THE RELATIONSHIP OE OOOMATISIIA T0 CHANNEL PREFERENCE AND LEARNING IN CLASSROOM COMMUNICATION Thesis for the Degree Of M. A; ‘ NIIOIIIOAN STATE UNIVERSITY KERRY J. BYRNES * 1968 “ESIS -—.._. ¢-. L Y3" "}' I "‘5 Iu‘f “(7:42 -4.~ ii- ;7 4,1,» -v.I" =.- '-. . ‘ VKIh 1." iii. 1" V: C: K 5" m a | All _ —':L:8'I.-..w ..... .— .— "W '1" ... . ,l~ -V . j I .- .'~l K. 1;. ‘7 a .‘I ‘3 3-qu urV'ut'd. t1- 1'? '3" .nl Ii? (Em-’3: EB ‘IV1£SI_) RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from ‘I—c—I- your record. FINES win be charged if book is returned after the date stamped be10w. ABSTRACT THE RELATION OF DOGMATISM TO CHANNEL PREFERENCE AND LEARNING IN CLASSROOM COMMUNICATION By Kerry J. Byrnes \\\“\\\ This study explored the concept channel preference and the mediating role which channel preference plays between dogmatism and learning. Channel preference was defined as a student's preference for one or the other of two kinds of classroom communication sit- uations. The distinguishing characteristic between these situations is the presence or absence of the potentiality for immediate verbal feedback. Accordingly, the two classrocm communication situations were investigated: open channel (a face-to-face section of a course) and closed channel (a television section). The former provides opportunity for immediate verbal feedback, whereas the latter does not. Dogmatism was measured by the Short Form of the Dogmatism Scale. Channel Preference was measured by a student's preference for the television or the face-to-face section of an introductory communication course. Learning was measured by content analysis of responses to a communication consultant problem. Students whose propose for solving the problem emphasized setting up a committee were classified as evidencing an inability to apply the subject matter of the course in solving the communication consultant problem. This recognized that the student has failed to emphasize many other variables potentially 58 Do- a: (3 H of bee Free the lEVe di Kerry J. Byrnes relevant to the solution of the communication consultant problem. Students who suggested several communication variables in addition to setting up a committee were classified as having the ability to apply the subject matter of the course in solving the communication consultant problem. Students in an introductory communication course (Com 100) comprised the population of interest for this study. Two samples of students were randomly drawn for~ this study. Both groups had been enrolled in the face-to-face section ( open channel) at the start of the course. Shortly after their midterm examinations the students were offered the Opportunity to switch to a television section (closed channel) of the course. Having gathered data on the student's dogmatism, his channel preference, and learning, the data were examined to verify the presence or absence of four hypothesized relationships . Two of the four hypotheses were supported at a statistically significant level. 1. Significantly more high dogmatic students preferred the television section of the course; significantly more low dogmatic students preferred the face-to-face section. 2. Significantly more high dogmatic students proposed setting up a committee; significantly more low dogmatic students suggested several other communication variables in addition to setting up a committee. P1“ .- A) N \r.' cha . v "“1“ L1 _.V ‘ ‘ 6 Kerry J. Byrnes 3. The data revealed no relationship between channel preference and learning. 4. The data revealed an insignificant tendency for more low dogmatic students in the face-to—face section to offer solutions to the communication consultant problem entailing more than just setting up a committee. However, though the low dogmatic student tends to benefit from an open channel communication situation, for the high dogmatic student there is little difference in learning between an open and a closed channel classroom communication situation. Hypotheses 3 and n were not supported by the data. The findings of a relationship between dogmatism and channel preference points up the need for communication research that examines other variables affecting the process of communication in the classroom. In terms of the S-M-C-R model of human behavior of a communication process, these variables included source and receiver variables. Some source (teacher) variables that might be examined are encoding styles and tolerance for feedback. On the other hand, some receiver (student) variables that might be examined are the student's perceived level of own information and his tolerance for .aggression. The researcher discusses the implications of these variables in affecting the relationship between and among dogmatism, channel preference, and learning. The Relationship of Dogmatism to Channel Preference and Learning in Classroom Communication By Kerry J. Byrnes A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts Department of Communication 1968 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Communication, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree. Director 0 The31s R ~‘ .- GQK‘n to Me i" ‘. «Dix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS More than anyone else, I wish to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Lawrence E. Sarbaugh, who spent many hours in helping me to clarify in my own mind the scope and direction evidenced in this thesis. One could find few others with such patience in providing a sounding board as a student attempts to articulate how and where he might best go from the here and now. A thank you is also in order to each of the other members of the thesis committee: Dr. Gerald Miller, Dr. Mason Miller, and Dr. Howard Rebach. Their critical comments about the thesis helped immeasurably in clarifying the boundaries to any knowledge claimed herein. Along the way, Dr. James B. Mikee, Eugene Jacobson and Randall Harrison also pointed out possible research dimensions previously unconsidered by the researcher. I also wish to thank Carol Walters for her assistance in administering questionnaires; to Barbara Bernath who typed the stencils; to Marjorie Sarbaugh who mimeographed the questionnaires; and to Adonna Kokx who typed the final c0py of the thesis. Thanks also go to Dennis Stacilauskas, and Mike and Pat Lipsey for their aid both as coders and morale boosters; and to Bill Schley and Jane Mosher for their home-away-from-home hospitality this past year. Last but by no means least, a special thank you to my parents for their always to be counted on support in helping a young man to carry out that which he feels he must do. ii TABLE OF CHAPTER I Introduction.......... CHAPTER II “EthOdOlogoooooooooo CHAPTER III Findings . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER IV Summary and Discussion . . . . . iii CONTENTS Page . 1 .12 LIST OF TABLES Table Page l. The Relation of Dogmatism to Channel Preference . . . . . . . 31 2. The Relation of Dogmatism to Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3. The Relation of Channel Preference to Learning. . . . . . . . 33 u. The Relation of Dogmatism to Learning, Controlling on Channel Preference O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O 3"} 5. Dogmatism, Channel Preference, and Course Satisfaction . . . 38 6. Dogmatism, Channel Preference, and Whether Com lOO Was Interesting and Informative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 7. Dogmatism, Channel Preference, and How, in Terms of Student's Expectations in Enrolling in Com 100, Things Worked Out for Hj-m. (5 x u table) 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O "'0 8. Dogmatism, Channel Preference, and How, in Terms of Student's Expectations in Enrolling in Com 100, Things Worked Out for Hj-m. (2 x 2 table) 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O C O O O O O O u]- 9. Dogmatism, Channel Preference, and Student Interested in Taking More communication COurseS. o o o o o o o o o o o o o "’2 iv LIST OF CHARTS Chart Page A Types of Classroom Communication Situations Based On Potentiality and Actuality of Feedback Occurrence . . . . . . l3 B Sampling Plan for Drawing a Random Sample of Students From Winter Term, 1968 Communication 100. . . . . . . . . . . 25 LIST OF APPENDICES Append x I Letter Introducing Student to the Purposes of Com lOO ResearChoooooooo00.000000000000- II Cover Letter Mailed with Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . III Com 100 Survey Questionnaire: Form AAAA - Questionnaire regarding channel preference and attitudes toward Com 100 . . . . . . . . Form BBBB - Communication Consultant Problem . . . . . . Form CCCC - Short Form of the Dogmatism Scale. . . . . . Form DDDD - Questionnaire regarding student's year in school, which college of university enrolled in. etc. 0 C O O O O O I O O O O I O C O C O . IV Coded Respondent Solutions to Communication Consultatn Problem, as Classified by Dogmatism Level (High or Low) and Channel Preference (television or face-to—face). . . V Respondent's Course Grade, Classified by Channel Preference, Dogmatism, and Learning . . . . . . . . . . VI Student Responses to Open-ended Questions Concerning Positive/Negative Attitudes Toward Com 100, Classfied By Dogmatism Level (High or Low) and Channel Preference (television or face-to-face) . . . . ... . . . . . . . . vi Page . 70 . 89 ..90 CHAPTER I Introduction Statement of the Problem There is a.debate in the literature concerning whether there is a relationship between dogmatism and learning (Ehrlich, 1961; Christensen, 1963; Costin, 1965; White and Alter, 1967). While Ehrlich's data confirmed the hypothesis of an inverse relationship between dogmatism.and learning, Christensen's data failed to confirm that hypothesis. Subsequent researchers have speculated as to what the variables might be that could account for the disparity between the findings of Ehrlich and those of Christensen. These speculations include: 1. The "course content“ hypothesis- ...the different results obtained in the two studies can be attributed to the learning tasks, sociology versus psychology. If it is assumed that psychology is a.bit more rigorous and objectively oriented than sociology. one would expect dogmatism to be more important in.the learning of sociology than psychology. (Christensen, 1963:76) 2. The "more-thanione-kind-of-dogmatism" hypothesis—- (a) There is more than one kind of dogmatism; therefore, a variety of instruments is required to measure this variable. (b) Dogmatism is differentially related to classroom learning, depending on the particular nature of the learner's dogmatism, and its relevance to the kind of learning tasks he pursues. (Costin, 1965:188) 3. The "examination format" hypothesis-— Since dogmatic Ss tend to give a dispr0portionate number of "true“ responses on true—false tests, differences in examination formats used in the 2 studies could account for the disparity in results... (White and Alter, 1967: 285) White and Alter followed up on the third speculation. They found that a comparison of correlations between dogmatism and number of correct responses on true-false items (r. = -.1n) with the correlation for multiple-choice items (r. = -.16) produced no support (White and Alter, 1967:285) for the notion that differences in examination formats could account for the disparity between the findings of Ehrlich and Christensen. Discussing their research, White and Alter conclude: Despite the fact that correlations between D scores and examination scores were rather consistently negative in the present study, the weighted average correlation was small and the variability in the magnitude of the correlations was rather large. Thus, it seems fair to say that the predictive power of the D Scale with regard to grades is not impressive. (White and Alter, 1967:288) This brief review of the literature reveals that even if the researchers had_agreed upon some common measurement of "learning", they still failed to examine other variables that possibly affect the relationship between dogmatism and learning. One way of looking at these "other variables" is to view the classroom and human behavior therein from the perspective of Berlo's Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model of human behavior as a communication process. (Berlo, 1960) With such a model as the S-M-C—R model the researcher can keep track of the kinds of questions he is asking about human behavior in the classroom and.where those questions fit into the larger picutre of human behavior as a communication process. In terms of the S-M-C-R model, for example, we see that the re- searcher on dogmatism and learning has asked questions about the receiver (i.e., dogmatism) and the course content or message (i.e.. sociology vs. psychology). We also see in terms of the S—M-CeR model.the kinds of questions that researchers have not asked. One vari- able, for example, that has been neglected in the researCh on the relationship between dogmatism and learning is what the communica- tion.researcher calls a channel variable. Berlo has noted that in education, we usually fail to analyze teaching from a communication.channel point of view. For example, we.do not often.raise such.questions as: I. What kinds of messages should be transmitted orally in the classroom? 2. What kinds of messages should be transmitted visually, through books? 3. What kinds of messages should be transmitted visually, * but nonverbally, through.pictures, rather than.words? u. What.kinds of messages should be transmitted physically, through touch, by having students actually perform certain tasks, examine and manipulate certain objects, ates? (Ber-1°. 1960367) However, rather than examine which messages go with.which channels, receivers held constant (as is the logic of Berlo's proposal), this study will focus on which receivers go with which channels, message content held constant. Accordingly, in terms of the receiver, we shall centrally focus upon the relationship between.dggmatism and channel preference. In terms of the rationale (See page 2 ) underlying our hypotheses (See page 6 ) channel.preference is an intervening variable affecting the relae tionship between.dogmatism and learning. Concepts and Their Constituitive Definitions Three concepts are central to this study: (1) dogmatism, (2) channel preference, and (3) learning. The operational definitions for each of the following concepts are discussed in Chapter 2 (Methodology). We shall also consider in Chapter 3 (Findings) the relationship of dogmatism and channel preference to course satisfaction. (1) Dogmatism. We shall refer to "dogmatism" and "dogmatic thinking" as one and the same concept. To Rokeach the concept "dogmatic thinking" refers to the "resistance to change of systems of beliefs." (Rokeach, 1960:183) The dogmatic person is described as having "a relatively closed cognitive organization of beliefs and disbeliefs about reality..." (Rokeach, 195”:194-20u) Rokeach hypothesized that "the more closed a person's belief system, as- measured by the Dogmatism Scale, the more resistance he will put up to forming new belief systems." (Rokeach, 1960:181) When a high dogmatic person is confronted with the require- ment that he learn a new system of beliefs, he has greater difficulty than the low dogmatic person in accomplishing the task. This is not because the new system of beliefs (e.g., the subject matter of a course) necessarily goes contrary to the person's own belief-disbelief system. Rather, the high dogmatic person simply has more difficulty than the low dogmatic person in adding a new dimension to his belief-disbelief system. Whatever his present belief—disbelief system is, he tends to rely on it rather than to entertain the possibility of calling his belief-disbelief system into question. (2) Channel Preference. Obviously, channel preference is not a channel variable per se but rather, like dogmatism, a receiver variable. That we focus our attention on channel preference, however, suggests that there is some number of communication situations which differ from one another in terms of the nature of the channel in each communication situation. By channel preference we mean a student's preference for one or the other of two kinds of classroom communication situations. The distinguishing characteristic between these situations is the presence or absence of the potentiality for verbal feedback. Berlo has noted that feedback "provides the source with infor- mation concerning his success in accomplishing his objective. In doing this, it exerts control over future messages which the source encodes." (Berlo, 1960:111-112) Accordingly, a classroom communi- cation situation wherein the nature of the channel allows for verbal feedback is referred to as an 2232 channel communication situation. On the other hand, if the nature of the channel does 225 allow for feedback, the communication situation is referred to as a closed channel communication situation. In other words, in an cpen channel communication situation there is an opportunity for inter- action. In a closed channel communication situation, there is no opportunity for interaction. (S) Learning. Let's assume that a student who confronts both at the outset (t1) and throughout a course a way of thinking and a system of beliefs that are new to him. The subject matter of a 0) course would constitute the new way of thinking and the new system of beliefs. We shall say that learning has occurred if at some time (t2) after t1 the student evidences the ability to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of a course in solving a problem appropriate to the phenomena studied in the course. Hypotheses The following hypotheses eXpress what we feel to be the relationships between dogmatism, channel preference, and learning. The rationale underlying these hypotheses are discussed on pages 1. Students who are relatively more dogmatic will prefer with greater frequency a section of a course having a closed channel classroom communication situation. Conversely, students who are relatively less dogmatic will prefer with greater frequency a section of a course having an open channel classroom communication situation. 2. At some time (t2) after t , students who are relatively more dogmatic will evidence with greater frequency an inabili to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of a course in solving a problem appropriate to the phenomena studied in the course. Conversely, at some time (t2) after t1, students who are relatively less dogmatic will evidence with greater frequency an abilit to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of a course in solving a problem appropriate to the phenomena studies in the course. 3. Students who prefer a section of a course having a closed channel classroom communication situation will evidence with greater frequency at some time (t2) after t1 an inabilit to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of a course in solving a problem appr0priate to the phenomena studied in the course. Conversely, students who prefer a section of a course having an open channel classroom situation will evidence with greater frequency at some time (t2) after tl an abilit to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of the course in solving a problem appropriate to the phenomena studied in the course. 4. Students who are relatively more dogmatic and who prefer a section of a course having a closed channel classroom communication situation will evidence with greater frequency at some time (t ) after t an inabilisy to apply the way of thinking and the system 0 beliefs that comprise the subject matter of the course in solving a problem appropriate to the phenomena studied in the course. Conversely, students who are relatively less dogmatic and who prefer a section of a course having an mp nchannel classroom communication situation will evidence with . greater frequency at some time(t2) after t1 an abili to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of the course in solving a problem appropriate to the phenomena studied in the course. Rationale Underlying Hypotheses Hypothesis 1. Students, like any other group of people, tend to operate on the principle of least effort (Berlo, 1960:182-18u). If given the Choice between two alternative means of completing a task, a student will tend to choose that alternative which requires least energy expenditure. The higher the probability that the student could expend a great amount of energy in completing some task by following one alternative, the potentially more rewarding it becomes for him to complete the task by another alternative having an even higher probability of requiring a lesser amount of energy expendi- ture than in the first alternative. Furthermore, the less energy the student has available to complete a task, the more attractive becomes a means of completing the task that would require less or minimum energy expenditure. When a student is given a choice between learning the subject matter of a course in an open channel classroom communication situation or in a closed channel classroom communication situation, then in the extent to which the student is dogmatic he will prefer the closed channel classroom communication situation. Why? The nature of the channel in the open channel classroom communica- tion situation allows for the possibility that the student could exPend a great amount of energy interacting with the teacher (source) who is communicating the subject matter (message) to the students (receivers). On the other hand, the nature of the channel in the closed channel classroom communication situation does 225 allow the possibility that the student could expend.agy amount of energy inter- acting with the teacher (source). As the relatively more dogmatic person puts up more resistance to forming new belief systems, he has less energy available for com- pleting a task which requires that he learn or form a new belief system (e.g., the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of a course).2 l) Therefore, the student who is relatively more dogmatic should find relatively more attractive that classroom communication Situation having the highest probability of requiring less or minimum energy expenditure. This is the closed channel classroom communication situation.3 In the closed channel classroom communication situation, the behavior of the receivers cannot affect (as verbal or non-verbal feedback) the further encoding of messages by the source. In the open channel communication situation, however, the behavior of the receiver can serve as verbal and/or non-verbal feedback, thereby affecting the further encoding of messages by the source. There is thus a possibility in an open channel classroom communi- cation situation that the student (receiver) could become engaged in communicating messages (feedback) to the teacher (source). The teacher's (source's) reSponse to the student's (receiver's) message would in turn serve as feedback to the student (receiver), thereby affecting the subsequent encoding of messages by the student (receiver). Only in an open channel classroom communication situation can such a process occur. The open channel classroom communication situation thus constitutes a unique basis for allowing the possibility cf the receiver experiencing cognitive inconsistency (See Feldman, 1966) that derives from the process of interacting with the source. Though both the open channel and the closed channel classroom communication situations allow for the possi- bility of the receiver experiencing cognitive inconsistency that derives ~10 from receiver—decoding of source-encoded messages, only the open channel classroom communication situation allows for the possibilityll of the receiver experiencing cognitive inconsistency that derives from the process of the receiver interacting with the source. To the extent that the student who is relatively more dogmatic is unable or finds it difficult to tolerate cognitive inconsistency,5 we would expect that the relatively more dogmatic student will prefer that communication situation which offers the least possibilities of the student (receiver) eXperiencing cognitive inconsistency. Again, that communication situation is a closed channel classroom communica- tion situation. Hypothesis 2. If, in the empirical world, the relatively more dogmatic person puts up more resistance to forming new belief systems, then it should follow as a "logical concomitant" (Ehrlich, 1961:198) in the empirical world that such a person has greater difficulty in learning a new way of thinking and the system of beliefs that are appropriate to that way of thinking. Thus, we should expect that at some time (t2) after t1 (t1 being the time of initial exposure to the subject matter of a course) the relatively more dogmatic student will evidence an inability to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of the course in solving a problem appropriate to the phenomena studied in the course.6 Hypothesis 3. In positing the hypothesized relationship between dogmatism and channel preference, we assumed that "the organism makes 11 responses which require little effort and avoids responses which require much effort." (Berlo, 1960:91) But even in the extent to which the student who is in a closed channel classroom situation expends energy to learn the subject matter of the course, the nature of the channel does not permit the teacher (source) to provide feedback (except indirectly through test scores) to the students (receivers) regarding how they are doing in the course. subsequently, from the point of view of feedback as a reinforce (reward) in the learning process, the student should learn less due to the lack of immediate feedback. Hypohhesis 9. If the relationships do exist as postulated in hypotheses one, two, and three, then we should expect on the basis of the rationale underlying those hypotheses that there will be at least two relationships that exist among the variables of dogmatism, channel preference, and learning. The student who is relatively 2233. dogmatic 322 who prefers a section of a course having a closed channel classroom communication situation should with the greatest frequency evidence an inabilisy to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of the course in solving a problem appropriate to the phenomena studied in the course. Conversely, the student who is relatively EEEE dogmatic 329 pre- fers a section of a course having a.2pgp_channel classroom communica- tion situation should with greatest frequency evidence abiligy to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of the course in solving a prdblem appropriate to the phenomena studied in the course. CHAPTER II Methodology Outline of Chapter We shall report in this chapter the methodology used in testing the hypotheses stated in the previous chapter. In the order listed below, we shall discuss each of the following topics: 1. Consideration of several factors relevant to an "ideal" research design for testing the stated hypotheses; 2. Discussion of the research setting from which data were gathered to test our hypotheses and how this research setting falls short of our "ideal" research design; 3. Operational definitions of the concepts introduced in the previous chapter; u. Sample design; 5. Data collection procedures; and 6. Data analysis procedures. An "Ideal" Research Design. As the reader will recall, one aim of this study is to examine the classroom from the prespective of the S-M-C-R model of human behavior as a communication process. In focusing on channel preference, we direct the reader's attention to the role which an Open channel or a closed channel plays in the classroom communica- tion situation. In that the open channel allows for feedback and the closed channel does not, we may say that the potentiality for feedback to occur that inheres in the nature of the channel carries implications for the type of communication possible in a classroom between teacher (source) and students (receivers). However, as 13 is evident from study of the cells in the matrix below (Chart A), the nature of the channel provides only a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the occurrence of a particular type of communication between teacher (source) and students (receivers) in the classroom. Chart A. Types of Classroom Communication Situations based on Potentiality and Actuality of Feedback Occurrence Feedback Occurrence Potentiality Actuality verbal feedback can verbal feedback cannot occur (open chanfiEID occur (closed channel) verbal (a) one-way flow of verbal (b) one-way flow of both feedback communication as in face-to- verbal and non-verbal comm- does not face section of a course unication as in a televi- occur——-' where behavior of a student sion section of a course (receiver) following decoding Where prior encoding of of the message communicated message (e.g., a lecture) by the teacher (source) does for videotape replay pre- not affect the subsequent cludes possiblity of encoding of messages by student reaction affecting the source; e.g., teacher subsequent encoding of the comes prepared to give a message by the source. lecture and despite stu- dent reaction to the lecture. does not deviate from what he had planned to say in his lecture.7 verbal (c) two-way flow of verbal (d) by definition, imposs- feedback and non-verbal communica- ible, except for delayed does tion as in face-to-face verbal feedback (e.g., occur section of a course where telephone hookup); also, the student as receiver affects subsequent encoding of messages by the teacher (source), e.g, the Socratic method. possibility of parapsy- chological phenomena such as mental telepathy, extra-sensory perception, etc. lil- The type of communication that occurs also depends on source (teacher) and receiver (student) variables. For example, comparison of the classroom situations illustrating matrix cells (a) and (c) suggests the role which a source (teacher) variable such as encoding style (e.g., teaching by the lecture method as contrasted to teaching by the Socratic method) has in determining the type of communication that occurs in the classroom between teacher and students. Rather than source variables, however, this study fecuses speci— fically on receiver variables: namely, dogmatism, channel preference and learning. The reader will recall from the statement of our hy- potheses that we are interested in the following four relationships between predictor and criterion variables: Hypotheses: Predictor Variable(s): Criterion Variable: l. dogmatism channel preference 2. dogmatism learning8 3. channel preference learning A. dogmatism channel preference learning To test our hypotheses ideally requires an opportunity for the student to choose between two classroom communication situations: namely, one having a closed channel and the other having an open channel. Also, we ideally would like to hold source and message variables constant. Reference to Chart A reveals that matrix cells (a) and (b) come closer to fulfilling ideal specifications. First, by definition of an open channel, and of a closed channel, there is a difference in the potentiality for feedback to occur in one channel as compared with the other. 15 Second, it is possible to communicate a common message in either the open or the closed channel communication situation; common in the sense that some basic content (e.g., the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of a course) is communicated in both classroom communication situations. Third, it is possible to have as the communicator or source (teacher) in the closed channel classroom communication situation the same person who is the communicator in the open channel classroom communication situation. Fourth, it is possible for the communicator to use a common encoding style (e.g., a lecture in both the open and the closed channel classroom communication situations. Fifth, it is possible for the communicator to be of sufficiently low stature in authority so that the high dogmatic student has no _ greater chance than the low dogmatic student of learning the subject matter simply because the high dogmatic student concentrates his learning efforts mainly on that which he believes the teacher wants the student to learn. Research Setting_ An Opportunity to test our hypotheSes arose during the winter term of 1968 at Michigan State University. Students in Communication 100 (hereafter: Com 100), an introductory course of the department of communication, were given the opportunity shortly after their midterm examinations to choose between two alternatives. In alternative 16 I, the student could remain in his present, face-to-face section of the course in which the classroom communication situation was that of an open channel. In alternative II, the student could switch to a television section of the course in which the lecture would be .given an videotape and thus would be a closed channel classroom communication situation. Now let us compare the research setting to the research design to see where we fall short of the "ideal". We feel that the research setting provided two of the four specifications discussed above. First, there was a difference in the potentiality for feedback to occur in the open channel (face-to-face section) as compared to the closed channel (television section) classroom. Second, a common message was communicated in both the face-to-face and television sections. However, the remaining two of the four specifications for an "ideal" research design were not met in the context of the research setting. First, the communicator (teacher) in the closed channel class- room situation (television section) was not the same person as the communicator in the open channel classroom situation (face-to-face section). Second, there is general agreement among those personnel (e.g., faculty, graduate students) connected with the department of communication that the face-to-face section of 1968 winter term Com 100 qualifies for 17 matrix cell (b) (see Chart A, page 13). Not only was the communicator (teacher) in the face-to-face section a different person (and thereby, had a different personality) than the communicator in the television section, the former employed a different encoding style than the latter: namely, teaching or communicating by means of the Socratic method in contrast to teaching by the lecture method, the encoding style employed by the communicator in the television section. In the absence of adequate measurements to detect the influence of such source variables as personality differences and encoding styles, we caution that any relationships which we may find between and/or among our receiver variables (i.e., dogmatism, channel preference, and learning) may be Spurious. A study is needed with rigorous ex- perimental design that could control for and measure the ways and the extent to which source variables such as those mentioned above affect the type of communication that occurs in the classroom between the teacher and the students. In Chapter 4 we discuss the role of source variables in terms of alternative modes of explanation for the findings of this study which are reported in Chapter 3. One additional aspect of the research setting must be raised here. As is apparent from our description of the research setting, the students in Com 100 were originally enrolled in the open channel classroom situation (face—to-face section). Thus, at the time the students were offered the opportunity to switch to the television section (closed channel classroom situation), they already had been 18 exposed to the classroom communication situation having the open channel. That the students were first in a face-to—face section for almost half of the term thus introduces a bias toward the face-to-face section in terms of remaining there as perhaps the easiest and safest thing to do. There is thus a one-way factor in terms of channel opportunities. There were no students who had been exposed to the closed channel classroom communication situation (the television section) for half of the term and who had the opportunity to shift to the open channel classroom communication situation (the face-to-face section). This aspect of the research setting thereby allowed for the Opera- tion of the source variables of personality differences and encoding styles earlier discussed. It should be noted, however, that though the operation of such influences in not explicitly discussed in the rationale underlying hypothesis 1 (see pp. 7-10), the rationale as stated recognized the possibility that such influences could operate in an open channel communication situation. In short, "ideally" we would like to experimentally test our hypotheses in a research setting that corresponds to the specifications of an "ideal" research design (e.g., the top half of Chart A). We stress, however, that the data for this study were gathered from a research setting that more closely approximates matrix cells (b) and (c). Operational Definitions of Concepts The data for this study were gathered by the means of a survey ,questionnaire (see Appendix III, Forms AAAA, BBBB, CCCC, DDDD). Measurement of the phenomena conceptualized in Chapter I was done by means of the following operationalizations. 19 Dogmatism. Dogmatism was measured by means of the Short Form (Troldahl and Powell, 1965) of the Dogmatism Scale (see Appendix 3, Form CCCC of survey questionnaire). A student who scores above the median of the respondents'w scores is referred to as relatively more dogmatic or a high dogmatic. On the other hand, a student who scores below the median is referred to as relatively less dogmatic or a low dogmatic. Scores are derived by adding a constant of 4 to each of the student's responses to the 20 items of the scale. A student may respond in any of the six ways; -1: I agree a little -1: I disagree a little -2: I agree on the whole -2: I disagree on the whole 53: I agree very much -3: I disagree very much After a constant u is added to each item, one sums across all 20 items to derive the dogmatism score. Channel Preference. The reader will recall that we defined channel preference as a student's perference for one or the other of two kinds of communication situations. The distinguishing character- istic between these situations is the presence or absence of the potentiality for verbal feedback. Accordingly, a communication situa- ition wherein the nature of the channel allows for verbal feedback is referred to as an open channel communication situation. On the other hand, if the nature of the channel does not allow for verbal and non-verbal feedback, the communication situation is referred to as a closed channel communication situation. If we are 20 to give the student the opportunity to choose between either a closed or an open channel communication situation, we first need to operationally define these two concepts. In this study, the Operational definition of a closed channel classroom communication situation is the television section of the winter term 1968 Con lOO earlier discussed. The videotaped lecture therein does not allow fer verbal or nonverbal feedback from student to teacher.9 Thus we have a closed channel classroom communication situation. The operational definition of an open channel classroom communi- cation situation is the face-to-face section of the same introductory course taught winter term 1968. The face-to-face section allows for both verbal and non-verbal feedback to occur. Thus we have an Open channel classroom communication situation. Our operational definition of channel preference is whether the student remained in the open channel section or switched to the closed channel section. We used two ways of measuring channel preference. First, as will be more fully explained in our discussion of sample design (see pp. 2u-27), a sample of students enrolled in the television section of Com 100 during the last half of winter term 1968 were drawn from the Com 100 class list. Thus, in advance of the time the data were to be collected, we knew which students had switched to the television section. As a means of checking the validity of this measurement, we also used the following question as the first item of our survey questionnaire (see Appendix 3, Form AAAA): 21 In which of the following classroom section of Communication 100 were you enrolled during the last_half of Winter term? 1 ______face-to—face section 2 ______television section Even with these measures of channel preference, there were two instances of discrepancy. Two individuals reported that they had been enrolled in the face-to-face section during the last half of the term. On the other hand, the class list indicated that these students had switched to the television section. In classifying the idea, the benefit of the doubt was given to the student and those two students accordingly were coded as having been enrolled in the face-to-face section.10 Learning. What previous researchers (Ehrlich, 1961; Christensen, 1963; Costin, 1965; White and Alter, 1967) have operationally defined as learning is how high or low a score a student received on some test or examination (e.g., multiple choice, true-false) designed to measure whether or not the student has learned the subject matter of the course. One research, however, used an essay test (Christensen, 1963) for checking the validity of the hypothesis, derived from Rokeach (see rationale underlying hypothesis 2, pp. 7-11), that there is an inverse relationship between dogmatism and learning. But we chose not to assign numerals to show how high or low the student scored on the essay. We decided instead to examine the essay to see whether it would be rea- sonable to infer from it that the student evidenced the ability, con- sistent with our definition of learning, at the end of Com 100 to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of Com 100 in solving a problem appropriate to the phenomena 22 studied in the course. In that Com 100 dealt with the role of communication in human behavior, we decided to give the student a communication consultant problem (see Appendix III, Form BBBB). Ideally, we would have administered the communication consultant problem at both the start and at the end of winter term 1968 Com 100. However, as we were yet developing measuring instruments at that time, we do not have a measure of how the student would have responded to the communication consultant problem at the start of winter 1968 Com 100. Thus we must assume, consistent with our earlier discussion on learning (see page 5), that the student at the start of Com 100 confronted a way of thinking and a system of beliefs (i.e., the subject matter of the course) that was new to him. The material in Appendix 6 (student reaponses to Open-ended questions concerning attitudes toward Com 100) sheds some light on the extent to which the assumption is tenable. Bach student's solution to the communication consultant problem was coded into one of the three following categories: 0. no mention at all given to setting up a committee, calling a meeting, etc. 1. setting up a committee, calling a meeting, etc. given central importance, i.e., the first thing which the student would do as a communication consultant. 2. setting up a committee, calling a meeting, etc. ‘ given peripheral importance, i.e., one of several things which the student would do as a communication consultant and not the first thing which he would do. The rationale underlying our use of the "setting up a committee" criterion is as follows: One of the aims of the introductory Com 100 course is to bring the student to the point where he is able to preceive 23 human behavior as a process in which many factors are potentially relevant. One potentially relevant factor in solving the communica— tion consultant problem may well be whether a committee is set up. Hewever, we feel that a student better evidences an ability to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of Com 100 to the extent that the student proposes a variety of ways of attacking the problem. The student should place first those activities which emphasize a receiver-orientation, and the selectivity of perception and interpretation. Among these would be examining the editorials in the student and local newspapers, inter- viewing in private various protagonists such as the students, univers- ity officials, police, etc., and identifying the.channels and nature of communication flow among the various persons and groups involved. If the student has learned the way of thinking and the System of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of Com 100, we should not expect him to propose a solution which assumes that one can achieve a sense of "community" by bringing people together into a "committee" to "communicate" with one another. Though "community exists in communication" (Seeley, 1967: 67), one does not necessarily achieve "community" or even "communication" by setting up a "committee". TherefOre, we should expect that the student who has learned the asubject matter of Com 100 would at least consider in his solution to the communication consultant problem other factors in addition to setting up a committee.11 21+ Validity in the coding process was defined in terms of intercoder reliability across three coders. Bach coder independently coded the students' solutions to the communication consultant problem. After initial independent coding of solutions, the coders reviewed those solutions on which there had been disagreement to determine why there had been disagreement among themselves. Disagreement among the coders was largely the result of carelessness on the part of one coder. There were a few solutions for which the coders had to talk it over as how best to code the students' solutions. We refer the reader to Appendix IV where we have reported each students' solution to the communication consultant problem. Sample Design_ The data to test our hypotheses were gathered from a stratified random sample of students who had been enrolled in the 1968 winter term Com 100 course. As the introductory course is primarily intended for freshman and sophomore students, the majority of our sample consists of first and second year students. In addition to year in school, we also stratified on sex and student channel preference for the television or the face-to-face section. The class list of luu students (excluding those who dropped the course, and one special student) indicated that forty (#0) students had switched to the television section. A random sample of seventy-five (75) students was drawn according to the sampling plan in Chart B below. To the extent possible, we planned to randomly draw five students from each of sixteen (16) groups. 25 Chart B. Sampling Plan for Drawing a Random Sample of Students from Winter term 1968 Com 100 Major Stratified Group 1* 2** 3*** n**** 5***** 1. Fresh female in face-to-face 28 5 u l 23 2. " " in television 5 5 5 0 0 3. " male in face-to-face 2O 5 u l 15 u. " male in television 6 5 u 1 l 5. Soph female in face-to-face ll 6 u 2 5 6. " " in television n 6 5 0 0 7. " male in face-to-face l2 5 u l 7 8. " male in television 10 5 3 2 5 9. Jr. female in face-to-face 5 5 3 2 0 10. " " in television 6 6 u 2 0 ll. " male in face-to-face 17 u 3 l 13 12. " male in television u u u 0 0 13. Sr. female in face-to-face 8 8 5 3 0 1M. " " in television 0 0 0 0 0 15. " male in face-to-face u u 2 2 O 16. " male in television 2 2 0 2 O *1. Available to be randomly drawn. **2. Actually drawn. ***3. Survey questionnaires completed. ****u. Refusals/non-returns. *****5. Not sampled and indicative of extent to which our sam le major stratified groups (2**), are not in proportion to the Size of the population major stratified groups (1*). Within each of the above groups, students having different recitation instructors were subdivided into groups according to their recitation instructor. There were a total of six instructors and some of the more papulous major stratified groups (e.g., l, 3) had students from each of the recitations section. To minimize the effect of recitation instructor differences, we attempted to obtain a random- ization of instructor influences across the different major stratified _groups. This was done by drawing at random one student from each of the instructor subgroups within a major stratified group until.five (S) 26 students had been drawn for that major stratified group. This was done for each of the 16 majors stratified groups where the n for column one (1) of Chart B was above five (5). In other words, this procedure was used to draw 5 students for each major stratified group having within it subgroups from various recitation sections. Ideally, this sampling plan would yield 80 students, five (5) students for each of the major stratified groups. However, in five of the major stratified groups (6, l2, 1n, 15,16) there were too few students to draw a sample of five (5) students (see column 1 of Chart B). Therefore, additional students were drawn from groups 5, 10, and 13. Groups 10 and 13 were used to obtain a larger representation of juniors and seniors. A student was randomly drawn from group" 5 to serve as a replacement for one of the two individuals of group 5 whom we were unable to contact for purposes of data collection. Thus, analysis of our sampling chart shows that while a total of 10 individ- uals were unavailable to be drawn (i.e., insufficient group size for ygroups 6, 12, 1a, 15, 16), we were able to keep the total number actually drawn (75) for our sample near the desired 80 by adding 5 individuals from groups 5, 10, and 13. Out of the seventy-five (75) students whose names were randomly drawn, we were able to gather data from fifty-five (55) students. The greatest attrition rate appeared in the junior and senior major strati- fied groups. From these groups we obtained 22 complete questionnaires out of a total of an students, an attrition of 12 students. From the freshman and sophomore major stratified groups we obtained 22 completed questionnaires out of a total of #1 students, an attrition of 8 students. 27 0f the 20 students from whom we failed to obtain completed questionnaires, there were three students who no longer could be contacted on campus. The remaining 17 students from whom we failed to obtain completed questionnaires, either refused to cooperate when we first contacted them or failed to return the questionnaires that we mailed to them as one means of data collection. Data Collection Procedures Data for this study were collected during the last two weeks of spring term 1968 at Michigan State University. Students were initially contacted by means of an introductory letter that explained the Department of Communication's interest in evalu- ating Com 100 (See Appendix I). The researclnrthen contacted by phone the students, explaining that the interview mentioned in the letter consisted of a series of four questionnaires that would take the student about #5 minutes to complete. The student was given a choice between two alternative means of meeting with an interviewer who would administer the question- naire to the student. The student could either: (a) suggest a time and place of personal convenience to meet with the interviewer; or (b) come to one of the three group sessions to be held at a specific time and place on campus and at which an inter- viewer would be waiting to administer the questionnaire when the student came. 28 The majority of the students came to the group sessions, two of which were held in dormitory lounges and the other in one of the campus classrooms. Most of the remaining students were interviewed by the researcher either at their dorms or at some other time and location of personal convenience to the student (es g., between one of his or her classes). A few students arranged to come to the communication department office to complete the questionnaire there. Copies of the questionnaire were kept there by one of the secretaries who a « administered the questionnaire whenever one of the students found it convenient to come in. Except for one of the _group sessions where the secretary-also administered the question- naire, all other questionnaires were administered by the researcher. Since data were collected during the two weeks just before spring term final examination, it was somewhat difficult to elicit the coOperation of all the students. The reason given in all six (6) cases of refusals was lack of time in the face of final exams. In the hope of reaching as many as possible in our sample of 75 students, we also mailed the questionnaire to each of the nineteen (19) students12 from whom we had not obtained completed questionnaires during the data collection period that fell during the last two weeks of spring term. A cover letter (see Appendix II) accompanied the questionnaire as well as a stamped, self-addressed (to the researcher) envelope 29 to make it easier for the student to return the questionnaire. The nineteen (19) students included the six (6) students from whom we had received refusals. Of the 19 students, only 2 students returned the mailed questionnaire, one of whom had earlier refused an interview. Data Analysis Procedures The data, once collected, were hand tabulated. Frequency counts were 'run and the data cross-tabulated to provide the necessary combinations of data to examine the relationships hypothesized between and among our various receiver variables. These data provided the basis for hypothesis-testing in which we used Chi-square tests for statistical significance. CHAPTER III Findings Overview Examination of the cross-tabulated data from our questionnaires reveals support for two of our four hypotheses: hypothesis 1 (dogmatism and channel preference) and 2 (dogmatism and learning). Hypothesis 3 (channel preference and learning) was not supported. However, our data reveal relationships in the predicted direction, though not significantly, for hypothesis u (dogmatism, channel preference , and learning) . After reporting the data relevant to these feur hypotheses, we shall report student responses to four attitudinal items which were included in our questionnaire (see Appendix III, Form AAAA, questions 17, 19, 21, 23). These items cover the following topics: whether the student was satisfied or dissatisfied with Com 100; whether he viewed Com 100 as informative or uninformative; whether or not he would like to take more communication courses; and finally, whether the course turned out better or worse than the student had expected. These items, in conjunction with the information reported in Appendix gll3, provide descriptive information of the distribution of various positive and negative attitudes toward Com 100. We shall be interested in the way these attitudes are distributed across the following four groups: the high dogmatic in the television 30 31 section, the low dogmatic in the television section, the high dogmatic in the face-tO-face section, and the low dogmatic in the face-to-face section. Results Hypothesis 1. Students who are relatively more dogmatic will prefer with greater frequency a section Of a course having a closed channel classroom communication situation. Conversely, students who are relatively ig§s_dogmatic will prefer with greater frequency a section of a course having an 2222 channel classroom communication situation. The results of our hypothesis about dogmatism and channel preference are presented in table 1 below. As is clearly evident from the table, the high dogmatic students preferred with signifi- cantly greater frequency a closed channel classroom communication situation. Conversely, the low dogmatic students preferred with significantly greater frequency an open channel classroom communication situation. Table 1. The Relation Of Dogmatism to Channel Preference Dogmatism Level Channel Preference High (65 and above) Low (an and below) Open (FF) 9 34.6% 20 68.9% Closed (TV) E2. 65.14% ‘ ’_ _g 31.1% Total 26 100.0% 29 100.0% n = 55 V x2 = 5.18 x2 of 3.8a sign. at .05 level, df = 1 32 Hypothesis 2. At some time (t2) after t1, students who are relatively more dogmatic will evidence with greater frequency an inability to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter Of Com 100 in solving a problem appropriate to the phenomena studied in Com 100. Conversely, at the some time (t2) after t1, students who are relatively less dogmatic will evidence with greater frequency an ability to apply the way Of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter Of Com 100 in solving a problem apprOpriate to the phenomena studied in Com 100. The results of our hypothesis about dogmatism and learning are presented in Table 2 below. There is a significant tendency for students who are relatively more dogmatic tO Offer as a solu- tion to the communication consultant problem the prOposal of set- ting up a committee, calling a meeting, etc. as the first thing which they would d9 as a communication consultant. Coversely, the low dogmatic student Offered with significantly greater frequency the proposal of other communication research activities in addition to setting up a committee. Table 2. The Relation Of Dogmatism to Learning Setting Up A Committee Dogmatism Level no mention given first step one Of several steps HIGH 9 53.2% 12 68.8% 5 27.3% LOW _1_ 46.8% _2_ 31.6% §§_ 72.2% 1“ Total 16 100.0% 19 100.0% 18 100.0 n = 53 V2 2 Q IIQ V2 A; E nn -.2__ ...L 3.: 2----1 .1:- __ A 33 Hypothesis 3. Students who prefer a section of a course having a closed channel classroom communication situation will evidence with greater frequency at some time (t2) after t1 an inability to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter Of Com 100 in solving a problem apprOpriate to the phenomena studied in the course. Conversely, students who prefer a section of a course having an gpgn_channel classroom communication situation will evidence with greater frequency at some time (t2) after t1 an ability to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter Of Com 100 in solving a problem appropriate to the phenomena studied in Com 100. The results of our hypothesis about channel preference and learning are presented in Table 3 below. It is apparent even with- out running a statistical test that the data in Table 2 reveal no clear-out relationship between channel preference and learning. Table 3. The Relation of Channel Preference to Learning Setting Up A Committee Channel Preference no mention given first step one of several steps OPEN (TV) 7 “6.8% 10 52.6% 11 61.1% CLOSED (FF) _3 53.2% __9_ ”7.1% _1 38.9% Total 16 100.0% 19 100.0% 18 100.0% n=53 X2 = .353 X2 Of 5.99 sign. at .05 leve1,df = 2. 30 Hypothesis H. Students who are relatively E332 dogmatic and_ who prefer a section of a course having a closed channel classroom communication situation will evidence with greater frequency at some time (t2) after tl an inability to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of Com 100 in solving a problem appropriate to the phenomena in Com 100. Conversely, students who are relatively less dogmatic 329 who prefer a section of a course having an gpen channel classroom communication situation will evidence with greater frequency at some time (t2) after tl an ability to apply the way Of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of Com 100 in solving a problem apprOpriate to the phenomena studied in Com 100. First, let us look at Table 0 below. Table H. The Relation of Dogmatism to Learning, Controlling on Channel Preference Setting Up a)COmmittee Dogmatism Level- Channel no mention Preference given first step one of several steps HI - TV 7 u3.7%1 6 31.5%5 3 16.6%9 LO - TV 2 12.5%2 3 15.7%5 n 22.2%lo HI - FF 2 12.5%3 6 31.5%7 2 11.1%11 LO - FF 5 31.3%” n 21.3%8 9 50.0%12 Total '1'6’ 100.0% ‘75 100.0% '16 100. 6%" The number (1) to the right Of the percentage in the upper left cell denotes the high dogmatic students in the television section who made no mention of setting up a committee. This numbering system (1 through 12) is used below in interpreting the cells of the table. 35 Inadequate cell size in cells 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 11 does not allow us to run a statistical test for hypothesis 4. However, we shall discuss several of the cells in the above Table u that reflect relationships in the predicted direction. The highest percentage for the "one of several steps" solution is found in cell 12, the low dogmatic students in the face-to-face section. On the other hand, the highest percentages Of "first step" solutions are found in cells 5 and 7, both high dogmatic cells. It appears, however, that learning is more closely related to dogmatism than to channel preference, as both cells 5 and 7 are of equal per- centages despite one being a television and the other a face-to- face cell. This would be consistent with the findings for hypothesis two and three. The data there provided statistical significance for the hypothesized relationship between dogmatism and learning. 0n the other hand, there was nO statistical significance for the hypo- thesized relationship between channel preference and learning. The lowest percentages for the "one Of several steps" solution are found in cells 9 and 11, both high dogmatic cells. Again, one cell being a television cell and the other a face-to—face cell with both cells being Of approximately equal percentages, it appears that learning is more closely related to dogmatism than to channel pre- ference. On the other hand, the lowest percentages Of "first step" solutions are found in cells 6 and 8, both low dogmatic cells. Here .again, irregardless Of the channel preference differences, it appears that learning is more closely related to dogmatism than to channel preference. 36 There are two cells, however, where difference of channel preference appear to be of some import. When we compare cell 12 with cell 10 we see that the low dogmatic student in the face-to- face section (cell 12, Lo - FF) offers "one of several steps" solu- tions with much greater frequency than do the low dogmatic students in the television section (cell 10, L0 - TV). On the other hand, the high dogmatic students in the face-tO-face section(cell 11, HI — FF) Offer with no greater frequency than the high dogmatic students in the television section (cell 9, HI — TV) "one of several steps" solutions. It appears that an Open channel classroom communication situation holds greater potentiality for learning for the low dogmatic person than for the high dogmatic student. In other words, the student who is a high dogmatic does not benefit as much as an Open channel class- room communication situatdOn. as does a law dogmatic student. Con- versely, despite differences Of channel preference (cells 5 and 7); the high dogmatic student will fare worse (i.e., will Offer the "first step" solution with greater frequency than the low dogmatic student [cells 6 and 8]). In pointing out these relationships in the data for hypothesis u, we emphasize that there is no basis for claiming statistical significance. 37 Distribution Of Positive/Negative Attitudes Toward Com 100 As mentioned at the start Of this chapter, we are interested in the way that positive and negative attitudes toward Com 100 are distributed among the following groups: the high dogmatic in the television section, the low dogmatic in the television section, the high dogmatic in the face-to—face section, and the low dogmatic in the face—to-face section. In reporting the data for each Of the four ordinal scale items (see Appendix III, Form AAAA, questions 17, 19, 21, 23), we shall be alert for cells having relatively large percentages of students. Where the percentage of students clustering in a particular cell is relatively large, we shall draw upon the material from Appendix VI where we report the students‘ responses to the open-end question the followed each ordinal scale item (see Appendix 3, Form AAAA, questions 18, 20, 22, 2k). If some pattern stands out among these responses, we shall make reference to that pattern here in the text that follows. As we shall see, some of the students‘ responses point up the need for adequate measurement of certain source and receiver variables that were not dealt with in this study. This point will be discussed more fully in Chapter u. Question 17. As best as you can now recall, how did you _ generally feel about)COmmunication 100, at the end Of Winter term? extremely satisfied generally satisfied generally dissatisfied extremely dissatisfied $00k)!" Table 5 below breaks down the students‘ responses by dogmatism level and channel preference. The table shows that dissatisfaction is most 38 frequent in the television section (cells 9, 10, 13, 14), while satis- faction is most frequent in the faceetO-face section (cells 3, u, 7, 8). The highest percentages of extreme satisfaction with Com 100 are found in cells 3 and M, both face-tO-face cells. Appendix VI shows that these students made frequent positive references about the source (teacher) and/or his encoding style. Eight out of twelve students made specific reference to the source; two out of the twelve made indirect reference (e.g, "the teacher-pupil relationship"). Of those expressing general satisfaction with Com 100 (cells 5, 6, 7, 8). only two students made a specific reference to the source. Table 5. Dogmatism, Channel Preference, and Course Satisfaction15 As best as you can now recall, how did you generally feel about Com 100, at the end of Winter Term? Dogmatism Level Channel extremely generally generally extremely Preference satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied N0. % No. % N0. % N0. % TV -—HI 0 0%1 9 39%5 2 16%9 5 62%1: Tv - L0 0 0%2 1 u%5 6 50%10 2 25%1 FF - HI n 33%3 6 26%7 0 0%ié 0 0%12 FF - L0 __s 66%“ __7_ 30%8 _u_ 33% .1 12%1 TOTAL 12 100% 23 100% 12 100% 8 100% Of those expressing general satisfaction in the television section (cells 5 and 6), nine out of the ten were high dogmatic. Four of these nine students expressed a favorable attitude for the small dis- cussion groups (recitation sections meeting once a week). This perhaps 39 reflects a felt need for feedback which was unavailable because of the nature of the channel in a closed channel classroom communication situation such as was the television section. Another point of interest is that of those ten high dogmatic students expressing extreme and general satisfaction in the face-to- face section (cells 3 and 7), we find (see Appendix VI) that eight of them are upperclassmen (juniors and seniors). On the other hand, of those 15 students expressing extreme and general dissatisfaction in the television section (cells 9, lo, 13, 14), nine of them are underclass- men (freshmen and SOphomores). Perhaps length of time inthe university is an intervening variable between dogmatism and channel preference. Question 19. As a college course Communication 100 was: very interesting and informative moderately interesting and informative barely worth the effort dull, unenlightening «FGNH Table 6. Dogmatism, Channel Preference, and Whether Com 100 was Interesting and Informative. As a college course Communication 100 was: Dogmatism Level Channel very inter. mod. inter. barely worth dull, Preference f. inform. 8 inform. the effort unenlighten. NO. % NO. % NO. % NO. % Tv - HI 2 10%1 11 u9%5 0 0%9 3 60%ifi Tv - L0 0 0%2 5 20%6 3 50%10 1 20% FF - HI 7 36%3 2 8%7 1 16%11 0 0%ig PP - L0 10 52%” .1. 28%8 __2_ 33%12 ...1. 20% TOTAL 19 100% 25 100% 6 100% 5 100% 40 Table 6 above shows that the highest percentage of students saying that they saw Com 100 as a very interesting and informative course are found in cells 3 and u, both face-to—face cells. Again, the high dogmatic students in the face-to—face cells. Again, the high dogmatic students in the face-to—aace section (cell 3) are predominantly upperclassmen (see AppendixVT), six out of seven. 0n the other hand, the low dogmatic students in the face-to-face section (cell A) are by and large underclassmen, seven out of ten. Also, a comparison of the responses for cells 6 and 8 (see Appendix VI) shows that the high dogmatic students in the television section make positive reference more frequently to the recitation sections than do the low dogmatics in the face—to-face section. Question 21. In terms of your expectation in enrolling for Communication 100, how would you say that things worked out for you? 1 far better than expected 2 generally better than exPected 3 about as expected u 5 generally worse than expected far worse than expected Table 7. Dogmatism, Channel Preference, and How in Terms of Students' Expectations in Enrolling for Com 100, Things Worked Out Bor Him. In terms of your expectations in enrolling for Com 100, how would you say that things worked out for you? Dogmatism Level Channel far better . gen. better about as- gen. worse far worse Preference than exp. than exp. exp. than exp. than exp. NO. % NO. % NO. % N0. % NO. % Tv - HI 1 11%; 2 12%5 7 41%9 u uu%l3 2 50%17 TV - L0 0 0% 1 6%: u 23%i2 3 33%1: 1 25%18 FF - HI 3 33%: 6 37%8 1 5%l2 0 0%Ji6 0 0%19 PF - LO 5 55% 7 A3% __5_ 29% _g 22% __1_ 25%20 TOTAL 9 100% 16 100% 17 100% 9 100% u 100% 1+1 If we collapse the above 5 x 4 Table 7 into a 2 x 2 table (excluding column 3 of Table 7), we have Table 8. Table 8. Dogmatism, Channel Preference, and How, in Terms of Students in Enrolling for Com 100, Things Worked Out for Him. In terms of your expectations in enrolling for Com 100, how would you say that things worked out for you? Dogmatism Level Channel Preference better than expected worse than expected NO. % NO. % Television u 16% 10 77% P ace-to-P ace 2; 8496 _8. 2396 TOTAL 25 100% 13 100% It is apparent that students in the face-to—face section expressed more frequently than those who were in the television section that Com lOO turned out better than exPected. The question arises of how much of this favorable attitude toward Com 100 is traceable to the students not having to take the television section as in previous terms ( an avoidance behavior)? Or is it traceable to some approach behavior, e.g., desire to interact with the source communicating the message, i.e., the teacher presenting the subject matter to the students. The majority of the responses by students in cells 3, u, 7, and 8 of table 7 indicated that the students had expected to have dull television lectures (see Appendix VI). Of those for whom Com 100 turned out worse than expected, the majority are in the television section. Their dissatisfaction is 42 probably traceable to other factors in addition to a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward either the television or the face-to- face section. Question 23. Are you interested in taking more courses in Communication? 1 I would like to take a few more courses in Communication. 2 I would like to take another course in Communication. 3 I would not like to take another course in Communication. u I wish I had not taken Communication 100. Table 9. Dogmatism, Channel Preference, and Whether Student Interested in Taking More Communication Courses. Are you interested in taking more courses in Communication? Dogmatism Level Channel few more another not another not Com 100 Preference courses course course NO. % NO. % NO. % NO. % TV - HI 3 20% 6 27% 3 27% H 66% TV - L0 u 26% l u% 3 27% l 16% PF -.HI 1. 6% 6 27% 2 18% 0 0% FE - LO _1 14696 _9_ 140% _3_ 27% __l 16% TOTAL 15 100% 22 100% 11 100% 6 100% As is apparent from Table 9, the highest percentage of students wishing to take more courses in Communication is found in cell A, the low dogmatics in the face-to-face section. On the other hand, the highest percentage of students wishing they had not taken Com 100 is found in cell 13, the high dogmatics in the television section. 43 A review of the Students' responses to question 23 (see Appendix VI) shows that of those students in the face-to-face section who wish to take a few more courses in Communication, half (4) of the students are upperclassmen. On the other hand, of those students in the television section 'wishing to take a few more courses in Communication, six out of the seven students are underclassmen. Of those students wishing to take another course in Communica— tion, five out of the six high dogmatics in the face-to-face section (cell 7) are upperclassmen. On the other hand, of those students wishing to take another course in communication who are low dogmatics in the face-to-face section, (cell 8) eight out of nine are underclass- men. Those students not wishing to take another course in Communication (cells 9, 10, ll, 12) are those students whose majors tend to be in other than the college of education and the college of communication arts (see Appendix VI). CHAPTER IV Summary and Discussion Overview This chapter will attempt to provide some answers to three questions. These are: 1. What may we conclude from this study? 2. What are the major weaknesses of this study? 3. How might these weaknesses be corrected? Let's attempt to tackle one question at a time. What may we conclude from this study? The data reported in Chapter 3 reveal a strong relationship between dogmatism and channel preference. However, as we mentioned there, this relationship may be spurious. The nature of an open channel communication situation allows for certain source variables such as encoding styles to come into play that are not possible in a closed channel communication situation (e.g., Socratic method of teaching). These variables may have been operative within the face-to- face section of Com 100 up to the time that students were given the opportunity to switch to the television section. However, the rationale underlying our first hypothesis concerned only the potentiality for feedback to occur and not the effect of feedback if it occurs. Secondly, we saw that learning is more closely related to dog- matism than to channel preference. Again this hypothesis is stated with a caveat regarding possible intervening variables in a classroom as an communication situation. As the data revealed, relatively low dogmatic students profit more from an open channel classroom communi- cation situation than do relatively high dogmatic students. This difference between high and low dogmatics in the open channel I classroom communication situation may be the result of factors other than dogmatism and channel preference/operating. Responses by low dogmatic students in the face-to-face section to question 18 (Open- ended question following question 17 on student satisfaction with Com 100) centered on remarks favorable to the source. This perhaps indicates that the low dogmatic student has a relatively greater appreciation for interaction between student and receiver. Finally, we saw that the student who is relatively less dogmatic evidenced with significantly greater frequency the ability at the end of Com 100 to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of Com 100 in solving the communica- tion consultant problem. What are the major weaknesses of this study? Whatever the aesthetic beauty of the rationale underlying an hypothesized relationship between some two phenomena, the quality of the instrument used in measuring either phenomena must point in the direction of valid measurement. Though most scientists would agree with this position, the task of measuring certain phenomena is complicated.by what we conceive those phenomena to be. As indicated earlier, previous researchers have taken as their measure of learning H5 a student's score on a multiple-choice or a true-false test. Learn- ing is thus empirically defined in terms of data from which the scientist can compute means and standard deviations.. The technique used in measuring learning in this study, however, is clearly at the nominal level of measurement. (Re: Communication Consultant Problem). This researcher feels that little work has been done in the area of the measurement of assumptions. Perhaps assumptions are phenomena not amenable to empirical measurement. Maybe an assumption either is or it isn't, and thus is best and appropriately measured at the nominal level of measurement. Thus, our measurement instrument in the communication consultant problem must detect whether or not a student's solution is or is not in accordance with the assump- tions underlying the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of Com 100. Whether our communication consultant problem permits such a measurement is another question. Possibly, there is a tendency for high dogmatic students to seek "closure" and "structure." In that the high dogmatic student proposed setting up a committee with greater frequency than the low dogmatic student, what we have here called an inability (not learning) on the dogmatic student‘s part may well be a trait more characteristic of the high than the low dogmatic student. Thus rather than detecting whether the high dogmatic student actually learned the subject matter of the course (Com 100), we may have simply described how the high dogmatic student would tend to react to a problem such as the communication consultant problem before or after H6 having taken Com 100. This points up the need for a study wherein the communication consultant problem is administered to both high and low dogmatic students both.prior to and after having taken Com 100. Earlier we mentioned that we would discuss another mode of analyzing the student's solution to the communication consultant problem. There are probably many ways that one could score a student's solution. In addition to the mode of analysis used in this study (i.e., "setting up a committee"), one could also examine a student's solution to determine the extent to which the student emphasized finding out the "facts". That is to say to what extent does the student stress separating "facts" from the social positions of the receivers. In other words, to what extent is the student sensitive to the communi- cation view that "facts" are in part the creation of the perceiver? Thus, in emphasizing a receiver-orientation in his solution, the student would discuss the importance of comparing how the students see the "problem" with how the administration sees the "problem". To the extent that the student emphasizes in his solution this receiver- ori Citation, rather than just simply assuming that there are "facts", we would say that he evidences the ability to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of Com 100 in solving the communication consultant problem. A second major shortcoming of this study is the lack of measure- ment controls over source and receiver variables that possibly played influential roles during the winter term of Com 100. We earlier discussed the shortcomings of our research setting when compared to an M7 "ideal" research design. Such a design would attempt to manipulate and measure the effects of such source variables as encoding styles, differential capacities of various sources to tolerate feedback, etc. On the other hand, this study points up several receiver variables that also might be the focus of further research. The high dOgmatic students in the face-to—face section were by and large upperclassmen. Such students may have acquired during the first two or three years in college a capacity to appreciate an open channel classroom communi- cation situation}6 Or some students just may have more tolerance for aggression than other students. Such a trait would be invaluable to a student who wished to do well in an Open channel classroom communication situation where the teacher used the Socratic method for conducting his course. One study that might be done could examine the effect of positive vs. negative feedback both on the high and low dogmatic students. How do positive and negative feedback relate to channel preference? To learning? Another variable that possibly plays an influential role is a student's perceived level of own information. One possible hypothesis is that the higher the student's perception of own information, the ’greater the probability that he will perceive a course as less inter- esting and informative. In short, the need is apparent for adequate measurement of several source and receiver variables that play a role in the classroom cOmmunication situation. Finally, the use of survey data in such a nebulous -research setting as our research setting was described to be (see pages 15-18) can best be viewed as exploratory. Though two of our hypotheses were 48 confirmed, there were no controls built into the questionnaire to measure the influence of such source and receiver variables as those mentioned above. Even with the questionnaire that we did use, several mistakes were made in the layout of the format of the ques- tionnaire. These we did not notice until well after many of the questionnaires had been completed by the respondents. However, being in the position of having to collect our data before the students left the campus at the end of Spring term did not permit time for adequate pre-testing of the survey questionnaire. How might these weaknesses be corrected? There are several methodological problems evident in this study. These problems include: the reliability of the #0 item vs. the 20 item Dogmatism Scale using a random sampling assumption to draw from a self-selected population, lack of measurement of the intervening source and receiver variables discussed above doubt that problems could be handled in a rigorous experimental design. However, though this study's central focus was on the relation- ship between dogmatism and channel preference, we cannot thereby skirt the issue of how we shall measure learning. To do that we must come to some agreement as to what we shall take as learning. The very conceptual framework within which this study was conducted, ie. the S-M-C-R model, permits us to define learning in terms of either the source or the receiver. Of those dogmatism and learning studies previously conducted, all of the researchers have defined learning from the viewpoint of the source. Few students would express that 49 MM learned flat Eel wanted 32' learn by sittigg 9.2123221 id obtain imwfliflfl designed by another (teacher, researcher, e_t_c_.) _t-gmeasure M313 source defines gatekeigs learnigg. One solution to this problem would be to enlist the guidance of the student to define what the student takes as learning. The communication researcher than could develop apprOpriate measurement instruments to aid the student in obtaining feedback as to (a) whether or not the student is learning that which the student wishes to learn and (b) to alert the student to the intervening variables that help or hinder the student. Just as no one can teach another how to teach, as Carl Rogers has suggested (Rogers, 1967), this researcher believes that no communication researcher should define another man's learning-- apart from what that other man wants his learning to be. Ultimately, we come back to Beckner's question: "Whose Side are We 0n?" (Gouldner, 1968:115). BIBLIOGRAPHY Berlo, David K., The Process of Communication, Qiolt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.; New York: 1960). Christensen, C.M., "A Note on Dogmatism and Learning," Journal of Abnormal and Sogial Psychology, 1963, Vol. 66, No. 1, 75-76. Costin, Frank, "Dogmatism and Learning: A Follow-Up of Contradictory Findings, " The Journal of Educational Research, December 1965, Vol. 59, No. T, 186- 188. Ehrlich, Howard J., "Dogmatism and Learning" Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychohfl, 1961, v61. 62, No. l_,—_—T148- 997“ Feldman, Shel, (ed.) Cognitive Consistency: Motivational Antecedents and Behavioral Consequents, (Academic Press, New or : 1966 . Gouldner, Alvin, "The Sociologist As Partisan: Socuglogy and the Welfare State, " The American Sociologist, May, 1968, Vol. 3, No. 2, 103-116. Powell, Fredric Al, "Open- and Closed-Mindedness and the Ability to Differentiate Source and Message," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol_gy, 1962, Vol. 65, No.1, 61-6u. Rogers, Carl, "Bersonal Thoughts on Teaching and Learning", Becoming A Person. (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961) pp.9773 275. Rokeach, Milton, The Open And Closed Mind, (Basic Books, Inc, New York: 1960). Rokeach, Milton, "The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism," Psychological Seeley, John, "Social Psychology, Self and Society," Catalyst Summer, 1966, p. 69-74. Troldahl, Verling C. and Powell, Fredric A., "A Short-Form Dogmatism Scale For Use in Field Studies," Social Forces, December, 1965, V01. '4‘“. No. 2. White, B. Jack, and Alter, Richard D., "Dogmatism and Examination Performance," Journal 2f Educational Psychology, Vol. 58, No. S, 285-289. 50 1 l. 2. FOOTNOTES We also wish to make clear that hypothesis 9 is not an interaction hypothesis, but rather an hypothesis which combines dogmatism and channel preference in relation to learning. Some might argue that this would not apply to the more attitudinally neutral content that might be taught in a classroom. For example, "Christensen indicated that the divergent results which he obtained could have occurred because psychology is somewhat more rigorous and objective than sociology." (Costin, 1965:187) Though it may be true that the high dogmatic student would have less difficulty in learn- ing more attitudinally neutral content (ie., objective), to so algue is to construe dogmatism as a non-structural construct. To construe dogmatism as a non-structural construct is to say that dogmatic people have certain, particular beliefs and disbeliefs that comprise their belief-disbelief systems. This is not what the construct dogmatism is meant to convey. It is not what the dogmatic person thinks, but rather 1121 he thinks. We do not wish to convey the notion that relatively more dogmatic students do not like any interaction. Perhaps the high dogmatic student would like a classroom communication situation wherein the source provide positive feedback that served as a reinforcer for the belief-disbelief system presently held by the high dogmatic stud- ent. In this case, feedback would serve to justify in the mind of the . high dogmatic student the cognitive correctness of his own belief- disbelief system. However, in defining learning, we assumed that the student confronts at the outset of a course a way of thinking and a system of beliefs (i.e., the subject matter of a course) that is new to him. All other things being equal, in the case of being required to learn a new way of thinking a a system of beliefs, it is relatively more rewarding for the high dogmatic student to choose the closed channel classroom communication situation. In the long run, the high dog- matic student, in the closed channel classroom communication situation, will have available for completing the task of forming a new belief system that energy he might have expended interacting iith the source had he been in the open channel communication situation. 51 5. 8. 9. 52 Note that we do not assume that the open channel classroom communi- cation situation provides greater potential for the individual experiencing cognitive inconsistency. The open channel classroom communication situation does, however, allow for more potential sources of cognitive inconsistency. In addition to cognitive consistency that derives from receiver decoding of source-encoding messages, there is also in the open channel classroom communication situation the potential for the receiver to experience cognitive inconsistency that derives from the receiver interacting with the source. In the extent to which (a) the source is an authority-figure and (b) that the high dogmatic person relies to a greater extent than the low dogmatic person on authority-based information, then cognitive inconsistency deriving from either receiver-decoding of source-encoded messages or the receiver interacting with the course should be rela- tively more discomfPOnting for the high dogmatic than for the low dogmatic person. A I See forthcoming Miller, Gerald R. and Rokeach, Milton, "Individual Differences and Tolerance for Inconsistency", in Tannenbaum, P. H., Abelson, R. P., Aronson, E., Newcomb, T. M., and Rosenburg, M. J. (eds.), Theories of Cognitive Consistency, Chicago, Rand McNally. The researcher recognizes, however, that the high dogmatic student, apart from whether or not he has learned the subject matter of a course, generally has a harder time in successfully accomplishing problem-solving tasks (see Rokeach, 1960:182-195). Additionally, there is a prdblem that the high dogmatic student may more readily learn authority-based information. In our discussion of an "ideal" research design (see pages 12-15) to test our four hypotheses, we shall note the importance of assuming exposure of both low and high dogmatic students to a source having sufficiently low stature in authority so that the high dogmatic student does not focus his learning efforts on trying to obtain feedback from the teacher (i.e., authority figure) so that the high dogmatic student can know exactly what the teacher wants the students to learn. Or students simply prefer to remain silent even though the teacher invites interaction. Learning defined as having occurred if at some time (t2) after t1 the student evidences the ability to apply the way of thinking and the system of beliefs that comprise the subject matter of a course in solving a problem appropriate to the phenomena studied in the Course 0 This study does not control on whether this aspect of the closed channel classroom communication situation (the television section) was solvent to the students at the time they were given the opportunity either to switch to the television section or to remain in the face- to~face section. 52 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 53 The discrepancy also points up the possibility that these students may have been among the unknown number of students who having switched to the television section, later decided to switch back to the face-to-face section. There was no restriction placed on the students of having to remain in one section or the other. We have no data, however, on the frequency of student movement back and forth between the two sections. In Chapter IV we shall discuss an alternate mode of analysis for coding a student's solution to the communication consultant problem. Excluding the three whom we could not originally contact on campus. After each of the four attitudinal items, we asked an open-ended question as to why the student had responded as he did in the previous scale item (see Appendix III, Form AAAA, questions 18, 20, 22, 29). These open-ended responses are reported in Appendix VI. The n for Table 2 does not equal 55 because two student did not answer the communication constultant problem. Or the university has flunked or dropped out the rest. 0r such students have by their junior or senior year tired of television lectures. To be sure, there is a problem of the tenability of one's findings when one is working with self-selected groups. In other words, how do students who take Com 100 differe from students who do not take Com 100? APPENDIX I M I C H I G A N S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y East Lansing College of Communication Arts ' Department of Communication May 16, 1968 Dear As you may know, the faculty of the Department of Communication frequently asks students for their help in improving the usefulness of the Communication 100 course. As a means of assessing the effectiveness of new approaches to teaching the course, the department is doing a survey of student attitudes toward and beliefs about Communication 100. A group of interviewers will be interviewing a representative sample of the students who took Communi- cation 100 during the Winter term of this year. You are one of the persons chosen at random to be interviewed. The inter- view will take around #5 minutes, scheduled at a place and time that is convenient for you. Naturally, all the information you provide is confidential. Your name is never attached to any of your statements. In fact, the information is analyzed mostly in tables, percentages, and so on. The primary purpose of this survey is to explore and try to understand the feelings of students who have taken Communication 100, and to provide information to those who are responsible for adapting Communication 100 to meet the needs of current students. An interviewer will be contacting you with regard to an appointment for an interview in the next few days. We know final exams are not too far off for ‘you, and we want to complete the interviewing as soon as possible in order ‘to minimize interference with your preparation for final exams. If you have any questions regarding this survey, please feel free to contact me, Dr. Lawrence Sarbaugh, Department of Communication, phone: 355-9593. Sincerely, L. E . Sarbaugh Assistant Professor LES:br 54 APPENDIX II Cover Letter for Mailed Questionnaires June 11, 1968 Name of Student Street Address City, State, Zip Code Dear Name of Student, With final exams approaching, it was difficult to contact some of the students during the latter part of spring term. There- fore, the Department of Communication is sending out the question- naires to the few remaining students from whom we do not yet have responses. If you could find the time to fill out the enclosed questionnaires we would be most appreciative. On Form BBBB, please take 32235 10 minutes. Return the questionnaires by mail to me in the stamped, self-addressed envelope which accompanies this letter. Thank you and have a good summer! The Researcher's Name Street Address East Lansing, Michigan 98823 55 APPENDIX III liAAA 19. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Questionnaire No. CONFIDENTIAL: FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY In which of the following classroom sections of Communication 100 were you enrolled during the last half of Winter term? 1 face-to-face section 2 television section Briefly explain why you took Commication 100: Does your>major require that you take Communication 100? 1 No Yes As best as you can now recall, how did you generally feel about Coununication 100 at the end of Winter term? extremely satisfied generally satisfied generally dissatisfied extremely dissatisfied CQNH What about Communication 100 made you feel that way? As a college course Communication 100 was very interesting and informative moderately interesting and infermative barely worth the effort dull, unenlightening 56 20. 21. 22. 23. 2k. Questionnaire No. What about Communication 100 made you feel that way? In terms of your expectations in enrolling for Communication 100, how would you say that things worked out for you? far better than expected generally better than expected about as expected generally worse than expected far worse than expected 03:08)” Befbre coming to the first class of Communication 100, what did you expect to happen in the course? Are you interested in taking more courses in Communication? I would like to take a few’ more courses in Communication. I would like to take another course in Communication. I would ggt_like to take another course in Communication. I wish I had not taken CommunIcation 100. 1 2 3 u Briefly describe below why you g£g_or §£e_pgy_interested in taking more courses in Communication. 57 - , BBBB Questionnaire NO. CONFIDENTIAL: FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY Some students last term began to think of themselves as communication consultants. We'd like to see how you would approach a communication problem if you were called in as a communication consultant. Obviously you would spend considerable time in preparing to handle a problem such as the one presented on the next page. However, we would like to see what you could do with it in 10 minutes. The person interviewing you will tell you when to begin and when to stop your work on this problem. Please write your solution to this problem on the next page. 58 BBBB Questionnaire No. CONFIDENTIAL: FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY A COMMUNICATION CONSULTANT PROBLEM As a specialist in communication you have been called in by the officials of a ‘midwestern university to consult on a social problem. For the past three years the rate of student misdemeanors has risen to a level which has alarmed many in the university community.. During this period, the student newspaper has charged the university administration of not understanding the pressures on the student. On the other hand, the local community newspaper has repeatedly carried editorials critical of the students and of police inefficiency. Briefly indicate on this side of the page only, what you would do as a communication consultant on this problem. 59 .‘ul I «V» CCCC Questionnaire No. CONFIDENTIAL: FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY Directions: On the next page are some statements people have made as their opinions on a number of important social and personal questions. There are no .right or wrong answers. The best response to each statement below is your personal opinion. We have tried to cover many different and opposing points of view; you may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain about others; whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many people feel the same as you do. Read each statement. Then decide how strongly you agree or disagree with the statement. If you "agree very much" with the statement, then write a +3 in the blank space to the left of the statement. Similarly, if you "agree on the whole", write a +2. If you "agree a little", write a +1. If you "disagree a little", write a -1. If you "disagree on the whole", write a ~2. If you "disagree very much", write a —3. Example: Here is how one student responded to the following statement. -1 While the use of force is wrong by and large, it is sometimes the only way possible to advance a noble ideal. * By writing a -1, the student indicated that he "disagreed a little" with the statement. Another student who "agrees very much" with the same statement, would put a +3. Please start onthe next page. Work carefully but as rapidly as possible. 60 CCCC Questionnaire No. CONFIDENTIAL: FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY +1: I agree a little -1: I disagree a little +2: I agree on the whole —2: I disagree on the whole +3: I agree very much -3: I disagree very much In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what's going on is “U1 rely on leaders who can be trusted. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he's wrong. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. Most people just don't know what's good for them. Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world there is probably only one which is correct. The highest form of government is a democracy and the highest form of democracy is a government run by those who are the most intelligent. The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve my personal problems. Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that life becomes meaningful. Most people just don't give a "damn" for others. our To compromise with out political opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to the betrayal of our own side. It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's going on until one has had a chance to hear the opinions of these one respects. 61 CCCC Questionnaire No. The present is all to often full of unhappiness. It is only the future that counts. The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common. In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself several times to make sure I am being understood. While I don't like to admit this even to myself, my secret ambition is to become a great man, like Einstein, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal, it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain political groups. It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward. 62 :DDDD Questionnaire No. CONFIDENTIAL: FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY 25. Some people feel that an educational experience alerts the student to new opportunities and encourages him to pursue the opportunities he decides are best for himself. Was Communication 100 such as educational experience for you? 1 No 2 Yes 3 other (please specify) 26. What do you feel to be the key factors in your feeling that way toward Communication 100 as an "educational experience"? 27. Suppose that this univeristy did not have a Department of Communication and that the course called Communication 100 which you took last term actually was offered by some other department. Which department would most likely offer a course like the one called Communication 100? The department of WHY? 28. The once-aoweek discussion sessions or lab assignments in Communication 100 were a waste of time. 1 agree strongly 2 agree slightly 3 disagree slightly u disagree siéghtiy ero uéey 63 DDDD 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Questionnaire No. The once-a-week discussion sessions or lab assignments in Communication 100 did not help you to better understand the lectures and readings. agree strongly agree slightly disagree slightly disagree strongly 1 2 3 u The once-a-week discussion sessions or lab assignments in Communication 100 extended your feeling of competence in interpreting communication problems. agree strongly agree slightly disagree slightly disagree strongly 1 2 3 u Since taking Communication 100, have you found yourself analyzing communication that occurs in a social situation in which you are an observer and/or a participant? much more often than before taking Communication 100 somewhat more often than before taking Communication 100 about as often as before taking Communication 100 less often than before taking Communication 100 ‘FQMH Do you feel now that you have taken Communication 100 that there is an increased probability that you will see personal and social problems as caused by communication breakdowns? agree strongly agree slightly disagree slightly disagree strongly don't know or not sure UCCDNH Questions 33 - 39 do not directly ask you to evaluate Communication 100. However, we'd like to know some of your beliefs about "science". Check the answer you personally feel is best or seems most true to you. What do you think is meant by the term "science"? a method or methods of devising predictive models of reality a body of facts concerning reality fields like chemistry, physics, and other real sciences any field of knowledge other (please specify) 014':me 6W DDDD 3'4. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Questionnaire NO. As you see it, what is the ultimate goal of any science? precise description accurate prediction effect ve control other please specify) :QMH If one compares the "social" with the "natural" sciences, he finds 1 no difference in approach, no difference in content difference in approach, no difference in content no difference in approach, difference in content difference in approach, difference in content SOJMH It is my impression that a social scientist who studies the communication behavior of human beings would view man as 1 an empirical system, completely determined by empiricals 2 determined except for decision-making 3 having free-will, but as otherwise affected by his physical environment 4 having the ability to act independently only rarely since he is largely conditioned by his culture 5 other (please specify) I personally view man as 1 an empirical system, completely determined by empiricals 2 determined except for decision making 3 having free-will, but as otherwise affected by his physical environment u having the ability to act independently only rarely since he is largely conditioned by his culture 5 other (please specify) Would you say that David K. Berlo is a scientist? 1 no 2 yes 3 other (please specify) Briefly describe why you answered as you did in the preceding question (#33): 65 .... ... .—“. DDDD QUESTIONNAIRE No. The fellowing questions ask for background information about yourself that will help us in classifying your responses to the preceding questions. #0. Se 3‘ 1 Male 2 Female MI. Age on last Birthday: 1 17 years or less 4 20 7 23 2 18 5 21 8 2n 3 19 6 22 9 25 or more A2. What year in school are you? Freshman 'SOphomore Junior Senior COJNH 43. In what college of the university were you enrolled last term? ...: univeristy college (please specify area that most interests you as a possible major: agriculture arts and letters business communication arts education engineering home economics natural science, vetinary medicine, or human medicine social science other (please specify) HDOCDQOUI-FODM HH nu. Specifically, what was your major last term? #5. Briefly describe below why you chose that particular major: 66 a..." DDDD 46. 47. ”8. 49. Questionnaire No. Have you changed your major since last term? 1 No 2 Yes (Please Specify new major and Why you changed your major): Have you any expectations of changing your major? 1 No 2 Yes (please explain) Prior to taking Communication 100, had you taken any courses in the social sciences (e. g., anthropology, economics, linguistics, political science, psychology, sociology, social science 231, 232, 233)? 1 No (If you answer No, skip questions 49, 50, and 51; continue with question 52) 2 Yes (If you answer Yes, please answer questions #9, 50 and 51) What courses have you taken in the social sciences? (if you need more room to answer this question, please use the other side of this page.) 67 1 ‘ . a ... . . v a, v I‘... DDDD 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. Questionnaire No. Briefly describe why you enrolled in each of those social science courses. What did you hope to accomplish by enrolling in each social Science course which you took? (Please use the other side of this page if you need additional space.) Now that you have completed those social science C0UPS€S,. what do you feel you have accomplished by taking each of them? (Please use the other side of this page if you need additional space.) Please indicate how you would classify your political views: strongly conservative moderately conservative moderately liberal strongly liberal other (please specify) (fi-FQJNH Please indicate your present religious preference: 1 Catholic 2 Jewish 3 Protestant (please specify denomination) 4 other organized religion (please specify) 5 no denominational preference 6 opposed to organized religion 7 agnostic 8 atheist To what extent do your beliefs in the area of religion influence your life? very strongly strongly moderately weakly very weakly no influence at all 05013021004 68 DDDD Questionnaire No. One last question: 55. Everytime I think of Communication 100, I . . . THANK YOU . 69 . -... n. APPENDIX IV Respondent Solutions to Communication Consultant Problem as Classified by Dogmatism (High and Low) and Channel Preference (television and face-to-face). Setting up a committee Dogmatism Level/ no mention first step one of several Channel Preference given (0) (1) steps (2) HI - TV 7 93.7%1 6 31.5%5 3 16.6%9 2 15.7% LO - TV 2 12.5% 3 15.7% n 22.2%10 HI - FF 2 12.5%3 6 31.5%7 2 11.1%11 LO - FF ._§ 31.3%1+ _§_ 21.3%8 _g_ 50.0%12 Total 16 100.0% 19 100.0% 18 100.0% The number to the right of the percentage in the upper left cell denotes the high dogmatic respondents in the television section who made no mention of setting up a committee. This numbering system (1 through 12) is used below in reporting the respondent's solutions to the communication consultant problem. Reported below are the respondents' solutions to the communication consultant problem. Solutions are grouped so as to correSpond to each of the 12 cells of the above table. The reader will note that just to the left and above a respondent's solution are reported the respon- dent's questionnaire number, dogmatism score, and year in school. This information serves as an additional point of reference in reading each respondent's solution. The reader also may use the respondent's questionnaire number to refer to Appendix VI where we report student responses to several open—ended questions regarding the students' attitudes toward Com 100. 70 Solutions To Communication Consultant Problem Cell 1 (HI-TV—O) Obviously there is a breakdown. The first thing to do I guess would be to find out what the students mean by "not understanding" and by “pressure". In the Second place, I would try to find out what they think they could gain by the misdemeanors. Between the students and the administration, the administration position must be determined. As far as the newspaper, if they're only editorials which are not really facts!, but more feelings and opinion, nothing much should be done. However, to be fair to the students, a report on the student-side of the matter might be in order-~cxactly what the students Want and what they are objecting to (with specific concrete examples of the adminis- tration "not understanding the pressures") (Actually I wouldn't get myself into the position of a communication consultant.) (l2/70/3)* I don't suppose I consider this as much of a communication problem as simply a difference in attitudes and to an extent prejudice (news differences). However, since it is considered a problem, I think the first thing I would do would be to—examine the charges of the student and city papers specifically do some research to prove or disprove these. After deciding whether each paper is way off base in their accusations or not I would try to straighten the misconceptions out by appealing through each paper to both sides, telling them where they're wrong in their arguments. I think each group of peOple are standing separated by a fence and the fence is the non-understanding of the other. They are generalizing the faults and attitudes of the others. I would find out what the pressures are on the students and just where the police are inefficient. After establishing these (true or not), they should be presented and compared to each group.‘ Actual solving of the problems (misdemeanors) is up to the administration, students, and community, after they can "see" each other and their feelings. (19/68/3) I think I would try to work through clubs, frats, and sorority to determine what the real problem was, to see if there was really a relation between the misdemeanors and the pressures on the students. I would talk to the people involved in the misdemeanors to see if this was some thing new for them or if they behaved this way before going to college. And if not, why now. If the same problems were present on all campuses and the same pressures, then increase the punishment for these disorders and be sure the students knew of the changes in policy. If the pressures on this campus were out of line with other schools I would try to correct this. (22/78/3) ItNumbers in parentheses at end of statements, in order listed are respondent number, dogmatism and year in college. 71 72 Cell 1 (TV-HI-O) (continued) The problem involves the fact that students see the world and eXpecially the university from different aspects of what they expect it to do for them and of what they should do for it. As a consultant I would try to show that some changes are needed on both sides. The misdemeanoELare probably due to resentment on the part of the students for the way they are treated by the rest of the community. But misdemeanors are a civil wrong. (24/67/3) This, as far as I can tell is more of an understanding situation rather than a communications (but understanding is part of communication). For one thing, there is a reason behind the rise beginning three years ago. The university should attempt to find what has possibly changed the pressures. But the one great problem probably is prejudice of the students and the "outside world", this is blocking the path to a true understanding among them and personally I cannot find the answer to this problem. (31/67/2) The first thing I wolld do is get hold of some of the articles and letters written by both the student newspaper and the community news- 1aper. After reading these and recording my impressions I would talk to the different individuals involved; the editors, the officials, the community citizens and the students. I would try to get some feelings of how and what each group thought of the situation. I would then go back and re—read some of the earlier articles and letters I had looked at and this time would look for words used out of contrast or words of extremely connotative nature which were used by one group to make some accusation about the other group. (33/71/2) First of all, I would talk to the editors of the local community newspaper and inform them that their articles are not helping the matter and secondly I would talk with the administration of the university and find out exactly why students are uneasy. Whereas they seem to feel pressure, from what courses and instructors does the greatest amount of pressure arise. Thirdly, I would, after finding out about the pressure talk with students randomly and find out where they think things could be made a little more laxed. (45/68/3) Cell 2 (TV-LO-O) First of all, one would have to know exactly what the students mean by the word "pressures". What the student may consider pressures, draft laws, grades, etc.---the local community newspaper may not. You have to understand that a different age group is operating each publi- cation. And along with different ages, one has to recognize the diff- erence in attitudes. We have to take in account the social and cultural differences. Also the fact that today's students are generally more involved with the world's happenings than say 20 years ago. As far as police inefficiency, further investigation should follow. Possibly the police are being unduly accuse. If the students are justified in their claims, then police involvement may be unnecessary. (27/53/1) As a communication consultant, I would first converse with a representa— tive amount of students and get their feelings toward the university, pressures, the police and the local community. After conversing with the student I'd do the same in regard to the administration. I'd then look into the sources for the student newspaper and the community newspaper. Finding out where these papers and the interviews coincided and differed would be my next step, for it is evident that here is the where the communication breakdown occurred. Once I discovered where the break in communications occurred, I could work from there, probably _getting help from all parties concerned if we were all talking about and understanding the same things in basically the same way. (44/62/1) 73 Cell 3 (FF-H—O) It is evident that each party has "passed the buck" as to the cause of the rise in the student misdemeanors. Before I could act as a consultant, I must question the claims made by the student newspaper and local newspaper since what is printed doesn't necessarily repre- sent the general feelings held by the group concerned nor does it necessarily relate accurately what the group means to express. It would be advisable to go to the students and.neke note of their ideas concerning the problem. In this way, the possibility of prejudice or dangerous political articles are less likely to influence the students. Likewise, the people of the community should be questioned rather than granting full agreement with onexnan's editorial. Words such as "pressures", "police inefficiency" and the like should be given particular attention since they have relative meanings to the 1 uses of these terms. The words should be rated according to degree of meaning; if found to be of lesser degree, newspaper articles should be re-phrased. It will boil down to the idea that the wrongs words may be used and interpreted wrong which causes hard feelings and resentment. (52/78/4) Since I never dared to attach the term "Communication Consultant" to myself I wouldn't know what to say. Also, one of my falacies is the too often loss of memory concerning principles, ideas, theories, concepts, etc. once learned in a class; I wouldn't know what to do. Sorry about that. '(34/70/3) 7n Cell A (FF-LO-O) I think this incident is a spiraling cycle-the local papers that feed on the unrest also help to sustain and intensify it. First there has to be some kind of understanding among the papers, the police and the administration about the nature of the problem, its seriousness and its implications. Once this is attained they can cooperatively work to settle the problem. The details would depend on the problem itself and the students. (46/53/1) First of all I'd talk to people on both sides and try to point out the other's viewpoint. Niether side know exactly what the other means. Trying to communicate on a level best understood by each I would say that they would have to attempt to see themselves in the other person's role. Hopefully, the students would see how the community was inter- preting the problem, and the community would see the pressure of the students. Instead of trying to place the blame on each other, they would open up and perhaps discover some solutions that would satisfy both of them. Attempting to see the vieWpoint of the other is an important part of communication. (11/59/1) There is a definite lack of communication between the students and the community. To get at the bottom of things, a consultant must talk to both sides. It is his job to recongize the difficulties and try to reveal to both sides an effective compromise. Many things must be considered, the difference in age, students-adults, difference in generations causes conflicting beliefs. With such things as an understanding of both sides and their backgrounds the most difficult job of the consultant is at hand. What effective means can be used to .get the two sides (who are blird and aware of only themselves) to compromise. He must convince them that they can never get anyvhere without recongizing the other's existence. Violence is no means for accomplishment, it only provokes more reason for the community to react with distrust. However, distrust of the youths will not enable the youths to accept the community. If he convinces the two sides of these facts, then they can work out a plan to eliminate the lack of communication. (18/45/3) 75 76 Cell 4 (FF-LO-O) (continued) Obviously, there is a degree of discontent in the student body. As a consultant one should get all the information possible from the student body. Student views would have to be examined and judged viewpoints of the students would have to be judged in relation to the existing regulations in the community. From this one could see possibly would give rise to student unrest. I see no possible way for direct communication between students and authorities. Obviously, there is distrust and dissension between the two groups and therefore little room for direct communication. As consultant one should present views of both groups to the opposing group and then proceed to work out new socially acceptable regulations, regulations which both sides .agree to protect, maintain and enforce. The main thing is to establish some sort of commonly held concepts. (15/68/1) ' The tie up in this problem is of course communication or the lack thereof. Basically it is the relativity of meaning and biased view on the parts of the school newspaper and the local newspaper. As a consultant I would try to explain where the tie up lies, ie., in the reasoning on the part of both the newspapers toward the reason behind the in- creasing rate of misdemeanors. Once this was accomplished there would be better understanding between both parties about the "feelings" of why one felt one way about the increase and the other felt the complete opposite and in future articles the biased feeling could be reduced. (30/60/3) Cell 5 (HI-TV-l) I'd first bring together the students of the student newspaper and those of the local community newspaper. I'd first open the meeting by asking those of the community to voice their complaints, and of course to define their terms so that there would be no obvious misunderstanding. I'd ask them to substantiate their complaints with impersonal facts and come to some conclusion and if possible, solution. I'd then ask the students to do the same - state their positions, define their terms, explicate their ideas, their reasoning, those pressures that they are so disturbed with. Hopefully, a conclusion and solution could be agreed upon. (05/67/3) As a communication specialist, I would plan to have the student govern- ment meet with the university president with the Board of Trustees if possible. There they could probably reach some sort of compromise, would learn more about each others problems. Officials from the student newspaper should also be there. The reporters from the two newspapers should just print the facts and try to be very objective. (07/70/2) The first step would be a meeting between the university and community to explain exactly what the misdemeanors were, and from there steps should be taken to work out the problem between both groups. The stu- dent newspaper has a role in acquainting university officials with the problem and other problems which may be the cause. In general, a miversity newspaper should be capable of pointing out the problems in an intelligent and reasonable manner, thus, giving only the true and accurate facts, and not the feelings of students. It's clear since the university did call in a communication consultant that they did realize there was a problem, and that this problem was causing some critical analysis by community members. (09/67/1) I would first bring representative leaders of the students, the student newspaper, administration and local newspaper to the conference table. Each member would be able to state the problems of the side he is representing. By getting an understanding of each person's Views and finding a common mediator , each side would not feel they were unduly misunderstood. I would then encourage both student and local news- papers to support mnu steps taking jointly by the administration and the students. (15/68/1) The most important action that a communication consultant could do would be to call a meeting. Present at this meeting, should be the repre- sentatives (editors and writers) of the student newspaper, representa- tives of the local community newspaper. Then let them talk thing over, face to face, and together come up with some sort of action that would curtail student misdemeanors in the community. (26/67/1) 77 78 Cell 5 (HI-TV-l) (continued) I would try and get the editors from each of the papers together to talk over their reasons for the way they thought. Not knowing the full story and writing from personal experience is a very poor way of communicating when the facts aren't known. If no results could be obtained by only bringing in the editors, police officials and the administration should also be brought in for conference. Once the facts are known by both parties limited write-ups may in turn have some effect on the rate of misdemeanors. (38/65/3) Cell 6 (TV-LO-l) Obviously representatives of both sides of the argument should be consulted. They may be interviewed individually, or perhaps brought together in some informal discussion. The main points to each argu- ment should be considered and debated then solutions should be explored. The solutions should be agreed upon by both the students' and the faculty's and the police's representatives. Then, with co- operation from both newspapers, a favorable, positive series of articles should be printed proposing the solutions and requesting other solutions and reactions from the general populace. If constructive new solutions are received, then these, also, should be discussed with the original representatives. (02/64/3) It seems fairly clear that neithgr side understands the other or its needs and desires. From the above paragraph, it appears that the only "communication" between them is via the press, which cannot be a true communication situation because it is essentially one way. It wouId appear to be desirable to get all sides - students, police, and university administration - together to discuss each other' 5 objectives and wants. The only problem then is to get each group to act in light of this understanding. Moreover, there is a problem of ethics involved. Since crime is involved, one must take care not to, through his communication advice, encourage this crime. (40/57/1) Student misdemeanors is a very ambiguous term and it would be hard to act without full knowledge of the prOblem. If drinking was the problem I would try to bring together the administration and other student leaders at an informal, closed meeting to resolve their "differences". I would not be a go-between or message boy for the two sides. As for the local rag I wou1d_ignore it and hope that would allow the university to take care of its internal problems. They are looking over the fence and probably have little justification for their comments. (51/58/2) 79 Cell 7 (FF-HI-l) First, I would get all of the people together as a group; maybe have two representatives from each group. Then I would listen to the arguments from all sides. Also I would allow the whole group to argue the points the others made. After this I would study into the various arguments, and do a lot of research. In all my research I would try to be objective. After my study and analysis I would again consult with all the people and hopefully then would find if all agreed if I was right. If not I would study some more and then maybe ask other communication constulants for advice to see if I was right. Then meet _again with group and tell them what I think needs to be done. (01/88/4) I would suggest that a meeting be held with those students and the people on the student newspaper who think that the officials don't understand them. They should be examined so as to find whether or not it is them, and hence, people like them who are causing the mis— demeanors. If these are the ones who are causing the trouble they should be treated with fairly, and like grown-ups in an attempt to redress their grievances and overt trouble in the future. If the students aren't the ones involved, those who are involved are probably of a more irresponsible nature, since they didn't step forward. Accomodations to the students along guidelines set by those examined should be tried for a while; anyway since they probably understood other students better than the administration. If trouble still presists the police should be improved and their vigilence increased. (06/74/3) First of all I would call a meeting of the university and local press staff. Here I would try to clarify why these two sides were taken and what facts that they obtained, they thought were relevant. Then a study, by an independent firm, would be made on the factors that may have caused this increase in the misdemeanors. Also a look at school policies would be appropriate along with school enrollment and requirements. Then another joint meeting with these two newspaper staffs would be called, the facts presented and then they would pre- sent this event to the public. Then it would be interesting to set back and see the results, at least for me. (42/82/4) 80 Cell 8 (FF-LO-l) Obviously, open end discussion is called for in this case. A joint announcement of the talks should be made, and signed by a known repre- sentative of both papers, students, and administration. An agenda should be established in which each party states his view, and open discussion should follow in such topics as "what is the role of the student in policy making", "definition of students' role", "definition of administration's role in a university." If the talks fall down, the student should seize the administration building. (23/55/1) It is evident that the two sides are not making any effort to under- stand each other. They seem to need someone in between who can sort of mediate and point out areas where they might be in agreement and not realize it. Perhaps if they (panels from each paper) held a series of conferences and aired some fo their grievances face to face they could have on the spot replya' (not having to wait for tomorrow's editorials) and thus better interaction. These talks would be open to anyone interested in getting both sides of the story. (25/64/2) First of all, there appears to be a break in communication between faculty-administration and the student body. I would urge the organ- ization of numerous informal student-faculty "gripe" sessions where the students may make known some prevalent or pressing situations shich are a cause for unrest among students. Then a higher level meeting of the faculty members attending these smaller "gripe" sessions would follow, at which the faculty members would contrast and compare findings. Thus, any glaring, all university problems would probably show up quite clearly. Then, perhaps a larger meeting of representative students and the upper echelon administration could be organized-something on the order of our Spartan Roundtable, where larger student problems could be presented directly to the administration (thus avoiding a longer communi- cation chain). A meeting including the community leaders would also merit . great importance. Here, the over critical community could view some of the student and university feelings and problems. (28/56/3) The question states that the main problem of an increase in misdemeanors has risen in the past three years. Therefore the administration should . go back three years and see what social conditions were beginning to develop. More pressures on students easily could have begun at that time. There was great stress put on racial equality, and a struggle for elimi- nation for prejudice. There also is the war in Viet Nam that many students had to cope with. Maybe the university policy had remained static and had not changed to fit the new needs of students--such as the right to speal out in defense of their beliefs. Therefore, maybe they took out their aggressions on the town causing problems with police officials. The pelice in turn may have been too lax at first in their calming down of the students making the situation more obvious to the community. If I were the consultant I would have the school administration call on a student board and police officials and community officials to discuss the problem from all angles and make a compromise. (47/51/2) 81 Cell 9 (HI-TV-2) First, I would find out the specific reasons for the social problem. Would find out what the problem is, define it, and then seek to find helpful hints on the problem that has been effective in other situations. The first group I would see are the students and prOpose no solutions but find the facts. Next, I would sit down and try to form hypothesis to the situation. Next I would go to the administration asking them for an explanation of the situation and what they have down about it thus far. Next I would propose that with the aid of nonfamiliar consultants that the administration and student representatives meet to informally discuss the situation and then set up a policy committee for a future meeting. Basically encouragement is needed among the student body that consideration of the problem is being taken. Secondly, the admin- istration should be encouraged to take action adhereing to the laws but ad0pting modified customs. After these actions have gotten under- way, I would encourage the administration to release a statement to the local newspaper explaining the situation and blaming no one. Objectiveness is the key note to all involved. This should be stressed. (04/89/2) I would have questionnaires sent to students to find out their feelings on the situation. You should also talk to students who have committed misdemeanors to try and find out the reasons why they committed them. Also talk to the police to find out their views. Put the results of the questionnaires and interviews in both papers to show people how the other side feels. The local people should also be interviewed to find out how they feel about it. You might be able to have talks about it with all three parties being there. If people are understood there may be less misdemeanors committed. (16/65/1) First of all I would do just as they did here at MSU. I would let the charges be put on paper, presented to the administration, and dealt with during consul sessions. That way both sides of the issue will be presented and everything will be out in the open. Afterwards something of a debate will take place, and a mediation should take place. (48/76/1) 82 Cell 10 (TV-LO-2) First, I would interview a sample of the general student body to get their feelings about these misdemeanors, the students who had committed them, the university's role in punishment and prevention, and the community's attitude toward them. Then, if possible, after reviewing the above sur- veys I would speak individually with the guilty parties to find (if possible) their feelings and reasons for their crimes. Also, the community citizens and newspaper people would be taken into considera- tion because they obviously have adverse feelings against the university students. Then possibly open meetings (hearings) could be held to air out the three groups and opinions. I would also include university officials in interviews and the meetings. (03/62/3) Acting as a mediator, I would first talk with representatives from the student newspaper, the local paper and the administration separately. After hearing all three groups, I would try to analyze each group's stand--their expectations, their gripes, their over-all feelings. Then I would bring the three groups together to discuss the problems. Hope- fully, each group would air their side of the story. By doing this, possibly the group, working toward a common goal see the problem with added perspective and come up iith a suitable solution to this situation. (17/47/1) What we have here is a lack of communication. Student paper charges administration of not understanding pressures. Probably administration does not, but thinks they do and that students have no pressures on them like the pressures on the administration. Therefore, need good understanding between parties of student pressures. Community papers probably feel that administrators should "get tough" with students, i.e., put pressures on them to be good or else. Therefore need under- standing between locals and students to explain position of each. If students, university administration, locals get together with idea of placing ideas with understanding in front of each other, can reach solution by explaining necessary position of each and compromise. (32/64/3) I would first try and talk with both the students and the administration to try and find out where the true difficulty was. Then I would try to .get the two groups together. I would select a group of average students and a few members of the administration and have them set down and talk about their problems. After this, if nothing was solved, I would try to see if there wasn't some activity which the administration could provide for the students to releive some of this sension. Maybe weekly dances or sports of some sort. If the administration would work with the stu- dents on these activites more would probably be accomplished. Then I would try and persuade the press to write encouraging reports. These would try and show how the problem was being dealt with. (39/53/1) 83 Cell 11 (FF—HI-2) I Problem: student conduct a) student paper for study b) community paper against study First, the conflict of the community newspaper will probably add to the student's conduct. I would inform first the community newspaper of the actual crisis on the campus. They seem to lack specific in- formation. Second, approach the student newspaper and ask them to stop publishing accusions on the administration. Then go directly to the student body find out what the pressures are and need with both the student body and administration. (37/78/2) First I think that I would go to the editors of each paper and listen carefully to their views. I would try to see exactly why they have developed these feelings and to see the problem from their point of view. Secondly, I would attempt to get the editors from the two papers together. At this meeting, I would try to analyze the problem as seen by both sides. Then I would attempt to get agreement on some points between the two sides. After that, hopefully a better under- standing could be achieved between the two sides, through careful listening and attention to each other's ideas. (41/55/4) 84 Cell 12 (FF—LO-2) I really don't want to do this! To begin with there seems to be a breakdown in communication. This is probably caused by several factors. I think that the communication between the 2 parties is obviously not clear or understandable. There are social factors as well as the students' peers which are interfering with the students actions. I don't think there's proper communication among the students themselves or among the administration. Are their role expectations, etc. clear on both sides? I feel that there needs to be an open session between the administration and the students. (8/63/4) Try to initiate some system of discovering what is happening through observation. Obviously both of the paper's are presenting only their own viewpoint. What is therefore necessary is some communication to both the students and the university, along with the community, which is unbiaSed but at the same time evaluative. I would try to make the university see that the rate of misdemeanors is related to their treat- ment of the student and ask for action of some sort, if only a joint committee to further investigate student claims. At the same time I would make sure that the students were informed of their rights in case of apprehension by police. I would also consider pressing the university to redefine its role as existing not to serve its own employees or faculty but rather for the benefit of those being educated. (10/39/9) Specify the misdemeanors and try to place them in categories-—this would help in determining why these deeds were done in the first place. Find out as much about the student opinion as to the misdemeanors, i.e., are they, the student body, concerned about the increase in occurrence. Find out specifically who the local community feels is responsible or what they feel causes the misdemeanors to be committed. Find out what each concerned faction, i.e., the students, university and local community, actually mean when they speak of "misdemeanors". Find out the importance placed on the term "misdemeanor" by each faction. Get two or three groups together. Agree on 1) the importance of the rise, 2) why the rise has occurred, 3) what they intend to classify as a "misdemeanor", 4) who seems responsible for their commitment, 5) how the groUps can co-operate to improve the problem. (13/60/4) 85 r1- 86 Cell 12 (FF-LO-2) (continued) Prdbably I would first look deeper into the situation and find out the facts contributing to the social problem. I would probably find that the fault lies both in the students and in university administras tion. There is a communication breakdown between these two sides that is causing the majority of the trouble. I would set up some type of forum where both sides would be able to express their grievances, but before allowing them to speak, I, or some other qualified person would explain very briefly that part of the problem is due to each sides closed mind on the situation. I would be careful not to insult them, but make sure they are aware of the fact that they are too self-centered on their beliefs. I would urge them to discuss the problem with an open mind and be ready to have their belief system changed. If the situation warrants it. It would take many of these conferences to even lessen the problem much less solve it. But through these talks both sides will be forced to look at their own issues as well as the others, and hopefully in time a conclusion or agreement reached. (14/63/2) ‘ Firstly, first hand interviews with students gathering facts about their feelings on the subject. Then as follows in most cases an open discussion with interested officials and local news present. The age gap would tend to be one of the largest problems. But face to faCe 'discussion can eliminate some word-blurring and misunderstanding. The stage after this open group would be a closed session fo high concerned and concentrated individuals--each armed with statistics thus elimin- ating some noise. Perhaps at this time an outsider could be called in from another school, previously having this problem and attempt to define this idea of its source, consequences, and solutions. The face to face method and discussion are the easiest ways to help this because actually it is a communication breakdown or lack. Personally I would never want to be a communication consultant. I have enough trouble communicating myself. It seems with my suggestions that the problem will never get solved for one sees our university problems worked on in this way. But communication 100 never taught me how to solve it just identified breakdown by definitions, "noise", etc. What good is it to say "oh listen remove the noise and things will go better" — bull. The fault is with the two people themselves and each situation is individual and lots of information is needed. Maybe thats my hope for later communication courses more information on solutions. (20/56/2) ll'r [$.11 I'll-Ii 87 Cell 12 (FF-LO-2) (continued) Obviously the problem does not lie within one particular group. I think I would first go to the students themselves, find out about the various backgrounds, social, economical, etc., try to figure out why they would say that the university did not understand them. Secondly, I would go to the administration and find out what type of action on their part had caused the accusation to begin. Then I would tie in the pressure of the local newspaper as a negative agent in the problem causing more resent- ment within the students. I would next bring through various controlled discussion on the two sides face to face with me as an outsider. (21/58/1) I would talk to both the administrators and the students first. Chances are there is a vast breakdown between the students and administrators of what is expected of them. Students would not be inclined to rebel unless the situation was pretty bad because college students tend to be reliable and respectable on the whole. The administrators should first state what they think student standards of behavior should be, what academic standards should be on the average, etc. The students should state the pressures which they have. How can the faculty know what these pressures are unless they are told? I don't know whether or not the student newspaper did list v them, but the analyst would find these out along with the students' ideas of academic and moral standards. The students should list what they think are too strigent, such as dress regulations and open house policy. They could list a tentative list of changes. As analyst, I'd who these to the administrators, plus bring a group of student representatives to the faculty so that questions and discussions could take place on the spot. I'd try to get diplomatic students to that fights would not get starred so easily. (35/50/1) First, take a university poll and record the requests, problems, etc. of the students. Secondly, investigate the local paper's attitude toward the university students. Thirdly, consult with police and university officials concerning the number of misdemeanors. When the facts are collected, it would be necessary to separate the generalizations from the specifics - and to not let Opinions predominate. When this is done, circulars should be made up relating the essential problem. Along with the circulars should be a solution and possibly a suggestion for some type of community-university committee to try to dissolve the friction. (36/42/1) 88 Cell 12 (FF-LO-2) (continued) First to get as much objective information as possible, I would consult with each side, students, and university administration, individually. Because the students feel they aren't being understood, I would try to find out in what ways they aren't being understood. Perhaps the students had been misrepresented or perhaps the administration had failed to take all points into account. Rather than by means of a newspaper, I would try to make arrangement for some kind of a meeting between students and the administration. Verbal rather than written communication would be desirable. If the intended meaning of the source wasn't communicated, the chances are much greater that the misunderstanding would be cleared up than by means of a newspaper. The local community would tend to be more conservative and on the side of the administration, so I would rather confer with those directly involved. Hopefully, some sort of conciliation could be reached if the two parties discussed the prOblem openly and with as much objectivity as possible. (H3/63/l) APPENDIX V Respondent's Course Grade Classified By Channel Preference, Dogmatism, and Learning* Channel Preference, Course Grades Dogmatism, and Learning A B C D F T.V., Hi-Dog o** 12,19,22,31,u5 l*** 5,7,9,15,26,38,50 2**** 16 4 H8 TCV. ’ LO’Dog 0 41+ 27 l l+0 2 51 2 3 17,32,39 FF . Hi-Dog o 52 31+ 1 1 6,u2,5u 55 2 #1 37 FF, Lo-Dog 0 18,29,30,H6 ll 1 23,25 28,u7 2 13,14,35,u3 8 10,20,21,36 *Number in cells are respondent numbers. **No mention at all given to setting up a committee, calling a meeting, etc. ***5etting up a committee, calling a meeting, etc. given central importance, i.e., the first thing which the student would do as a communication consultant. ****Setting up a committee, calling a meeting, etc. given peripheral im- portance, i.e., one of several things which the student would do as a communication consultant and not the first thing which he would do. 89 APPENDIX VI EXHIBIT A Statements About Course Satisfaction Classified Face-to-Face Hi-Dogmatic Face-to-Face Low-Dogmatic By Channel Preference and Dogmatism Response Category: "extremely satisfied" The face-to—face contact. (37/78/2)* Dr. Berlo fascinates me. (52/78/“) I thought Dr. Berlo did an extremely good job in presenting the different conponents of communication and what elements effect those components. He was an enjoyable lecturer and made the course very interesting. (42/82/u) How Dr. Berlo taught the course. He was very effective. (Ol/BB/H) Response Category: "extremely satisfied" Dr. Berlo's enthusiam and wit. (36/H2/l) I enjoyed Berlo bacause he was so dynamic and you didnit . get a chance to sleep. But the reason I felt extremely satisfied was becuase I felt lost through the whole course until the end. All the seemingly unimportant little facts (process, why we should affectively communi- cate, etc.) became understandable. At the end I felt that I had learned something that would be important in whatever I do in the future. (18/45/3) I really thought Dr. Berlo was terrific. I liked his personality and communication style and he really made me think about the problems involved. Also, I took this at a time when I was pondering over the relativity of meaning which fit in with what wer were studying. (35/50/1) Basically, the interesting lectures and their manner of presentation by Dr. Berlo; and the fact that I felt I knew the course material very well. (28/56/3) Dr. Berlo is extremely interesting and was probably the main reason why I like Comm 100. I almost always walked away thinking about something he said. I learned a little better how to make myself understood by others. (ll/59/l) It made me realize factors in communication which are obvious but which I had not previously considered. (lS/SO/u) I liked the teacher-pupil relationship and the willingness on the part of the instructor to help students and make them aware of what was happening. (43/63/3) *Numbersgin parentheses at end of statements, in order listed are respondent number, dogmatism and year in college. 90 T.V. Hi-Dogmatic T.V. Lo-Dogmatic 91 Response Category: "generally satisfied" The best part of the course was recitation. I didn't care too much about the lectures. I brought my grade up a full grade by switching to T.V. (16/65/1) I always felt that it was important to relate to people and better understand them. I think that Com lOO helped me do this. I think it helped me to take a more realistic objective viewpoint to people. (05/67/3) I enjoyed the subject matter a great deal, but the only thing that kept me from marking "extremely satisfied" was the teaching methods. {09/67/1) The ideas and principals which I learned. (24/67/3) I thought Dr. Berlo lectures were very interesting and there seemed to be a very stimulating recitation period. (15/68/1) The small discussion groups were what made me feel this way. They were very interesting. Expecially the experiments we performed. (HS/68/3) I was generally satisfied with Com 100 because I had learned extensively about communication models. This gave me a good background for 116 which I now have. It was somewhat disappointed in the fact that there was little emphasis placed on the how you can communicate better in particular situations such as a job interview and such. (OH/89/2) Recitation sections were interesting. You could say something without being criticized. (07/70/2) It made me realize there was more than one approach and one explanation for communication breakdowns. (33/71/2) Response Category: "generally satisfied" I think that it made more aware of communication.situation I was involved in and made me more of a successful communicator. These ideas were evident by the end of the term and therefore I was satisfied with my work. (32/6H/3) Face-to-face Hi-Dogmatic Face-to-face Low-Dogmatic Response Category: "generally satisfied" It's hard to explain. I used to come out of class feeling very confused, and yet I enjoyed the way the class was conducted. (kl/65/u) The recitation section was very stimulating. The instructor forced us to communicate, but to think about the ways in which we communicated. (55/67/3) It was a change from the general type of classed that I have been taking. (54/67/3) I felt it wasn't a total waste as I thought I came out knowing more than I did before I went into the class. (34/70/3) It was informative, demonstrative, and fast-paced. (06/74/3) I felt that although it generally held my interest that there was something lacking that I couln't identify. (50/75/2) Response Category: "generally satisfied" It was very interesting course, it was a break from the Chemistry and Math courses I was taking. (86/53/1) It increased my viewpoints in such fields as human behavior and help me understand why people sometimes react in different ways. (29/59/3) I found the "everyday" situations which were used to be extremely helpful in my own communication. (21/58/1) I wasn't too impressed with taking the course to begin with but I was satisfied in that I learned something about communication and how to understand peOple better. (30/60/3) ' I felt I learned a lot but I can't say it was one of the best courses I've had. (08/63/H) I learned not exact things. No actual formulas for solving problems, no definite categories for which to place things. Instead of concrete things, I learned and obtained general knowledge. Knowledge that I can apply to present life situations. (IQ/63/2) Dr. Berlo‘s lecutres (25/64/2) T.V. hi-Dogmatic T.V. Low-Dogmatic 93 Response Category: "generally dissatisfied" Boring lectures. Recitation discussions did not enter into the judgment of our grade. Dr. Berlo made the comment that if we did not participate in lecutre we could get out. (This comment disturbed me.) (26/67/1) I did not feel it was teaching me anything "concrete"; it didn't give me anything I felt I could carry on to another class or laterlife. It seemed to dwell on items of a nature of things I knew but was not aware of because in society they are useless. (31/67/2) Response Category: "generally dissatisfied" When I enrolled in the course I was looking for practical~ ways to improve my communication skills, but all I received was theory. This is fine for communication majors, but for others (who will probably only take one communication course) it leaves something to be desired. (HO/HO/l) My inability to interact to the comments and discussions led by my instructors. (17/u7/1) A waste of time and my recitation instructor was supposed to count attendance and participation in his grade but ended up only counting our test scores. (51/58/2) Dr. Berlo - his lectures - I was a nervous wreck by the end of class period and the questions he expected class answers to were not clear nor stimulating (in my estima- tion). (03/62/3) I felt that the course was very unorganized and all that the lecturer did was regurgitate the book. (MM/62/l) For a communications course dealing in new concepts and process I felt that all that was required was definitions. I didn't like the way that Dr. Berlo lectured because I felt that he was talking in circles but was so ambiguous that no one could argue with him intelligently. When anyone did question him they would face a type of ridicule. I didn't care for the T.V. lectures they were obring, but they were the lesser of the two evils. (02/6n/3) Face-to-face Hi-Dogmatic T.V. Hi-Dogmatic T.V. Low-Dogmatic Face-to-Face Hi-Dogmatic Response Category: ”"generally dissatisfied" It wasn't Com 100, as much as the fact that all classes turned me off winter term. However, I was dissatisfied because I know that knowledge of communication was ntt what the tests were designed to measure. (lO/39/4) It was directed too much to students who would be eventually managers of companies, etc. Rather than to students who wanted to learn to communicate with each other and "people" in general. (57/51/2) Although some of the abstract theory has proven useful, no pattern or overall picture was developed in the course. (23/55/1) Material seemed high schoolish - I mean I learned about response stimulus fallacies etc. in Junior year high. Response Category: "extremely dissatisfied" It wasn't taught as a college course. (38/65/3) Attitudes of Berlo (before the split up) in teaching techniques. Also the subject seemed unimportant (I felt like more of it was previously acquired by other learning). (19/68/3) The conduction of the course, its professor, its general confusion and disorganization, and its purpose. (l2/70/3) I felt the class was mixed up and the text was out of date in some areas. I did like the lectures though. (48/76/1) The text, meeting once a week in small class was a farce, the professors, the class organization, the poor tests, the poor T.V. lectures, the poor live lectures. (22/78/3) Response Category: "extremely dissatisfied" I felt the book was too simple and therefore created no challenge whatsoever. The instructor was boring in the television section (Miller) and in the face-to-face section he was obnoxious (Berlo). Mr. Small group instructor was a man with absolutely nothing wortHWhile to say and I just hated the course Winter term. (27/5H/l) I thought that it was almost all common sense. The tests were awful and my recitation instructor was rotten.(39/53/l) Response Category: "extremely dissatisfied" It was a senseless course. I felt it was of no value to me. (49/51/2) EXHIBIT B Statements About Interest in Course Classified by Channel Preference and Dogmatism T.V. Hi-Dogmatic Face-to—face Hi-Dogmatic Face-to-face Low-Dogmatic Response Category: "very interesting and informative" I enjoy the subject of communication in the mass media and, for me, it was very interesting. (09/67/1) As far as interest, I believe that this topic is of important concern to everyone and have a strong desire to learn more about. It was informative in that it had to and did lay certain foundations for further study. It did this well. (04/89/2) Response Category: "very interesting and informative? It helped me understand people a little bit more. (54/67/3) Mr. Rebach made us think about what was discussed in the face-to—face class meetings. (55/67/3) There was a lot of class participation. (06/7u/3) I received a clearer understanding of how to communi- cate with peOple, and have them understand better. (37/78.2) It caused me to question the way I communicated to others and how they to me. (52/78/u) In comparison with my other courses I found Com 100 very stimulating and thought-provoking. This was primarily due to Dr. Berlo's presentations and questions presented before the class. (42/82/4) Discovering the different ways people communicate. In fact the whole book was interesting and informative. The way the course was taught was very interesting to me. (01/88/4) Response Category: "very interesting and informative" The realization that communication was essential to human progress and development made me mor aware of the complex process of cummunicating - I had taken communication for granted before. (36/42/1) Well, I'm interested in journalism and I also loved Hayakawa when I read it last year. I learned about otfiectivity, communications breakdowns and other pro- blems which seemed extremely interesting. (35/50/1) I learned a lot of concepts that are useful 0 or evident in everyday life. (86/53/1) Dr. Berlo's lectures. (28/56/3) It made good use of communications situations which I feel were personally beneficial. (21/58/1) The stimulation of ideas. (53/58/1) (continued on following page) 95 Face-to—face Low-Dogmatic T.V. Hi-Dogmatic 95 Response Category: "very interesting and informative" Dr. Berlo is again the answer and also my recitation instructor Volard was very good. There we often played games which were not only fun but taught us something too. (ll/59/l) The instructors. (l3/60/u) The things are we discussed emphasized the role and importance of communications in our everyday life. Dr. Berlo has a very good way of making his lectures interesting and humorous at times. (43/63/3) Dr. Berlo's lectures made you feel you were learning something that wasn't just "book material.‘ (25/64/2) Response Category: "moderately interesting and informative" The book was extremely boring, but recitation was usually interesting. (16/65/1) I thought that it was interesting to discuss meaning and definition. I think that this course discussion on meaning particular will be a benefit to me in relating to others and in academic affairs. (05/67/3) The way the course was presented by Dr. Berlo and the ideas and concepts presented (24/67/3) More interesting than ATL, more informative than Nat. Sci. (26/67/1) There were amusing little story portraying odd situations people get into because of poor communications (31/67/2) Although the material develed into theory a little too much I thought generally the information was interesting and could be used in day-to-day situations. (IS/68/l) That question was a toss up between 2 and 3 it was interesting in that the recitations consisted of unusual experiments showing difficulties of communication; the lectures became somewhat dull however. (19/68/3) The course was interesting only if you went to the face- to-face lectures. There, it seemed to have a personal touch. The course was informative, but there were too many facts which weren't brought into a meaningful whole. (“S/68/3) Recitation sections were interesting. You could say some- thing without being criticized. (07/70/2) It was rather philosophical in nature and thus interest— ing. (33/71/2) It seemed as though the class held my interest during the lectures and I thought the lectures wen well covered. (AB/76/l) T.V. Low-Dogmatic Face-to—face Hi-Dogmatic Face-to-face Low-Dogmatic Response Category: "moderately interesting and informative" The lectures and recitation sections were structured so that they were quite interesting, but it was very difficult to pick anything concrete from them. (Q0/67/l) Berlo was enjoyable and the different theories could be very practical. I thought the book was a joke though, because it lacked any real challenging material--more case studies would help. (51/58/2) The course seemed to use common sense and logic. Things that you took for granted were now explained. (Mu/62/l) I enjoyed the idea of communication as a process and the different aspects of meaning and communication. But I don't enjoy just learning definitions. (02/6u/3) Better communicator as a result of class(I think that it made more aware of communication situations I was involved in and made me more of a successful communica— tor. These ideas were evident by the end of the term and therefore I was satisfied with my work. (32/6u/3) Response Category: "moderately interesting and informative" At some points I found the information quite simple while at others quite difficult to grasp. Also I didn't find the testbook especially stimulating. (41/65/u) I was confronted with some material, ideas, etc. unfamil- iar to me barely worth the effort. (34/70/3) Most of the things I learned in Com 100 I had learned thru personal experience and I expected something more enlightening. (50/75/2) Response Category: "moderately interesting and informative" All of the material was a replay 5f other classes that I had had previously in Communication. The only thing really interesting about Com 100 was Dr. Berlo and my small group instructor Dr. Harrison. (10/39/4) I learned from this class however I was bored by the little groups. They were a wasted hour. (18/u5/3) Berlo's an exciting dynamic man. Had X conducted the course, I wouldn't have enteredi to go to the lecture. (23/55/1) It offered me new concepts. Increased my vocabularly. Displayed the importance of choosing the correct way to communicate under varying conditions. (29/59/3) (continued on next page) Face-to—face Low-Dogmatic T.V. Low-Dogmatic Face-to-face Low-Dogmatic T.V. hi-Dogmatic T.V. Low-Dogmatic 98 Response Category: "moderately interesting and informative" I think the initial fact that, it was required and that I had no relative interest in communication (30/60/3) It was somewhat interesting but not really all that informative. It was somewhat. (08/63/u) To make it extremely interesting I would have had to been forced to do more things. Perhaps more papers or more interaction within our discussion groups. I feel the information provided was informative enough, yet I felt more information could have been given and communication pursued to a little greater depth. (lH/63/2) Response Category: "barely worth the effort" Everything seemed disorganized. While we did some interesting things, nothing seemed to fit together. (17/u7/1) I learned very little. (39/53/1) I had already had two speech courses, so 99% of the material was repetitious. (03/62/3) Response Category: "barely worth the effort" It was dull-made too difficult for what was covered and didn't teach me much I didn't already know except for maybe communication diagrams, etc. (RV/51/2) The presentation, the lecturer and discussion leader were both worth while, I just didn't feel the course content was necessary. (20/56/2) Response Category: "dull, unenlightening" Simple concepts were repeated over and over. The book was very poorly written having a lot of filler. (38/65/3) Most of my other courses in my major provide the exact information. In general, it was a waste of time. (12/70/3) Text, meeting once a week in small class a farce, the professors, class organization, poor tests, poor T.V. lectures, poor live lectures. (22/78/3) Response Category: "dull, unenlightening" I don't exactly think it was the course as much as the teachers being dull, and unenlightening. (27/54/1) EXHIBIT C Statements About How Things Worked Out In Relation to Expectations For Com lOO Classified By Channel Preference and Dogmatism T.V. Hi-Dogmatic T.V. Low-Dogmatic Face-to-face Hi-Dogmatic Face-to-face Low-Dogmatic Response Category: "generally better than expected" I had heard that it was very boring. (16/65/1) I expected to sit in front of a T.V. set and be bored. (24/67/3) Response Category: "generally better than expected" Go to class (T.V.), read book, take tests-not any expectations of possibilities in course. (32/6u/3) Response Category: "generally better than expected" I thought it was going to be a writing course. (Sn/67/3) A general lecture and note taking session. (55/67/3) I had no idea. (an/70/3) Just dull lectures. (06/74/3) The same run of the mill college course with very boring lectures. (37/78/2) Response Category: "generally better than eXpected" I expected a monotonous lecture series plus a few papers. (36/“2/1) I expected a boring and uninteresting lecturer. I did not go to the class with enthusiam because of the rumors I had heard about the class. (18/u5/3) From what I had heard of the course, not much. (28/56/3) Had no idea on what would be required of me. (29/59/3) I didn't know what to expect. (30/60/3) I expected a dull lecture where dry facts were pre- sented. (In/63/2) I had been told it would be boring. (25/6u/2) 99 T.V. Hi-Dogmatic T.V. Low-Dogmatic 100 Response Category: "about as expected" I can't really say. (05/67/3) I had very little idea what the course would be like. (IS/68/l) I expected straight forward lectures with little student interaction desired. This of course was wrong. I also expected the testing to be multiple choice. (45/68/3) I expected a T.V. lecture instead of a face—to-face situation where you were free to come and go as you pleased. (07/70/2) Unfortunately I had a pessimistic view of the course from the others who had previously taken it. I knew generally what would be covered however, I hadn't expected so much "abstract in the clouds" type in- formation. I had hoped for more concrete data. After the first few classes of being told to define that which were also told was undefinable. I decided not to exert myself and settle for a C. (l2/70/3) I expected to merely watch T.V. lectures and then memorize the material which would appear on multiple choice tests. This is what someone else had told me. (33/71/2) I thought there would be reaction papers and case studies with small discussion groups in which some conclusions would be reached as to a solution for the cases. (0H/89/2) Response Category: "about as expected" With all the advance notice about the course (from friend), (and acquaintances), I did not expect much- boring lectures, objective test, and recitations which you could attend if you wanted to. Even so, I still expected to gain some benefit from the course. (HO/uO/l) I expected a T.V. lecture, midterm and final (l7/47/l) Just about what did - except I was disappointed in the lecturer. My recitation was more interesting and stimulating however. (03/62/3) According to information supplied to me by my roommate I expected to attend boring T. V. lectures and an even more so boring recitation section. I expected to just have to read the text and attend very few lectures and write perhaps one paper at the end of the term. (44/62/1) Face-to-face Hi-Dogmatic Face—to-face Low-Dogmatic T.V. Hi-Dogmatic. T.V. Low-Dogmatic 101 Response Category: "about as expected" Just about What did happen. (50/75/3) Response Category: "about as eXpected" I always knew the reputation of Com 100 and assumed it true. Therefore I didn't expect much more than any easy 3 credit C. I expected about what we got although I'd hoped for more. (47/51/2) I thought the course would be a study of media and communication techniques. (H6/53/l) Absolutely no idea. (23/55/1) Nothing, a 100 level introductory course, I had previously found was mainly repetition of fact knowledge. (20/56/2) I really didn't expect what would happen, just except it as it came. I don't like to predetermine a course. (08/63/8) Response Category: "generally worse than expected" I thought the lectures would be taught as lectures. (38/65/3) Not much work and easy test. (26/67/1) I expected more of an analysis of different types of communication. (31/67/2) I expected a course that would give me a little trouble (an uninteresting subject to start with), but that would consist of entirely different material than what I was used to or knew much about. (19/68/3) Response Category: "generally worse than expected" I had no idea. (39/53/1) I'm afraid that I didn't really know what to expect. (O2/6H/2) Face-to-face Low-Dogmatic T.V. Hi-Dogmatic T.V. Low-Dogmatic Face-to—face Low-Dogmatic 102 Response Category: "generally worse than expected" I knew it would be pretty bad but that it would be better than the T.V. lectures of which were used prior to last term. (10/39/4) I expected the class to be much smaller, with much more group participation. (21/58/1) Response Category: "far worse than eXpected" I didn't know what to expect, but I had a general knowledge of what it was going to be about. (48/76/1) I thought it would be dull and too easy. But after I found they had reorganized the course and with the author as the professor, I thought the course would be well worth the while and perhaps a challenge. (22/78/3) Response Category: "far worse than expected" I expected to be motivated, since Com 100 is a course that can be very interesting and informative especially in a fast moving world as today. (27/5u/1) Response Category: "far worse than expected" I thought it would deal almost entirely with mass media. EXHIBIT D Statements About Interest In Taking More Communication Courses Classified By Channel Preference and Dogmatism T.V. Hi-Dogmatic T.V. Low-DogmatiC. Face-to-face hi—Dogmatic Response Category: "few more" I am interested in taking more courses in communication because in the field I have chosen it is a basic re- quirement. But besides this, I extremely enjoyed the subject matter and feel it has helped me even in everyday affairs. (09/67/1) I would be interested in this mainly because I might like to make my minor in communication. (lS/68/l) I am interested in more courses since I have the strong interest in Com Arts and since it is my future goal to be able to communicate effectively with many types of people in different situations. (0H/89/2) Response Category: "few more" Because communication is one of the most important things in life, it is good to know how to communicate, etc. It would also be helpful in my field Of interest (journalism). (l7/H7/l) I am enrolled in Communication 200. I decided that I was just unlucky in that class. 200 is much better. More material and much more interesting. I like Miller. (39/53/1) If, they are different than 100. I am always going to need communication skills and these courses could help considerabley. (51/58/2) There are some courses dealing with advertising which I would like to take. I don't think they will be handled like Communication 100, so I'm not discouraged by the course. I have found most introductory courses to be worse than the upper level courses. (02/64/3) Response Category: "few more" Since my major is T.V. 8 Radio, I think it is a necessity that I know how to communicate with people effectively. (50/75/2) 103 Face-to-face Low-Dogmatic T.V. hi-Dogmatic 105 Response Category: "few more" I've taken almost all undergrad courses in Comm. If I had started with 100, I might not have. (lO/39/u) I'm interested in taking even more courses in communi- cation because of its relevance to social change, etc. Also, the people are good. I like Com 100 and felt that I had learned a lot about communication and its process. I would like to take a few other courses. (18/u5/3) I am not a journalism major anymore, because this course at such a greater effect on me that I decided after much thought to become a communication major. Now I have to take more courses. (35/50/1) My major requires a knowledgeable background in Com. Hopefully I will receive more than the eXpanded vocab- ulary than came from Com lOO.(23/55/l) Com 100 was very enlightening and I feel there were several points in the course that merit further study. (28/56/3) I'd like to take some more courses which will give me further insight in how to make communications more effective-but they will have to be a part of grad work. (13/60/u) ' Because of my major it would be to my advantage if I did. (25/64/2) Response Category: "take another" They can be taken for my major and I also did pretty good in the course. (16/65/1) I wouldn't mind taking another course in this area if I had the time. The concepts involve in communication are something that would always be helpful to me. (24/67/3) As I said before I felt that it was important to communication with others as effective as possible. Anything that I thought would promote better communica- tion, I'd be interested. (05/67/3) Communication 100 is like any introductory course. One would have to take a higher level to get into the heart or better parts of communication. (26/67/1) (continuted on next page) T.V. hi-Dogmatic T.V. Low-Dogmatic Face-to-face Hi-Dogmatic 106 Response Category: "take another" Communication plays a very important part in each student's life. To bed able to communicate effectively is, I felt, to be happy with yourself. The ability to get your point of view across so that other people understand is fine attribute. This is why I took Com 100. So I could learn and better understand communications. (HS/68/3) I would because in teaching my classes, I would very much like to get my main point across, and I feel more communication classes will do just that. (#8/76/1) Response Category: "take another" Interested in taking more courses in communication because of the I) use in my work at radio station; 2) because of results in communication 100 in reference to my communication with other people. (32/6H/3) Response Category: "take another" I would like to take a Com course that is related to Psychology. (54/67/3) I would like to be able to communicate more effec- tively. (55/67/3) First, it is required for my major, Second, even if it wasn't required I want to investigate further into the habits of massive communication. (37/78/2) I've just been made aware of some points now I need another course to drill these points in. (52/78/u) I would like to take another course, but I have only one more term and that is full of required courses. (H2/82/u) I think it would help me more in learning how to relate better with other people. It seems this is the biggest problem today. (01/88/4) Face-to-face Low-Dogmatic 107 Response Category: "take another" The first course proved profitable and enjoyable. It wss the first and only course that I had taken at State which I actually wanted to go to--It was unusual and the student-teacher relationship was excellent. (36/u2/1) I'd like to take a communications course that would help me to better understand today's communication barriers between racial and ethnical groups--hoping to help knock down such barriers in some area of social work. (47/51/2) I view communication as a chance to improve my ability to form sound or meaningful relations with other people. (H6/53/l) I have to, but I feel the field is worthwhile if some of this petty defining were out of the way. Com is a basic problem and worth studying. (20/56/2) I think Com lOO gave me a good base from which I would be interested in learning more about. (21/58/1) Stimulating course. (53/58/1) I'd like to take another course in communication, but only if I knew that it would further the same type of ideas, that Com l00 had. I wouldn't want to have to memorize a lot of unimportant facts. (ll/59/l) Mainly I would like to take another course because I enjoyed Com 100. I felt, however, I was only exposed to the communication field. By taking one, or possibly two more courses, I can better my background in communication. Also for my major I think perhaps communication courses would help me. But do to limited electives I may not be able to take any more such courses. (In/63/2) If, further course would be as interesting as Com 100, I'dtake one if my schedule allowed. I don't think it will. I doubt if another course would be as interesting unless Dr. Berlo was part of the instruction. He was an extremely effective speaker,and had it not been for him, I doubt if the course would have been as effective. (HS/63/3) T.V. hi-Dogmatic T.V. Low-Dogmatic Face-to—face Hi-Dogmatic Face-to—face Low-Dogmatic 108 Response Category: "not another" In a way I would like to take another course but on the other hand I do not want to "waste" my time outside my major. (31/67/2) I believe that other courses I can take such as psychology and PhilOSOphy cover much of the same material, and psychology and philosophy are more interesting than a communications course. (07/70/2) I would not have time to take any more courses in communication. (33/71/2) Response Category: "not another"' Since my major is fisheries and wildlife, I don't think I have time or need of another communication course. (HO/BO/l) I'm not that interested in speech courses, and if other communication courses are like Com 100, then I feel I could better spend my time in other classes. (03/62/3) Mainly because my major leaves me little room for electives and secondly because I don't know what another course in communication would do for me. (HM/62/l) Response Category: "not another" Frankly, because I'm graduating, secondly because I'm taking BOA 326 this term and am repeating and going forward from Com 100 in terms of information received. (kl/BS/H) I think all the basic things I need to know or can remember about the communication process have already been explained to me. Response Category: "not another" The course itself was interesting, but it did not create a desire for me. (29/59/3) Though I learned something from the course about the relativity of meaning, communication just isn't my cup of tea. (32/60/3) I'm graduating. (08/63/4) T.V. Hi-Dogmatic 109 Response Category: "wish had not taken Com lOO" Com lOO persuaded me against anymore communications. (38/65/2) The course seemed to consist of the things that we see or learn through our eXperiences, eSpecially in school. There are many other interesting courses which I would consider more valuable to me. The course just didn't seem nearly as important as Berlo piped it up to be. (19/68/3) See #22. My major is geared to the concrete. If all Com courses are up in the air, I don't want to waste my time. I had all that nonsense in ATL and Soc. Sci. and PhiIOSOphy. Now I want to get to the serious business of getting an education and do something with my life. I hate sitting around firesides trying to "define the undefinable" and discussing the "meaning of meaning." (12/70/3) Communication 100 was so bad I would not care to go further into this perhaps interesting field. Of course, being a theatre major I am in the college of Communications. (22/78/3) Response Category: "wish had not taken Com 100" Because of my bad experience with professors. (27/5u/1) Response Category: "wish had not taken Com 100” Not in my major and not interested. (ug/u5/2) “mmmummy