personal relations constitute the focus of family life education, and that, consequently, the objectives of this education should be to foster emotional maturity by assisting the student with the continued development of his personality, with the forming and changing of attitudes, and with better, more effective ways of living together in the family and in family-community life. She concludes her discussion of objectives by saying that the important, if complex, function of the family life educator is to inter- act with his pupils in such a way that each of them grows iJl self-understanding and deepened insight. In discussing marriage education in Negro colleges, Hijnes develops a societally oriented set of objectives (27). It :is his contention that the very fact that most Negroes whc> are going to college are going to move up the social lathier considerably dictates one of the major aims of the maruciage course. This aim, he says, should be to aid the StUCRents in conceiving of marriage and family relations prinuarily in terms of the system of values and social net- worflc (of that social class into which the students will be mOViJlg. This emphasis, he maintains, will contribute to incxweased harmony and integrity of social roles as well as t“) the development of a conception of marriage which is 53 consonant with the new value system without disparaging the old. How Himes expects to handle the problem of a group of students who are going into different social classes is, of course, not made clear. Another objective which is geared to societal structure and process is the one suggested by Ralph Eckert (19). It is his contention that the need for family life education in the first place is a function of the fact that people become the kinds of adults they are because of the way they are reared in their families. This being true, he maintains, the implied goal or objective of education for marriage and family living should be to help young people make an appropriate adjust- lnent to the rapidly changing culture in which they find thenmelves enmeshed, and more particularly, to make an apqxropriate adjustment to the changing nature of that unit cu“ system of society known as the family. TWO articles which imply some of the broad character cm"the aims of marriage and family education have been pre- pareui by the New Jersey Department of Education‘s Advisory Committee on Social Hygiene Education (119) and by an anony- mous: committee of the American Social Hygiene Association (4). The former committee suggests that education for familVlife aims to preserve the family and to enrich family 11V1118 and.that, consequently, such a program should never be naI’I‘owly conceived and should certainly never be limited 1“) true imparting of information about sex and reproduction. 52+ The latter committee, in answering the question regarding the specific aims and objectives of marriage and family living, states that this type of education has as its primary objective the development of strong, sound parent- child relationships, wholesome youth relations, and ade- quate preparation for courtship, homemaking, and parenthood. They go on to emphasize the proposition that family life education is not just sex education, that it is much broader and more complicated than this, and that it is the responsibility of parents, of schools, of churches, and of a great many other agencies and institutions. A final article to be referred to in relation to the objectives of family life educators, and one which seems to be relevant to this topic if only by indirection, is a report of a study of learnings derived from a func- tixonal course in marriage education (46). The investigator, 'Viadginia Moses, was interested in getting answers to the fZXIlowing three questions: (1) Do students who are en- rolQled in a one semester course in family relationships at fSyracuse University make measurable gains in their under- starnding of areas (subject-matter areas) which the staff corusiders significant?; (2) Do they gain insights (as ODFHDsed to a simple accumulation of knowledge) which they themselves consider to be important?; and (3) Is there any eViI$ence among these students of the practical application Of Lunderstandings and insights gained from the course in 55 helping them to solve and work through their own personal problems? The sample for the research included 212 students and 60 married alumni. The procedure and techniques employed in obtaining the answers to the questions were question- ‘ naires, focused interviews, and open-ended procedures. The conclusion to which Moses came was an affirmative answer to each of the questions. While there are serious method- ological problems involved in this type of study it does tend to illustrate that the objectives of marriage education are capable of being framed operationally. It will be ob— served that the objectives of Moses, like those of Blood, include both the specific (the acquisition of knowledge concerning the various facets of marriage and family living) 21nd the general (the development of insight and personal growth) dimensions. The second item on the questionnaire concerns the tenaching techniques and materials which family life edu- cainors use in facilitating the accomplishment of their obgkectives. The feeling of many educators in the field is to ‘the effect that the focus and objectives of family life edLuzation are of such a nature that pedagogical procedures and materials should be especially selected or developed CODiSistent with these objectives and this focus. This pI’OCedure they feel, will result in the use of techniques and materials not often used by instructors in other fields. The 1Writer will now refer to a few articles to illustrate how Several educators look at this issue. 56 It is the contention of Bee (7) that since the central objective of education for marriage and family living is the development of each student‘s own unique style-~facili- tated by growth in insight--the most appropriate teaching methods and teching methods and techniques are those described in the literature on group dynamics and student- centered teaching. Thus, role playing, psychodrama, and active student participation offer the greatest promise. The lecture method, so common to other fields, tends to be mostly inappropriate to this field. Somewhat in contrast to this opinion, however, is the opinion of Blood (10). It will be recalled that Blood considers the acquisition of factual knowledge to be an integral part of the objectives of even a functional course in marriage preparation, and this objective can obviously be achieved through the em- jployment of the lecture technique. Blood goes on, however, 13y describing other techniques and materials which he con- =31ders to be peculiarly appropriate to the accomplishment Ct? the objectives of marriage and family educators. These irlclude questionnaires, class discussions (including small .SIWDup discussions), role playing, audio-visual materials, OLItside consultants, outside readings, written assignments, 1rl‘terviews, case reports, personal documents, self analysis fCers, and counseling. In contrast to Blood, Wimmer denies that there are anyknowledges to memorize,any final facts to know (56). 57 On the contrary, the concern of the family life educator is the personality growth and development of his students and, consequently, the most appropriate class room proce- dure is the discussion method; seldom is the lecture method of any real utility. Moreover, cooperative planning between students, instructor, and parents should be utilized in the successful prosecution of any marriage and family life class. This includes the use of parents and other community members in actual class discussions. The emphasis upon the need for the utilization of a variety of teaching techniques is echoed by Masten (44). Thus, in her own program she describes the use of the following techniques: (1) films; (2) role-playing; (3) a box for the collection of anonymous questions; (4) self- evaluation inventories; (5) scrapbooks; (6) simple research ileestigation, undertaken by the students themselves; (7) Enamel discussions; (8) guided trips and tours; (9) inter- \kiew reports; (10) tests; and (11) outside consultants. Ldlcky and Neubeck advocate the use of a list of techniques not unlike that of Masten's (Lil). Thus, role playing, Wkuich they find to be particularly fruitful, class discus- Si<1n, small group buzz-sessions, group reports, panel pr’Gi‘sentations, radio plays, and debates are considered to be specially relevant to the work of the family life edu- ‘33130r. Of less relevance, they maintain, is the lecture teczhnique. Their rationale for this advocation of technique 58 is their belief that effective family teaching is concerned primarily with behavior, and that behavior is not markedly influenced by lecturing. A final article regarding teaching techniques is the report of the results of a study on trends in family life education, made by Margie Lee (38). The study was sponsored by the E. C. Brown Trust Company, with the avowed objective being the ascertaining of some of the recent trends in family life education. The sample was composed of a group of 68 family life workshop participants representing high schools in 19 states. In general, the results pertaining to teaching techniques revealed the following trends: (1) an increasing use of the discussion method, and a corres- ponding decreasing use of the lecture method; (2) an in- creasing use of role playing, and other socio-dramatic txechniques; (3) an increasing use of outside (community) Iwasource people; and (4) an increasing involvement of stu- denats in the planning of instruction. So far as the present writer has been able to deter- milie there have been no studies done specifically for the phu¢pose of discovering what factors or experiences have befin.important in influencing people to become family life ‘adlleators (item three on the questionnaire). It is only .by' indirection or extrapolation that any insights into tklijs area of concern emerge. These insights come primarily fu7cnn the studies which were reviewed at the beginning of 59 this chapter, but more particularly those of the committee of teachers of sociology in Southern colleges (5), of Gray (23), and of Bowman (13). In each of these studies it was observed that the great majority of family life educators were not hired initially to teach family life courses; they were, in fact, asked to teach these courses after they were hired. In other words, they had the family life courses added to their other teaching duties. This means, then, that in addition to whatever other factors might have been involved in their ultimately becoming teachers of family life courses (such as interest, training in sociology, et cetera), the factor of availability was of practical impor- tance. The fourth item on the questionnaire concerns the subject-matter areas of the field of education for marriage euld family living. Again, few studies have been done on tfllis aspect of family life education. 'Each of the four EHJudies reviewed at the outset of this chapter indirectly pcxinted at subject-matter areas in the results concerned Wifith.class titles, although it is recognized that there is 0meen little correlation between the title of a class and Wkuitzis actually covered in that class. The specific intent of. the item concerned with the subject-matter of family edllcation in the present investigation was to determine the EunCNJnt of time that the educators actually spent on each of tnlei major areas of subject-matter. When looked at from this 60 point of view, it can be said that no research has been done. Moreover, Hudson (29), in his content analysis of family life textbooks, found that there is almost a complete lack of agreement regarding the proper subject matter of family life education, at least insofar as these areas are treated in the textbooks. Thus, only three subject-matter areas were included in all the textbooks he examined. These three were family life, personality development, and dating. The subject of sex, generally assumed to be of particular interest to high school students, was treated, if briefly, in only three of the texts. In conclusion, it can be safely assumed that nothing is known very specifically about the relative amount of time that family life educators devote to the various areas of subject-matter in their field. The fifth item on the questionnaire is concerned with ‘the procedures or ways in which family life educators arrive a1: a decision regarding what content is to be included in tflde courses that they teach. And again no research of digrect relevance is available. Both of the studies by Afuierson (2) and Gray (23), reviewed above, imply that teachers are beginning to share this responsibility with thfieir students, that they are beginning to let the students indicate what areas of content are of crucial concern to tnienn. This trend is supported by the results of the study reIDCHted by Margie Lee (28), referred to above. It is her COrItention that one of the four major trends in the field 61 of family life education is the increasing utilization of students in the planning of instruction. Aside from this conclusion, nothing is known about the specific procedures employed by family life educators as a group in deciding what to include in the classes they teach. In relation to the sixth item on the questionnaire, the personal qualifications of family life educators, more has been written, if little research has been done. Like much of what has been written, the research is not very The study that is of most direct He adequate or conclusive. relevance here is that done by Gerhard Neubeck (A8). devised a questionnaire, which he entitled "A Prospectus for A Graduate Program in Family Life Education," and sent it to what he considered to be 21 of the leading family life educators in this country. Two of the important sections of 'the questionnaire were concerned with the desirable personal euld academic qualifications of family educators. The result irl terms of the former was the almost unanimous agreement Eunong the participants in the study that family life edu- CEItors should be accepting of all human behavior. What acnceptance of all human behavior included, says Neubeck, ‘Nais the absence of prejudice in relation to race, color, 3PeCLigion, philosophy, or personality deviation and the pr‘Eésence of a genuine interest in people. Anderson's StUGy (23), discussed above, reveals that the main personal quali- f1izations felt to be important are: (1) a well adjusted, 62 mature personality; (2) a congenial, warm personality; and ' (3) a tolerance and respect for the ideas and attitudes of ” others. Timmons (53) maintains that there are three general personal qualities that are of unusual significance to family life educators. The first of these is a genuine interest in human beings for their own sakes. It is neces- sary, says Timmons, for the teacher to have a vital personal concern for each of his students. The second general quality essential to teachers of family living is growth potential. Further, motivation for growth and development must come from within the teachers themselves, cannot be imposed from without. The third essential in the personal qualification of the family educator is that he be reasonably well oriented to life in general. This kind of orientation, says Timmons, includes a cheerful acceptance of one's own sex and role 3 caf one‘s family role, of one's societal role, and experience vflaich has provided contacts with people. This kind of description of the desired personal Culalities of instructional personnel in family life is eClloed by practically every educator who has anything to sad! about the subject. In relation to such qualities as deSirable marital status, sex, age, et cetera, most of the ‘mristers are agreed that these factors are of much lesser SiSnificance, if of any significance at all in themselves, truarl the qualities described above (36, 53, 32). In other WC31-”‘ds, "other things being equal," it is relatively 63 unimportant whether the educator is married, is a female, or is 60 years old. Moving next to a consideration of the literature that is pertinent to the desirable academic preparation of family life educators, a situation much like that regarding per- sonal qualities is observed. Hence, long lists of areas of training relevant to the prospective educator are pre- sented. Thus, Timmons (53) maintains that adequate aca- demic preparation for teachers of family life includes a good foundation of general education in biology, sociology, psychology, home economics, physical education, history, economics, and others, depending upon the interest of the teachers. In addition, these general courses will be pointed up by such specialized courses as the family, con- sumers economics, adolescent psychology, child development, Ilome management, marriage and the family, psychology of Exarsonal adjustment, home architecture, principles of gLLidance and counseling, and human reproduction. Finally, Séiys Timmons, professional courses on teaching and educa- tiwonal methods should be included. Not unlike Timmons, Kirkendall and Handwerk suggest a training program for teachers of family living which includes some work in just about all of the major fields of academic learning (32). Tknely especially recommend a deep psychological-sociological f0undation, buttressed, as just indicated, by work in a W1(ievariety of fields. Longworth, too, sees a broad type 64 of training as being essential to the adequate preparation of family life personnel (40). The four major areas, he maintains, are the biological, economic, sociological, and psychological, with law, religion, home economics, and recreation also being important. In conclusion, it can probably be said that most writers on the subject consider a broad type of training to be most desirable, with the heaviest emphasis on the sociological, psychological, biological fields. Phillis Martin is a particularly voci- ferous proponent of the crucial importance of the latter field (43). The eighth item on the questionnaire is concerned with whether family educators do personal counseling, and how they feel about whether training in counseling should be included in their academic and professional preparation. As has been indicated above (2, l3, 5), all the studies tfllat have been done on this topic reveal that the great rnajority of family life educators, irrespective of whether tflley have been trained for it or not, do individual or Emersonal counseling in connection with their teaching eDCperience in family life. Moreover, although it is not a linanimous feeling, a great many family educators feel tkuat personal counseling is one of the important, ines- CaIDable functions of the instructional personnel in their fifild. This attitude is clearly expressed by Bowman (14). :[t' is his contention that, in addition to classroom 65 instruction, it is encumbent upon the instructor to provide the opportunity for each student to take at least the initial steps toward the resolution of personal problems. This, of course, suggests counseling, and, says Bowman, the provision of counseling is an integral part of the functions of a marriage education program. The benefit deriving from such a program is two-way; not only is the student helped in working through and resolving problems, but so also is the instructor helped, especially in the sense that counseling helps to keep him very close to live student problems. Like Bowman, Blood discusses the inte- gral nature of counseling in the marriage education program (10). He maintains that probably no other courses in the entire curriculum so frequently stimulate students to talk over their personal problems with their instructor as do tfina marriage and family life courses. This, he says, is qurgely due to the fact that the subject-matter bears so clcxsely upon the personal life of the student. Typical Inwflolems raised in counseling sessions include doubts about the leightness of one‘s choice of marriage partner, problems of prwnnarital sexual adjustment, and how to deal with the cnnxxxition of parents to one's marriage plans. Blood con- ClUdes lxy saying that the urgency and importance of such problenm3.demonstrate the necessity of providing premarital and maritnil counseling as an indispensible part of the total program of education for marriage and family living. 66 _ There have been no studies done to determine the attitude of family life teachers regarding the issue of whether introductory courses in marriage preparation and family life should be required or elective (item nine of the questionnaire). However, studies regarding actual practice have been done, and indicate that in only a small percentage of schools offering such courses are they re- quired (l3, 5, 31). To date, then, most schools and colleges look at the marriage and family life courses as not being of sufficient importance to require that students take them. Item 10 on the questionnaire concerns the appropriate location (department) for the teaching of marriage and family life courses. Again, as in the case of item nine, no systematic studies have been done to ascertain the opinion of family life educators regarding this issue. Eltudies have been done that reveal where the courses euctually are taught, and, as already indicated in those Iwyviewed above, the most common location for these classes is 21 sociology department. Departments of home economics zuui psychology probably come next in popularity (2). And of still lesser popularity are departments of child develop- ment, education, anthropology, religion, and social work. The literature relevant to item 11, the "big tasks ahead,"' again is very scant. Only one or two studies of direct pnertinence have been done. The first of these 67 (Anderson's) has already been referred to several times (2). He found that most of his respondents felt that the greatest obstacle in keeping the field of marriage and family life from becoming a separate field was the lack of good research, and that, consequently, the major task immediately ahead of family life educators is the planning and prosecution of sound, systematic research. A similar attitude regarding the urgency of this task is shared by Sperry and Christensen (51, 16). It is their contention that the major task of immediate significance to family life educators is the greater integration, more theoretical orientation, and further interdisciplinary cooperation among family teachers and researchers alike. It is time, says Christensen, that family researchers get together and decide upon a common frame of reference and on a series of problems that can receive first priority. The more one piece of research is related to another piece, the more it will add up to good research. From her study of trends in family life education, Wimmer (56) concludes the existence of four major tasks to be met if the field is to continue to grow. These in- clude: (l) the need to obtain greater community acceptance of this type of education; (2) the need to develop better trained personnel; (3) the need to develop better research and more experience; and (4) the need to implement a con- tinuous program, one that has its inception in the elemen- tary grades and continues through the secondary school and 68 on up to the university. A list of tasks similar to that of Wimmer's is the one delineated by Landis (34). Two additional tasks added by Landis are, one, the need to make the marriage and family classes available to members of both sexes, and two, to emphasize the need for an interdiscip— linary approach to the training of family life educators. Probably the most simple, and perhaps most accurate, notions regarding the major tasks facing family life edu— cators today is the one proposed by Lantz (37). Simply stated, it is the need to think through, clarify, and try to make operational what constitutes marriage and family education. Until this is done, and Lantz does not think it has been done, the marriage and family field can hardly expect to become a discipline in its own right. While little objective research has been done in terms of where most family life teachers stand in relation to the content—~functional continuum, the general impression is that more and more educators are moving in the direction of the functional end. This impression is given some cre- dence by the studies of Bowman (l3) and Anderson (2), referred to above. Further, many educators are actively promoting the notion that the central core of the field of education for marriage and family living are the emotions, attitudes, feelings, and behavior of people, and that, con- SeQuently, the students and not subject-matter should be the focus (7, 56, 41). 69 The literature of pertinence in relation to item 13 of the queStionnaire is practically non-existent. In fact, no studies have been done to ascertain the attitude of family life educators regarding the issue of whether or not the sexes should be mixed in marriage and family life classes. Apparently, most schools do mix the sexes (23), though some of them do not. The writer is personally aware of school situations (high school level) in which the boys are'taught separately by male teachers and the girls are taught separately by female teachers. That this situation is not generally considered positive is indicated by Paul Landis in an article appearing in Sociology and Social Research (35). In this article he makes it quite clear that family life teachers must be trained to work with both sexes together. The implication of Landis' article, of course, is that one reason the sexes are sometimes separated is because of the inability of teachers to work comfortably with both sexes at once. In personal discussions with several marriage educators, the writer has gained the im- pression that the desire of the great majority of educators is that the sexes be mixed. The literature on the extent or degree of freedom that individual instructors have in deciding what content to include in their classes is conflicting and contradic- tory (item 14 of the questionnaire). A fairly common impression among marriage educators is that their programs 70 are under close censorship by the community and that, therefore, they must proceed very cautiously in developing their programs and in deciding what material to include in their courses. The material about which there is greatest sensitivity is the material relating to sex education. Thus, Cumings (l7) tells of the disapproval that many admin- istrators have faced as they have attempted to build pro- grams of instruction involving sex education into their curricula. Likewise, Wimmer (56) indicates that one of the four major tasks immediately facing family life edu— cators is the acquisition of greater community acceptance of their programs. Another report indicates that one of the three main problems through which family life educators must work is the overcoming of community and administrative opposition (5). On the other hand, a recent study of family life programs in Iowa, reported by Kenkell, failed to dis- cover one case of unfavorable community reaction to family living courses (31). This situation leads Kenkell to say that it is rather interesting that one of the important reasons for not offering a course in family living is anticipated adverse community reaction, while, at the same time, his own study revealed no such experiences. Perhaps, then, it is unfavorable reaction that is anticipated rather than experienced that is the deterrent. The last item on the questionnaire is concerned with the appropriate conceptual or theoretical approaches of 71 relevance to family life researchers. There have been no studies done to ascertain the preferences of teachers and researchers in regard to this issue. However, Hill (26) has undertaken to direct an inventory of marriage and family research that has been done since 1900. The results of this project thus far reveal the existence of a seven—fold classification of conceptual approaches. These, with the authorities associated with their development, are: (l) The institutional-historical approach, sociological, and best represented by C. C. Zimmerman; (2) The interactional-. role analysis approach, sociological and social psycho- logical, and represented by E. W. Burgess, R. Hill, and W. Waller; (3) The structure-functional approach, sociological and anthropological, and represented by T. Parsons, G. Murdock, and C. McGuire; (4) The situational-psychological habitat approach, sociological and psychological, and represented by J. Bossard, R. Blood, and R. Barker; (5) The learning theory-maturational approach, psychological, and represented by A. Gesell, R. R. Sears, and A. J. Whiting; (6) The household-economics-home management approach, inferred in the works of H. Kyrk, P. Nickell, and M. Reid; (7) The family development or family life cycle approach, inter-disciplinary and eclectic, and-represented by L. Stott, E. M. Duvall, and M. Sussman. 72 Summary In the present chapter the writer has reviewed the four major studies which have been done that are of direct relevance to the present investigation. These include the works of Floyd Anderson, Henry Bowman, Donald Gray, and a Committee of Teachers of Sociology from a group of 13 Southern colleges. A large number of articles have been written which bear on the problems of the present study, and these have been reviewed in the present chapter, along with a group of research efforts of limited scope and relevance. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES Selection and Nature of Sample The selection of the final sample used in the present study was arrived at only after an exhaustive consideration of a number of other possibilities, which ultimately proved to be less promising. At the outset the writer was well aware of the inherent difficulties that faced him in drawing a sample that would meet the criteria of a sound research design. These difficulties were rooted in primarily two factors: (1) the absence of any existing, reliable, list or record of teachers in the marriage and family life field, and the improbability that such a list could be compiled within a reasonable length of time; and (2) the problem of deciding upon a definition of a family life educator in order to know who could or could not logically be included in the sample. The latter problem, of course, is a function of the new and still somewhat nebulous nature of the field of marriage and family living, and is handled only arbi- trarily in this study. The writer first considered the possibility of drawing a sample that would be composed of the memberships of the various state and regional councils on family 74 relations. However, his investigation into this possibility revealed that this kind of sample would be inadequate and impractical for two reasons. First, the state and regional membership records are neither uniform nor complete; not all of them are kept current. Secondly, nearly all of these councils include substantial numbers of people not involved in family life education at all, but who maintain membership because of their general interest in the field and because their membership entitles them to certain pub- lications sponsored by the councils. Further, most of the councils are not able to identify who is or is not a family life educator. 0n the basis of these considerations, then, this possibility for a sample was rejected. The second possibility considered was to write to all the colleges and high schools in the country and to request the names of all the teachers of marriage and family living classes, followed by selecting, on a random basis, a sample from these names. Needless to say, the physical arui time requirements of this possibility discouraged any Iluather serious consideration of it. A somewhat similar possiimlity was to go through all of the college catalogs and ixry to deduce from these the names of those teachers lMKJInight be teaching one or more family classes. The in- adecluacies of this system are immediately recognized. In the first place, only colleges publish catalogs, and while the enmflaasis of the present study is in favor of the college 75 population it is definitely not intended to exclude the high school population. Secondly, to try to guess who taught family life classes from the catalog listings would be grossly inaccurate. And, finally, only a sampling of catalogs would have been feasible. A fourth possibility, perhaps more adequate than either of the above three, was considered. This would have involved a much smaller number of educators, but would have involved intensive interviewing. The plan was (1) to select about 50-75 family life educators from a group of mid- western high schools, colleges, and universities, (2) to personally interview each of these educators, and (3) to record their responses on a semi-structured interview schedule. While this plan was given very serious consid- eration, it was ultimately rejected in favor of a plan that was more cross-sectional and representative in nature. The writer was very concerned about getting a sample that in- cluded educators from all sections and regions of the country. The sampling procedure that was finally adopted was one ‘that avoided most of the weaknesses of the other pro- cedLUfles and included the writer's requirement that the samples be cross-sectional in nature. With the cooperation Of the National Council on Family Relations, and especially its president and executive secretary Dr. Mildred I. Morgan and Mrs. Ruth.Jewson, respectively, the membership list of 76 the National Council was made available to the writer for use in the study. This membership included 150 high school teachers and 730 college and junior college teachers.l However, not all of these teachers are actually teaching marriage and family life classes. The best estimate in regard to how many are teaching such classes is between 600 and 650 (42). Because there was no way of knowing who taught family life classes and who did not, questionnaires were sent to all of the members of the Council, with the exception of 25 members who participated in the pilot study or in other ways helped with the construction of the instru- ment and, consequently, were not participants in the final study. The sample used in the present study, then, consisted of 855 members of the National Council on Family Relations. In addition to the cross—sectional nature of this group, other bases for its adoption included: (1) the fact that it probably includes the educators who are the most active irl'the family field, and certainly those who are the most hlfluential, such as the writers and researchers; (2) the fact: that there was greater economy in the use of this SPOUKD than in all, with perhaps one exception, of the other possilxilities considered; and (3) the fact that the writer 1As pointed out in Chapter I, family educators whose DPOSTEHHS are community oriented were not included in the pre sent s tudy . 77 subjectively felt that this group constitutes the vital force in the continued development and growth of the marriage and family profession and that, consequently, to know how they felt about the issues he was investigating was to get most accurately at what he wanted to know. This feeling, incidentally, is shared by all the educators with whom the writer has discussed this issue. To help insure as complete a return of the question- naire as possible, two major steps were accomplished. The first involved the acquisition of the support and cooper; ation of the executive officers of the National Council on Family Relations. This was generously tendered by the Council's president, Dr. Mildred Morgan, and its executive secretary, Mrs. Ruth Jewson. Dr. Morgan wrote a cover letter (see Appendix III) indicating her interest in the study and encouraging the Council membership to cooperate by completing the questionnaire and returning it as soon as possible. Mrs. Jewson had the membership list made up and serH: to me, along with other helpful materials. The second Step), not at all unique to this study, involved the inclu- Siorl of a stamped, self-addressed return envelope in the mateIfiials which were sent out to each respondent. These mateifiials included, in addition to Dr. Morgan's letter and the Ixaturn envelope, a letter from the writer explaining the study (see Appendix IV), and, of course, the question- naire (see Appendix I). The materials were all mailed to 78 the study participants on April 12, 1958. Then, three Weeks later, on May 3, 1958, a follow-up letter was sent to each member who had not responded to the initial mailing. On June 15, 1958, the sampling was closed, and the tabulation and analysis of data begun. During the first three weeks of the sampling, that is, prior to the sending out of the follow-up letter (see Appendix V), 514, or approximately 60 per cent of the respondents returned their questionnaires. Of this number, 122 were not teaching family life classes and, consequently, returned the questionnaire without com- pleting it, leaving 392 who were teaching and who returned the completed questionnaires. After sending out the follow-up letter an additional 172, or approximately 20 per cent, returned their questionnaires. Of this number 64 were non-teachers and 108 were teachers. The total number and percentage of returns, then, were 686 and 80.2 per cent, respectively. Of this total, 186 were educators who did not teach any marriage and family life classes, leaving 500 who taught such classes and who cxmnpleted the questionnaire. Of the latter number, however, 95ao mo moodOSUomcoO one cps: mucoo5pm mm: m m m m H one wcfipcfimsoom an mums ooho>fio mnu modems damn OB o mam mm mm om m : .coapmosoo wow UCSOm m spas uGOUSpm one ooH>OLQ OE m .wsfipmo ocm macmphzoo mo swam esp as sHQmHSOHpgma .mfiafixm HmHOOm mam om mm am as m mo unmeooao>mo one CH HmSOH>HocH onp umfimmm OB m .mOmmOoOhQ HmOfiwoa IOfimsco ocm moon wQHQoHO>mo was ohmzou ooSpHupm mmm am mm mm NH m oEOmmHocz m mCH>OH£om CH pQOUSpm on» pmfimmm OH 9 .mofipaomomo paw smogfimmo .moooc was mo mmocmpmzw cm wsfiooam>oo cwsopcp mma am m: mm soH ooa wsaosmomeoocs-eacm madcamm ca escapee one cam oe o .safiemo was mo whonEoE pocpo on» on Coapmaop CH dammed: ocmpmgooc: EH: dam: on one sowmfippms cameos CH mofianOHpmHos one no masocmpm m: 0H :m ss moH mma lemons cm wcHQoHo>mo CH pQOUSpm map umfimmm OB m .smoou mmumpm mOpHcs esp CH weapmaxo mcgopumo masses mo momsp mSOHgm> on» mo wcfiosmpmhoocd cm cfimw EH: dam: on ocm .mfifismm ocp mo mocmOfichmHm HmcoapSpHmeH mom pm pm m: mm mm HmOHLOpmHQ one nus: unmoSpm one pcfimSUom 08 < ooxmmm m a m m H o>apoonno u z xcmm omo mo hoogo CH ooxcmg .mLOpmoSoo omHH zfififimm mo mm>fipwompmommmmmwmwmommfi E s .s mqm< O 01. 3:: q s m w m .xcmg ocm mmfiooomnugmcpo .o .OMHH zafiemm osm .sommfiggme .oficmpgsoo adopt owomazocx mom mm mm s: so so oeofipcofiom mo moon m spas psoozpm on» ocfi>oso OH .2 .mafifixm pcoEommcmE oEoc Hmfipcmmmm mo was 0H he 0 s OH psoEQoHo>oo opmzooom one CH pCOUSUm ocp umfimmm OH .2 .saasme :deemasco -omodm opp mo Omoogso Oahu one no mcfiocmpm ugoocs cm cam econ owmfiggms on» mo mmocoopomn oom mm am me am mm can too seconds m neonate one as Haaonca new: oe .m .mcfiocmpmpooc: ocm cofimeHCSEEoo pounce wcfipmufiafiomg CH ocm sogofifico ocm mucopmo mmm mm om om mm ma scozooc ncoameco weapmaxo wsHoSocs ca dame oe .m .ceaa do acdomoaaeo msm mm s: o: Om em Hmcompoo m mcHQoHo>oo CH accospm esp pmfimmm OB .h .moHHHEmm :30 Laos» wcfiofifisn com mo>fia games wcHHoooE CH oofisw m esp: HHHS mucoozpm one use» on weapHsO mam om m: mm ma OH one mo mogos pQOLLSO pep psomOLQOL zaopmgdoom OH .H .oocmpgoosfi ngpcoo do ohm cpzogw HmCOmgmo ocm cofipomhopcfi spasm Ham mm mm m: Hm am icomgoo noses CH mocofipooxm smegmaa m oofi>OLQ 09 .m ocxcmm m a m m a oeaoooeoo p.02 xcwm 1;” Acoscaecooo a memes 91 fact, only 45 of 475 respondents did not rank this objective as one of their five most important objectives. Following objective B in order of importance is objective C--"To aid the student in gaining self-understanding through developing an awareness of his needs, desires, and capacities." This objective is of second importance to the group, again, not only in terms of the number (100) who gave it a rank of "l," but also in terms of the large number (242) who gave it a rank of less than "1." In fact, objective C was ranked "2" by only one less respondent than was objective B. It will be observed that there is a fundamental dif- ference in the nature of objectives B and C, the former being more focused and of obvious relevance to marriage and family living, while the latter is more general and perhaps of no more direct relevance to marriage and family living than it might be to psychology, general education, or <:ounseling. In other words, helping students gain an under- :standing of the relationships in modern marriage can be sueen.clearly as a special task of family educators, whereas tc> help them grow in self-understanding is a task not nec- esusardly'peculiar to family educators, but, rather, shared equally by professional persons in many other fields and dis 0 iplines. The Objective which ranks third in popularity is N-- "1%) jprovide the student with a body or scientific knowledge aPCJLrt courtship, marriage, and family life." This objective, 92 like B, is of a specific nature and of peculiar relevance to educators for marriage and family living. Despite the fact that it is third in "popularity" only 67 educators consider it to be of first importance, and only 267 of them consider it to be an objective of any degree of importance. This is not surprising, however, for, as indicated in the review of literature, there are yet several educators who believe that there are no final facts in the marriage and family life field (56:69). Further, many educators who believe that there are such facts do not consider them to be of primary importance. The latter educators see behavior and personal experience as being of primary importance and, hence, do very little with facts as such (7,41). The present writer tends to take this position. It should be pointed out, however, that as the field continues to develop and mature, and as research and theory become more system— atic and sophisticated, the place and role of scientific knowledge in education for marriage and family living will probably assume a position of greater significance than it does at the present time. "Toassist.the student in developing a personal philo- ESophy of life" (objective J) is the objective which is of Ilext importance, not in terms of the number who ranked it CDf first importance to them, but, rather, in terms of the rlumber who ranked it of some degree of importance. Thus, EKD3 of the 475 educators consider this to be one of their 93 five most importance objectives. It should be observed that this objective, like objective C, is again one which is more general in nature and which might be of equal rele- vance to people in fields other than marriage and family living. Philosophy and religion, in particular, are two fields which might have this as one of their special con- cerns. The two objectives that are of next and about equal popularity and that again illustrate the broad, differential nature of family life objectives, are A and H. Objective A, "To acquaint the student with the historical-institutional significance of the family, and to help him gain an under- standing of the various types of family patterns existing in the United States today," is quite specific and of almost peculiar relevance and concern to family educators. On the other hand, objective H, "To provide a planned experience in which personality interaction and personal growth are of 1 central importance,’ is more general in nature, that is, is not of peculiar relevance or concern to family educators. In fact, psychology, mental hygiene, religion, philosophy, general education, and student personnel work all share an jliterest in and a concern for the personal growth and per- SCNaality development of individuals. The remaining objectives are apparently of lesser EVignificance to family life educators as a group. Thus, tilley are each considered to be an objective of some degree 94 of importance by less than a third of the respondents. The three objectives of least popularity are E. M, and G. In fact, in relation to the latter, only one educator considers the working toward a reduction in the divorce rate to be his primary objective, and only 20 educators consider it to be an objective of any degree of importance. In conclusion, it can be said that the present study reveals a condition in relation to the objectives of family life educators not entirely unlike that revealed in the literature, much of which was reviewed in Chapter II. Thus, with one exception (objective B), no one objective appears to be held by the great majority of educators. In fact, the objectives are quite varied, and seem to be of two general kinds: (1) those objectives which are somewhat specific in nature and which are Obviously of peculiar con— cern to educators for marriage and family living, and (2) those objectives which are somewhat more general in nature and are perhaps of equal concern to educators in many other fields and disciplines. Table 5 shows the teaching methods or techniques Ilsed by family life educators in facilitating the accomplish- Inent of their objectives. Again, as in the case of their Cibjectives, the respondents were asked to rank these methods, ill this case in terms of their frequency of use. Thus, a t3echnique that received a rank of "l" was considered by the I‘anker to be the technique he used most often. 95 TABLE 5. The teaching methods and techniques of family life educators, ranked in order of frequency of use from 1 to 5. ‘4 ‘ L—— - - j Rank Not Teaching Methods 1 2 3 4 5 Ranked A. Lecture 155 90 47 41 24 118 B. Class discussion 262 117 46 16 4 29 C. Field trips 3 5 7 6 10 444 D. Role playing l 10 21 37 54 352 E. Films, slides, 6 54 99 110 58 148 and/or recordings F. Actual observation 2 7 12 ll 17 426 of families G. Textbook and other 39 126 131 66 38 75 assigned readings H. Small group (buzz ll 34 26 45 36 323 sessions) discus- sions I.‘ Individual counseling 4 ll 28 49 101 282 J3 The use of resource 3 7 25 45 65 330 persons K. Other--specify and 6 10 7 l3 16 423 rank An examination of Table 5 reveals that the teaching metkumd which is used most frequently by the largest number 0f ecnlcators is class discussion. In fact, only 29 educators PepOI’t not using class discussion with any degree of fre- quencyq This finding is consistent with that part of the litereinlre, referred to in Chapter II, which indicates that 96 increasingly family life educators are making greater use of class discussion as a way of accomplishing their unique goals. Another part of that same literature, however, does not seem to be supported by the present study. Thus, it will be recalled that several educators have referred to the inappropriateness of the lecture as a technique of any util- ity to the family educator (56, 7, 41). In the present study, however, 155 educators indicate that they use the lecture method more often than any other technique, with a total of 357 indicating that they use it with some degree of frequen- cy. One Hundred eighteen educators either use it very infre- quently, or not at all. On the basis of the present study, then, it appears that the lecture technique is still'consid- ered by the majority of educators to be of some real utility in facilitating the accomplishment of their objeccives. Textbooks and/or other assigned readings constitute 'the method used by the second largest number of educators, bui; less often. Thus, while only 39 educators report using bocflcs and assigned readings as the method they utilize most oftenl, 400 of them report employing it with some degree of frecplency. Other methods used with some degree of frequency by a. fairly significant percentage of educators are: (l) filnms, slides, and/or recordings; and (2) personal or indivdxlual counseling. In the case of the former, only six educaixmrs report using such methods most often while 321 PepOI’t llsing them with less frequency; in the case of the 97 latter, only four report using it most often while 193 report using it with less frequency. The two least used techniques or methods, in terms of the number of educators reporting their use, are: (1) actual observation of families, and (2) field trips. The former is considered by Blood to be of increasing promise, not only as a teaching technique but especially as a research tool (11:47). Edu- cators who indicated the use of methods other than those listed on the questionnaire report using such methods as panel discussions, case histories, term papers, autobio- graphies, demonstrations, small scale research projects, and novels. In conclusion it can be said that the teaching Inethods which have greatest appeal to the largest number cof family life educators making up the sample of the present situdy are class discussions, lectures, textbooks and other enssigned readings, and films, slides, and/or recordings. Desnoite their so-called unique objectives, and their claim the}: they need a set of special teaching techniques to acccxnplish these objectives, family life educators appar- enthy use teaching methods not entirely unlike those of othelc educators. Perhaps individual counseling constitutes the cnlly method of learning used with some frequency by famillv life educators which is not used with much frequency by nmxat other educators (10). 98 As indicated in Table 6 the third item on the ques- tionnaire was concerned with factors or experiences that were important in influedhing the study participants in their decisions to become family life educators. As pointed out in the review of literature, no studies of any signifi- cant scope or sophistication have been done on this problem. In the present study the respondents were asked simply to check those factors which they considered to have been most important in their decision to become family life educators. Before making an analysis of Table 6 it should be mentioned that the present writer is not unaware of the potential inadequacies of the results in relation to item three. In the first place, it is not always certain that people know precisely why they do what they do, even if lNhat they do is immediate to them and of great concern. In ‘the second place, a study of motivation is often best equroached either through projective methods or at least iii conjunction with such methods (1). Despite the impli- catxion of these observations for the item under consider- aticnl, however, it is the writer‘s contention that the reSLfiLts of this item can and do have significance for an undelnstanding of some of the factors that motivate people to tmnoome family life educators. If, of course, it could be assnrned, which it perhaps cannot, that the participants in tkm: present study were all psychologically healthy, the results <3f this item could be accepted as being reasonably 99 TABLE 6. Factors or experiences which respondents consider to have been important in their decision to become family life educators. Considered to Not Considered Factors be Important to be Important A. A professor under whom 154 321 I took some of my classes, or my major professor. B. A course in the family 150 325 that I took as part of my college program. C. Friend(s) of mine who en- 45 430 couraged me to look into the field. D. Better salaries in family 2 473 life education than in the field from which I came. E. My interest in the family as 105 370 a result of stressful family expreiences in my own past. F. My interest in the family as 194 281 a result of my happy family background. C}. The department or administra— 148 327 tion needed a person to teach a course in the family and I was asked to teach it. H. The greater availability of 9 466 jobs in family life educa- tion than in the field in which I was trained. 1- iMy concern about the impor- 110 365 tance of sex education. J~ iMy desire to help people. 286 189 K“ Other--specify. 138 337 lOO valid, if, at the same time, Allport's observations in relation to motivational theory are accepted (1). In any event, the claim that is being made in relation to the results of item three of the questionnaire is that these are the reasons the study participants gave as to why they decided to become family life educators. No claim is made that the apparent and the real reasons are the same, nor is the conclusion drawn that they are different. An analysis of Table 6 reveals that the factor checked by the largest number of respondents as being most important in their decision to become educators for marriage and family living is J, "My desire to help people." In fact, 60.2 per cent of the respondents indicate the importance of this factor. It is possible, of course, that, phrased as it is, this factor has a kind of "catch all" quality .about it and that, consequently, it might have invited the :respondents to check it, whether it was of real importance car not. Again, so far as the present investigator is con- cerned, all that is claimed is that 286 of the 475 respon- deants indicate that this factor was important to them in idfeciding to become family life educators. The factor checked by the second largest number of reSpondents (194 or 40.9 per cent) as being important in thair decision to become family educators was F, "My inter- n east; in the family as a result of my happy family background. ‘Agétin, this factor, like factor J, may have had a tendency 101 to invite the respondents to check it. On the other hand, factor E, "My interest in the family as a result of stressful family experiences in my own past," was considered to be of importance.by 105, or 22 per cent, of the respon- dents. On the basis of the latter, it might be fair to conjecture that some family life educators are in the marriage and family living field because of the need to work through their own unresolved family problems. . Three factors that were checked as being important by an almost equal number of respondents are A, B, and G. As will be indicated in Chapter V, those who checked A and B tend to be the younger educators, whereas those who checked G tend to be the older educators.3 This finding is not surprising, however, since courses in marriage and family living on a relatively broad scale are of very recent origin. Consequently, the opportunity to take such courses was not available to the older educators. They came into ‘the field, as indicated in Table 6, in part because they vnare available when the family life courses were introduced iilto the curriculum, and were asked to teach such courses bb’ the administration. Though few respondents consider it to be one of their fi\ne most important objectives, llO indicate that their 3Older and younger here refer to chronological age, not; to length of service in the family life field. 102 concern about the importance of sex education was an impor- tant factor in their decision to become family life edu- cators. This situation leads the present writer to believe that many family educators who have a profound interest in and concern about the problem of sex and sex education still find it difficult to openly admit that the provision of sex education is one of their goals. This contention is given greater credence in the results of item four of the questionnaire, to be discussed below. The three factors checked by the fewest number of respondents as being important in influencing them to become educators for marriage and family living are C, H, and D. In fact, in relation to the latter, only two educators consider better salaries to have been important. Educators who checked the "Other" category indicate a variety of factors as having been important. These factors logically .group themselves into two general categories: (1) those factors relating to the academic training of the educators, Simfiias sociology, home economics, and psychology; and (2) tflaose factors relating to a felt need for and a concern Eflaout the importance of this type of education. Item four A of the questionnaire was concerned with tFKB relative amount of time that family educators spend on tFKB various subject-matter areas in the field of marriage anfii family living. As indicated in Chapter II, no studies haflne been done on this aspect of the family life field. 103 Hudson's study, referred to in Chapter II, resulted in an identification of subject-matter areas, but did not, in fact was not designed to, reveal the areas that received more or less of the educators' time in the classroom. In relation to this item in the present study, the study parti- cipants were instructed simply to rank all of the subject~ matter areas from one to eleven in terms of the amount of time that they actually spend on these areas. Thus, a rank of "1" means that the ranker spends more time on that area than any other area, and, conversely, a rank of "11" means that he spends less time on that area than any other. A subject—matter area that received a rank of "O," of course, means that no time is spent on it. An analysis of Table 7 reveals that of the 11 suject— matter areas the four that are the most popular in terms of the amount of time that is devoted to them by the instructors in the classroom are Family Life (with children), IWarried State (without children), Mate selection, and IPersonality Development. (A brief description of the nature (Df the various subject-matter areas is contained in the Cluestionnaire). This situation is true not only in terms 017 the large number of educators who gave these areas a Parflc of "l," but also in terms of the small number of educators who spend no time on them and, consequently, gave thEHn a rank of "0." It will be observed that that aspect Of' this finding concerned with personality development is 104 I'll. III. 'l‘li .III in!) mam as am mm mm s ea ma m we ma Hm osoawam Hmcomsom .m mm m as as we as mm mm am mm on ma pscEdoHosoo Hmaoom .s ms o 0a om mm mm oo mm Hm mo pm am new .H oma am am mm Hm me me am mm mm mm we ocosdoacecm accessed .m mm a m ma ea Hm mm me as so we mag ocosdoao>oo soaamsomsom .o em 0 m a sa me am am 0: ow ace mma soapooacm coo: .g om a o m om om mm mm mm mo mm sea madam coasts: .m mm H m as ma mm mm ma om om mm osa peas seesaw .o we OH om as am on em mm mm mm mm mm coaomnacmwsomao seesaw .0 mod me am mm em os mm om mm em as as moaHAEdm so cosponsomco .m em m m om mm am om mo ms mm mm so mcaomo .< cede oz as 0H m m s o m a m m a scope scoemz-pocsesm ocoom xcmm in .Emcp mo some so ucoom kHHmELo: as... mmsawawmammamwwww.crmmmm its 2 s 3 a at teases as a do paced one so named soppm5-poonosn one .s mqm rank all of the subject-matter areas from 1 to 11 in terwns of the relative amount of time that they actually spmnnd on each of the areas. For purposes of the present stnatistical operations, it was necessary to collapse all of true ranks into three categories: (1) most time; (2) least tinma; and (3) no time. The "most time" category is made 14p <>f the ranks 1 through 5; the "least time" category is czomposed of ranks 6 through 11; and the "no time" category, of course, is composed of the ”0” ranks. 177 TABLE 63. The relationship between academic background and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of dating. Time Spent on Dating Most Least No Academic Background Time Time Time Total Sociology 93 37 11 141 Psychology 17 9 5 31 Home Economics 65 16 8 89 Family Life 31 18 6' 55 Child Development 12 5 10 27 Education 42 13 6 61 Total 260 98 46 404 X2 is 26.55, 10 degrees freedom, P. is .01. TABLE 64. The relationship between teaching level and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of dating. Time Spend on Dating Most Least No Teaching Level Time Time Time Total College 204 100 51 w 355 High School 73 13 4 ' 90 Total 277 113 55 445 )(2 is 17.50, 2 degrees freedom, P. is .001. 178 l and 2 only. Apparently the relative amount of time spent on this subject—matter area does not differ significantly in relation to the various types of family life classes that are taught, such as Preparation for Marriage, Marriage and the Family, and Sociology of the Family. The impli- cation of this finding, of course, is that prediction in 1 relation to the amount of time that family educators spend on the topic of dating can not be made on the basis of class titles alone. Analysis of Table 63 reveals that a higher percentage of educators whose academic degrees are in child development and psychology fall into the "least time” and "no time" categories on the subject of dating than do edu— cators whose degrees are in other academic fields. Inspec- tion of Table 64 reveals that a higher percentage of high school educators spend most of their time, and a lower percentage spend none of their time, on the subject of dating than do college educators. "Description of Families" is the second subject-matter armna of item four of the questionnaire. The relative amcuuit of time spent on this area is significantly associ- aateci with all three variables. Tables 65, 66, and 67 show 'the ruiture of this association in each case. As indicated irl'Talile 65, about one-half of the educators with socio— JJDgiLHil and psychological backgrounds spend most of their tinma CH1 this subject, whereas only about one-third of the eChicaixars with other kinds of academic backgrounds spent 179 TABLE 65. The relationship between academic background and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of description of families. Time Spent on Description of Families Most Least No Academic Background Time Time Time Total Sociology 73 52 16 141 Psychology l4 l2 5 31 Home Economics 28 33 28 89 Family Life 17 24 14 55 Child Development 9 ll 7 27 Education 17 24 20 61 Total 158 156 97 404 X2 is 26.01, 10 degrees freedom, P. is .01. TABLE 66. The relationship between teaching level and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of description offamilies. Time Spend on Description of Families Most Least No Teaching Level Time Time Time Total College 158 132 65 355 High School 22 35 33 90 Total 180 167 98 445 X6? is 18.18, 2 degrees freedom, P. is .001. x g 180 TABLE 67. The relationship between titles of classes and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of description of families. Time Spent on Description of Families Most Least No Class Titles Time Time Time Total Preparation for Marriage 25 37 20 82 Family Relations 53 66 45 164 Marriage and Family 68 78 28 174 The Family 39 31 16 86 Sociology of Family 22 6 5 33 Total 237 218 114 539 X2 is 23.02, 8 degrees freedom, P. is .01. most of their time on it. Inspection of Table 66 reveals a situation quite the opposite of that revealed in Table 64; thus, more educators on the college than the high school level indicate spending most of their time on the subject of description of families. In relation to variable 3, Table; 67 shows that the more sociologically oriented classes, thai;.is, The Family and Sociology of the Family, are the clzusses in which the most time is spent on description of families. rThe relative amount of time spent on the third subject— nuitter° area” Family Disorganization, is significantly associ- atemi wiifla variable 1 only. The nature of the association is ,indixzatexi in Table 68; thus, a higher percentage of educators 181 TABLE 68. The relationship between academic background and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of family disorganization. Time Spent on Family Disorganization Most Least No Academic Background Time Time Time Total Sociology 65 72 ’4 141 Psychology l5 l3 3 31 Home Economics 43 36 13 89 Family Life 14 35 6 55 Child Development 3 , 16 8 27 Education 22 31 8 61 Total 159 203 42 404 X2 is 35.19, 10 degrees freedom, P. is .031. with degrees in sociology, psychology, and home economics indicate spending most of their time on this subject than do educators with degrees in family life, child development, and education. The next four subject-matter areas of item four of tflue questionnaire are Family Life (with children), Married State (without children), Mate Selection, and Personality Development. It will be recalled from the results of Chagfluer IV that these four areas are the most popular areas in txarms of the relative amount of time that family edu— cnatorms devote to them. In fact, so many educators fall intm) the "most time" category on these areas that there are 182 too few frequencies in the "least time” and "no time" cate- gories to permit the application of the Chi Square technique. This means, then, that no tests can be made of the relation between the relative amount of time spent on these areas and the three variables against which the remaining subject- matter areas are tested. The eighth subject-matter area of item four of the questionnaire is Physical Development. As indicated in Tables 69, 73, and 71, a significant association obtains between the relative amount of time spent on this subject and each of the three variables against which it was tested. In relation to variable 1, Table 69 indicates that a higher 'percentage of educators whose degrees are in home economics, TABLE 69. The relationship between academic background and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of physical development. Time Spent on Physical Development Most Least No Academic Background Time Time Time Total Sociology 20 54 67 141 Psychology 9 8 14 31 Home Economics 35 22 32 89 Family Life 9 23 26 5 Child Development 13 10 7 27 Education 19 27 15 61 Total 102 141 161 434 XZPis 31.76, 10 degrees freedom, P. is .301. I 183 TABLE 70. The relationship between teaching level and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of physical development. Time Spent on Physical Development Most Least No Teaching Level Time Time Time Total 1 College 74 122 159 355 High School 35 32 23 93 Total 139 154 182 445 X2 is 16.08, 2 degrees freedom, P. is 001. TABLE 71. The relationship between titles of classes and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of physical development. Time Spent on Physical Development Most Least No Class Titles Time Time Time Total Preparation for Marriage - 17 35 33 82 Fanxily Relations 46 57 61 164 Marriage and Family 35 63 76 174 The Femily 12 32 42 86 Scxziology of Family 2 10 21 33 'Total 112 197 233 539 )(2 is 17,00, 8 degrees freedom, P. is .05. l I. 184 child development, and education report spending more time on the subject of physical development than do educators whose degrees are in sociology, psychology, and family life. Sociologists, in particular, spend little or no time on this subject. Inspection of Table 70 reveals that the sub- ject of physical development is of considerably less inter- est, in terms of the relative amount of time devoted to it, to family educators on the college level than to edu- cators on the high school level. Finally, analysis of Table 71 reveals that little time is spent on this subject by educators who teach classes entitled The Family and Sociology of the Family. Close to one-third of the educators teaching courses entitled Family Relations report spending "most time" on the subject of physical development. The relative amount of time spent on the ninth subject- smatter area, Sex, is significantly associated with variable "1" only. Table 72 indicates the nature of this relation- ship. "Social Development" is the tenth subject-matter area of‘:item four of the questionnaire. As indicated in Tables '73, '74, and 75 the relative amount of time spent on this aireEL is significantly associated with all three variables. ILnspxaction of Table 73 reveals that more educators with a 110nm? economics background fall into the "most time" cate- gory in relation to this subject than do educators with Gunner“ academic backgrounds. Sociologists, in particular, 185 TABLE 72. The relationship between academic background and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of sex. Time Spent on Sex Most Least No Academic Background Time Time Time Total Sociology 72 62 7 141 Psychology 20 9 2 31 Home Economics 40 32 17 89 Family Life 26 26 3 55 Child Development 6 15 6 27 Education 35 20 6 61 Total 199 164 41 404 X2 is 27.92, 10 degrees freedom, P. is .01. -—_— ._‘., -——--'. '1“.-..——~ TABLE 73. The relationship between academic background and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of social development. “—1 tr? — Time Spent on Social Development More Lease No Academic Background Time Time . Time Total Sociology 46 64 31 141 Home Economics 52 22 15 89 Family Life 23 25 7 55 Education 28 20 13 61 Total 149 131 66 346 1X2 is 18.18, 6 degrees freedom, P. is .01. 18 TABLE 74. The relationship between teaching level and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of social development. Time Spent on Social Development Most Least No Teaching Level Time Time Time Total College 138 152 65 355 High School 51 27 12 90 Total l89 179 77 445 X2 is 9.30, 2 degrees freedom, P. is .01. TABLE 75. The relationship between titles of classes and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of social development. Time Spent on Social Development Most Lease No Class Titles Time Time Time Total Preparation for Marriage 26 45 ll 82 Family Relations 89 53 22 164 IMarriage and Family 61 80 33 174 ’The Family 30 38 18 86 £Sociology of Family 9 16 8 33 Total 215 232 92 539 X2 is 24.44, 8 degrees freedom, P. is .01. -L—‘—-'. 211:?“ - ‘.-w-‘-."-- _ . . ah.-—_.__ _ 187 tend to spend the least amount of time on the subject. In relation to variable 2, Table 74 reveals that a considerably higher percentage of educators on the high school level fall into the "most time" category than do educators on the college level, and, conversely, a smaller percentage falls into the "no time" category. Analysis of Table 75 reveals more time is spent on social development in classes that are entitled Family Relations than in classes with other titles. The final subject-matter area of item four of the questionnaire is Personal Hygiene. The Chi Square test of the relation between the relative amount of time that is spent on this subject and the three variables reveals a significant association in the case of each variable. The nature of the association in each case is indicated in Tables 76, 77, and 78. Table 76 shows that while few edu- cators, irrespective of their academic background, fall into the "most time" category in relation to the subject of personal hygiene, the significant Chi Square is probably accounted for by the fact that a higher percentage of edu- cators whose degrees are in home economics fall into this category than do educators whose degrees are in other fields; only nine of 141 sociologists fall into this cate- gory. Inspection of Table 77 reveals that a very low percentage (.09 per cent) of college educators fall into the "most time" category, whereas a much larger percentage (40 per cent) of high school educators so distribute themselves. 188 TABLE 76. The relationship between academic background and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of personal hygiene. —_—_..‘_—___ .— Time Spent on Personal Hygiene Most Least N Academic Background Time Time Time Total Sociology 9 48 84 141 Psychology 7 5 19 31 Home Economics 28 25 36 89 Family Life 7 15 33 55 2 Education 15 28 18 61 J; Total 66 121 190 377 X2 is 41.00, 8 degrees freedom, P. is .001. TABLE 77. The relationship between teaching level and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of personal hygiene. Time Spent on Personal Hygiene Most Least No Teaching Level Time Time Time Total College 30 109 216 355 High School 36 36 18 90 Total . 66 145 234 445 X2 is 72.86, 2 degrees freedom, P. is .001. 189 TABLE 78. The relationship between titles of classes and the relative amount of time spent on the subject of personal hygiene. Time Spent on Personal Hygiene Most Least No Class Titles Time Time Time Total Preparation for Marriage 11 35 36 82 Family Relations 29 56 79 164 Marriage and Family 18 59 97 174 The Family 4 28 54 86 Total ' 62 178 266 506 X2 is 14.04, 6 degrees freedom, P. is .05. Summary. The statistical results in relation to the present item clearly indicate the existence of a signifi- cant association between the relative amount of time spent on the various subject-matter arear of marriage and family education and certain of the variables against which the 6 test was made. The relative amount of time spent on four <1f the subject-matter areas-~Description of Families, 6The Chi Square test of the relation between the rel- atiwne amount of time spent on the four most popular subject— nuitter’areas--Family Life, Married State, Mate Selection, armi Personality Development--was precluded by an insuffici- enierumber of frequencies in the "least time" and "no time" categories. 190 Physical Development, Social Development, and Personal Hygiene--was found to be significantly associated with each of the three variables; Dating was found to be signifi- cantly associated with variables 1 and 2; Sex and Family Disorganization were associated with one variable only. Specific Findings in Relation to Item Five of the Question— naire Item five of the questionnaire is concerned with the procedures used by the respondents in deciding on the con- tent or subject-matter of the classes that they teach. It will be recalled from Chapter IV that only three procedures were used by a significant number of respondents. These include: (l)'"An outline or syllabus, based on past experi- ence, is prepared in advance of each class"; (2) "Decided jointly by instructor and class members at the beginning of each.quarter or semester"; and (3) "The outline of the ixaxtbook is followed." Thus, in terms of the present statistical manipulations, only these three procedures will Ix; tested for association with two variables: (1) the acacknnic background of the respondents; and (2) the level on vfliich the respondents teach. The Chi Square test of the relation between procedure 1, tflue use of an outline or syllabus, and the two variables rexmuils a significant association in the case of variable Inspection of table 79 reveals that an outline 2 only. Orw:3yl]iibus is used in deciding on content by a much larger 191 number and percentage of college family educators than by educators on the high school level. In fact, while only about 50 per cent of the high school teachers report the use of an outline or syllabus, approximately 76 per cent of the college teachers report using it. 'v. TABLE 79. The relationship between teaching level and the use of an outline or syllabus in deciding on course content. Outline or Syllabus Teaching Level Use Do Not Use Total College 272 83 355 High School 44 46 90 Total 316 129 445 X2 is 26.82, l'degree freedom, P. is .001. As indicated in Tables 80 and 81, a significant association obtains between the use of procedure 2, decided jointly by instructor and class members, and both variables 1 and 2. Inspection of Table 80 reveals that a larger per- centage of educators whose degrees are in home economics, family'life, and child development report using this pro- cxuiurezhideciding on content than do educators whose degrees are 111 education, psychology, and sociology. Sociologists, in guxrticular, tend not to use this procedure with any degree of frequency. Analysis of Table 81 reveals that a 192 higher percentage of educators on the high school level em- ploy procedure 2 than do educators on the college level. TABLE 80. The relationship between academic background and the use of both instructor and class members in deciding on course content. Jointly by Instructor and Class Members m Academic Background Use_ Do Not Use Total Sociology 39 102 141 Psychology l4 17 31 J Home Economics 66 23 89 " Family Life 39 16 55 -* Child Development 15 12 27 Education 29 32 61 Total 202 202 404 X2 is 59.31, 5 degrees freedom, P. is .001. TABLE 81. The relationship between teaching level and the use of both instructor and class members in deciding on course content. Jointly by Instructor and Class Members Teaching Level Use Do Not Use Total College 161 194 355 High School 59 31 90 Total 220 225 445 X2 is 11.73, 1 degree freedom, P. is .001 193 The use of the third procedure, outline of the text— book, is significantly associated with variable 1 only. Table 82 indicates the nature of this association; thus, a higher percentage of educators whose degrees are in socio- logy, education, and psychology report using this procedure than do educators whose degrees are in home economics, family life, and child development. It will be observed that this finding tends to be consistent with that revealed in Table 80. TABLE 82. The relationship between academic background and the use of the outline of a textbook in deciding on course content. Outline of Textbook Followed Academic Background Use Do Not Use Total Sociology ‘ 54 87 141 Psychology 8 23 31 Home Economics 16 73 89 Family Life 2 53 55 Child Development 5 22 27 Education 18 43 61 Total 103 30l 404 2 X is 29.85, 5 degrees freedom, P. is .001. Summa y. It has been found that the procedures used 'by iknnily educators in deciding on content are associated witflleeither one or both of the variables against which the procedures were tested for association. Thus, procedure 2, 194 decided jointly by class members and instructors, is signif- icantly associated with both variables, whereas procedures 1 and 3 are so associated with only one variable. Findings in Relation to Item Six of the Questionnaire The sixth item of the questionnaire is concerned with the desirable personal qualities or characteristics of family educators. The attitudes of the respondents7 in relation to these characteristics will be tested for associ- ation with three variables: (1) the age of the respondents; (2) the sex of the respondents; and (3) the respondents' degree of religiosity as measured by how often they go to church. The intention of the present statistical manipula- tions isix>determine if there are significant differences between the various groups of respondents in terms of the notions they hold in regard to the desirable personal characteristics of family educators. The first characteristic of item six of the question- naire is, "Family life educators should have exceptionally high.nmmel standards," hereafter referred to as character: istic A“ As indicated in Tables 83, 84, and 85 the Chi Ehluare test of the relation between the respondents‘ atti- tude iriregard to this characteristic and the three variables reveals the existence of a significant association in the 7The attitude of the respondents in relation to the desilnible personal qualities is measured simply by whether or’ruyt they express agreement, doubt, or disagreement with the inarious statements about the qualities. 195 TABLE 83. The relationship between age and response to characteristic A. Characteristic A* Age Agree Doubt Disagree Total 20 - 39 68 41 14 123 40 — 49 107 33 7 147 50 or over 156 28 6 190 Total 331 102 27 460 2 X is 28.19, 4 degrees freedom, P. is .001. *Characteristic A: Family life educators should have exceptionally high moral standards. TABLE 84. The relationship between sex and response to characteristic A. Characteristic A* Sex Agree Doubt Disagree Total Male 145 64 19 228 Female 194 42 9 245 Total 339 106 28 473 X2 is 14.62, 2 degrees freedom, P. is .001. __. _ *Characteristic A: Same as Table 83. 196 The relationship between church attendance and TABLE 85. response to characteristic A. Characteristic A* Church Attendance Times Per Month Agree Doubt Disagree Total 0 times 21 3O 14 65 l - 2 times 55 26 5 86 3 or more times 261 48 8 317 Total 337 104 27 468 X2 is 79.91, 4 degrees freedom, P. is .001. Family life educators should have *Characteristic A: exceptionally high moral standards. case of each variable. Inspection of Table 83 reveals that fewer younger educators agree that family educators should have exceptionally high moral standards than do the older educators; conversely, a higher percentage of younger edu- cators disagree with this statement than do older educators. It is clear, then, that attitudes in relation to whether family educators should have exceptionally high moral standards is significantly related to the age factor of tfluase expressing the attitudes. The same thing is true in reljition to the sex of the respondents; thus, as indicated fiII'Table 84, more female educators agree, and fewer disagree, thai:.family educators should have high morals than do male edtuxitors. Analysis of Table 85 reveals that characteristic A 1A3 also significantly related to how often the respondents 197 go to church; thus, approximately 82 per cent of the group of educators who go to church three or more times per month agree that family educators should have exceptionally high morals, whereas only 32 per cent of the group who do not go to church at all so agree; 62 per cent of the group who go to church once or twice per month agree that family edu- cators should have exceptionally high morals. Characteristic B of the sixth item of the question- naire is, "Only people who believe in God should become educators for marriage and family living." The Chi Square test of the relation between the respondents‘ attitude in relation to this characteristic and the the three variables reveals a significant association in the case of all three variables. Tables 86, 87, and 88 indicate the nature of the statistical association in each case. Because the general pattern of association in relation to characteristic 2B is the same as that in relation to characteristic A no further observations need to be made about the former. Characteristic C of item six of the questionnaire ijs"0nly people who can respect the dignity and worth of the individual should become family life educatorsf' iBecmrlse there are so few educators who disagree with this statenent it is not possible to compute a Chi Square. Ifleither'is it possible to compute Chi Squares in relation txa chaiecteristics E and M (see Appendix I for the state- nmnlt of these characteristics). 198 TABLE 86. The relationship between age and response to characteristic B. Characteristic B* Age Agree Doubt Disagree Total 20 - 39 31 27 65 123 40 - 49 57 54 36 147 50 or over 86 43 61 190 Total 174 124 162 460 2 X is 31.84, 4 degrees freedom, P. is .001. *Characteristic B: Only people who believe in God should become educators for marriage and family living. TABLE 87. The relationship between sex and response to characteristic B. Characteristic B* Sex Agree Doubt Disagree Total Male 55 60 113 228 Female 128 66 51 245 Total 183 126 164 473 2 X is 52.30, 2 degrees freedom, P. is .001. *Characterhfiflc B: Same as Table 86. 199 TABLE 88. The relationship between church attendance and response to characteristic B. Characteristic B* Church Attendance Times Per Month Agree Doubt Disagree Total 1 time 7 15 23 45 ii 2 times 16 10 15 41 “ 3 times 31 31 31 93 4 or more times 124 62 38 224 Total 178 118 107 403 . X2 is 39.83, 6 degrees freedom, P. is .001. *Characteristic B: Only people who believe in God should become educators for marriage and family living. The fourth characteristic of item six of the ques- tionnaire is, "It is highly desirable that teachers of family life be married," hereafter referred to as character- istic D. The Chi Square test of the relation between the :naspondents' attitudes in regard to this characteristic auui the three variables reveals a significant association iri‘the case of variable 2 only, the sex of the respondents. THle, as indicated in Table 89, more male educators agree, and iflawer disagree, with this statement than do female edtunators.' On the other hand, more female educators are inncerfixain as to whether they agree or disagree. 200 The relationship between sex and response to TABLE 89. characteristic D. Characteristic D* Sex Agree Doubt Disagree Total Male 150 40 38 228 Female 110 74 61 245 Total 260 114 99 473 P. is .001. X2 is 21.05, 2 degrees freedom, *Characteristic D: It is highly desirable that teachers of marriage and family life be married. Character F of item six is "Having had a divorce Inight help a person to be a better family life educator." The relation between the respondents' attitudes in regard to this characteristic and the three variables is statis— ‘tically significant in the case of variables 1 and 3 only; zippaiently sex is not significantly related to attitudes of zugreement or disagreement in relation to characteristic F. Taliles 90 and 91 indicate the nature of the association in “the (case of variables 1 and 3. Inspection of Table 90 relneals that the highest percentage of educators who agree witfli the statement of characteristic F are those from the youngest age group. Analysis of Table 91 reveals that the ryigruest percentage of educators who agree with the statement flat llu|u l‘ 201 of this characteristic are those who compose the group of educators who do not go to church at all; a lower percentage of educators who go to church three or more times per month fall into the "agree" category. TABLE 90. The relationship between age and response to characteristic F. Characteristic F* Age Agree Doubt Disagree Total 20 — 39 62 45 16 123 40 — 49 5O 64 33 147 50 or over 70 75 45 190 Total 182 184 94 460 X2 is 10.57, 4 degrees freedom, P. is .05. *Characteristic F: Having a divorce might help a person to be a better family life educator. TABLE 91. The relationship between church attendance and response to characteristic F. Characteristic F* Church Attendance Times Per Month Agree Doubt Disagree Total 0 times 36 22 7 65 l - 2 times 40 34 12 86 3 or more times 109 133 75 317 Total 185 189 94 468 2X2 is 14.65, 4 degrees freedom, P. is .01. *Characteristic F: Same as Table 90- 202 The seventh characteristic of item six of the ques- tionnaire is, "Family life educators should not have strong ' hereafter referred to as characteristic value orientations,‘ G. The Chi Square test of the relation between the atti- tudes of the respondents in regard to characteristic G and the three variables reveals a significant association in the case of variable 2 only. Table 92 indicates the nature of this association; thus, while a higher percentage of males both agree and disagree with this characteristic than do females, a lower percentage are uncertain as to whether they agree or disagree. TABLE 92. The relationship between age and response to characteristic G. 4¥ 4. Characteristic G* Sex Agree Doubt Disagree Total Male 28 48 152 228 Female 20 82 143 245 Total 48 130 295 473 X2 is 9.89, 2 degrees freedom, P. is .01. A *(Huiracteristic G: Family life educators should not have strong value orientations. 203 Characteristic H of item six is "Women are likely to make better family life educators than are men." The com- putation of a Chi Square was possible in relation to variable 2 only; there were too few frequencies in the "agree" column to compute Chi Squares in relation to vari- ables l and 3. ‘As indicated in Table 93, the association between characteristic H and the sex of the respondents is statistically significant; thus, a smaller number of male educators agree, and a larger number disagree, with this statement than do female educators. TABLE 93. The relationship between sex and response to characteristic H. Characteristic H* Sex Agree Doubt Disagree Total Male 2 71 155 228 Female 21 95 129 245 Total 23 166 284 473 X2 is 20.97, 2 degrees freedom, P. is .001. *Cfurracteristic H: Women are likely to make better family life educators than are men. ”Family life educators should be fairly regular church sittermhers," is characteristic 1 of item six of the question- zaire. The Chi Square test of the relation between the 204 respondents‘ attitudes in regard to this characteristic and variables 1 and 2 reveals a significant association in each case. Because no educators in the group who do not go to church agree with this statement it was not possible to compute a Chi Square in relation to variable 3. However, Table 94 is inserted simply to indicate how the educators, by variable 3, distributed themselves in rela- tion to this characteristic. Thus, it is quite clear that the more times per month that an educator goes to church the more likely he is to feel that family life educators should be fairly regular church attenders. Tables 95 and 96 show the nature of the association in relation to variables 1 and 2. Inspection of Table 95 reveals that the age group 40-49 has the highest percentage of educators who agree with the statement of characteristic 1; the lowest percentage of educators who agree are those composing the youngest group, 30-39 years of age. Analysis of Table 96 reveals that a higher percentage of females than males agree with this statement, and, conversely, a lower per- cenitage of females than males disagree with the statement. Characteristic J of item six of the questionnaire is, "Family life educators should be ’neutral' in any class ciiscnlssion involving controversial subject-matter, such as prtrdnarital sex relations." Tables 97 and 98 indicate thai:‘the attitude of the respondents in regard to this chaivacteristic is significantly associated with variables 205 TABLE 94. The relationship between church attendance and response to characteristic I. Characteristic 1* Church Attendance Times Per Month Agree Doubt Disagree Total 0 times 0 15 5o 65 " 1 - 2 times 24 . 30 32 86 3 times or more 179 90 48 317 Total 203 135 130 468 *Characteristic I: Family life educators should be fairly regular church attenders. TABLE 95. The relationship between age and response to characteristic I. Characteristic I* Age Agree Doubt Disagree Total 20 - 39 34 42 47 123 40 - 49 73 39 35 147 50 or over 89 52 49 190 Total 196 133 131 460 2 X is 16.29, 4 degrees freedom, P. is .01. *Crmxracteristic I: Same as Table 94. HF..——in—.— - —— ~.—— 206 TABLE 96. The relationship between sex and response to characteristic 1. Characteristic 1* Sex Agree Doubt Disagree Total Male 74 7O 84 228 Female 130 65 50 245 Total 204 135 134 473 x2 is 23.60, 2 degrees freedom, P. is .001. *Characteristic I: Family life educators should be fairly regular church attenders. TABLE 97. The relationship between age and response to characteristic J. Characteristic J* Age Agree Doubt Disagree Total 20 - 39 24 36 63 123 40 - 49 28 29 90 147 50 or over 16 37 137 190 Total 68 102 290 460 X2 is 17.97, 4 degrees freedom, P. is .01. *Characteristic J: Family life educators should be "neutral" in any class discussion involving con— troversial subject-matter, such as pre- marital sex relations. 207 TABLE 98. The relationship between church attendance and response to characteristic J. Characteristic J* Church Attendance Times Per Month Agree Doubt Disagree Total 0 times 15 16 34 65 1 - 2 times 18 25 43 86 3 or more times 37 62 218 317 Total 70 103 295 468 X2 is 15.38, 4 degrees freedom, P. is .01. *Characteristic J: Family life educators should be "neutral" in any class discussion involving con~ troversial subject-matter, such as pre- marital sex relations. 1 and 3; apparently attitudes in regard to this character— istic do not differ significantly by sex. Inspection of Table 97 reveals that the smallest number of educators who agree, and the largest number who disagree, with this characteristic are from the oldest (SO-years and over) age .group. Analysis of Table 98 reveals that while more edu- cators disagree with this statement than agree with it, the llighest percentage of those who disagree are the educators vfiio go to church three or more times per month; lower per- cenitages of those who go to church fewer than three times ENE? month disagree with the statement. 208 The next characteristic of item six of the question- naire is, "Family life educators should represent the cur- rent community mores in any discussion involving controver- sial subject—matter," hereafter referred to as characteris— tic K. The attitudes of the respondents in regard to this characteristic are significantly related to variables 1 and 2. Tables 99 and 100 indicate the nature of the association in each case. Thus, inspection of Table 99 reveals that the highest percentage of educators who agree with this state- ment, as well as the lowest percentage to disagree, are those who compose the oldest age group--50 years of age or over. This finding is just the opposite of but consistent with that revealed in Table 97. Examination of Table 100 reveals that while most educators, irrespective of sex, express disagreement with this characteristic, a higher percentage of female than male educators agree with it; further, a higher percentage of females than males are uncertain as to whether they agree or disagree. Characteristic L of the sixth item of the question- naire is "Only people who have successful and happy marriages should become family life educators." The attitudes of the respondents in regard to this characteristic are significantly associated with variable 1 only. Table 101 indicates the nature of this relationship. 209 TABLE 99. The relationship between age and response to characteristic K. Characteristic K* Age Agree Doubt Disagree Total 20 - 39 10 33 80 123 40 - 49 13 51 83 147 50 or over 28 7O 92 190 Total 51 154 255 460 2 X is 10.02, 4 degrees freedom, P. is .05. *Characteristic K: Family life educators should represent the current community mores in any dis- cussion of controversial subject—matter. TABLE 100. The relationship between sex and response to characteristic K. Characteristic K* Sex Agree Doubt Disagree Total Male 18 61 149 228 Female 36 99 110 245 Total 54 160 259 473 2 X is 20.30, 2 degrees freedom, P. is .001 *Cruiracteristic K: Same as Table 99. 210 TABLE 101. The relationship between age and response to characteristic L. Characteristic L* Agree Doubt Disagree Total Age 20 - 39 10 36 77 123 40 — 49 25 51 71 147 50 or over 39 68 83 190 Total 74 155 231 460 x2 is 13.73, 4 degrees freedom, P. is .01. Ohly people who have successful and happy marriages should become family life educators. *Characteristic L: The statistical results in relation to item Summary. six of the questionnaire clearly indicate the existence of a significant association between the respondents' attitudes 111 regard to the desirable personal characteristics of family life educators and certain of the variables against vfliich.the test was made. The attitudes of the respondents 111 relation to characteristics A, B, and I were signifi- carrtly associated with all three variables; their attitudes irizregard to characteristics F, J, and K were significantly zisscxziated with two variables; and the attitudes of the resuoondents in relation to characteristics P, G, H, and L werxe significantly associated with one variable only. Firmrlly, there were two few frequencies in certain of the 211 categories to test the relation between the respondents' attitudes in regard to characteristics C, E, and M and the variables. Findings in Relation to Item Seven of the Questionnaire Item seven of the questionnaire is concerned with the opinion of the respondents in regard to the academic areas which offer the best basic preparation for persons interested in becoming family life educators. The respon- dents were asked to select and rank from 1 to 5, in the order of their importance, the five areas which they con- sider to be the most appropriate for this purpose. However, it was necessary in this step, as explained earlier in the present chapter, to collapse all the ranks into one cate- gory. In the present statistical manipulations the Opinion of the respondents in relation to the best academic areas of preparation for persons interested in becoming family . life educators will be tested for association with one variable, the academic background of the respondent. The first academic area of item seven of the ques- tionnaire is home economics. The Chi Square test of the relation between the ranking of this area and the academic ‘background of the educators reveals a significant associ- zation. Table 102 indicates the nature of this relationship; 8Because only five of these areas were ranked by a syignificant number of educators, it is possible in the Ixresent statistical operations to use only five areas in txasting for association. These areas include home economics, Epsychology, sociology, child development, and counseling. 212 TABLE 102. The relationship between academic background and the ranking of home economics as one of the five most important areas of academic preparation for future family educators. Home Economics Academic Background Ranked Not Ranked Total Sociology 29 112 141 Psychology 9 22 31 Home Economics 82 7 89 Family Life 30 25 55 Child Development 19 8 27 Education 23 38 61 Total 192 212 404 X2 is 125.44, 5 degrees freedom, P. is .001. thus, the Chi Square seems to be accounted for primarily ‘by the fact that 82 of 89 educators with degrees in home enzonomics rank this area as one of the five most important arenas of training for future family educators, while only 29 (if 141 sociologists so rank it. Educators whose degrees are: in other fields fall somewhere between these two extremes. The second academic area of item seven of the ques— ticxniaire is psychology. As indicated in Table 103, there is 51 significant association between the ranking of this almna and the academic backgrounds of the respondents. In- specflxion of Table 103 reveals that the highest percentage 213 of educators who rank this area as one of the five most important for preparing future family educators for their work are those whose degrees are in psychology; the lowest percentage who so rank it are those whose degrees are in home economics; the remainder of the educators fall some- where between these two extremes. TABLE 103. The relationship between academic background and the ranking of psychology as one of five most important areas of academic preparation for future family educators. Psychology Academic Background Ranked Not Ranked Total Sociology 128 13 141 Psychology 30 1 31 Home Economics 63 26 89 Family Life 50 5 55 Child Development 23 4 27 Education 52 9 61 Total 346 58 404 X2 is 23.36, 5 degrees freedom, P. is .001. 1 — Tfi Sociology is the third area of item seven of the questionnaire. The Chi Square test of the relation between the ranking of this area and the respondents‘ academic 'background reveals a significant association. The nature od maoopm o>fipooam oEom o>fipooam oz o>Hpoon wsacomoe pCoEowm9300cm c052 30m .mmaa kHHEmm 6cm owmfiagms EH mompzoo haOpodooapcfi CH Haogco ou mucoodpm wcfiupmw CH oomaoaoxo on taoocm pmcp ucoEmwmaSOQQo mo udfioEm one cow mpOmeSUo mo Ho>oH wcacomop coozpoo dachOHpmHop one .OHH mqmfiuomam oEom o>fipooam oz m>fiuooam pcoEommLSoocm cod: 30m .mmfia mafieme tom owmfipame Ca momLSOO mLOposoOchH CH Haogso on mesmoopm wsfippom CH comfiopoxo on UHSOcm page pcoEommpsooco mo pczoEm on» ocm mpOpmosoo mo xom coozpmc QHchOHpmHop oce .QQH mqmde 223 me: 4 mm mmm mHH or Hmooe Om o w mm m @ GEOGXCD m o o H o H szHOQOLQpc< mH H m s m m conHHom Ho 0 MH mm 0H m coHpmoSUm : o o m H o zmoHOHm mm o : wH m o pomeooHo>oQ cHHco mm m m am NH : mmHH zHHEmm mm 0 mm a: mH m moHEocoom oEom Hm o m mH 2H m smoHocoamm HaH H am am am om aonoHoom Hmpoe czochD meow . pcoEommLSOOCM pcoEowmazoodm pCoEomeSOocm UndoowXQmm anoEoo wcoopm o>Hpoon oEom m>Hpoon oz o>Hpoon QHEocmo< pEmEomeSOOQm 2052 30m .oMHH zHHeme pom ommHome EH mothOO mLOHoSBOchH CH HHoaco on mpCTUSpm wchpow CH oomHoooxo on UHzocm page psoEommHSOQCm mo undoem ocp on wpmwog :H wcHHome tHocp an ego ocdoawxomc oHEmomom an mpOpmoSUm do COHDSQHLumHo one .HHH mm¢9 224 or requiring students to enroll in such classes are those who have their degrees in home economics and education; those who are least in favor of so encouraging the students are those whose degrees are in psychology. Summary. The results of the present statistical operations reveal significant differences between the groups tested and their opinions regarding the degree of encourage- ment that should be exercised in getting students to enroll in introductory courses in preparation for marriage and family life. Findings in Relation to Item 10 of the Questionnaire Item 10 of the questionnaire is concerned with the respondents' opinion in regard to the most logical academic department for the teaching of marriage and family life classes.9 The opinion of the respondents in regard to item 10 will be tested for association with two variables: (1) the sex of the respondents, and (2) the level on which the respondents teach. The writer was going to test for association with a third variable, academic background, but, as in the case of item nine of the questionnaire, it was not possible to conduct the test because of too few fre- quencies in some of the categories. Again, however, as in 9Only four departments were selected by a large enough number of respondents to use in computing Chi Squares. These include: (1) home economics, (2) psychology, (3) sociology, and (4) family life. 225 item nine, a general table, by academic background, showing the distribution of the respondents in relation to the con— tent of item 10 will be included in the present discussion. Tables 112 and 113 reveal the existence of a signifi- cant association between the opinion of the respondents regarding the most logical location for the teaching of marriage and family life classes and variables 1 and 2. Inspection of Table 112 reveals that a much higher percen- tage of female educators than male educators believe that the most logical department for offering courses in marriage and family life is a department of home economics, whereas a much higher percentage of males than females select a sociology department as the most logical location for the teaching of such classes. A department of family life is favored by more females than males. Analysis of Table 113 reveals that a higher percentage of high school than college educators favor home economics as the most logical location for the teaching of marriage and family classes, while a higher percentage of college than high school teachers favor sociology as the most logical location. A somewhat higher percentage of high school teachers favor family life as the most logical department. Table 114 is inserted simply to indicate the nature of the distribution of respondents by academic background and by their opinion in regard to item 10 of the questionnaire. Inspection of the table reveals that the distribution seems to be in the 226 TABLE 112. The relationship between sex of the educators and their feeling in regard to the most logical department for the teaching of marriage and family life classes. 1— __ t Location for Family Life Classes Home Family Sex Economics Psychology Sociology Life Total Male 7 ll . 111 83 212 Female 80 4 31 110 225 Total 87 15 142 193 437 X2 is 113.08, 3 degrees freedom, P. is .001. TABLE 113. The relationship between teaching level of the educators and their feeling in regard to the most logical department for the teaching of marriage and family life classes. Location for Teaching Family Life Classes eve Economics Psychology Sociology Life Total College 53 11 124 138 326 High School 30 3 .11 41 85 Total 83' 14 135 179 411 2 X is 25.55, 3 degrees freedom, P. is.001. 227 ms: em mmH m ssH mH 6 am Hsuoe om 6 em 0 mH H H m torso m o o o m o o o zonOQOLSpc< mH H s o o o H o sonHHom Ho m om H mH m 6 6H soHomosom a m H o H o o o amoHon em m NH o m o m m pcoEQoHo>oQ oHHco mm m mm o o m o m oeHH HHHeom mm a om H m o 6 mm moHEocoom oEom Hm m mH H m o H m amoHocoamm HsH m am 6 am H H p amoHoHoom Hmpoe Esocxcb oeHH EOHmeSUM monoHoom mmOHocozmm pcoEQOHm>oQ mOHEocoom oudoawamm a torso aHHemm oHHco oEom oHEoomoa mommmHo omHH mHHEmm mom COHmeOH mHHEmm 6cm omepng mo wchomop on» Low pEmEpamdoo HmonoH pmoe on» on cosmos EH COHcHoo LHocp an ego ocoogwxomn oHEoomom an mLOpmozoo mo COHuangume one .mmmmmHo oMHH .JHH MHm