""‘“"""‘""’ " ‘-—‘ " “R-‘

AN EVALUATION OF AN INTRODUCTORY COURSE '
IN TEACHER EDUCATION

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JOHN THOMAS PARMETER
1970

THFS"

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
An Evaluation Of An Introductory

In
Teacher Education

Course

presented by

John Thomas Parmeter

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Education

§e

Date February 251 1970

0-169

 

VJ ‘ _ I.

E
f;
9-.

(
LIBRARY

  
   

Michigan State
University

 

1

u
a“ I

   

 

 

.-
...
n ‘ '
- .. T
.~
.e
‘ -.
\_
~.
.
_ ,
-..‘
. .
s.
.
-:- '
v ,‘
_ '~..
. -
“‘ .
--
~
~
I
e
‘0.
‘v. C
en“-
‘
,
‘h
. _‘-
In -
. ".
I

 

 

 

v.
a
.
.L‘
a“
i’
. .

 

}
‘Jl’.

ABSTRACT

AN EVALUATION OF AN INTRODUCTORY COURSE
IN TEACHER EDUCATION

BY

John Thomas Parmeter

One of the most difficult tasks facing large, state-supported
institutions of higher education is that of compensating for institu-
tional conditions in order to provide quality programs for large
numbers of undergraduate students. In evaluating a given program or
course, two primary considerations are the degree to which the desig-
nated compensatory approaCh (1) best approximates ”quality instruc—
tion" and "provision for student opportunity” given the institution's
"predominant characteristics, ” and (2) acts in the long run to reorient
the "predominant characteristics“ toward conditions more appropriate
for quality undergraduate programs and instruction.

Guided by the above perspective, an evaluation of the first
course in the undergraduate teacher preparation sequence at Michi-
gan State University was conducted during the spring term of 1968.
This course which enrolled large numbers of students each term could
be'categorized as a. lecture-discussion section, survey-type course

“4 ‘. a "system" of instruction relied heavily on the widespread

   
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
   
  
  
   
 
  
  
   
  
   

John Thomas Parmeter

* Mae of graduate student teaching assistants. Evidence
'M'Qpinion suggested that the use of teaching assistants to
V‘Iflvn‘s‘afé £51” predominant characteristics of large, state-supported
fionsbf- higher education was neither a reliable nor valid approach
«ism in the instruction of undergraduates. In decreasing senior faculty
‘ liva‘iicipation in the course, the College of Education argued that teach-
'."'assist‘ants, incorporated into a ”system” of instruction which had

' IRES dual objectives of quality undergraduate instruction and the instruc-
‘ ‘I

‘ v: {filial developcnent of the teaching assistants, could be used validly and

rf‘yéfigbly as the foundation of the course.

I .i ‘I. - ' To get at'this issue involved the derivation of evaluative criteria,
I _‘;dbveliopment of. an argument concerning the internal logic of such a

:85: structure tempered by the reality of existing circumstances, the

fit of factors within the College of Education which were

iewentation of actual operation of the course, and most importantly,
._ game” of Course reliability and validity based upon the analysis

’Is-f'ude-nt outcomes controlled by a design which considered

xvii}:-

’jia‘

W tune andpartitioned the sources of variance to the appro-
‘fimral factors of the course.
fixative findings showed that there were significant dif-

1 fibre to the teaching assistants on ianortant student

1351"," _
mmqkni_.g-.. -1-‘..‘.. .. .

'r:
,3)

I
I ._ f, "'2'
l' .L.‘ 41:2,:

 

John Thomas Parmeter

“tween the teaching assistants' perceptions of discussion section ob—
jectives and procedures, that there were observable and self-reported
differences between the teaching assistants in their grasp of course
content, and that student assessment of the teaching assistants was
most negative toward their ability to employ important teaching strategies
in the discussion sections. These findings indicated that the specified
course form lacked in actual substance either ”quality instruction" or
"provision for student opportunity. ” The specified instructional develop-
ment program for the teaching assistants was in part nonexistent and
where present, failed of its purpose and was largely resented by the
teaching assistants. These and other findings indicated that the course
did not act in the long run to reorient the ”predominant characteristics”
toward the objectives.

The findings were then related to inconsistencies between course
objectives, specified course procedures, course content, and program
goals. By considering patterns of internal development within the Col-
lege of Education during the period this course was being developed
and placed in operation, it was concluded that the inconsistencies under-
lying the course failures were probably the result of a growing imbalance
between the graduate and undergraduate programs favoring the graduate
training and research interests of the faculty and the departments and

that the use of teaching assistants under these conditions was inappropriate.

  
  
 
  

 

However, it could not be concluded that graduate students were entirely

- .1 inappropriate for instructional purposes if a more equal balance between
. ;v-"\.: f, .
‘ ‘ _' to and undergraduate program interests could be achieved.

A

 

AN EVALUATION OF AN INTRODUCTORY COURSE
IN TEACHER EDUCATION

BY

John Thomas Parmeter

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOC TOR OF PHILOSOPHY

 

 

   

Department of Administration and Higher Education

1 970

h

'rI‘r’g/II' '1 Y7 {Y} '2'} It) .T/Il /l "2“: «’3’ ll (If; .

'I-II'IHIII.‘{ CLHWIIIJ ..I.I'L.

«II II'IIIiIInIIIH
/ I:.;’I'I'/JIIII -III.I}', III.};II|.III/I
'ill"1lt'|l.'lllb'tl 'uII III IIl’iIlIilI‘HIl‘i ll.Ii'II‘.(I III

in ‘l’i'III'Di’ 'Hil 'IHI

II. tIii'i I‘Hi';Ili i’III. IIIvIII.t|. lIIIuIiu". III III'IIIII'II.I 'Hl
. I

      

 

by a.
rhg-r-v
fia‘."

5‘3!-

.‘u t {‘5‘

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported in part
by a grant from the Educational Develop-
ment Project, Michigan State University,
and in part by the School of Teacher Edu-
cation, College of Education, Michigan
State University. The help and concern
of Leland Dean, Director of the School of
Teacher Education and Associate Dean
are greatly appreciated.

\

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES V
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1
Evaluative Context and Model 9
Institutional Conditions and Means of Compensation 21
The College of Education's Plan 27
II. BACKGROUND AND DESIGN 30
Organization of Education 200 30
Evaluative Model and Assumptions 35
Limitations and Scope of Evaluation 42
Sources of Data and Evaluative Structure 45
III. INSTRUMENTATION AND PROCEDURE 56
Categorization and Description of Student Variables 56
Characteristics of the Data 61
Reward Variables 68
Performance Variables 71
Aspiration-Expectation Variables 76
Past Performance Variables 79
Personality and Academic Characteristics Variables 83
Course-Specific Attitudes 87
Potential Restrictions on the Data 90
Measurement of Instructor (TA) Characteristics 95
Procedure 97

N, RESULTS AND DOCUMENTATION 107

 

 

‘ .
‘ a
c-
I
.
.
1
It fl_
i
- h
‘K..
.. __ “
\ ,
‘v “ -

 

 

 

 

 

-‘ U... I
.
..
-
h
N‘-

.o“ \.‘.
'~_1 I. ‘-
~_.

.
.
e.
‘5,
.
v I
~. I
§
‘\
o‘.
-. N
‘s. “l. ‘
N. .
Q
\
\
4 xx
_.
.‘ \g
x, J ‘1.
‘_ F

 

IV”

Chapte :-
V . E VALUA TIVE FINDINGS

Summary of Evaluative Findings

Course Reliability

Immediate Improvement of
Undergraduate Instruction

Reorienting "Predominant Characteristics”
Over Time

Appropriateness of TA's

Summary

VI. CON C LUSIO NS

Course Inconsistencies

Imbalance Between Graduate and Undergraduate
Programs

Graduate Students as Instructional Personnel

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX A - Course Outline and Curriculum Review
Committee Report

APPENDIX B — Instruments

APPENDIX C - Descriptive Data Summaries for all Student
Variables Including Number, Mean, Standard
Deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis Categorized
by Total Students, Students by Time-of-Day,
and Students by Sex

APPENDIX D - Descriptive Data Summaries for all Student
Variables by Discussion Section Including
Nmnber, Mean, Standard Deviation and
Skewness

APPENDIX E - Intercorrelation Matrix for all Student Variables
by Total Students and Students by Time-of-Day

APPENDIX F - Correlations of all Student Variables with
Instructor Grade by Discussion Section

APPENDIX G - Cell, Factor, and Total Means and Complex
II Analysis of Variance Summaries for Selected
Student Variables

 

Page
164

165
170

174
176
178
181
182

183

185
191

197

201

228

282

292

340

379

411

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table III-1: Description of Student Variables by
Administration, Range, Purpose,
and Operation

Table III-2: Matrix of Intercorrelations Between
Performance Variables for all Students

Table III-3: Matrix of Intercorrelations Between Aspiration—
Expectation, Reward, and Past Performance
Variables on All Students

Table 111-4: Matrix of Intercorrelations Between Cour se-
Specific Attitudes Across Administrations
For All Students

Table IV-l: Number of Students Included in Study and
Proportion of Students Responding to
Selected Instruments Grouped by Discussion
Section, Time-of-Day, and Totals

Table IV-2: Summary of Analysis of Variance Results by
Factors and Their Interaction on Student
Variables Showing Probability Level of
Differences (p) and Proportional Reduction
in Variance (.3)

Table IV-3: Instructor Grade Means by Discussion Section
(TA), Time-of-Day, and Totals, and Analysis
of Variance Re sults (N = 968)

Table IV-4: Items and Item Analysis Results of Student
Attitude Toward Discussion Section and TA

Table IV-5: Means and Standard Deviations for all Students
on Course-Specific Attitudes

Table IV-6: Means and Standard Deviations on Student Course
‘ Attitudes Across Continuing Measurements by
Grade Received in Course and Entering Grade-
Point-Average

Page

62-67

73

79

88

109-110

111-112

123

129-131

151

152

 

C hapter I

INTRODUCTION

This study represents part of a continuing effort by the College
of Education at Michigan State University to provide self-evaluation of
its program of undergraduate instruction. The setting of the study
was the first course in the undergraduate teacher preparation sequence,
Education 200, ”The Individual and the School, ” which can be categorized
as a lecture-discussion group, multi-section, survey—type course. As
initiated in the Fall of 1966 following a major reorganization and inte-
gration of the entire teacher preparation sequence, the instructional
content delegated to this course included an introduction to the teach-
ing profession, to the program of teacher education, and primarily, to
content in the area of educational psychology. The course enrolled
approximately 1000 students, mainly sophomores, each term.

The role of the evaluation was to examine why the College of
Education instituted the course as it did, explore the degree to which
the structure described by the College of Education was, in fact, a
working reality, and empirically describe and assess the structure
toward desired educational objectives in light of certain student out-
comes. The sources of evaluative evidence considered were histori-
cal documents, informal observations and discussions, questionnaires

“ainventories, and the measurement of student variables over time.

'3"

 

1...... ~ a

2

As conducted in the Spring term of 1968, the perspective of the eval-
uation was derived from the University's and the College of Educa-
tion's stated concern for the improvement of undergraduate education,
and the primary objective of teacher preparation which, as summarized
by the Dean of the School of Teacher Education, was the development
of those ”basic understandings, skills, and attitudes which characterize
a teacher who can respond competently to all situations within which
he must function. "1

What distinguished this course from any number of other
undergraduate courses with large enrollments was the particular,
purposeful emphasis the course planners, the Curriculum Review Com-
mittee of the College of Education, placed upon the course as a ”system"
similar to those employed in the business-industry model. 2 Whereas
most large courses either have a faculty member responsible for
instructional activities and the management of a cadre of graduate
assistants, or a common curriculum and objectives employed by
relatively independent instructors in a number of smaller-group set-

tings, this course was built upon specialization and diversification of

 

1Memorandum to Educational Development Project from
Leland Dean, Associate Dean of the College of Education, as
Pfeface to the College Curriculum Review Committee‘s, Report on
Undemaduate Curriculmn Revision, mirneographed material,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, April, 1965.

 

2Curriculum Review Committee, Report on Undergraduate
Curriculum Revision, mirneographed material, College of Education,
MichiganState University, East Lansing, Michigan, April, 1965.

 

 

 

labor, central administration independent of instruction, evaluation
and feedback components, and personnel management and development.
Ideally then, content specialists from the senior faculty would lecture
on their respective specialties, teaching assistants (TA's) would pro-
vide clarification of the lectures and translate content into practice,
a specialist in evaluation would evaluate student performance and
development in light of course objectives for both the assessment of
course effectiveness and as ”feedback” to students, a specialist in
instruction would see to the choice and development of the TA's, and
a senior faculty member would administer the course and coordinate
it with the other sequential offerings in the teacher preparation program.
As will be more clearly developed, the problem in this "systems"
approach centers around the qualifications of TA's to instruct, the
competence of TA's as instructors, and the difficulty their role
creates in developing institutional and departmental reform. But in
addition to these problems by virtue of the Review Committee's planned
organization and structure for the course, there are several other
reasons the TA's demanded special attention. 3 In the plan devised by
the Review Committee, the course could not exist without the role of
the TA; a decrease in senior faculty participation was justified on the
basis of projected TA performance; the TA's would provide the only

means for individualization of instruction or for participative instruction;

 

. 3Ibid.

.u

 

 

 

 

 

 

4
because of the impersonality of the lectures and exams, the students
would probably tend to identify the course with the discussion section
headed by the TA; because of constantly shifting subject matter, the
TA's would be responsible for clarification and continuity; and perhaps
most importantly in this case, because a primary objective of the
course was the development of students toward becoming ”competent"
teachers, then it also became the responsibility of the TA to be a model
of teaching competence broadly exhibiting the attitudes, skills, and
understandings necessary for this role.

The terminology, focus, and design of this study were partially
in response to the argument and decisions inherent in the Curriculum
Review Committee's plan and partially in response to an evaluative
decision to phrase this study in terms of the improvement of under-
graduate education. Both the Review Committee and the evaluators
agreed that the improvement of undergraduate education through the
development of quality programs is of primary importance to the Uni—
versity and that an appropriate focus of this concern should be on a
program of teacher education involving thousands of students. The
Committee and the evaluators also agreed that the conditions in, or
the characteristics of, the University and higher education in general
strongly restrict the development of such a program, and that any
approach taken should act to both provide immediate compensatory
remedies to the state of undergraduate instruction and improve over

time the basic conditions or characteristics within the University

_....- a A

5
which negatively affect the ability to provide quality undergraduate
prograrns and instruction. The plan of the Curriculum Review Com-
mittee for this course as adopted by the College of Education contained

abasic decision to de-emphasize the instructional role and responsi-

I

bility of senior faculty and to instead rely upon a ”system" of instruc-
tion to create the desired program results.4 Thus the evaluative
approach had to first attempt to assess the workability of the ”system"
followed by the assessment of the results of the ”system" on the under-
graduate students to ultimately get at the issue of appropriate nature
and degree of faculty participation.

The use of the word ”system" to designate the course approach
is central to the evaluative approach. Although it could be argued that
as a "system" the course had certain weaknesses, this argument would
not effect the original designation of ”system" as conceptually symbolic
of the course. In order to de-emphasize the participation of faculty
and at the same time provide a plan which was internally consistent
with the dual objectives of immediate improvement of undergraduate
instruction and long-range reorientation of institutional conditions or
characteristics, it would first be necessary to alter the historical
tradition of direct faculty responsibility for instruction and course
outcomes in an acceptable manner. One such means both culturally

acceptable and also widely evident within the University would be to

 

41bid.

 

1 $737.: A

 

6
emplO‘I Specialists to perform their various specialties in a central
framework Of administration. This would allow maximizing of limited
resources to production while minimizing cost. By definition, this
approach implies ”systematic" treatment; in theory this approach
would not seem to violate the historical tradition of faculty responsi-
bility.
However, the stated purpose of the course approach, and

accordingly the central evaluative question, was not the rationaliza-
tion and justification of appearance or form, but rather of course
effect or substance. If the course ”system” was necessary to compen-
sate for institutional characteristics which prevented a more tradi-
tional paradigm involving senior faculty instruction, then even while
admitting that a ”systems” approach theoretically might provide
substance as well as form, it still remained to be established that the
"system" could be implemented reliably in terms of the specified form
and then that the form was a valid means of improving undergraduate
instruction. This area open to empirical test was further accented

by the Committee's provision that graduate student teaching assistants
would carry primary instructional responsibility within the ”system. "
Because the TA's were perceived as potentially the most unreliable
part of the ”system" as well as because of their importance within

the "system, ” the reliability of their performance became the primary
question.

:32 . The concept of reliability has a number of levels of abstraction

 

 

 

 

 

 

_“
n

7

each of which is based upon certain assumptions (e. g. , distribution

of scores on a test, goodness of fit, reproducibility, etc.) but in
general all levels suggest the notion of reliable, doing something con-
sistently, predictability. Although reliability will be discussed at
more than one level of abstraction in this study, in relation to the
evaluation of "system“ reliability, the meaning is operational con-
sistency both internally and to course specifications. In other words,
do the parts operate as specified, do supposedly equivalent components
provide similar results, do the parts operate in concert with each
other? Validity as a concept is less clear at any level of abstraction,
but in general it connotes the idea of operating or performing to purpose
or objective. In this study the evaluation of the validity of the course
as a ”system" implies the assessment of the course in relation to its
approximation of irmnediate and long-range objectives of improving
undergraduate education.

Simply stated then, the purpose of the evaluation was to assess
the relative ability of the planned instructional approach-~the course
as a “system" and particularly the teaching assistants as a unit of that
"system"--to approximate the objectives of the Institution and the
College of Education. Was the course a reliable means by which to
instruct undergraduates; ‘was it a valid approach to the broader goals
of the University and the goals of teacher preparation? Evidence and
expert opinion suggested that the use of teaching assistants to compensate

for predominant characteristics of large, state-supported institutions

__‘

———-—-—‘..—~

8

of higher education was neither a reliable nor valid approach to use

in the instruction of undergraduates. The College of Education argued
that teaching assistants, incorporated into a ”systemH of instruction
which had the dual objectives of quality undergraduate instruction and
the instructional development of the teaching assistants, could be used
validly and reliably as the foundation of the course. Thus the docurnen—
tation and empirical questions in this study sought to answer whether
this assumption was justified.

Within this perspective, the central issues were the teaching
assistant as the means of instruction, the assumptions underlying
the use of the teaching assistant as those means, and the criteria by
which the teaching assistant as the means of instruction should be
judged. To get at these issues involved the derivation of evaluative
criteria, the development of an argument concerning the internal logic
of such a course structure tempered by the reality of existing circuxn-
stances, the assessment of factors within the College of Education
which were instrumental in the creation, direction, and organization
of the course, the documentation of actual operation of the course,
and most importantly, the assessment of course reliability and validity
based upon certain student outcomes controlled by a design which
considered change over time and partitioned the sources of variance
to the appropriate structural factors of the course.
In the remainder of this chapter, a brief rationale and back-

ground for the study will be developed. Chapter II will focus on the

 

9

specified and actual organization of the course, develop the evaluative
design, and cite the specific questions considered by the evaluation.
Chapter III is devoted to a discussion of instrumentation and proce-
dures of analysis. Chapter IV and Chapter V analyze and interpret
the evaluative results, and Chapter VI summarizes the results, sug-
gests certain recommendations based upon the results, and develops
certain conclusions about the improvement of undergraduate education.
A more extensive presentation of the data, instruments, and back-
ground materials is included in several appendices following the text

of the study.

Evaluative Context and Model

Before turning to the detailed plan for Education 200 as speci-
fied by the Curriculum Review Committee and adopted by the College
of Education, it is appropriate to develop a conceptual framework
within which the course as part of an institutional setting may be
fairly evaluated. This is necessary because of three distinct factors
which, if ignored, would tend to distort or muddle the course and the
evaluation.

First, conditions surrounding undergraduate education at
Michigan State University and similar institutions are considerably
less than ideal; the institution is faced with many problems which,

in terms of attempts to improve undergraduate education, appear

 

 

i ,k.
as»

”a

‘s

rah

 
 

 

 

 

10

almost insoluable. 5 There is not enough faculty. Irrespective of
numbers of faculty, the interests of faculty are primarily oriented in
directions other than instructional. Economics and bureaucracies
hamper and distort intimate personal contact. Student values are
mixed and in many cases appear anti-intellectual. In many ways,
reward systems for both faculty and students are not conducive to
educational or intellectual ideals. Considering these conditions and
circumstances, there is a limitation on the immediate ability of any
program, course, or plan involving large numbers of participants to
make radical changes toward an ideal model of undergraduate education.

Second, the University, including the College of Education,
has committed itself to the long-range improvement of the state of
undergraduate education. In the Report of the Committee on Under-
graduate Education (CUE) a thorough examination of the University
was conducted including criticisms and recommendations for all

areas and practices within undergraduate education. 6 The heart of

 

5There are many good sources which discuss the current
pressures and problems of higher education. Two of the best are:

Nevitt Sanford, ed. , The American College (New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1962), and

 

David Riesman and Christopher Jencks, The Academic
Revolution, (New York: Harper and Row, 1968).

6Committee on Undergraduate Education, Improving Under-
graduate Education: The Report of the Committee, (East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, 1967).

 

 

*'- am- A

 

11
this report was summarized in five principles which guided CUE's
study and recommendations. Briefly, these principles supported the
academic process of interaction between student and teacher as the
primary consideration in establishing and implementing the under-
graduate programs; learning and scholarship were to be the standards
by which programs were to be judged; quality of instruction and the
instructor as a model were to be the primary concern of both individual
faculty members and educational programs; liberal education as
interpreted in terms of human development was to remain the founda-
tion of the institutional approach and, if possible, be enlarged; and,
the idea of educational opportunity was to be included in instruction
and planning implying that entering characteristics of students should
not be the primary determinant of degree of institutional and instruc-
tional impact. The implication of these principles does not imply
immediate remedy to the institutional problems previously cited, but
rather a concerted effort to improve the conduct and prestige of under-
graduate education.

Third, the College of Education, through its Curriculum Review,
Committee recognized both the problems inherent in implementing a
better program of undergraduate instruction in teacher education, but
at the same time, renewed the committment to improve the quality of
undergraduate programs and instruction. In doing so, the Committee

specified the central problems and areas of instructional concern:

  
   
  
 
  
  
   
  
   
  
   
 
 
  
  
  
 
   
  
 
 
   
  
  

12

I . 1'1“ 'ti: ..r§®tofiding Quality programs to large numbers of students

L is one of the most challenging tasks faced by large uni-

.1" t 3613113568. The task is more difficult because of the in-
--.ereasingly short supply of competent college teachers.

‘ $189316 institutions have attempted to overcome the shortage

‘ 'bystaffing undergraduate courses with graduate assistants

‘ .aajxrand have achieved varying degrees of success.

o' f
‘ Entity: In order to give undergraduates instruction the emphasis

' which we believe it deserves, the College of Teacher Edu-
' the I. cation has designed a plan which will bring our under-
$I . - graduate students in contact with outstanding senior faculty
9? \- T‘ ~members and at the same time allow for student identifi-
. - cation with a small group where his individual questions
.‘ TJ‘P : - and comments can become meaningful (discussion7sections

headed by a graduate student teaching assistant).

"I 29‘” In this statement, the Committee re—emphasized the need to
qqér'ovide "quality programs" based upon instruction which included
“Standards and models (implied by the contact with outstanding senior
7:13:33, and provision for independent student development (implied
the 7idea-of small group contact and the word ”meaningful”). Without
‘ .Tther explanation by the Committee the format implied would be the

- ll: r

   
  
   
  
   
    
  

figfier detail the logical relationship between means and ends which

' dt‘he‘decisio‘n to apply this course format in light of objectives,

 

If 3 .t ‘ .
'onal problems, and instructional concerns.

Mr: :1. -

f." 'éB‘eeause‘the evaluation must take place within the context of this

' 3 v1: ~--.
' .. and because the notions of “quality programs" and instructional

'.‘ "f f. '.'q,":‘-
' _ - are not clearly specified, a brief theoretical model will be
ail‘up'ron‘what seems to be implied in these three factors

.Vuu.

 

 

 

 

13

of institutional characteristics, standards surrounding undergraduate
instruction, and decisions made in light of these characteristics and
standards. The theoretical model will be followed by an application
to a typical undergraduate procedure in large, state-supported insti-
tutions of higher education, followed by an evaluative application to
the plan for Education 200. Because of the definitional limitations of
the Curriculum Review Committee's report and other basic documents
pertaining to undergraduate education at the University, the model and
many of its concepts take the form of presuppositions by the author.

Ideally, undergraduate education is the planned response to a
series of institutional objectives and philosophies. As such under-
graduate education is composed of ”quality programs" including a
number of sequentially and non—sequentially organized instructional
units (courses, practicums, independent studies, etc.) which in combi-
nation result in students exhibiting certain behavioral characteristics
such as attitudes, skills, and competencies which in turn reflect the
objectives and philosophies of the institution. The "instructional
units" are identifiable by the inclusion of two components--quality
instruction and provision for student opportunity. ”Quality instruction"
pertains to the assumption of instructional responsibilities to objectives
and as such relates to the purposeful activities of those involved with
instruction. "Provision for student opportunity" pertains to the
application of instruction with a given population of students in order

to insure the broadest possible desired results of that instruction. Add

s"

14
to this the "predominant characteristics" of the institution and some
conception of certain "critical issues” or points of contention located
between actual means and ends, and the rudimentary model toward
which program planning, development, evaluation, and reform are
directed is complete. In this model, the primary operational tasks
in relation to the components become those of filling in the specifics,
determining the relative weights of each, assessing the reliability
and validity of the resulting reality, and then recycling on the basis
of the results. The principle proviso to this model is that it is dynamic
and as a system, ”open. " This means that the model itself is
generalizable, but the empirical details to which the model is applied
are constantly changing.
Quality program -- A program which approximates some
specific objective or set of objectives by providing organi-
zation, planned interventions, sequencing, and standards;
it is primarily a strategy and set of controls rather than a
direct part of teaching and learning.
Instructional units -- A specific division of a "quality program"
which includes actual developmental activity and incorporates
as standards both "quality instruction" and ”provision for stu-
dent; opportunity"; it is the purposeful location within which
the specific interaction between instructors and students takes
place.
Quality instruction -- The quality control mechanisms of
purposeful instruction within an instructional unit which assume
the responsibilities of broader program goals and unit-specific
goals; as such, these responsibilities include a curricular area,
a content and experience area, and a pedagogical area. Quality
instruction is directly a part of the student experience.
Provision for Student Opportunit -- A mechanism of purpose-

ful instruction within an instructional unit by which maximum
effectiveness of that unit in relation to a specific population of

 

._, A

 

 

 

 

 

.i. .r.
.s “I r n
- .h n
u. p..
u . . .\-

 

;‘

~‘
u

~
b
"‘

 

..: .k
.

.uu Lt

.u.‘

. . . .

 

 

 

 

15

students is achieved; as a strategy for maximum development of
students, it means that the diversity or heterogeneity of students
is dealt with by instructional me ans (teaching to accommodate

and enhance the diversity) rather than distributing rewards accord-
ing to that diversity (grading the already strongly predetermined
levels of one particular aspect of the diversity), and in the case

of instructional units with more than one element, it means the
students are not subject to systematic sources of bias due to
either the structure or instructional performances inherent

within the elements.

Predominant characteristics -- These are the factors of circum-
stantial reality within which an instructional program has to
function and are predominant because of their delimiting effects
upon the nature and operation of programs}: as such, they
naturally affect the starting conditions and immediate objectives,
but by their nature can become the basis of long-range objec-
tives and projections.

 

Critical issues —- Those points of contention, either explicit
or implicit, the resolution of which strongly influence the
choice of means and ends; in this sense they may be variously
held values, theoretical considerations, or operational assurnp-
tions.

Unity -- A hypothetical construct positing a theoretical baseline
for a ”quality program" of a one-to-one mutuality between

students, faculty, and their respective interests.

Both "quality instruction" and ”provision for student opportunity"

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 

pertain to instruction, and the results of that instruction, as it takes
place in the classroom or other educational setting. In the definitive
acts of a teacher or a student, or the interaction between the two, these
have concepts may be difficult to separate. However, as purposeful
intent they each have very distinct differences. "Quality instruction"
is a. concern for insuring that standards or qualitative objectives are
met and. provides for the necessary movements of any student or group

of Students to these standards. As such a concern, "quality instruction"

‘ {s
v t ‘

. ~ "ii;;1udes a nmnber of responsibilities. The first is to the curriculum
. 2'; .

5.
.. -
p- '
,.»-0
___._
p
-. Iv
.l.-.4vv
A. ‘ ..
‘-. - -4
.
‘—-.. ..‘
q. .
.. '
. -g
--

 

._
. ’ i
4. V.
>...,-V
. -v
‘ ,_'_ -
.
D‘ M
Nfi_‘- v.
-.
‘|
a
V
"t
v
Q
‘I
n
h
'I
.
‘t
h
0
.,_
l
I) ‘
-.\
.“.
“-,.-:; .
-

 

 

 

 

16
and curricular objectives which means that the instruction is responsive
to and directed towards these ultimate goals including other elements
of the Curriculum. The second is a content and experience responsi-
bility which involves the choice and sequencing of materials in the
instructional unit toward the goals of that particular unit. The third
area of responsibility is the pedagogical responsibilities which include
both the specific approaches used and the particular "style. " No matter

what the instructional approach the more important pedagogical responsi-

bilities would include:

[—-

.. the determination of student readiness
2. the motivation of students to learning

3. the demonstration of skills, attitudes, and values to be
developed

4. the inclusion of appropriate learning activities or
practice tasks

5. the use of reinforcement and the development of satisfaction
6. the development of organization and meaning

7. the development of high standards of performance and
means of judging student performance.

Whereas ”quality instruction" is standard-oriented toward ob-
jectives,, "provision for student opportunity" is student-oriented toward

objectives. Implicit in the former is the notion that there are behavioral

 

8Paul L. Dressel, ”The Role of Evaluation in Teaching and
Learning, " Evaluation in the Social Studies, Harry D. Berg, ed. ,
(Washington, D. C. : National Council for the Social Studies, 1965),
Pp. 1‘20.

 

17

intellectual standards toward which the instructional activity as a
rational plan is directed. Implicit in the latter is the notion of po-
tentially different paths to the behavioral standards, a commitment to
students on behalf of the institution for maximum development, and an
acknowledgement of the limitations of rational planning with regard to
diversity of input student characteristics, changing circumstance, and
imperfect theory and practice. 9 As an element within a rational
"system, " provision for student opportunity is the strategy by which
an instructional unit achieves maximum desired results of the quality
instruction. As a concept it does not presuppose uniformity of the
resulting student product, but rather the maximum meeting of mini-
mal behavioral standards inherent in both quality programs and quality
instruction. At the least equality of educational opportunity assumes
certain flexibility in the procedures of quality instruction toward the
attaimnent of behavioral goals while at the most it would assume com-
plete individualization of instruction. Because this concept represents
an institutional responsibility to students as well as a program strategy,
some of the characteristics within the instructional unit it presupposes
would be provision for the individual student development of:

1. relevance -- the congruence between student goals and

perspective and instructional unit goals
and perspective

 

9For example, see Joseph Katz, ed. , No Time for Youth,
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1968).

Q

 

 

 

V.

v_~.

‘ t «:

o J .
\ I
o

x
'»

.,._
nu. ,‘
.s ,. a

.

.

Q... ,
z»,

u ".1
« 'v-fi
'.

I

.1

\. .. .
».- ‘
\ .

‘ ‘

 

 

 

1

 

18

Z. clarity -- the congruence between instructional unit
content and experiences and student knowledge
and skills

3. competence -- the developing congruence between the model

of quality instruction and the student as
attempting to approximate a model of
quality instruction

4. fairness -- the congruence between instructional unit

responsibilities and student responsibilities
(this may be interpreted as the relationship
between contracting parties with obligations
on the part of both as the agreed contractual
arrangement).

While "quality programs" composed of "instructional units"
each containing "quality instruction" and "provision for student oppor-
tunity" are the model toward which undergraduate education is ideally
directed, the actual form and substance in an approximation of that
model are determined by the "predominant characteristics" of a
particular setting and the resolution of "critical issues" inherent in
the "predominant characteristics” of that setting. The "predominant
characteristics” of a setting are the expression of the number of students
to the number of faculty, the respective interests of each, and the
general factors which characterize each group including organization
and historical precedent. Given these "predominant characteristics”
of a setting, it is then possible to generate a number of alternative
ways of approximating the ideal model of undergraduate education.
These alternative ways of approximating the ideal model have been

described as ”critical issues, " the resolution of which will create the

actual form and substance of the model's approximation. In this sense,

.
c ..
_ ,
.
.»
.n .,
. 7.
on

 

 

 

.\»

.s.
2;

 

 

 

19

"critical issues” act as an hypothesis at the level of every operational

decision which can empirically be supported or disconfirmed.
} In theory, based upon the ideal model and the assumption of
unity of that model, the task of ”quality program" development would
clearly be the rational-empirical procedure suggested earlier result-
ing in increasing congruence between the model and the actual approxi-
mation of that model, and probably also resulting in an improvement
in the model itself. Beyond unity--a one to one mutuality between
students, faculty, and their respective interests--the problems of
providing the "quality" or ideal model of undergraduate education
expand geometrically. As the "predominant characteristics" move
away from the concept of unity (either in numbers or interests or both)

it becomes necessary to compensate for these "predominant charac-

 

teristics" in order to approximate the ideal model. With each com-

pensatory step comes one or more critical issues the resolution of

which as suggested by definition may not necessarily be the most
, theoretically consistent with the ideal model. If the compensatory step
1 is not theoretically consistent with the model, this necessitates addi-

‘ tional compensatory steps to regain consistency with the ideal model.

I At some point in this process which theoretically could continue at
length, the efforts to approximate the model may become efforts to
rationalize the model; in essence, to create form without primary con-

cern for substance. In situations where these results occur, the focus

becomes one of appearance and the developmental activity becomes a

 

 

 

20

matter of ”tinkering" to maintain the appearance of the model, rather
than developmental activity aimed at reorienting the "predominant
characteristics. "10

Theoretically, the "predominant characteristics” move beyond
unity with the single removal of equivalency between the number of
faculty and students or between their respective interests which include
organization and historical precedent. Although any break in this
equivalency does create "critical issues" of choice, the notion of
equivalency is only theoretical because of actual conditions in insti-
tutional higher education. As such, it only provides a baseline against
which relative deviations from equivalency can be compared and the
corresponding "critical issues" can be developed. In fact, the con-
cern is with the relative ratio of faculty to students, the primary
differences in their respective interests, organization and background,
and the various interactions and resulting compensatory programs
which emerge. What is important is the nature of the compensatory
decisions, and the actual resulting form and substance of programs
resulting from these compensatory decisions.

The importance of the ideal model and its theoretical function-
ing is most critical to the program development sequence of planning,
creating, evaluating and revising. Because of the complexity of insti-

tutional higher education, it is imperative to have a model for the

 

loSee, for example, Paul L. Dressel and Frances H. DeLisle,
Undergraduate Curriculum Trends, (Washington, D. C. :zAmerican
Council on Education, 1969).

Lm.

 

 

-. .— 1
,a .
.......... .'.
‘o- n. .I
l V ,
.afl. ,.
'*-~ . .,
u -
“-- -..
.-,~s .
‘~I. ‘, ~
M- ~
I .. .
." . - .
u. . . ‘ .
‘.. .
.. -.
.5...’
s.
o .
o ,‘
a...
~-. ‘
'-

 

 

 

 

 

.
-_‘
....
n ‘H
a. -
5.. . “ ;
, . ~
1.“
.
Q
n_ a ‘I ‘
. -.J‘
. .
ss.
t
“u.
‘
'u
c.

 

“s.
“.
.
. .
\ ..
‘ "
'n, V‘ -.
._ ‘
|4\

 

._ «..
’x..:u w
K‘. \\

. V.

 

 

21
purpose of tracing back through the program development activities
in order to isolate the imperfections or inconsistencies within the
sequence. Most evaluation studies deal with operational considera-
tions in relation to performances, but it is equally possible in light of
this model that inappropriate resolution of more fundamental critical
issues may also be at fault. This is especially a possibility whenthe
relative distance between "predominant characteristics" and the con-
cept of unity is comparatively large. Assuming that institutional and
personal resources are finite in any given setting and that faculty have
primary control over program decisions, then the greater the ratio
between faculty and students and/or the greater the difference between
faculty and student interests, the more likely the means of compensat-
ing to approximate the ideal model will result in a rationalization of
form without substance, a situation which affords little chance for

long-term improvement of undergraduate education. 11

I_nstitutional Conditions and gleans of Compensation

 

Such a condition has been a part of large, state-supported
institutions of higher education for some time. The predominant
characteristics of these institutions, which categorically would include

Michigan State University, would include:

 

11See, for example, the discussion of "Ritualism" in Thomas
Merton, Social Theorj and Social Structure, (New York: The Free
Press, 1957), p. 174.

 

..
I
n
.
7..
l.’ .
.. ,
- \
N...
l“

‘IT‘ ‘I

 

 

.‘~ .
H ‘ ,‘
'u

‘.

._. t.‘
N a
-a

, I
s
.‘ ,
.s .
1“
\
‘.. .
'. .
.‘~
1
c

   
  
   
   
   
  
 
   
   
   
    
  
  
  
 
 
  

22

 
 

Z‘Lsf’lg. n'airelatively high student to faculty ratio (as compared to
1;.) other educational institutions in the country)

é‘-\L .1 “i V

f , ,2. a. research-oriented faculty with a perhaps genuine but

' 33¢ ‘ilhnit‘ed. interest in undergraduate teaching (limited by
their own research interests and the narrowness of their

r.‘ ‘I- graduate training)

' 3. a student body which is on the average of lesser, but also
of far more heterogeneous academic ability and motivation
than the student bodies at selective private colleges and
universities (the same fact applies to students in different
departments within the same institutions)

4. structures which make curriculum revision and innovation
« relatively easy within departments and relatively difficult
ac-ross departments (which does not reflect the willingness
of departments to deal in their own development and innova-
tion, but rather the relative strength of the department in
relation to the institution).
As Trow suggests, the institutions within this category have
w commitments to both standards and a certain quality of under-
‘7- :lrvh-v ,
:' - education, not dissimilar from that suggested in the CUE's
‘ :"i-ny ."“ Tl'n's’ implies both "quality programs" for undergraduates and
emphasison undergraduate instruction as a means of enabling a

" tlfi-fidisparate student population to achieve to the criteria of the
‘

yfiogrm. But in order to move a heterogeneous population

 

”13-91;, "The Undergraduate Dilemma in Large State
'-miversifies- Quarterlx, December, 1966, p. 17-18.

 

23

   
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
    

P: :m-m q'ualityof instruction and the necessity of some individuali-
' .
311cm- of instruction. The natural consequences of courses (or
o I' f

‘ VT'fiihja:arxls~)‘ which enroll large numbers of students and which fail to
" Wheate for the heterogeneity of the student population are:
. j t.

the good students becoming lost, bored, and remaining
unchallenged

the middle students--and all of the students to some
degree--disassociating the material (theory and
research) from their lives and their futures and from
implications other than related to the discipline.

the poor students becoming totally uninvolved because
they are not taught, because they cannot compete with the
good students, and because within this setting, they cannot
compensate in any way for the entering differential.

The predominant means of compensating for these character-
cs of large, state-supported institutions has been to employ the

‘L
5386 of senior faculty (i. e. , within the tenure system) primarily in the

j'jfli‘aduate areas of research and instruction and in the highly specialized,
k; nPIMP-level undergraduate areas. The contribution of senior faculty
_> "
".‘ifi' early undergraduate areas has been generally limited to large
, $199331“! settings. The instructional gap created by this utilization of
‘1'-‘-
; Mot faculty has been filled by the TA in a classroom structure
‘1.
Welly either the lecture-discussion section approach or the multi-

@993: independent instructor approach using common curriculum

 

 

 

 

  

 

24

to the predominant characteristics of Michigan State University.

The Curriculum Review Committee appeared to regard this

system more favorably than was justified when it stated that these

above approaches had achieved "varying degrees of success. "15 In

contrast, Trow points out that there has been very little success in

relation to either developing "quality programs" or instructionally

surmounting the predominant characteristics of the student popula—

tion through the use of approaches built upon the role of the TA. He

cited the following reasons:

1.

The TA's are often poor instructors. Many tiInes they
are less competent, less able in the content field. In
many instances they are chosen for reasons other than
competence or ability in the field. Thei r form of sup-
port falls at the tail end of the graduate student support
system--associateships, fellowships, research assistant-
ships, teaching assistantships.

Apart from the question of abilities, the TA is, by the
nature of circumstance, often poorly equipped or moti-
vated to be a good undergraduate instructor. The work
has no bearing on his future career or even graduate program.
The senior staff derives little reward for taking interest
in his teaching activities. In fact, the senior staff is
usually bothered by TA's who must be administered. The
TA's attitude toward the instructional activities is usually
wrong due to both the fact that he must also carry a heavy
graduate load and that in the process of defining himself
and his intellect and competence in relation to the senior
faculty, he takes on a stance both "iconoclastic” and
”debunking. ”

While it is argued that the TA gets valuable professional
training and experience as a function of his duties, this
is not the reality. The TA gets little if any guidance. The

\

15Curriculum Review Committee, QB.- 93. , p. 1.

o
s .

 

lb'

 

(1

(1

 

 

  

25

TA‘s do not design the courses in any way. He does
not have to take the responsibility for failure if the
course does not go well.

4. Other faults of the teaching assistantship are that it
distracts the students from their graduate training
and distracts the faculty in an unproductive manner.
The role of TA is generally the major source of the
student's support and demands time unrelated to his
graduate work resulting in a longer period before the
individual can finish his training and enter a professional
career. The faculty must manage all of the TA's and
coordinate the course which only involves the administra-
tion and overseeing of others although this rarely includes
actual classroom observation and critiquing.

5. The necessity of TA's to teach or handle undergraduate
courses restrict the freedom of the department (and
other administrative units) to reform the graduate
programs.

6. Since the design and procedure of the course is established
by the departments and senior faculty, the result in terms
of formal content is research and the academic interests
of the faculty (lectures and reading). Any other elements,
such as moral or interdisciplinary implications or the
relevance of material to the students' lives, is left to
the TA. The results of this is:

3.. since the TA is generally weak in content and
research, a glossing or confusing or arbitrary
stance is taken in relation to the material--
rarely does a true integration take place;

b. the course becomes a model, and a weak model at
that, of the predominant research interests of the
faculty;

c. the examples, discussions, and activities within
the TA's domain are involved with his beliefs and
experiences rather than with content, skills as
representative of the content, and the true im li-
cations or questions related to the material. 1

\M

16Trow, 93. c_1t., p. 19-23.

 

26

  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
 
   
  
  

"ltflE‘rorn an‘evaluational standpoint, what Trow is suggesting is
,uset‘of TA's to compensate for the predominant characteristics
. " 'se-l'erge, state-supported institutions toward the objective of
vigilkyhstruction is neither valid nor reliable. The use of TA's is

\ ‘-

.Wltalid because: (1) it primarily serves the purposes of graduate
(
irregtms and research interests of faculty, (2) it does not provide

Write future improvement of instruction since the TA's get very lit-

: "tlévaluable training, (3) it exposes undergraduate instruction to TA's

hm manner not conducive to creating further interest in developing
filistructional competence, (4) it detracts from the primary purposes
il‘of‘bo'thlthe senior faculty and the TA's, (5) it orients the content and

ienceswaway from the purposes of undergraduate education, and
Q? 1
hr )i‘t restricts the institutions ability to reform undergraduate instruc-
“be (I ‘

M and the departments ability to reform graduate education.

‘3.) Beyond the invalidity of using TA's to compensate, Trow also

‘B-lgues that TA's as a means of instruction are unreliable. This lack

' Wshablhty is because: (1) TA's are often poor instructors simply
W31"... ‘- '

i .
‘ ’ms of abilities, (2) TA's, by nature of the circumstance, are

 

 

0
‘~...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
    
  
  
  
     

5:. ‘i' "
.31"~ .

Lu” .M-surm'nary, the result of using TA's as the means of compen-

f: .. has: proven invalid because it has not acted in the long run to
1 .
2:

f

27

the predominant characteristics surrounding undergraduate
' «Minn toward the ideal model. This approach has proven invalid

' Imithe more immediate objective of attempting to approximate the ideal

{-I

:Im‘dflyigiven predominant characteristics because as a means of instruc-

v
,tmu, the role of the TA has been unreliable. In relation to students,
1

' ‘cs'urses‘employing the use of the TA have failed to approximate either
,' L”if-11.311“? instruction" or "provision for student opportunity" which, in

II wéddifion to the natural student consequences mentioned previously, has
0.

:fifléflted in‘ a situation where the means of dealing with student diversity
I
hen to grade it rather than to teach for it.

      
  
    
    
   

g. .
r :0" {A 04". ‘
.' ,3. Colle e of Education' 3 Plan

Irrespective of these suggested limitations inherent in using the
'b" 'H‘ : ,

EA to compensate for the predominant institutional characteristics, the
_cn’1.— .. .

g .

Kyrfiafllum Review Committee of the College of Education suggested a
.' ‘ruf

3581.3". \.'

.is which . . . it deserves.’ "17 The Committee, while not directly

ions included in its planned course structure. By including

.
I 'rrsP-rwe-c- ,.
- ,3", 1 . . . . ..

 

 

 

 

t
u. '
,1..- ~-'
-. -
“1.41.9. .-
.~ I.
-1 ..
.- . . -
. v. .
v
.
.4 ..
,, .
. n
.'F -~.O,.
v~~4
~.
I "I 1
_ 5
"'-.‘ .
‘ a .I
““L. '. ‘

 

'-
.1.
s
'. U.
'1 -
.‘.
‘-.
'.
n'.
“'
w“ .-
..J
.

 

I,

r‘!

 

 

 

 

.
.‘~
(0‘
\u “v
‘-
s;.‘.
1 ‘n
\,.
1 ‘.
- N
\. >.
.J..“
._ v-
.-
‘..-
\"‘
‘..r‘.
‘\
Q
.
.
‘I

 

 

   

’1' " '
'..’-l,
a ' 13*
“I!

. «at r"-
t It"

.3,

   
     
    
     
   
  
  
  
   
   
    
   
 
 
   

28

‘.y
3.

neto mediate against these limitations, the Committee also
i‘tlf‘achmwledged much of Trow's evidence and arguments, but
a.

3.51., , 15} the committee iInplicitly argued against the inevitability of

. I?"
,mis conclusions.

’W-‘i"' 'In light of Trow's arguments, an instructional approach based
eyen' extensive delegated responsibilities to TA's would fail to provide

‘ “Either immediate best approximation of "quality instruction" and ”pro-

'.

'\ Vision for student opportunity" or major reorientation of the predominant

'.'- filléracte‘ristics of the institution toward these objectives. In fact, if
O

'- ' ’PI'OW'S'assessment was correct, it would act to perpetuate and perhaps
\
‘ "enhance the existing conditions. However, the course planners pro—

‘ .M ctr-"this potential criticism by stating that the course would serve
, ._.‘1~'j“:_"purpoee in the interest of improving both college instruction and
fighfifirgraduate education. That purpose would be both to provide the

» Wheat possible instruction for undergraduates and to develop competent
“wise instructors out of TA's through the use of a program of instruc-

Y .

flew development in which the TA's would be interns. By applying a

 
   
  
  
   
  
  
  
  

_ fl, A li' ‘
t! H 29
Indeveloping quality undergraduate instruction, and (2) the

fiamem" of instruction to accomplish these objectives--the

D
‘I

Believed that broad usage of the TA to compensate for the

E Midéfit'that this approach does little to reorient the involvement of
faculty in the instruction of undergraduates or improve the

J
‘ ‘ ‘s for institutional reform of departments, the above objectives

.f" flan-Were of stated importance to the University and in theory,

 

 

v
0‘s...
.‘ ‘
. ,.
. \ ’
u,
a. ..
...
." .u
1. _ ‘ v
‘ "~k .
o .
a
. ’o '
..
-.

 

 

V
.
V.
-. \ ‘-
s. u
I
, h... .p.
‘
o_ i
u
t.-
,H.‘-._
“t‘_..'_ .
‘v
“t
n
p
‘0
h f
‘ I
.
(
'I

4
7.

 

  
   
     
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
     
    
  

Chapter II

BACKGROUND AND DESIGN

  

VI
59!!“ 3Many undergraduate courses in large, state-supported insti-

; What“ higher education closely resemble the business-industry

; émugtion model. The organization of ED-ZOO was concerned with
fwsprocessing" for an expected enrollment of 1000 or more students
'éfiffiem. As the Curriculum Review Committee of the College of

.l ation pointed out, " The coordination involved with courses enroll-
unfchélarge numbers is an extremely difficult administrative task. "1
, ew’i’f‘o.simply review the composite parts is quite an extensive

E, -. Mali; V Involved were:

--1. one course coordinator

3 . 3,}. one course evaluator

= 3‘ {our to eight lecturers

. - ..4.1 10 to 20 teaching assistants

‘1 u

t” " tws Merent hours durin the day at which times the course r
g

.—
-

211,388 angered, using the same personnel i“

firfit'p‘ « 1* ' ‘
:11 4‘qu v if " 1 . '

.. . Elm: -Review Comittee,"0rganizationa1 Plan for

.6; r. Repel-t on Undergraduate Curriculum Revision,

31. (East Lansing: College of Education, Michi-
Apt-11,1965), p. 1.

30

 

r
.“

 
 

‘ 51‘ I Q I I ‘1‘ ‘1 1.1.5. ~‘5 *1 — Ga
. l1 .. .a . . ~\~ ‘ u .M \ I P id
1 : z. . .. ... .a 7. .. .. u... c. L. ..1 S
. ... .. T . . t :11 .3 u .r» . . .t e . . .‘n. . «,u m]. a», .6.
... . , w. . . ~.. ... .. . f, ~\.v .3 .... .J. r. 1 ..fl u 1 .
.. a. t . . l ... ..
a n n 1 ‘- — . s . Vi.
tn o , 0... up“ . n. u . “.1 \L.
. in» .
.. . . h . . . . . p . , .\.. u. I“, . . n
I. ,. . ‘1. .I .Nu . Q. . x
.. r ... Q‘ s\ ‘1‘ \ -
.n . . .

 

 

 

 

  

31
7. the 800 - 1000+ students enrolled
The organizational idea was to take administrative responsibility
away from the instructional participants, primarily the senior faculty.
As recommended, the course coordinator would ”be the person re:-
sponsible for bringing unity to the course which will involve several
different faculty lecturers . . . (and he) will also be responsible for
the coordination of the discussion sections and be working closely with
a. faculty member responsible for course evaluation and a faculty
member responsible for a college teaching internship . . . . ” In brief,
he would manage the affairs of the course and deal with what the Com-
mittee describes as “administrivia. ”2
The content of the course would center around the main interests
and specializations of the senior faculty of the College, primarily the
Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psy-
Chology.
Senior faculty members who have a particular competence in
some portion of the course content and who are known to be
outstanding lecturers will be invited to give lectures on that
portion of the course which falls within their particular area
of interest and competence. Each senior faculty member thus
will be involved with only from 3 to 6 lectures covering a
particular unit of the course. Other times he will be free to
pursue other research or instructional responsibilities. We
expect he will be given generous load credit for his contribu-
tion to these basic courses and we hope that to be asked to
participate in this manner will be viewed by the faculty member

as a distinct honor.

\;

ZIbid.

 

 

 

 

 

. . . .. a.

. . . y t V. s"

. ..— n. . , u.
..

.. . ... .. . a

n.

-“

....

.

n1.

. . . A s .

u . .ne. ..u‘.. . .. .. ”.1 u -. . t u .. .Fw

.\. u . .. ‘ u .

"A a . . ... ... g u . . n A. . . 8F. .

q I .F‘ «a. n . . a r h t . 1 . . ‘ e 5

.. m .
... ,t
. n m g
“nn ., L

 

 

 

 

32

   
      
   

We expect tilit it will become much easier for us to employ
competent new staff whose responsibility it will be to only
make specialized contributions to the instruction in the
undergraduate basic courses than it would be to employ staff
solely for instructional responsibilities at the undergraduate
level. (author's underlines)5

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to the lecture sessions which would be given to all
students enrolled in each time section, three times per week, the
Students would be required to meet twice each week in discussion sec-
tions.

". . . the students will meet twice weekly in small (under 35)
discussion sections which will be conducted by graduate
assistants (TA's) employed for this purpose. Durin these
sessions it is expected that the student will have an oppor-
tunity to have his questions clarified and be identified as an
individual within the total group. It is expected that the dis—
cussion sections will be related closely to the lectures and
that here the student will be concerned with the application

i to classroom problems of the concepts covered during the
lecture sessions. (author's underlines)4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The content seminar for the TA's was designed to briefly acquaint
them, at greater depth, with the content to be included in the different
Sets of lectures. Accordingly, "each lecturer will meet with the graduate

assistants the week preceding his presentations to the large group of

 

8tlildents . . . at which time he will cover in greater depth some of the
material he expects to discuss with students the following week and will
PrOVide the graduate assistants with a list of readings which will better

acquaint them with the material which he expects to cover. "5

31bid. 41bid. , p. 2. 51bid.

fl

.--. .
-
.a ~ -
...-M. . «~ »
-v~..- . A.
> a
..w. .. 0 -~
x. . .n . .,
a“ ..-. .
., . I

 

,.

'I .1

.__ n
-« .4 -

 

 

0.,

-.
-...

I.
: 1‘
.‘~‘

 

 

S'fl- _
SI! -
““3
I._
K 'i
d. .‘.‘_
1 ~¢\
..
.
'1“. \ .
.
1.“, ‘
fig . .-
.-
.e
N.. .
I ..

 

‘.
‘—A._‘
‘M, ‘h
1“.
' i
.u
‘h n
1‘ A
'\
“aw-2‘. ._
t,“

 

J»
K: \
L, P

   
   
  
  
   

1 ‘ - 33
fifth!" Judging student performance in the course would be a dual

g, . .The first proviso involved judgments by the TA‘s of the per-
‘3 11nance of students in the discussion sections, and accounted for forty

17%.! cent, of the total course grade. The nature, procedure, or content

of this instructor grade was left undefined by the Curriculum Review

D
fibnnnittee and no further restrictions were placed upon the TA's as

     
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
 
 
 
   
   
 
  

‘ ' the. course was actually conducted. The second proviso involved exarni-
, .

,g 1 hations common for all students, in the form of a midterm examination
' accounting for twenty per cent of the total course grade, and a final
eStamination accounting for forty per cent. Provision was also made for

a, senior staff member whose primary responsibility would be to develop

_. .sifiteemination.

» Examinations in a course enrolling large numbers of

» students are doubly important. The construction of

" ‘ .7 'r «- evaluation instruments which will properly measure the
progress students make toward the predetermined goals of

<1- 1‘ _ the course is a most important function. To insure the
development of reliable evaluation procedures, a person

- " ’ -. _ . ; will be assigned full tine to construct examinations . . .

_ V (and) will work in close cooperation with the faculty members

- - t‘zy 0. .~ and graduate assistants involved in teaching the course con-

' ‘, _ tent. Eventually it is expected that a written examination

_ ' will be developed which will properly measure a student's

' - ' competence and make possible the completion of the course.

v

'5‘ 33¢", ,requirements by examination only.
'5 ‘ _

4C3!

nu. And what about the course objectives? The responsibilities

 

 

 

 

   

" ~—

' -.-
o
.N‘ ‘- w. .

 

'v-

u
'v-.

' \
u._t_‘. .‘

 

 

u.
l
5
“"At .
t." “ ....
.5. a “in“
a

 

 

.33 C‘

 

 

 

   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
    
   
 
  
  
  
  

34

‘Wconiplete list is included in the Appendix; briefly, the main areas
'-:¢§§Eered-were: (l) Orientation to Professional Education; (2) Observa-
' ‘ tied; and, Interpretation of Behavior in the Classroom; (3) Learning and
: W3 in the Classroom; and, (4) Human Growth and Development.
With only two exceptions, the key word in each objective is either
': Rfideu‘stands” or "recognizes” or "distinguishes" which can be inter-
: uprated to mean the student can recall some piece of information for a
'15 Ihultiple-choice exam or he can apply some simple principle on a
Mple-choice exam, e. g. , ”recognizes the pupil behaviors syrnpto-
1':,,:,,m possible emotional disturbances. ”7 The objectives represent
My 1%?!th behavioral competencies, none of which have any proven
-~. ' '~ .
' ,‘fi. Eileet‘ relationship to teaching; they not surprisingly represent the
‘ fikflarch specialties of educational psychology, some of which are
.1 1‘1

Mofieallyestablished and some of which are largely conjectural.
~ 4 t. The course as conducted during the Spring term of 1968

red essentially the same as the organizational description. The
‘E units contained in the lectures and readings were an extension
6 . 1

gc‘rijectives indicated above. The eight different lecturers were

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..
»__ ,~ ‘
. ._
7. -
._-
i "
.‘_
.
.._
'-
5". 1
‘H

 

Q'sh

....
':
o.

. . _.
‘|c . .
w —. -—

.F N
'
.... _|_
r
.-

. u ,
--. r '_
o.

‘r
...~
’-
n.

l
‘\
\- ‘ .
-~:‘..~
- ‘ ‘
l“
. .
u “
y“: z
-
H.
, 5‘ ‘
\~‘ 5‘».
N‘.‘
Q

 

 

\-
‘, -
‘tl
.
‘-
I "
4

 

\
.

‘5‘. .
u. “
. - \
UV

~~

““‘— ‘
\gu—

35
Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology, each lecturing for
several sessions in his respective specialty. Sixteen discussion
leaders (TA's) taught one discussion section during each of the two
times-of-day the course was offered. Common course lectures were
delivered Monday's, Wednesday's and Friday's and discussion sections
took place on Tuesday's and Thursday's. Slightly more than 1000
students were initially enrolled. The roles of course administrator
and course evaluator were held by the same person, a newly appointed
assistant professor in the College holding a Ph. D. in educational psys
chology granted the previous year by Michigan State University. In
this role he handled administrative duties, including the development
of common examinations, and assignment of exam grades. Additionally,
there was a college teaching internship coordinator, previously a dis-
tinguished professor of humanities at the University, who coordinated
a content seminar for the TA's and conducted a program and seminar in
the methods and development of college teaching in which the TA's were

required to participate.

Ezfluative Model and Assumptions

 

From the plan provided by the Curriculum Review Committee,
and by observation of the outward appearance of the course as it was
conducted during the term in which the evaluation took place, it seemed
legitimate to conclude that Education 200 as a stated compensatory form
approximated to some degree the ideal of an instructional unit containing

”quality instruction” and ”provision for student opportunity. " It

 

 

., w» '-

5» ..1........

.. .to I, . .

A v
...w... . t
-.. o ...- .
.

 

 

 

9,.
.9

‘- 1. P
‘--l

 

 

.... .
P" w ._‘

 

 

”fa. A
v ,r» .
.‘rs -.

-k

 

 

‘~
_.
‘5 1
“~. v
... --
“to
\

 

 

36
included as a short-term objective the approximation of these charac-
teristics given the circumstance and a long-term objective of the
development of concern and ability in those potentially responsible in
the future for instruction in higher education which, accordingly,
should move the approximation closer to the concept of ”unity. " The
question that followed from this conclusion was concerned with the
degree to which the compensatory form had substance. Did the course
as provided actually move toward these short and long-term objectives;
did it approximate, given the circumstances, "quality instruction" and
"provision for student opportunity, " and was it successful in developing
concern for and ability in undergraduate instruction in the TA's?

At the time this study was conducted, the course as specified
by the Curriculum Review Committee of the College of Education had
been in existence for two years. Thus an assumption made in this
Study was that initial difficulties in actually setting up the course,
Staffing it, smoothing out administrative procedures, and in general,
Creating a ”system” had been accomplished so that the evaluation would
be a reasonable test of the course to operate as specified. Because the
eValuation took place during the third (Spring) term of the academic
year, it was also assumed that by then the program of instructional
development of TA's had taken place and that the measured resultant
instructional competence of the TA's would be a reasonable test of the
effectiveness of that part of the course. It followed that if neither one

nor the other of these assumptions were correct, then the course should

 

‘
I _ ,
.....v.
...... 4 -
...._..4.. .
' ...
as v g
01- .ro
a-I o. . .

 

-... , _‘ .
«..., _
.
_ P
'- 1" n .—.
' o I
V ,

 

 

 

 

4
.1
P'-
P “ ~
.'\. . I
‘ .“-~D¢
I‘ll
.‘I
w. 7"‘.
..g‘ :-
.'l.¢
..~ ~
\‘~_ 5.“. .
I ‘A‘~. '.
C. ‘0‘
... ,
M
..o :~._“
‘ _\~ VH—
v.-.‘
- o
A
u
we
. §
‘I
A‘- ‘-
u‘ .‘
._.

 

 

‘.
u‘.
~ _.
'. \‘n
‘ \ \
~ ~.
5 b
c, ,
4 "J
A

 

‘\
a
‘ l‘E a,
1".
I‘\‘
v‘n,
A V
."1... .'
." -‘
. m;
l
.‘i
._ _
V. '2‘”
, ~
\‘ ‘~
a“:

37
be changed due to the inability to implement the suggested procedures.
If both of these assumptions were correct, then the results of the eval-
uation could be considered a fair assessment of the course approach.
As stated, the most important operational distinction pertain-
ing to this course is the notion of the course as a ”system“ and the
functioning this notion implies. Although neither the Curriculum
Review Committee nor the actual course description directly described
the course as a "system'I there can be no other evaluative means of
describing the course. Education 200 had most of the components and
functional relationships of a ”system" such as the diversification and
Specialization of labor, central administration and central responsibility
for operation, quality control devises, input, flow and output, and
judgmental devises to check operation supposedly to output. Admittedly,
as a ”system” the course was underspecified in the sense of clarity of
objectives, stated tolerance levels of difference in output, and clear
Provisions for decision-making based upon level of responsibility, but
these weaknesses were weaknesses in application of the model. In fact,
t0 meet both long-range and short-range objectives of the course, it
Was assumed the application of a systems approach was absolutely
necessary to justify the compensatory me ans specified by the Review
Committee.
The advantage of a ”systems” approach is its ability to more
efficiently and economically use limited resources, maximize produc-

tion, and insure within designated limits certain levels of quality control

 

 

 

 

b
'-
. .
~ . . o 7
u , ' -
‘ -.,-. a. .
v
-.. 'd V
‘-"" 0-41 .
..V "‘v-.
. a
l.- M"‘ttna .
u '. .
. ‘
n“ ‘- ..
' .. ~. .
. ' ‘- ‘
“... l "‘ .-
‘u‘ v
\ . ~
. "\~... .
.... . .
‘ 1 - -.
"-¢_.:‘
‘ .
... ’
n
.-, c‘ ‘ :
‘3‘“.-
'n,
- .._ ‘. .
. '_
nu. . 9. a
v“\.

 

 

 

b.
. .
‘,‘b‘t‘.c
‘N. a .
‘N. C .
. J.
‘I:\;.n ‘
1‘ “.-
‘ ‘ I
~_“
.
‘I
. KL .
U‘ fin“;
. ‘ '.
\“-'..
."‘.
i‘ 5"; .
‘a:
.
‘1

 

38

over the production. In this case, if there is a large faculty to student
ratio, broad differences in interest, high demand for ”certified”
teachers (products), and limited additional resources (money, space,
materials, etc. ), then a course as “system” approach has within it a
potential to compensate for existing conditions to provide the desired
output. The specified internal program operation objectives indicate
the internal criterion demands of the ”system, " and the demands both
of students to enter the profession and outside agencies for the institu-
tionally certified product create the production demands upon the
”system. " The optimal utilization of the system is the maximizing of
both internal criterion demands and the external production demands.
The additional further restraint upon the system is the long-range
Objective of altering the "system” over time to one which more closely
approximates the ideal model of undergraduate education, i. e. , the
alteration of compensatory circumstances toward unity.

While the ”systems“ approach in form appears valid to approxi-
Ihate the objectives of the ideal model, this validity is subject to the
Obvious disadvantage of a "systems” approach. The first, and
essential, component of validity is reliability; the remainder of validity
is based upon the proven performance to objectives in terms of output
or production. The obvious disadvantage of a ”system" is the strict-
ness of the internal reliability requirements necessary for the parts
to function as a ”system. ” For example, a given individual may vary

an approach toward objectives if the responsibility for obtaining the

.s ...-
‘, v. s u
.. .. 1
....~
,.. a-
, ...: .
r
“..-... - ..
pr", ., .
n .
.-.-.‘ . ..
-—..r. -..
1.. " .

 

 

 

"v ...... ,
' s‘. v
\
~.. .
I .
‘ ..
.,_ .
nu,
‘~o'.‘- ,
~,_
-
-.
.a
c ._
.
“H
Val - .F"
V. .
~.
-.
.
~.
4

 

 

 

‘ I "-
.‘.>\-.
(p.
.
‘7 - ‘c
‘ I
'M. .
~I ,
. “

 

 

 

 

   

39

objectives is solely his and the variation appears to be a better means
to achieve the objective. A ”system” on the other hand, can be altered,
but only ”systematically" whereas nonsystematic alteration or variance
among the parts of a "system" only detract from the actual operation
of the ”system. " And, of course, the problem of achieving reliability
is compounded by the relative complexity of the ”system”; the level of
complexity almost geometrically increases the need for and the diffi-
culty in obtaining reliability.

The concept of reliability as it was used in this study meant
only the degree to which the parts of the course as a ”system” performed
as specified and that those parts with more than one component were
internally consistent. The tests of reliability could be accomplished in
two different ways. The operation or behavior of the part, or its com-
POnents, could be directly observed followed by estimations of reliability
based upon these observations and/or the outcomes or products could
be observed on those aspects directly the responsibility of a part or its
Components followed by estimations of reliability based on the observa-
tion of these results. Validity could also be tested in more than one way
beyond the tests of reliability. The stated and observed organization of
the "system" would indicate whether the ”system" approximated form.
Estimations of reliability would test whether the "system" actually
functioned in accordance with the prescribed form. If the "system"
proved reliable, then the results of the "system" could be examined for

validity, both in relation to immediate course objectives and to long-range

4O
objectives of program outcomes concerning both students and TA's.
If the course as a "system” either did not conform to the specified
form, or did not meet standards of internal reliability, then the tests
of validity would have to be toward alternate outcome expectation based
upon the differing form or unreliable ”system. ”

Because of the organization of this course in relation to the
arguments suggested by Trow and because of the functional require-
ments of instruction in the ideal model, the reliability of the TA's be—
carne the most important evaluative consideration. Knowing that the
group of students was large and assuming that this large group of
students was heterogeneous, the TA's were equally important with the
lecturers in providing quality instruction based upon the specification
of the lecturers providing ”content” areas and the TA's providing exten-
Sion of these areas, integration between areas, practical applications,
and practice experiences. Also given these conditions surrounding the
Student population, the TA's were primarily responsible for accomplish-
ing ”provision for student opportunity” through clarification of materials,
individualization of instruction, motivational components, relevance
and fairness. Since the TA's accounted for forty percent of the final
grade based upon their own determinations, they shared responsibility
for "fairness" with the course evaluator whose tests accounted for sixty
per cent of the final grade. -.-If the system did not prove reliable at the
level of the TA, it must at least be assumed that the course as a

’system" was not accomplishing ”provision for student opportunity. "

41
And because the course planners built the course around the assuInp-
tion that senior faculty participation could and should be de—emphasized,
under circumstances of unreliability, it probably could be assumed
that the course did not provide "quality instruction" either.

If the TA's as a group proved reliable in terms of student out-
comes, the following step would be to examine the operation of the other
parts of the course. If the other parts proved consistent to the speci-
fied procedures, the final evaluative step would be to examine the
general course outcomes for evidence that the course was substantively
approximating "quality instruction” and "provision for student opportunity"
and that the TA‘s as a group showed increased interest toward and
ability in instructing undergraduate students. Any variations from the
Specified operations of the course would also be tested against those
desired outcome results and the effect these potential variations might
have on the ability of the course to operate ”systematically. ”

If the TA's as a group proved to be unreliable, then a trace-back
Procedure would be necessary to further determine whether the cause
of this unreliability might be a malfunctioning inherent in other parts
of the “system. " If other parts of the "system" appeared not to be mal-
functioning, more careful selection of the TA's or reorganization of
the elements only related to the TA's might produce the appropriate
results during the next year. If, however, the unreliability of the
Course could be attributed to more than one component, then at this

point the feasibility of the course, irrespective of form, to produce

42
the substance of the model should be questioned. Trow's arguments
against the broad usage of the TA's to instruct undergraduates were
only partially resolved by the creation of a course “system"--the
argument that the TA under any set of circumstances would be unable
because of his graduate student responsibilities and position to provide
"quality instruction”--and this in combination with a proven unreliability
of the “system" would suggest that the appropriate additional test of
validity would be the degree to which the results of the course approxi-
mated the results Trow suggested will occur when the TA is used to
compensate for predominant characteristics. By considering the
results of the course in this manner, it would be possible to examine
the original ”critical issue" resolution made by the College of Educa-

tion to decrease the involvement of senior faculty.

Limitations and Scope of Evaluation

 

The derivation of evaluative criteria for this study caused a
number of problems from the outset, and this difficulty eventually
resulted in the acceptance of criteria which were more general and
methodologically oriented than desired. The reason for these diffi-
Culties lay with a basic deficiency in the Curriculum Review Committee's
report. Although not the subject of this study, this deficiency is
tYpical of higher education in general. Nowhere was there a clear
Statement of what the objectives of the ”quality programs" were to be.

As indicated at the beginning of this study, the closest kind of a general

objective included in the report was the statement preceding the report

I I .

,,,
.o‘ 4: u r r
I " as
..., ....
. -. . o .. r
l 9 I l
-. —‘ ...au._

"' “D .. r x t
'l' I
a... .- '.‘» -
<‘ ...-,

~ p ‘ ’;- ,
""--.- .»u .4“

0"

h
o-...

 

I
ll»
.“vh.
'0 ‘ O
.._..,u‘ .
._ . ,.
u ,

 

 

1‘“; ~
. ..
‘\-., .v—“ .
\‘P' v-
. g”.
. .
.0
. _ _
"‘u.‘ \'
‘-
.
‘,
...,
u "
u ..
I..
“.J‘
“c

 

 

‘
a
-
.“o.
”~- “-
“ J i -
nav.‘ .‘5‘ .
J” ..
y

 

1
.
~"
‘8" . -,
~ 3
“w w.
‘\
W
1‘ ~~‘
w”; . a
‘ ‘\’ ..

 

43
provided by the Dean, " . . . those basic understandings, skills, and
attitudes which characterize a teacher who can respond competently to
all the situations within which he must function. ”8 This statement at
least provided the notion of certain integrations having taken place in
students leading to some forms of competency which must be exhibited
within the teaching activities.

This is not to imply that the report did not include a list of
objectives; it did include such a list at great length following each
suggested course and one list of ”additional competencies . . . " (see
Appendix A). These lists were not acceptable because as behavioral
objectives they failed their purpose. Rather than providing guides to
instruction and means by which instructors could judge the developing
performance of students, preparing to become teachers, listed at
length were the minute areas of academic education, the research and
professional specialties of the various departments of the College of
Education. Although teaching obviously means many different behaviors
and activities for which understanding and recognizing certain educa-
tional phenomena is important, pedagogy, implying both strategy and
behavior, is the one aspect of the field of education which is uniquely
itS own and without exception there was no mention of any direct teaching
01‘ pedagogical competencies listed among the objectives.

8Memorandurn to Educational Development Project, Michigan

State University, from Leland Dean, Associate Dean of the College of
Education, as a preface to The Report on Undergraduate Curriculum
Revision, 9p. Cit.

 

 

.... - -
"I It h
‘.. ..
...u.
n .. 1‘..
,' .- v-p
.. -.,-. .
. .
..-
a
-\-A
... ‘>'
\- I ,.
...-...... .~
-
‘ ‘9 .
u
‘- rd ‘
‘0 ,
1'”

 

 

 

4
‘v
t... .
. "“-.,
' - I__
‘M‘. g.
I.
.

 

 

 

. .
5-. h
‘K ‘ “-
e. Qt... V
s
a
t
.F. ‘
,-
..\ -
‘n
l P,
“kc. ‘ ‘ ‘
“a, h
. «a:
-‘
\
...
t
u
a
" ,a" .
“1'. F-
'vo-
.
.'~
..f\_..‘
‘ \
.
5
I

 

 

 

44

Admittedly, the problem of developing a series of behavioral
objectives is a difficult task, and behavioral objectives are not evident
to any degree in any area of the University. While causes for this
problem and the lack of any important attempt to remedy it could be
listed conjecturally at length, suffice to say that it is an extremely
serious problem, if only from an evaluational standpoint, and one which
largely prohibits the functions of internal evaluation and program
development from achieving any congruence.

Another problem in the development of criteria was the inability
of the evaluation to actually engage in meaningful behavioral observa-
tion within the discussion sections headed by the teaching assistants.
Although this form of evaluation was included in the original proposal,
funds were not available to allow for this direct assessment of instruc-
tion by the TA's. Although a great deal of informal observation was
accomplished, and many discussions concerning instruction and in-
structional approaches were held with course personnel, these forms
0f data could serve no more of a purpose than personal documentation
0f events. Therefore, direct measures to criteria of instructional
behavior and classroom interaction could not be included in the study.

The result of these problems was that criteria for the evalua-
tion became the degree to which the course as a ”system” functioned
reliably and the degree to which the limitations suggested by Trow
Concerning the use of TA's to compensate for the predominant

Characteristics of the institution pertained to this course. Although

45
these criteria do allow for certain judgments pertaining to the course's
appropriateness, they largely fail the evaluative objective of providing
specific recommendations for the improvement of instruction or the

means to development of student teaching competence.

Sources of Data and Evaluative Structure

 

In order to assess the reliability and validity of the course, and
particularly the TA's, without clear internal behavioral course objec-
tives or direct observational data, it became necessary to include
information and data from a variety of sources. Within the evaluative
confines of on-going circumstance and limited historical documentation,
an effort was made to:

I. ascertain the underlying reasons for the suggested

course structure, and establish the course's develop-
mental history both as a separate entity and as a part
of a larger instructional program which itself was a
part of the total instructional program of the College of

Education;

2. observe the actual operation of the various parts of the
course;

3. document the characteristics and indirectly observed
interests and abilities of the TA's; and,

4. empirically assess over time student outcomes, particu-
larly as they were affected by the fixed factors of ”time-
of-day" the sections of the course were offered and the
discussion sections headed by the TA's.

All data which could be quantified and/or dealt with empirically

Will be discussed in the next chapter which also includes both procedures

and specifics of analysis of the data. The text of this study is followed

by several appendices including instruments, background information,

 

 

 

1.
'ol..\

 

. “Lbs -.‘
" . a
. ““ -..,__

"so .
, . "r
" 'sr,

 

 

 

 

w“,
' n
n
\t ...,F
‘V‘A‘t
‘
‘H
o
' I
\‘u ‘ \,
V r-
a“
\o
”M.“
an“! _
,.
su‘:‘ a
‘ U1
VI
.1.‘
“Au."
‘ Q
“~“\ ,-
‘y '1‘
‘1‘

 

\.
\-s_
I :(‘r‘ _
\i, Q‘ ~
‘ty h
«‘F.
~
.
1“
i
\ s. V
.
‘if'.‘
H

46
and more extensive presentation of data. The remainder of this
chapter will be concerned with applying the above sources of data
to the evaluative model and deriving a more specific set of questions
toward which the data and information may be applied.

Most evaluative studies of instructional programs are based
primarily upon an analysis of student results on some examination of
instructional content and perhaps secondarily upon some indication of
student attitude toward instruction. Although these both may be impor-
tant outcomes of instruction and instructional conditions, they are
only two of many potential outcomes, and not necessarily the most
important outcomes. The question of what variables to consider depends
entirely upon study objectives and/or course and instructional goals.
As indicated, the plans for this course failed to specify strong behavioral
objectives. In addition, the purpose of the study was to consider the
course in relation to the degree of approximation of ”quality instruc-
tion" and ”provision for student opportunity” by testing the reliability
and validity of the course as a “system” of instruction and the ability
of the course to develop competent instructors out of teaching assistant
interns. Thus for purposes of this study, there were several student
Variables considered to be important including standard test and grade
measures of student performance, measures of heterogeneity and co-
Variance, and measures which would provide tentative inference to
fllture performance in the teacher education sequence. These variables
were considered important both for what should happen as a result of

an introductory experience, and for what should happen as a result of

... .a -"

‘ 0,...v"‘

 

it .~
--~‘ I ‘ ‘
....nwv :- i. .
D*‘Iv“.' I A
'p , -. - . .
' I

..—I .... .

 

 

 

- 2‘ ._ ‘
w“: ‘ ‘
..._g__ ‘
u. . ‘.
”‘3‘r ...
'-¢.t:
....
Q
‘ ‘F
a. p:
.

LI‘

47
"quality instruction" and "provision for student opportunity. "

It was assumed that if the course was reliable, and that the
discussion sections had essentially equivalent groups of students
(randomly selected to section), then the course as a ”system" should
show no significant differences on outcomes of performance, grades,
general course attitude, attitude toward discussion section, level of
aspiration-expectation, level of anxiety, or attitude toward specific
factors which should increase as a result of the course experience. In
looking at the general effect of the course over time, these same vari-
ables should be considered in terms of growth and change. Specific
variables measured included:

1. entering characteristics of students

a. university grade-point-average

b. College Qualifying Test scores

c. reason for taking the course

d. orientation toward learning or "Learning Set"
e. test anxiety

f. ”Extraversion"

g. "Neuroticism"

h. social desirability or acceptability need

i. sex

j. course load being carried

k. credit hours accumulated

48

2. continuing measures of student performance

a.

h.

examination scores--entering course, mid-course,
outcome

level of aspiration-expectation in relation to course--
entering course, mid-course, and outcome

course motivational attitude--entering course and
outcome

test-specific anxiety--entering course, mid-course,
and outcome

attitude toward use of theory in teaching--entering
course, mid-course, and outcome

attitude toward importance of course to teacher
training--entering course, mid-course, and outcome

certainty of entering teaching profession--entering
course, mid-course, and outcome

certainty of personal qualifications to teach--entering
course, mid-course, and outcome

3. outcome measures of student performance attributable
theoretically to student, teaching assistants, and measure-
ment characteristics

a.

mid-term exam grade
final exam grade
discussion section grade
course grade

course project rank

To test for reliability of the discussion sections, and accord-

irlgly the TA's, the student variables were analyzed by analysis of

Variance broken down into cells by the two fixed factors of "time-of-

day” the course was offered, and discussion section TA's. It was

 

.. »
A ‘ v

. s

a... ....
.h.. -...
.. ......

 

.1 - _.
t \
... ~-.
..
.“’s
,
l‘.‘.‘ -4
M.
' H.
,.

 

:5
~I

   

 

 

.
a
.4 .
l‘
"\ .§
”1 "
‘ v
‘.
n "
s
s
.‘ ‘-
of"

 

49
assumed that although the students would probably receive some differ-
ences in treatment due to both these factors, if the course was operating
”systematically" as specified, then the resulting effects would fail to
support a null hypothesis of significant differences between the dis-
cussion sections. Because the null hypothesis was one of difference,
the most serious statistical error potentially to occur would be a Beta
error. Due to this consideration, and due to the developmental func-
tion of evaluative studies, the alpha level was set at p < . 10. However,
since this study was primarily an evaluative effort, the consideration
of alpha level was primarily that of establishing some general inter-
pretive guidelines for the analysis of data. As will be noted through
the use of the omega squared statistic, the interpretation and discussion
of the results focused on ”importance“ of results to specific questions
as well as relative level of significance of differences.

In order to test the reliability of the TA‘s by analyzing the data
for differences in student outcomes attributable to the discussion sec-
tions the primary assumption from a statistical standpoint which had
to be met was that the assigmnent of students and instructors to dis-
cussion sections be random. Although this was accomplished at the
beginning of the term, it was recognized that taking measurements in
Class at various times during the course might affect the initial assurnp-
tiOn of randomization due to differential attendance, and thus numbers
of responses. This, in combination with unequal numbers in the

different sections, prohibited the use of covariance or multivariate

 

 

00“' I
I-“,‘.. -..
..
.7. .
a . _v ~
...... .

.. .
.. .-
'.u -.f.

.

O o

“v -r u.
0” ‘
--....u. .. _

 

“"u ..
h“ ‘ ur'p- ,
""‘h .. ...
"“p~.o ,.
,’ ‘
~'-n.. .. ‘_'
'.:';‘ ‘v o.‘
..ggn‘"._h .‘ . .
I.
.._

‘ ..
...“:
Li‘"‘-...
M \\ -.-.
."‘~-«u :
~-

_,
.‘l t . I
V--.- .
\ .
.‘~ “‘J‘lr D;- '
H
" O
‘l\
I- ", a, »
k. k‘,:. ._ V v
“Mu“-
Q n
'a. .
"t. “'h~ u
. “not. : . _
u
\

 

 

 

50
analysis to control for entering differences. In addition, there is
usually a certain amount of shifting around by students during the first
few days of a term. This was true for this study although it per-
tained only to additions and drops; for this particular term, no
switches between discussion sections were allowed. All of these
reasons seemed to demand that entering characteristics be analyzed
in order to justify the initial randomization was still valid as a con-
sideration for later assessments.

The evaluative strategy then was to compare the entering
characteristics of the students by the factors of ”time-of-day" and
discussion sections for potential initial differences between groups.
This would be followed using the same fixed factors by an analysis of
the continuing measures for the potential development of differences
over time. Finally those outcome variables attributable to more than
just student performance would be analyzed according to the two factors.

If the TA's were ”systematically" reliable, following the
establishment of no significant difference on the entering student
variables there should be no significant differences between the TA's
on the continuing and other outcome student measures. However, it
was recognized that there were no controls on potential entering
differences between the two ”times-of-day” the course was offered and
SO entering significant differences might occur on this factor. It was
not considered important whether these significant differences dis-

appeared over time or not as long as they did not result in significant

 

   

 

' "v. .0. .
‘ n-

""--u .-..

 

.
'0.
'Q
.
"°""'-..
v l' 4 O-
. ‘O‘...‘.
i .
""L... _ j
,r
"“'---.._ ‘-
i... .
In
F N
to“... ~—
.‘A .,_.
,.

 

.
h
4".“ .

.»
.H..«H_ah‘c
,
T".-
...“.

 

 

. -
‘ .
‘ .
k d.-
' a
n, 3 “
' 1 A‘ .
‘ W \ P.
s...‘
...
‘5‘. .

 

“.
:J'.'~ ‘
. v..-
- \
"JAE 'h
. -
§
.7
~¢-‘A
s3:

 

 

51
interactions with the TA factor and no significant differences occurred
on the TA factor.

While all of the outcome variables could be considered impor-
tant in the assessment of TA reliability, reasoning suggested that the
outcomes involving grades, rankings of student performance, and
student attitudes toward TA's were the clearest indices of reliability.
On these variables, both the student and the TA were a potential source
of variance. In the case of grades and ranks, the students obviously
contributed to these outcomes by their efforts and entering abilities,
but the TA might also contribute systematically as a source of variance
by a tendency to mark higher or lower, by an inability to judge student
performance adequately, by selecting markedly different areas of
performance to judge, or by inadequately preparing the student to per-
form. While it was not expected that the instructors would perform
identically in the discussion sections, if the course was reliable, par-
ticularly the TA development components, there should be no significant
differences between the TA's on an instrument designed to assess the
quality and competency of TA: performance in the discussion section.

As an additional test of the reliability of the TA's, a random
group of students was drawn from each discussion section to form a
methodological section approximately the size of any given combined
morning and afternoon discussion section for which a TA might be re-
Sponsible, The performance of this group of students on a common

course project was judged to common instructor criteria by an independent,

‘ I
n 00',’
..... l ‘
..LJ- --~-'
-
_. .

-...
‘ r.
...». l\!-l u .

 

.....-
.1

~ --.“‘.

 

.. ...
‘ "‘ r- m
- “.... fi,_¥ _
-.
. , -
u. ‘ .
"In... . ,

 

 

.

’ *‘.n_

P .. .

" b. u" '-
k -. ...

“:‘u: :

"N... t w

““ ..‘

 

 

:\
~-
. ~s ’
a R
“~. J Po. F
a :
. K‘
.
‘.o"~“ ._
'v.‘\‘\. _
‘ ‘.“‘ v. “
t‘.\
, J
k.
.‘ '
H ' V

..
,.
.s, .
.‘aun.
Q.‘: |?.‘r
.bcq‘
‘5‘.
.-g~.‘
“‘
‘d‘E."-.
«AAQ‘ c,
7‘ .
1" .. ,
‘w ‘ .
“ \r-N
.
"‘56 g.
\-l

 

52
trained rater and these results were compared to the ratings assigned
by the actual TA's.

Following the tests of reliability of the TA's as a group, the
instructor characteristics, background, and responses to formal ques-
tions pertaining to their objectives and procedures in the discussion
section were examined to aid in the interpretation of the empirical
results. This information, in combination with the observation by
the evaluators of course procedure, would provide insight into the
degree of success of the instructional development program. The
objective of this examination was to determine the degree of, or
potential for, congruence between the stated or implied course per-
formances of TA's and the actual performances of TA's.

Another aspect of the evaluation following the reliability tests
on the TA's concerned the procedure, congruency, and results of
student performance evaluation by those responsible for judging
student performance in the course. Because this was both the re—
sponsibility of the TA's and a specialist who was independent of instruc-
tion and because of the rather complex formula for determining student
rewards (grades) from these evaluations, it was important to determine
the internal consistency of the individual evaluations, the degree to
which these evaluations aided the instructional objectives, and the
relative fairness by which grades were assigned in terms of both
”quality education” and "provision for student opportunity. "

Other areas observed and described in the evaluation included

 

 

 

J
.
l 1 v
,,.. a;
,,_.,,.,,.- -
o. I'
,,
. 0
~... . ..
‘ \O'

... ..-.-

.-
.. _

' ...-wt - .
-"."‘-. . .,
. ,

<-.. ._ ,
‘r ',. ’
We... . l.“
I. *I- u...
‘ r .
u... fa» “|._.
‘I. _
I ‘ ‘ "" I
... - p ,r
r....
.
, n

"I. “ ’ .

~.~. _ _
‘ v--.._
.

'O..o.
~~:“‘ "-o
......\c

..
. 5 -~.\
."‘" -:u-...2
I .-

 

 

~
~V‘n. .: s-
h i...
~
\~.~ V
a". *. ’ .
‘y 1‘ a ,_
”‘1.

 

 

‘\
d, 's‘
. h t _‘ .
."al‘ ’v-u .
q‘.‘t-
s
in. .

 

53
the role and performance of the course administration, the nature and
conditions of the lecture sessions, the circumstantial conditions sur-
rounding the discussion sections, and the continuing relationship of
this course to the remainder of the undergraduate teacher education
program. Finally, an historical evaluation of the development of the
course in relation to the general development of the College of Educa-
tion was developed out of both formal position papers and informal
working papers of the College of Education and particularly, the Depart-
ment of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology.
This historical assessment was also supported by informal observa-
tions, reports, and discussion by the evaluators with other individuals
and structures in the College of Education.

In summary, within the perspective of the central question
concerning the degree to which the course had substance to the objec-
tives of ”quality instruction” and ”provision for student opportunity, "
the evaluative procedure is stated below in a list of specific questions
pursued in order of the evaluative model. Although it could not be
predetermined how the results to the questions would be interpreted
beyond the empirical questions pertaining to the reliability of the TA's,
the potential direction of the interpretation was specified in the evalua-
tive model. It was assumed, for purposes of the evaluative model,
that the course would operate as specified-~that there would be sub-
stance as well as form--and if this assumption was not supported, the

general direction of the interpretation would focus on the reservations

.....i

 

 

, .

'r.
‘ _‘.
~-uru
\ 4

. .
.

‘ ' O

‘ 'i
l. n

s
u

q

\ "
l

a. '
A
‘

>I—-

‘.
a
;
\

I

J .

I
C .

54

concerning the use of TA's as the means of undergraduate instruction

suggested by Trow. Thus, a final step would be the consideration of

student results attributable to the course and the degree to which these

results approximated those suggested by Trow. The questions, in

order of consideration, were:

10

Were there significant differences attributable to the
discussion section (TA) factor on student entering-
course variables?

What was the effect on the two factors--TA's and time-
of—day--of continuing course measures:

a. where initial significant differences occurred on the
time-of-day factor;

b. where no initial differences occurred on the
time-of-day factor?

Were there significant differences attributable to the
discussion section (TA) factor on:

a. reward (grade) variables with special attention on
those variables with potential systematic TA variance;

b. outcome test performance variables;

c. instructor rankings of common student course
project performances;

d. outcome student expectation of performance-level
of aspiration variables;

e. student attitude toward discussion section and TA;

f. student post-attitude toward course?

Were the TA's as a group able to achieve acceptable
reliability in ranking student performance to set criteria
of performance?

What was the basis for selecting TA's?

What were the background characteristics of the TA's?

 

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

55

Did the graduate programs of the TA's appear to allow
time for the development of instructional skills and to
meet instructional responsibilities?

Were the TA's committed to a future career in undergraduate
instruction or the development of undergraduate instruction?

Was there congruence between the TA's perceptions of
course and discussion section objectives?

What in the way of materials or guidelines were provided
the TA's to aid them in the conduct of the discussion sec-
tions, the judgment of student performance, and the grading
of student performance?

Did a program of instructional development for the TA‘s
take place, and if so, what was the nature of its content
and experiences?

Did the course examinations allow for inferences to the
degree of approximation of course or undergraduate in-
structional objectives?

Did the examinations judge student performance to some
established criteria, or did they simply differentiate
student scores into grading units?

What means were utilized as part of on-going procedure to
evaluate student affective change toward the course and
program goals?

What changes took place in specific student attitudes toward

the course, the course content, and teacher education goals?

Was there a relationship between entering student ability
or grade received in the course and the development of
student course-related attitudes?

What was the primary emphasis of the course including both
content and form of presentation?

What was the relationship of the course to the total program
of the College of Education?

 

.4
c-
.v r-
. ~ ....
"1 ' ‘0- ::
" ~ ~35 ’3“:
J .
...“~‘~ .
‘--..,
v,
"9..
w.-
. fl
4.. _‘.
-n_
2. 3 "‘ ‘
..., --.’,:‘
~
p.
5" ;
km *--- _
v
n...’ .
-.

 

.
«A

P‘s.» .
u.‘ \ _

\. it‘..: .:

‘5

w“

\‘-
sn‘c.

   

;~
U \ ~
“)_‘;I s‘
._ r
'\
,
h.-
» "' ‘a‘
‘
‘ ..I' ‘i.
J. a -.,.
x
A

 

x.
,v.
‘.u‘
‘\AI
w“
x “-
‘~: CM;
~. I.
"H

  

 

 

C hapte r III

INSTRUMENTATION AND PROCEDURE

From an empirical standpoint, concern in this study centered
upon the effect of a course, and its structural factors, upon various
student outcomes. The important methodological considerations were:
(1) what outcomes were to be considered, and why; (2) what were the
internal measurement characteristics of these outcomes; and (3) how
were they, in the form of data, obtained. The first question mentioned
above suggests a rationale for the choice of variables and instruments.
The second explores the important properties of the variables and
instruments, primarily reliability and validity, which indicate the
degree to which the measurement consistently gets at that which it is
supposed to measure. The third question allows the reader to judge

the nature and limitations of methodological controls utilized.

Categorization and Description of Student Variables

There are essentially three ways the student variables included
in this study may be categorized, each indicating a different dimension:
by type, by time of administration, and by function. First, the variables
may be categorized by type: (a) reward, (b) performance, (c) level of
aspiration-expectation, (d) past performance indicators, (e) attitudes or

mOtiVational predispositions toward instruction, (f) personality and/or

56

 

u“

at‘

57
performance covariates, and (g) course-specific attitudes. Second,
the same variables may be categorized by time of administration: (a)
prior to entering the course, (b) at time of entrance to course, (c) mid-
course, (d) post-course. Finally, the variables may be categorized
according to function in the study: (a) used to determine entering condi-
tions, (b) used to assess change over time, and (c) used to analyze
outcomes. These three dimensions essentially explain why the variables
included in this study were chosen.

The categorization of variables grouped by type serves to show
the relationship of variables to the study, its hypotheses and questions,
and to the study rationale and the broader objectives of both the Uni-
versity and the College of Education. The seven categories listed
above under ”type” may be briefly defined as follows:

(a) Reward variables -- these variables represent the extrinsic
"valuing" or ”rewarding” of student performances. More
commonly called grades, the actual operation of these
variables is more complex than implied by that term. A
grade represents a component of student effort, a component
of student ability toward whatever is being judged, a com-
ponent of instructional bias due to choice of that being judged,
and a component of instructional ”error” in the awarding of
the grade. Its importance is derived not so much from the
”valuing” procedure itself, which is essential to good instruc-
tion, but rather to the effect the grade has upon the student

and his predispositions, and the social use of the grade to
judge students.

 

(b) Performance variables -- these variables are the actual
results of student performance including both the performance
itself and some determination of correctness of that per-
formance which could be measured; this study was only
concerned with those areas normally used to judge student
performance, i. e. , multiple-choice tests over content and
simple application of content, and estimates of student

 

 

 

 

(C)

(d)

(e)

58

ability to recognize, analyze and interpret content-
oriented problems by means of a paper.

Level of aspiration-expectation variables -- level of
aspiration and level of expectation are not the same
underlying continuum, but they are closely related, and
extremely difficult to separate in practice. These

variables represent the expectancy or aspiration the

student has for his performance, and accordingly reward,

in the instructional setting. They are determined by past
performances, and the social valuing of those performances,
and other personality characteristics. Their importance

to any instructional setting is the degree of congruence which
is achieved between them and actual performance-reward.
This degree of congruence, and the change of level of
aspiration-expectation over time in the course provide
insight into future willingness to be involved or perform.
For an introductory course, such as the one in this study,
they are especially important due to their preconditioning

of student behavior and attitude to future work in the area.

 

Past performance indicators -- these variables are the
standard predictors of student performance and generally
include two forms. One form is the accumulated student
grades for previous course work, and the other is the
results of standardized tests of ability and background.
These variables are not singular, but rather they are
global in the sense that past accomplishment partially
predetermines future similar accomplishment on the
basis of ability, motivation, and the tendency for others
to judge one's efforts.

Attitudes or motivational predispositions toward instruction
-- these variables represent the student attitude toward
the activities of a course and qualitative judgments about
what they expect to, or felt did, occur. They would
include reasons why the student enrolled, what he expected
the course would be like, what he felt the course was like,
how he valued certain instructional activities, and how he
assessed certain instructional activities. Whereas the
level of aspiration is concerned with the congruency
between expectation of reward and actual reward, these
variables are concerned with a student expectation and
”valuing" and a perception-recollection and ”valuing. "
Both categories have an effect upon the student's future
involvement and performance in the area.

59

(f) Personali’ty and/or performance covariates -- this rather
broad grouping represents variables descriptive of entering
differences between students which are not directly related
to this course or past academic performances or abilities.
Instead, they suggest selective tendencies which may come
into play under certain conditions of instruction. For
example, a person who is predisposed toward simple
factual learning can probably be expected to fare better
under conditions of instruction which are primarily
lecture-multiple-choice testing; a person with strong test
anxiety will probably fare less well under conditions of
large group, standardized testing; an extroverted student
may have instructional problems with an introverted
instructor, etc. In general, the effects of interaction with
these variables is unknown, but suspected.

 

(g) Course-specific attitudes -- these variables represent
attitudes, and the development of underlying predisposi-
tions, toward specific conditions directly related to the
content and purpose of the course. They get at student
attitude toward the course and themselves in relation to
their desire to teach, their ability to teach, the relation
of the course content to their training to teach, the impor-
tance of the course content to actual practice of teaching
Generally, they reflect attitude and change of attitude toward
content of the course, relevance of this content to them-
selves and their future, and the importance of the experience
of the course.

 

(b) Other variables -- information was also gathered concerning
student sex, major, hours being carried that term, and
credit hours completed before the start of the term.

 

The second method of categorizing student variables was by time

Q . . . . . .
f adm1nistration. There are two reasons why the admimstration or

gat- hering of variables took place at different points of time rather than

Just at the end of the course. First, students were randomly assigned

1:
sections but there was a small amount of shifting of students which
i S
normal to a course of this size, and even randomization did not com-

§tely protect against loadings of some variable or another in a course

60

with this large a number of sections. Whereas many of the variables

potentially are important covariates of performance, and ideally, even
with random conditions, should be used in this manner, methodological
constraints of unequal numbers in the discussion sections and unequal
numbers over various administrations prohibited their use in this way.
For this reason, these variables acted primarily as initial proof of

conditions to further justify the assumption of randomization in the

consideration of outcome variables. The other reason for a time

differential was to assess the development of variables as a result of

time and partial course effect. There was the further consideration of

not disrupting the course any more than absolutely necessary, so the
gathering of data took place at brief intervals at the start and end of
COurse periods necessitating greater numbers of administrations. In
(order to simplify the explanatory task of this study, the variables were
grouped into three distinct time periods of pre-, midr, and post-course.
T he pre variables include both prior-to-entering-course variables and
irrj~1:nediately--upon-entering-course variables; the mid-course variables

111Qlude all variables gathered approximately the time of the mid-term

emfiamination, but both before and after; the post variables include all

Outcome variables, but some were gathered before the final examination

and instructor grade, and some afterward.

When categorized by their function in the study, all student
iriables were used either to assess the nature of entering conditions,

E
Q nature and direction of change over time, or the several outcomes.

61
In some cases, variables were used for one or more functions, e. g. ,
variables having pre, mid, and post measurements.

The variables as categorized by both type and time of adminis-
tration, with a brief description of each, are shown in Table III-l. In
this table the number included in parentheses below the number symbol
(#) is the variable's identification number, which indicates the position

in which that variable will fall in any listing of variables, or in tables

of results, or in analyses.

Sharacteristics of the Data

, All of the instruments used to derive student data are included
in Appendix B. The summaries of all data by statistics of number,
centrality, dispersion, skewness and kurtosis are included in Appendix
C - These statistics are displayed first by all students combined, then
as broken down by the two different periods the course was offered,
and then broken down by sex of the students. Appendix D summarizes
the data according to the same above statistics by discussion section.

The intercorrelations between the variables are shown in Appendix E

for all students combined and then broken down by times the course was

Offered.
1)

Appendix F provides correlations of each instructor by time
etween the instructor grade and other student variables.

The important relationships, or the lack thereof, and the break-
QIQVVn and analysis of data by the factors of time-the-course-was-offered

Q11 d discussion section will be discussed in the next chapter. The primary

62

.oo>ao>cw mownm
os ”osmosoo new msmxo mmhdoo
spas Hams op spflaenm pcmuspm

wewnmusm mo Noose wocmenomnom
.mfinmpflno op xemn

op apfiafipm <9 mo xmoefi moH>
none op new .pmop ooflonoumaa
napase swap nmguo zpflafinm peso
anon mo oneness oow>ona on no
nosaoew “oomnm mmndoo so pomam
non mafiommmoom: no poomond now
mnmnw msflELopoo poo nan xcmh
upomnona momma wcH>Homumcfimcow
Emanopa so mfinmofino mowsummpdoo
.m>wpfiswmoo on oocmenomnmm

now <9 an osmosom Umcwfimmw xsmm

 

 

 

.momnwlomLSoo.MmI&o¢

pom oopcdooom new opmflnaonmom
pamm memos nm>opm£3 an <9 an
omsflsnoumn aaamoop oompm ”soap
uomm scammSomHU ea moemsnomnmo
pom peoUSpm an oo>woomn oomno
.momnw ompsoo mo woe pom monsooom
”szo Assam mnfipsm so mosmEhom
loom pom om>Hmomn pamUSpm momno
.oomnw omnsoo mo wow now mundooom
“swam snmpuows so mocmsnom

upon how om>fimomn osmUSpm mompo

non szonm mm pamUSQw an nm>floomn
mmomnw pmnpo Mo mwmnm>m ompzmfimz
m an omefishmpmo “pamodpw mp

osuo x Rev pwmeaonm
m.
i
J
O
J
w
by
U
o
a

mua x Amy xcmm pomhonm amazoo

mua x Adv oompo sopQSLQmeH
H

mna M Amy mompo mem Hmswm m
m
p

m-H x Amy msmnu enme-aaz

.30H
mud N “av women mmnsoo

om>fimomn mmMSOQ ca mownw HmSpo¢

 

soapawnommm

swam the 1E5! was

coapmspma:HEU<

%

manmfiem>

 

COHpmnmao new .mmognsm .omemm
.sowpmnpmasfiso< an moanmflnm> peoUSpm no coflpmfipomoo

t ‘

"HIHHH manmh

63

.psmEmomNm am:
now mpmmB wcwzmwamsa ommaaoo
Mo soapomm apflafipm Hmpnm> pom

 

ampsm>

 

 

 

 

msoom Nmsno: mwmpcmonma unmocwpm ooaua N Asmv nupmme wQNNMHNmsa
.mooa .Ehmp wcflnam op as
oopmaasoo mompdou Ham pom hpflm
onm>flcz opp pm owmno>m psfloa owwhm><
umomnw Mo pnommnumamm psmodpm .suo N Ammv pewomnmompo .>H:D
JMMoom pamUSpm mfitflo>ma hppflflpmp 41 ii
loom Om\0m pm momnw "hpfiaflpflmmom
momnw some now mmomnw psmnmm Nana N ANNV m
nape NH mo meo New wsfl>fioomn so
appapnmpona mmpmopusp pawnspm Nana N AHNV m
.GOHpmnHmmmuCOHpmpooQXo psoUSpw soaps
mo Nm>ma hpwafipmpona mmndmmoz Nana N Aomv H upommxanOHpmhwmm<
.eOHpmnHmmm no
\Uem soapmpooQXo mo No>oa Boa
up owemno mwmmmm op wam>nmpsfl
msfip psmnmmmwo mmnnp pm ompmog
Imp mm: mapmfinm> wasp ”oomnw ooano N Aoav m
mmndoo m mo meomp ca on pnmfie
on mpomng on Nanood So: mo Nana N Away m
psmsmmommmumaom pchSpm pm mpoo
.GOHpmnHQmm no\n:m Nana N Anav H soapmpomaxm sop
soapmpommxm mo Ho>oa depom
cw mwsmno mmmmmm op mam>hmpefi
mspp pcmnmpMHU mmssp pm empmma ooauo x Away m
non mm: mapmfinw> wasp ”oompw
mmhdoo m mo msnmp CH on Haw: on Nana N Amav N
mpomQXm haamdpom on Nam3.30£ Mo
psmsmmommmnmamm pemodpm pm mpoo Nana N Asav H COHpmpomaxm Nm5p0<
pmom was ohm
coppafinomom mwemm soapmnpmficwsoe % manmflpm>
Newscflpcoov "NuHHH magma

aousmiogaag aseg

uotqeqoadxg-uorqeatdsv asanog

61+

.mopmzxomp
xooa op Umpmdmom mEmpfi npws
weepfipp< monsoouonm mm meow
.mmcoammu zoom: cmfiome wswmp

mnoom Spa: o>HpflmoQ Naosmnpxm
op o>fipmwmc hamsmppxm Song o>oE
msmpw “mam>fipmwme no aao>fipwm
too nmnpfim op noncommp pumUSpm
nopns amazoo Mo onepmfioowmo
mapflmmoo mxms nope: mpsmsmpmpm
5m mmUSHosH monsooo who:

uop moSpprmICOHpm>fipoE mmnsoo
mappopcm psoodpm mmndmmoz
.mpHoHHm> oomg m>m£

op oowoSn mcommop o>fipmwms

op HmnpSos op m>ppfimom Boom
m>os mmofiono mmsommmn “mmnSOo
now Umaaonso m: an: mpmo

lapse op psoUSpm wcpxmm EopH

nmna N

mmaa

N

N

 

.nmmm ems
unmmpm mommmao wcfiphmpm meow
ump :oxmp mmEme pewsmomaa new

mocmopcm mm: mm poms ABOOV
pmme wspamHHmda mwmaaoo mnp
mo monoom sowpmsnomew new Hm
newness: .Hmpnm> Boom hpfiaflpm
wephmpem Mo mpmsppmm Nonmemw
pom mnoow omenos mwmpCmonma
Unmosmpm .mswxm pemsoomam new
mosmnpcm mm: mm pom: ABGQV
mpmme weHNMNHmsa mwmaaoo mo
sopomm m>Hpmpflpcmdw pom whoom
omsnos mmmpemonma vnmnsmpm

Coppopnomoa

ILL -

OOHIH

OOHIH

pmmm

N

N

UHEII,mhm

 

omcwm

Aomzcflpcoov

ceppmnpmpcpsna

"HIHHH manme

Awmv

Asmv

mospflpp< mmndooupmom

sepnatazv

modpflpp< mmndoononm

mewaaoncm pom sommmm

 

Acme
Ammv

N

I‘I’

Hmpoeupmoe weHNMNNmSG

m>apmp

uppcmsoupmmp mapsopamso

il’

massages

aouemiogaad aseg

Id
.- .
p . ..
cuhwq.
a......

‘II

.~ ~....« q._... ....h.~.fia
, .. 3
... -.~w un‘DOm- -..— . u, ,\ A A
«u. ~n~0t_>_.v acuvmh o.~.-—~ IN»«WIV-¢~NMI \V
-........_. .... ,....—_ < u.u|.. .K Navy V |-\ ~.L.\\S.v.~. :xc:§~.~§.\
no.\.uo\~\ .u..~.,.n...~~.- ....u ....u. W<-.~ ...HWHJ.‘ \\ as h .h -\ ‘~N ..\\.—

onenvtn-

.mamom mud m :0

mpmpxem nmflp meo> op hpmfixem muH N Ammv amewm n upmwxee pmma
on Eonm omwcmn mmmcommmn upmop

smasooppsma peep anmzop sumpx m-H x name pmoe-epa . sumpxca pmme
new m.pemo5pm whommms op Empp

em apps emmmp mem mmn50m 30mm mua N Ammv pmmeumpm n Npmflxsa pooh
.mnoom psmodpm
mpmmno msa Boom ompnwwmz mom
scans mmowono Empw mo sOHpHoom
wo>fipfimom op o>flpmwmc Boom o>oE
mmopono m>ppmpwappmo .o>fipmwme
op m>ppamog Boom m>oE mmowono
msmpfi m>HpmpHHfiomw “mpmmp
Unmzop mpmpxsm wsflpmpfiapp

new new msppmpflaflomm monommmz omna N Ammv mamom mpmfixee m n <

ill

fithBUOSJad

l ti. , I I'll ‘-I.lllll“ I. ..

.onoom,psmodpm ompmmno mEmpp
.9 mo soappaam MH+ no .0 .H- am
no npnwpmz wspop omflnp cw Empw some
spa: amnpSm: no o>flpmwoc ho
m>appwom nmsppo mmfipfi>flpom map
:snmma no womfinp ooflono oopom
Hm op owosoamop psoodpm "pom
aaamdpaooeoo op pom NHHmSpomw
Eonm wsfl>oe wswsomma mo soap

op cowpmpemfiho peoodpm mmhdwwoz N©n+mou N Aamv pom mcwcomoq

.mmmsommmn mom mo sOHpfinom

Np omeflsnmpoo mnoom no: no mma

nmgpwo ooocommoo pemodpw nopnz

op mLOposhpmsfl soapoom sown
amSomHo poops mpcoeopmpm oodp nopoSme
nflppm new m>ppmfinommo mo pmfla < mmno N “Omv usH onmzoe mUSppr¢

 

sepnzrqav

 

 

ll ti 1’

:owpdppomoo owemm pmmwmmmmwmQNEWMm % mapwwpm>

i ii iit.!l.l ttti.’

Anodcfipsoov ”HIHHH mapme

.....H ...a .... ....up .. -h a . .

..>_ H...» “a. ....h_ ~_::_:: ..:~_...‘ ha
I.».”p. ..u ...-~.s.»..p~ pp .— ...n..>-,.:—.uv...‘ , \ ‘ . M:
321......LZIZ .2... ....ad..._..>...L. \.I~ V. «in» QNQLT. QM; KCZEW>E \ .

if... .u.. on.-..—o.—~.-—.~—_ —¢\_—-. \r..~ ~uun~ \‘s.
......2... ... . ..s.» a .. a... sap— _....~.:...~.~.n ¢\.w.| n X. ARM» My ”gown. Emu N,U%\wfiuukwucz uv~hV-~.VHN\»..oN .ani.
.p.. .... u.........-...........2. nu.t..—>..p~.m .r.--..
1,. ....)... >. .— p1... ....-.LL «...-TIM}; n»._._. .N..|_ X A.Vfl » sud :Uun -n~ » phoflfiv) ~\-~..~ xu.‘ vsnv-ssmfl>mn~
a,o.\-l\\~ ....H...w..s ..Q ~-.~.._.~)\.-..~vus.au.~ \\ .-.l.§ s..|~--.a.\,— .

an... ... '1...v..ub.-

66

.sppapsmppsm mo mappmmp

up mwsmso mmmmmm op mam>nmpcp
mEHp pemnmmmflo mmnsp pm ompmmm
use was Ham pm po: op haweoppm
ano> Eonm op Umosoawmn mm: Sofia:
now soHmeSUUo map mp wepgommp
maomp psoUSpm goes: op ompwoo
pm mpoo .hpepmpnoo Mo mopwmo
ea mmsmso mmmmmm op mam>hmpsp
mEHp pcoemmmfio omhnp pm oopmma
non mm: chpnmocs hnm> op camp
thou ano> Boom mcfl>os mam>ma
m>wm mm: pops: EmpH “coammmw
song wcfinommp opp wsfioopcm

mo hpswmpnmo m.psoU5pm pm mpoo

mua N
mua N
mua N

Asav
Amsv
Amsv

Aasv
Aosv

Ammv

 

1|.oamom

mmeoomon oapmppmmo Naamfioom no
spa m moosaoefl omam hoopsm>eH
”mmmnpm Hm:0flposmsooss ezooxmonp
oppOLSm: op coflppmoomwompa

m new .mmm:m>fims0Qmmnsm>o Hm
uncaposm .apflafipmpmcfi Hmeopposm
Hmpocmw op mLoan EmfioppOLSms
mawgz mCONpmsfiaosfi Hmfioom new
m>fimasmsfi .Umpwpwgsficz .wefiow
upso op mnoMmL sowmnm>mnpxm
.Empoppopdme new sowmnm>mnp

uxm mo msopmsmsfiv Hmsowonpno
pmoaam .ozp opsw hpflameompma

mo mpsmEmnsmmmE mmofl>onm ago
upsm>eH pramcompom Noemmmm one

qua N
JNIH N
dNIH N

mapsomme sop spppppmppsm

mupnommp sop sppappmppsm

wapgomme sop appappmppsm

sowmmmm

noon nmpcm op pemEpHEsoo

sowmmmw

noem nopcm op psmEpHEEoo

scammmm

thm .Hmpflm OP ucmfiflflgou

 

Emmy
Anny

mamom map Nosmmhm

mamom EmwowpoLsz xosmmhm

Aomv mamom cowmno>mhpxm xosommm

 

eoflpafinommm

pmoa was mam
seppmnpmpcpso<

 

mmcmm

%

 

Aoodsflpcoov "NIHHH mapwe

mfipmpnm>

saqnataav OIJIOGdS-SSJHOQ

Aqtteuopaad

. . . . . . - - I . . . x . .... C - - - I : .1- 11,--. ~
.. ......tfi .... ....L.T... ..L. .L..:3 ..x
......1 :z 3,. .27; 2.2... .... 2.7.: c In. x «o Q» >LCt§> LC :c:::7~3l:2 .zr
-
ax»
- , - ,- -1 I -.....u..w , ...?~ 1 a ....L - II -1 -- . j , . -
...‘_~.\..~ .....~J u.~u~.....--.:~..\ \\ uu~ -N~ ~w \u

....u...— —I.:.....-~

67

.wmeeoo mo moewpeoesfl mo mefiamwm
w.pewnepm ep momeweo wmwmmw op
maw>empep wEHp pemewMMNn wweep

ew>o nwpwwawe mw3 Haw pw poe
op Hwoppfino Eoem mawom pewoe
nw>fim w :0 mweoom eofles Empfi
mwep ”pewsmoao>wn Nweompwa new
wepeewwa nemep epop ep mpew
unepm epflz wan new newpmewnee

NHHSMmmwooem op eoppweweoee pom

pewpeoesp mw omeeoo wep new:
sop onepfippw m.pewnepm pw mpwo
.woew

npnerH mo wefiaowm m.pewnepm en
mwueweo mmwmmw op maw>ewpew wsHp
peweoMMHn wwnep nw>o nopwweme
mws w>ppwwwe mnw> op w>pppmoe
hew> Eoem wawom pep0e1w>flw w eo
mweoom nope: Ewpp mfiep neweowwp
w mw wepseowewm NHHSmewooem

efi pewpeoeefl we Haw: now>wewp
new epzoew ewaee mo mwaewoewem
new heowep wep mo omnmNZoex

w eofiez op wwewwn wep new:

uop onepwppw m.pewnepm pw mpwo

eowpefleomwm

mna
mnH
mud

omewm

N

pmom nfiz one
eowpwnpmwepsne

 

1‘

Aamscpscoov "H-HHH sense

 

 

Remy eOprewemem mw wmneoo
Rosy eoppweweoem mw omeeoo
Away eofipwewewem mw wmeeoomv
m
S
8
.
no
.o
9
O
I O
.3
"UL.
Anny meowee mo woewpnoeeva
filo.
Andy Neowee mo woewpeoasHm“
1
Amdv whooee mo moewphoaeHm.
S
% waewpew>

a» ’
..., v

r
t...-~‘M

....."g a
~.:.~‘- ..
.

0. - '1’?
4 \ A<lb

.3- -.

..

 

-

.-.. _.
.' ‘ ‘~
--Sb—ux -
""‘.v--r ‘

~. s.
‘.-~~A~-...
'* ‘h~-- -

.F—
"‘--‘v \

 

.4 r---, ‘
r‘
“v 4.3:,
H . .
d A ‘
~53— “I-
x. a. ‘ '
Y.
QB
-.. ‘.
C... A
“ s \ ‘I‘
“H- -.
n .
i. “-
\‘-. g ‘—
‘ ¥

68

concern of the discussion in the following paragraphs centers on the
internal measurement characteristics of the variables (categorized by
type) which include reliability, validity, and the effect, if any, of
transformations on the data from its raw state to its coded study state.
Because of the voluminous amount of data utilized in this study, the
discussion will be kept as brief as possible, with reference made only
to those characteristics which seem particularly pertinent to the study
hypotheses and questions. For a further examination of the variables,

the reader is invited to explore the Appendices.

Reward Variables

 

It is always a difficult task to determine the validity of grades
and this is doubly true in this study due to the different sources from
which the grades were derived. The validity of a grade is essentially
based upon those elements of student performance which are measured
and the reliability of both the measurement and the cutting points upon
which the grades are based. In this study there is a further considera-
tion of the summation process used to determine the final course grade
of the student. The course grade was determined by a weighting-
transformation procedure in which the mid-term grade contributed 20
per cent, the final exam grade contributed 40 per cent, and the instructor-
awarded discussion section grade contributed 40 per cent. For purposes
of analysis, reward data was coded 1 - 5 (F = l, A = 5). Although the

University uses a 0 - 4 classification, the grade of ”F" was provided

.
,.n 0"

vg' "
a..- ...f . - 4‘ “

' . .
...p. '2' ‘rn

a ' .
:\.dw '“"

A-‘

’P‘
_ ..u ..C-

: ... .

. (.4 ,

my»9~.... .. -
.

‘u . n O

. .. . l

'ntotl he not t

sanlrz .3‘2

s-aize;a-s'
336 Veal-1'
‘»£ste. .
{'5 a... .l‘

.,

. .
vv.“\ 1“
C 54%
“v-
u’ ‘-
‘k‘st ‘7'“"h- _
Aw.‘_l‘(

-\v\"‘
:L. ~' ,
..1- .
~' ““C‘tF-‘m
VA“.
6“
A.“
N= ‘t . i
“*Q '3‘ ? ..
" M-c.

 

:3?“-

t“

4‘

2:».
\\ ‘b.

4:35. 11 s}.
Ere w?

~LQE\

M. .
W1:

69
with the real number value of l for analysis because it represents an
actual range of performance scores at the lower tail of the curve.

The data does not explain a great deal about the grades with the
exception of high reliability between the mid-term grade and the mid-
term exam (1' = . 914) and between the final exam grade and the final
exam (r = . 910). This indicates that the grade for examinations is
representative of the performance on the tests. This was to be ex-
pected because the exams were standard for all students in the course
and the breakdowns of those exams were consistent for all students in
the course. The relationship between the mid-term exam grade and
the final exam grade was relatively low (r = . 516). This level of
relationship is about the same as consistently shows between any
course grade and the student's accumulated grade-point-average (GPA
across innumerable studies is consistently around r = . 50). The cor-
relation between GPA and exam grades in this study was r = .456 for
the mid-term exam grade and r = . 449 for the final exam grade. This
indicates that the exams were essentially different with covariance
occurring due to factors associated with the GPA, primarily ability
and motivation.

Whereas exam grades are at least reliable and valid for per-
formance on the exams, the instructor grade is far more difficult to
assess. It should be noted that instructors, with three exceptions,
were either unable or unwilling to specify their basis for determining

student grades. The instructor grade was weighted to account for 40

,s
' a- so
I u "~ ~
. ‘Il~. .44 .-
.
, _ '
-. . ‘PR .
l a” '1 '
....-.-..» ._

‘-

70
per cent of the student course grade and in a part-whole correlation
with the course grade, it accounted for almost exactly that amount (r =
. 644) or (r2 = .415). It does not correlate highly with other exam
grades (r = . 371 for the mid-term grade and r = .289‘ for the final
exam grade). It correlates with GPA at about the same level as the
exam grades (r = . 355). At best, it correlates with the instructor
rankings of student performance on a problem-sensing-solving project
at a middle level which accounted for only about 35 per cent of the
variance (r = . 585 or r2 = . 342). By examining the bivariate relation-
ships between the instructor grade and all other variables for each
instructor as shown in Appendix F, it is obvious that the only consistent
predictor of instructor grade in addition to the GPA was the mid-term
exam. This indicates that the exam acted as a predetermining agent
in the awarding of the instructor grade (based on the fact that there
was considerably less correlation between the instructor grade and the
final exam scores). In a multiple linear regression equation which only
included entering predictor variables, a significant equation at the . 01
level of probability accounted for only about 13 per cent of the variance
(multiple r = . 362). The components of this multiple correlation included
the pre-test, GPA, attitude toward discussion instructor, low expecta-
tion 1, and the instructors themselves. None of the other entering or
non-academic variables contributed a significant amount of variance to
the equation. In short, the instructor grade shows little or no relation-

ship to the variables included in this study. Therefore, estimates of

o
o: I;

.
' a.'
.4.
..a-h
..-

a..:,-,...I.II_
u- ,n---\.‘.

——

. ...
' ‘v
.t F—
\

a
uni-.... v

 

.o.

r...': ;'I
:v. ‘\'-v‘..- ...
.... “I” III
‘ r-
i‘:::' .¢-x\I.{
.lD.-‘I~ :. "_
‘L-L“.>

.. .._‘. .. «. ..
k‘“:"'\..t.- fl
.- .-; "~‘

.3, ‘

 

.
,0 . I II
":NCC'L Dc?
. d
a: I‘ ~
. \ N . ‘
“NM. 3a:
‘ 1
“a... ‘-
i «We. Lie 5.7?
~‘ ' ' a I
th .I,
s .ol “I: C.
:‘l. I
It‘ll:

H." h.‘
.,_ “Mints v
5;." I I

c J‘ “‘6 to
I
"*k
T‘-

NE a.‘

as“

“(3102,.

71

its reliability and validity must either be very low, or at best unknown.

Pe rfo rm ance Variable s

 

A problem similar to the instructor grade occurs with the
student project rank assigned by the instructor. All students in the
course were assigned the same problem to be developed in a written
presentation (see statement of the problem provided students and in-
structions and criteria for instructor ranking in Appendix B). In this
case, however, the instructors were given fairly precise criteria for
ranking student papers on a 1-5 scale, with examples of what performance
constituted what rank. The instructors were asked to rank the students
to this criteria, but that they could determine what grade to assign to the
paper any way they wished. An independent rater from the area of
educational psychology research also rated a randomly selected group
of student papers from each discussion section. The random selection
of student papers was conducted so that its size (n = 63) would constitute
about the same number as any given instructor would have to rank for
both of his discussion sections and an equal number of papers was
selected from each discussion section (four from each instructor, two
from the morning section and two from the afternoon section). Because
the students were randomly assigned to discussion section at the begin-
ning of the course, this procedure for choosing student papers allowed
for the assumption that we had created a mock, equivalent discussion

section for the purpose of checking instructor reliability. The rater

I"; ol~‘-
IL. I

.... —".2

"if '50. ,r-‘
-.

'i 1". .

i ".I’ |

. ,

'? n- ,.. '-

- v-

n. b... ‘5”...

‘.:~ I. ~: ~.,

' I
.J‘--: 9. :-.
‘ .

:2”. “"“_~»
b.n~“ a“.\.‘
O: V
H A). .

' m ’I
:.....e .C

.7.“ ‘ II
m, = cf“

‘
‘nn.
“a": (r .
~ .2!
ii;
~n- ], . .
‘Eidtl‘i'ej‘

72
was thoroughly trained to rank to criterion before ranking the actual
papers.

The correlation between the independent ratings and the in-
structor ratings of the same papers was extremely low (I = . 309).
Even using a rank-order correlation equation there was only limited
improvement (r = . 374). There was a significant difference between
the variance of the instructor ratings and the independent rater (. 10
p < . 05), and there was a significant difference between instructors
on the ratings of all student papers (p< . 001, see Appendix G). This
leads to the conclusion that in this case the instructors were unreliable
judges of student performance. There is another interesting interpre-
tation which also arises out of the relationship between the instructor
grade and the ranking of student projects (r = . 585). This correlation
would seem to indicate that the instructors as a group are much less
reliable than they are independently, or in other words, the instructors
are perhaps relatively internally consistent in their judgments about
students, but they are not externally consistent as a group.

As can be seen on Table III-2, there is ahnost no relationship
between the instructor project ranks and the test indices of performance
(the relationships that are shown are significant at least the . 01 level
of probability with an ”n” between 500 - 1000). Again, it can be seen
that the highest relationship is between the ranks and the mid-term
exam (r = .261). This further substantiates the notion that the instructors

are relatively pre-conditioned as to the students' ability and performance

‘0‘

Eve

F.
u!

g‘-

‘..
‘N‘t

‘

 

73
by the results the student achieves on the mid-term exam.

Table III—2: Matrix of Intercorrelations Between Performance
Variables for all Students

(5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Course Project Rank (5)
Pre-Test (6) .112
Mid-Term Exam (7) .261 .290
Final Exam -- Recall (8) . 186 . 249 . 493
Final Exam -- Applied (9) . 134 . 243 . 397 . 486

Final Exam -- Total (10) .179 . 274 . 524 . 856 . 752

The pre-test was composed of 40 items chosen as representa-
tive from the different test item areas included in a pool of items being
developed to form a comprehensive exam for the course. These items
were supposedly the best performing items available to test the students'
entering knowledge and ability in the course. In terms of the items'
relationship to the readings and lecture content of the course, they
could be said to have at least face validity. The internal reliability of
this test (using the Kuder-Richardson Formula #20)1 was r = . 763.

As shown on Table 111-2, the relationship of the pre-test to the

other exam results is low but significant and consistent for each exam.

 

lG. Frederic Kuder and Marion W. Richardson, “The Theory

of the Estimation of Test Reliability, ” Principles of Educational and
Psychological Measurement, William A. Mehrens and Robert L. Ebel,
eds. (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967), pp. 101.

 

 

74
The results of the exam were somewhat leptokurtic (kurtosis = 4.488
where kurtosis of 3. 0 is optimal)2 with a mean of 22. 151, a standard
deviation of 3. 562, and a slight negative skewness. This me ans that
approximately 85 per cent of all of the students taking this exam (n =
865) scored between 16 and 28 items correct. The students were
told this exam would have no effect upon their course grades, and the
giving of this exam was not noticeably different from the procedure
previously used in the course. It was established practive to give the
students a placebo exam to orient them to the kind of examination they
would face for grade credit.

The mid-term exam was also composed of 40 multiple-choice
items, but primarily directed to just the readings and lectures included
in the fir st half of the course. The internal reliability of the test
(using the Kuder-Richardson Formula #20)3 was r = . 847. This exam
had a mean of 30. 531 and a standard deviation of 3. 928. It was nega-
tively skewed and only slightly leptokurtic. As shown on Table III-2,
the relationship between this exam and the final exam was significant
but not particularly high indicating that for course purposes, it was
measuring something substantially different. Because the mid-term
exam was primarily a recall type exam, we would expect a stronger
relationship between it and the recall section of the final exam (r = . 493)

than between it and the applied section of the final exam (r = . 397).

 

3Kuder, g9. Cit.

...: ...- ""
' ‘ C~-.
u-u an. a

. o... .;“',
. ,
t..-C....C-.J.

o.,.. ..

.. ~.
::.:‘.~ ...C K,

n \ _
'va- '. ,
’- ‘1 " “...
‘~~ Ali-C. ...
.. .

up, ~-,

. - .

A..‘jx). 3

3t3fP§I ii .;
. ‘ ..

it’s-"N - .

....AC.“I:Q C”

‘.

'i. ‘

.r .

§ ‘ n .

.J finals 1

l
s
.2775 ~“

s ether} .

t

‘ ,‘
‘ l

'J‘: ‘5

1 than 0

N”
a.”

 

R’. ‘

:9
‘i ii:

«0 , .

~ de2;
‘I
J"? ,
-:..:ai"nn

“

75

The final exam was composed of 80 items divided into essentially
two different parts, the first being primarily recall of the courses con-
tent and lectures and the second part being a series of questions related
to a simulated actual setting where the student would have to apply
certain aspects of the content of the course in order supposedly to
select the correct answer. The reliability for the entire exam (using
the Kuder-Richardson Formula #20)"t was r = . 7104. The mean was
53. 286 and the standard deviation was 7. 182. The total exam was quite
leptokurtic (kurtosis = 5. 198) but this was attributable almost totally
to the applied section where the kurtosis was extremely high (kurtosis
= 12. 851). By examining the intercorrelations on the parts and total
scores, it is obvious that the two different parts measured essentially
something different (r = .486). However, in terms of final score it is
also obvious that the discrimination was primarily based upon the re-
call section. The curve of the applied section indicates that there was
very little variance in scores on this section and the correlation between
this section and the total score was lower (r = . 752, as compared to r
= . 856) than on the recall section. This limited variance on approxi-
mately half of the test also probably contributed to the lower than
expected, and lower than acceptable, reliability. The applied section
is also much more closely related to a student's entering ability and

test-taking ability as signified by a much higher correlation between it

41bid.

 

“...—

 

{ n I - 4
u .o— . ~ . A n .
. . . u . L;
k .u 3 Le Q» i . .fl.‘
. . p. a. F»
u .. . —~ . . .. . R.
v C .d n.“ “d.
. ‘1. . ...
. .o~ . b n v: n o n .u

, .1.

$ S

.1

.H.‘
..-.A
. .. a.
\i“

 

 

76
and the Qualifying Test-Total (r = .405 as compared to 4 = . 281 for the
recall section).

All that can finally be said for the exam performance variables
is that they did measure recall of content fairly reliably, that they
contained a strong component of entering ability and test-taking ability,
and that they failed to adequately test student ability to apply informa-
tion either because the items for this purpose did not discriminate
properly, or because the items had too strong a relationship to

different interpretations and test-taking ability.

Aspiration-Expectation Variables

The notion of “level of aspiration" has just recently been ac-
cepted as relevant to educational settings although as a social-
psychological variable it has been recognized since the late 1930's. At
best we can say that the failure to incorporate this determinant of
behavior into educational practice in any systematic manner is due to
the concentration in teacher education upon ”method" rather than effect.
While it is not the source of much systematic study in education yet, a
host of publications have begun to develop inadvertently the impact of
this upon educational performance and motivation, e. g. , Rosenthal's
methodologically weak but important theoretical studies included in

Pjgmalion in the Classroom. 5 Developed originally out of the work of

 

 

5Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson, Pygmalion in the
Classroom (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968).

 

 

 

 

.. ... .. . . K .. . a.
. U ‘ K r

.M. ~\.— «5“» s6 F‘
P. n. . s .1. . .PM «4:
N .. 3» «k C~ is .\ z:

..i L. y . .n‘ . .. . ...
E :4 I ...; x... ..g
A § h

 

77
Lewin and his colleagues, this behavioral determinant is probably best
explained in one of Lewin's original articles:6
. . These theoretical considerations show that most of

the qualitative and quantitative results related to the

level of aspiration can be linked to three factors, namely,

the seeking of success, the avoiding of failure, and the

cognitive factor of probability judgment. These forces
operate in a setting which has to be characterized as a choice
for a future objective. The strength of these forces and the
values corresponding to the subjective probability depend
upon many aspects of the life space of the individual at

that time, particularly on the way he sees his past experi-

ences and on the scales of his reference which are charac-

teristic for his culture and his personality.

The inclusion of these variables in this study served two purposes.
First, as aspiration-expectations of grade performance, they show over
time the changes in both the seeking of success and the avoidance of
failure as a result of the course. But more importantly for the study
hypotheses, the element of probability judgment of grade performance
over time serves to show how this element is affected by the discussion
sections and the TA's.

The scores for the high, actual, and low expectation over the
first two administrations were determined in the same way. The student
was simply presented with a scale of potential grades from F to A+
(numbering from 1-12) and asked in each case to circle the grade he

might receive in each case (high, actual, and low). His score represents

the grade he circled. On the final administration, the student was asked

 

6Kurt Lewin, Tamara Dembo, L. Festinger, and Pauline
Sears, "Level of Aspiration, " Personali_ty and the Behavior Disorders,
J. McVicker Hunt, ed. (New York: Ronald Press, 1944), pp. 376.

 

 

 

-~\
..
-...

7F 1
. I
nun-”v. ...
. 1 .
' ‘ ‘m y!
-' ‘9‘ '4
...- .....c...

"" -n~ ,
t n >- .
‘- h—-A_ .‘
'~v».. ”I
. r ,_
hu.._ ”I
' t
‘Flua._
\ p‘ »
... \~~ ”K
9‘ .

7"; :‘i‘fipvo
can-5 ‘~“~-4.
. \

«.. .
I ' - I,” -‘
ok“\ 4&4 a

"v,
P‘\

 

.
.‘ I
. . ‘
‘c as .... ‘V .-
“‘EA.
V

I,‘l
.t‘ .711. .
‘a‘.'el‘\‘ n
t ‘«
:I" ‘ I
to '-
o, _ ,
.3933‘ 1
l
:J ., ,
"aL :hp
\r
n‘y I
141‘.

5“,
'1. v- I,‘ .
‘~.‘.

78

to estimate how well, actual, and how poorly he might do on the final
exam. He was to estimate on the basis of a possible one hundred
points. In the case of aspiration-expectation variables, these refer to
the element of probability judgment. The student was presented with
the same list of grades and was asked to indicate the chances in one
hundred he had of receiving each grade with the proviso that the total
chances he indicated had to add up to one hundred for all estimates.
The student's score was determined by using the same twelve-point
scale and awarding the scale score for the grade which showed the 50
per cent level of probability as determined in an additive manner.

Appendix E shows all of the internal reliability and validity
estimates. The correlations between one administration and the next
administration of the same variable-type are never less than r = . 500,
and as high as r = . 757 between aspiration-expectation 2 and 3. While
face validity is obvious for all of the variables, other forms of validity
are more difficult to ascertain. From the standpoint of this study,
about the most that can be said is that there was constant, significant,
relatively high relationships between these indices and various reward
variables, performance variables, and past performance variables,
and that the relationships increase between course and reward variables
and the aspiration-expectation variables with each administration indi-

cating increasing congruence (see Table 111-3).

,3

.._.-0- ‘

- v-

C-- -“‘

.
II;_‘_..~.
u-Jd‘

. ..

_,~.,.

i...

_i_. C...’—«

. r
M... r.
3L "PM
. . ...
...... .4“
U... ...

l-O

go-

v".
~‘I ¢'\
.

, \

.-

we

UK c

' .
g x
‘.D» l

.

:F'h

.
k

0 WM.
‘1] .‘v 1‘
«\w .
P. ‘4
‘5! Eu
.1 fie

79

Table 111-3: Matrix of Intercorrelations Between Aspiration-
Expectation, Reward, and Past Performance
Variables on All Students

(20) (21) (22)
Aspiration-Expectation 1 (20) ----
Aspiration-Expectation 2 (21) . 563 ----
Aspiration-Expectation 3 (22) . 519 . 757 ----
Course Grade ( l) .274 .618 .600
Mid-Term Grade ( 2) . 253 . 686 . 644
Final-Exam Grade ( 3) .278 .485 .416
Instructor Grade ( 4) . 174 . 342 . 477
Univ. Grade-Point-Average (2 3) . 475 . 496 . 464
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) . 289 . 326 . 280
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) . 205 . 227 . 205
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) . 326 . 352 . 303

Past Performance Variable s

 

Very little needs to be said about these variables as they are
standard in any college or univerity setting. The GPA is a 1-4 scale
composed of the average of all grades that student has made at the Uni-
versity (F = 0, A = 4). Although these Grade-Point-Averages were self-
reported by the students, previous studies have shown that students know

their GPA and report it reliably. 7 On a small, randomly selected

 

7O. M. Davidson, ”Reliability of self- reported high school
grades, " unpublished research report, American College Testing
Program, Iowa City, Iowa, 1963.

p

,
-.u.g. .

.

.u ..- .

2.. 6... J
.-

d-‘

u . a

“ ...o I

~ g

--4 ...-s

an. 5‘ .

u \

, M
... _.“

.-._ ‘.
C r
.. .. , .
.‘ I
I “Q
5. ‘.t nu.
9..I

 

'“. 7
a ‘n.
..“.v-‘
.
.:\‘f ‘,N
."-‘..'.
. -
“ 5...
~.. ~-.: C.
--‘ .
5
~“ F.
‘e
nji: E
\A.‘
a_\“.,_~
.
‘ "’"C
"r
LV
-

 

I
Q
. ' YJ.‘I‘
,. I
c
‘-
F v
e‘.‘ :— ‘
“c
T.
- .
.F

 

80
sample, from this study (n = 63), an extremely high relationship was
shown between self-reported GPA and University-calculated GPA (r =
. 945). The Qualifying Tests when coded for analysis were divided by 2
so that the range of scores would meet the requirements of a particular,
multivariate computer program. That means that a score shown as 25
for one of the COT areas in this study would actually be a standard
score at the 50th percentile. This truncating of the range may have
some minor effects in the analyses, but by inspection they do not seem

noticeable.

Attitudes or Motivational Predispositions Toward Instruction

This grouping contains three, relatively distinct parts. Students
responded to one of five possible reasons related to why they enrolled
in the course (see Appendix B) with a certain amount of face validity
for the assumption that the reasons moved from negative to neutral to
positive. The scale of 1-5 represents this direction. No effort was
made to check reliability of the scale. The item shows a low, but
significant relationship to other attitudinal areas included in this study
indicating limited validity (r = . 366 with pre-course motivation, r =
. 226 with post-course motivation). Its use in the study was limited, and
for the most part it provided little discrimination. Both the pre-course

and the post-course motivation instruments were adapted from the

,.o - '
‘
-.. .-
.-.
--.-
- .-
. -.--

.u».

" ....-_
-._.
‘ -

a 0—
.°"--..
C. V
! “ ‘1

,—
oh-‘b‘

 

:' w
'v. "
-L‘.r-
.’ “ .
A a.
~L . \
.~
x‘,“ <
I...,.:. v“
.

 

 

 

a

P

'4,

I ‘n
'a

81

instructional research of Siegel and Siegel. 8 They consist of the same
57 items altered only to reflect a looking back stance in the post instru-
ment. The items (see Appendix B) are a series of statements cover-
ing a wide variety of aspects related to the instructional setting and the
conduct of instruction. The instructions asked the student to respond
with either a yes or no answer to each item which would indicate whether
or not he believed that item would reflect (or reflected) the course. The
statements move from extremely negative to extremely positive. The
students score is the median yes response. Siegel and Siegel reported
the extended procedures of development of this instrument and showed
split-test reliability of r = . 78. In the case of the adapted version used
in this study, it was possible to derive a test-retest estimate as well
which we found to be adequately high (r = . 633). In neither the Siegel
study nor this study did the scores show any significant relationship to
past performance variables indicating that it was not measuring general
academic motivation, but rather, course-specific motivation or attitude. 9

The validity of this instrument is difficult t0'assess. It shows
low, but significant, relationships with all other measures of attitude.
It does not show any relationship to performance, nor does it provide

significant main effects between instructors. However, when results of

 

8Laurence Siegel and Lila C. Siegel, The Instructional Gestalt
in Televised University Courses (mimeographed research report, Miami,
University, Oxford, Ohio, June, 1966), p. 49.

 

 

91bid. , p. 52.

... n-_; a!

It. l.‘h J. C

.... -... .‘

u“... .‘k'su:

.0 o.
. Guy's v-
c—o ..._....

- “‘ "-

‘ E

“O." hob“-
-.. o.
’3’!

wi‘fi.

‘.

u

...

"u.

p. "h.
I 6‘ ~‘
“ ' ‘ ~J .

*:~~-~.g
‘_“b: u
‘V‘A

82
this instrument are categorized into a four-cell matrix (high and low
for the pre, and high and low for the post) a series of significant re-
sults occur which seem to indicate that the instrument is effective in
interpreting results based upon shifts from either high to low or low to
high course motivation. These results will be discussed in the next
chapter.

"Attitude Toward Instructor" represents simply the sum of posi-
tive responses the student made on an instrument including 23 statements
about procedures, qualities, and attitudes related to the teaching assistant
discussion leader (see Appendix B). The independent items included on
this list were chosen from a series of items being developed for an
all-University student attitude toward instruction scale. The items had
survived three administrations and analyses and were considered to be
internally consistent with ability to discriminate. In some cases the
items had to be slightly rephrased to fit the circumstances of a discus-
sion section and the affect of this rephrasing is not known. Split-half
reliability of the instrument was high (I = . 917), 10 but the resulting
curve was negatively skewed. Item analysis indicated that the simple
attitude statements discriminated better than did the statements about

performance.

 

l 0Kuder , Loc. Cit.

83

Personality and Academic Characteristics Variables

 

The Learning Set or the Educational Set Scale was also adapted
from the research of Siegel and Siegel.11 The purpose of this scale
was to provide an index of the student's preference toward type of
learning moving from factual to conceptual. The student was asked to
choose from three statements concerning learning conditions, the state-
ment (condition) he would like the most and the statement (condition) he
would like the least. Each triad of statements contained one more
factually-oriented statement, one more conceptually-oriented statement,
and one in-between statement. The instrument, composed of 31 triads,
was scored by attaching a negative value of one for each factually
learning-oriented statement and a positive value of one for each con-
ceptually learning-oriented statement. There was no score for the
choice of neutral items. If the student responded positively to a factual
statement, and negatively to a conceptual statement in a triad, his score
for that triad would be -2; conversely, if he scored a factual item
negatively and a conceptual item positively in a triad, he would receive
a score of +2. All of the statements were scaled for their degree of
factual or conceptual orientation, and it was the weighting of this scale
which determines the scoring in any given triad. Siegel and Siegel re-
ported split-test reliability of 4 = . 90 and test-retest ( S-day interval )

reliability of r = . 92. In their development of validity for the scale,

 

11Siegel, 92.919, p. 41.

»—-
y
t, c...

... .... ‘-
‘-.¢.-| " 00
4
n
u,— - ..~ .0
, - K r.-
-.t~4 . 4.»...
" ,‘u a-A
1‘ f”
... ...-._ d

A>A' "1
yo.

‘5‘. ..‘

..
......c“ . .
I l

u
' T
5 -¢

.

|~ :.

.
"' Cu?“ ""
.

O. .

\

,.

0‘

L.

 

15L
"'1. e:
“M J. t
A Le:
M
E
l
,2.
I.
\
11
3:
*4:
-: ~‘~:'1
‘11 A
i “1 r0.
...; C“

84
they reported that there was no relationship to standard measures of
ability (college entrance exams), or to a measure of creativity (Guild-
ford's creativity tests). 12 The validity in relation to performance is
described by Siegel and Siegel in an earlier study. 13 In this study they
show that if you control for certain other classroom conditions (ability,
degree of teacher-student interaction, etc. ), the ”set” does discrimi-
nate on performance between classes oriented either factually or con-
ceptually.

For this study, the instrument was retained in its original form,
but after preliminary scoring, all scores were converted to a positive
scale. While no new estimates of reliability were developed, the re-
lationship between this scale and other data included in this study further
establishes the validity of the scale. There were low, but significant
correlations with all reward variables except instructor grade (see
Appendix E) and with all performance variables. This tends to support
Siegel's findings. There are also low, significant correlations with past
performance variables and a significant negative correlation with an

index of test anxiety.14

 

12Ibid. , p. 47.

13’Laurence Siegel and Lila C. Siegel, "Educational Set: a
determinant of acquisition, " Journal of Educational Psychology, 56,
1965, pp. 1-12.

 

l4Siegel, 9p. Cit., p. 94.

85

The Alpert-Haber Test Anxiety Scale as used in this study was
a combination of two scales developed by the above authors. 15 To ob-
tain a single index of debilitating test anxiety both the facilitating and
debilitating scales of the original Alpert-Haber instrument were com-
bined and the associated signs of the facilitating scale were changed.
The items included in both scales asked specifically about anxiety
experienced during the taking of exams. The authors show that the
test anxiety scales and the scales of general anxiety largely measure
different attributes and that the anxiety scales are better than the
general scales in predicting academic performance. In addition, the
test anxiety scales account for variance in academic performance over
and above that variance accounted for by measures of aptitude or ability.
The reported reliability of the scales for a test-retest situation over a
ten-week interval was . 83 for the facilitating scale and . 87 for the
debilitating scale, and over an eight-month period the reliability
coefficients decreased only to . 75 and . 76 respectively. 16 In general
the results of this study supported those of Alpert and Haber. There
were consistent significant, negative correlations between the A-H
Anxiety Scale and the measures of performance, both past and present.

In addition, the test anxiety measure accounted for additional variance

 

15Richard Alpert and Ralph Norman Haber, “Anxiety in
Academic Situations, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
Vol. 61, No. 2, 1960, pp. 207-15.

16Ibid., p. 213.

... \-

Oh

.—

 

-I\\
. . . T C. .lu. . Fx .~.\~. .1. .. a p AU

. _ . . . . - . a. . . .. .
. . . o . ... a.» «h .c Cu .u— CL ~ ‘9. ~\~ ‘1‘ ‘50 ,J A"
a. . . my t . Lt . p .1 r x .
. .: u . . u . v“ . a is Q» .\~ t .. \Vd t s .. p
., . p~ _ ~ n . y ~n. CL ‘ . .1. ...s . . :J ...l- «\s
.. L. .... ... v. Q. .u : Ex . . . MN \. ... 1.3.; r
.. .... s . ... L. ..u ... u. ... hm .k. 5.. Ha . ... ‘s z
a, . . .. h v . . u n . t p .

 

86
in the prediction of performance over several multiple linear regres-
sion equations.

Test specific anxiety was determined by asking the student to
indicate how much anxiety he felt before beginning each of the exams.
The student could choose between five alternatives moving from very
little to very much. As could be expected there was almost no anxiety
reported before the pre-test, and anxiety increased over both the mid-
term exam and the final exam. The pre-test anxiety scores neither
discriminated between nor correlated with any of the other variables
or analysis factors. The mid and final anxiety scores both showed posi-
tive, significant correlations with the Alpert-Haber scale (r = . 362 and
r = . 348 respectively), and low, significant, negative correlations to
the respective test performances.

The Eysenck personality scales form a brief measure of global
personality traits. 17 They are the subject of years of development,
mostly of a factor analytic nature. The primary scales provide esti-
mates of the individual's degree of extraversion--outgoing, uninhibited,
impulsive, and social inclinations--and neuroticism--general emotional
instability, emotional over-responsiveness, and predispositions to
neurotic breakdowns. The instrument also includes a lie or socially

desirable response scale to estimate falsification of responses. Since,

 

17H. J. Eysenck and Sybil B. G. Eysenck, Eysenck Personality

Inventory (San Diego, Cal. : Educational and Industrial Testing Service,

 

.b\ . h a.

6)» «q

 
 

.... s.“ L; L» a:
u. ... 9. ..c ...
.1 .F. a: . . e ale
.r‘ an. ..H_. ‘- vnfl sh.
... an l. .k»
v. -~ mm ..A‘ ..s
\p‘

 

87
in this study, the instrument was used as developed, the interested

reader is referred to either Euros, The Sixth Mental Measurements

Yearbook, or to Eysenck's Personality Structure and Measurement. 18
Course-Specific Attitudes

These variables were the responses of students to four items
repeated over three administrations which were concerned with speci-
fic areas potentially related to, or affected by the course. The reader

may see them in instrument form in Appendix B, but the questions asked

were as follows:

Commitment to Enter Profession 1, 2, 3 -- How strongly
committed are you to entering the teaching profession?

Suitability for Teaching 1, 2, 3 -- How strongly do you feel
that teaching is the occupation for which you are best

fitted?

Importance of Theory 1, 2, 3 -- How important do you feel a
knowledge of the theory and principles of human growth
and behavior will be in successfully performing as a

teacher?

Course as Preparation 1, 2, 3 -- How important do you think
this course has been (will be, is) in preparing you to
successfully understand and deal with students in both
their learning and personal development?

Each item had five levels of response from which the student could

 

18Oscar Buros, ed. , The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook
(Highland Park, N. J.; The Gryphow Press, 1965), pp. 215-217.

Hans J. Eysenck and Sybil B. G. Eysenck, Personality
Structure and Measurement (San Diego, Cal.: R. R. Knapp, 1967).

I....—~:..m... -<. .......~ 2...;..~.~.I~:..:~.f\ 31......<
I.._:.: ..< ....q ......P..1.-L..:..wv ....,.}/...v~ 3......--;----.. u....a..~ .~.. I... s:~.< ...‘1l-~ .--.,..~.

88

Aomv

2:.

nowv

Hos. elm. ---- Nos. mom. mme. sop. ---- use. see. Rome
mom. was. Ham. was. 002. Nws. ---- mam. mas. ---- Aowv
mom. wvm. msm. own. mes. mws. omm. wms. mMH. Away

mum. amp. wws. has. mos. mmw. Hes. ---- nape

mwm. ---- iii! ---- new. ---- ---- nose

---- ems. ---- 0mm. ---- ---- Amvv

mos. mam. ---- mas. sow. nave

use. ---- Mme. amp. Amvv

---- pap. Mas. Amwv

---- ---- Asev

ems. nowv

name

Away nave Apvc Amwv nave Amwc Away Alec nose name

munopsum S< norm mcofimnumflfigxw mmouo<
mopsfiufiw oflfiooamuomusoo nook/“om maoflmfionuoououfi mo vain—mg

H nofimywmonm mm @9300

H huoonH mo monounomcfi

H mnEompH p8 358:3

N

a .monnm Hounm on. uzoEfiESoU

”quHH 3an

 

.,..--

s»..-

..vC.
~1>A-u ,
‘

‘.‘ ‘A.

““5‘-,_

‘ .
i'w-u.

. “‘\.‘

\
§
5

p-
"1

 

 

 

 

89
choose, moving from very positive to neutral to very negative. The
choices were weighted from 1 to 5 also moving from positive to nega-
tive. The items were administered before the beginning of the course,
shortly after the mid-term exam, and immediately after the final exam.

The reliability and validity of single items is always difficult to
judge, and likely to be quite unstable. The intercorrelation matrices
included in Appendix E and as summarized in Table 111-4 provide some
indication of these qualities. In general, the relationship between
administration 1 and 2 of all of the variables indicates the highest
stability. Administration 3 showed little relationship to either of the
previous administrations. From these correlations, it can be seen that
the two items which refer to the student's further pursuit of the teaching
profession (Commitment to Enter Profession and Suitability for Teach-
ing) are much more stable than the two items with direct reference to
the quality and importance to teaching of the course. This is to be ex-
pected. By selecting the curriculum, the students have made some form
of longer-term commitment that, while perfectly able to change, they
would be most unlikely to do so on the basis of one experience.

The Course as Preparation is highly related to the Commitment
to Enter Profession and the Suitability for Teaching, and because of the
way these relationships build over time, it would seem to be dependent
upon these factors. However, a strong argument could be made that the
students' feelings of suitability to teach were increasingly affected by

their feeling toward the Course as Preparation. The Importance of

 

w.
;: J';'
Bu 0“-

.

"“‘v?-

-..-.... ,c

.
t- , ‘

.... ;
--~-....; .

 

 

..~
I ‘ g.

..‘l‘‘ h

‘ H

O

u; ~
‘C

U. | ‘.
‘¢\.,

 

 

I”
H‘.,
‘-._:C§
‘u
.
‘O.
- ~
“. ash ,.
NI T
«

 

90
Theory seems to be the least related to any of the other variables, and
usbject to quite a bit of change over administrations. The initial Course
as Preparation shows some relationship to Importance of Theory 2 and
that the Course as Preparation 2 shows an increased relationship to
Importance of Theory 3. This might indicate that the earlier range of
feelings toward the Course as Preparation may affect later feelings

toward the Importance of Theory.

Potential Restrictions on the Data

 

For the most part, the variables used in this study appear
operationally sufficient, internally, for use in testing or answering the
study questions. There are, however, three important potential re-
strictions on the data which must at least be mentioned. The first two
concern the nature of the student responses to the various instruments
and the other is the problem of the differential number of students re-
sponding to the different instruments.

In any research of this type, there is always the danger of what
is known as the response-set, the demand-set, or the experimenter
effect. Although each of these terms has reference to a slightly dif-
ferent factor, they all imply in common some element in the data-gathering

situation which acts to create artifacts in the data. 19 The nature of the

 

19A good discussion of the importance of conditions on per-
formance can be found in: Michael A. Wallach and Nathan Kogan,
Modes of Thinking in Young Children (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1965); and a discussion of "significant other” effects on

 

.~v-’
......
p.---

 

— _ . . n . . . . .... pt .. .
a A :~ - ac r‘ Ext» r. <~FAIV i“ ‘ 5
F n .. m .3 . . .Q . s .. .1 y .
_ ..n h I .1 C ..n. ... .. E
. h- p a - ., p C .‘ c .t ‘5. RI».
. . ~ . a «48 PM ~.§» “
o. L. - u . aw. \- Ik .F \ “\v . i“ E. ..f-\

 

91
student responses to the various instruments could potentially have
been affected by either the degree to which they saw their responses
as having some effect upon them, such as partial determination of a
grade, favorable treatment in the classroom, etc. , or some form of
initial or developed antipathy toward the evaluation itself. In both of
these cases, the reference is to instruments administered beyond what
would normally be a part of the course experience (not, for example,
placebo exams, tests, or projects).

In order to avoid the students responding as if their responses
might have some effect on them, the nature and purpose of the evalua-
tion was explained in detail during the first class session. The primary
points made during this discussion were that: (1) the purpose of the
evaluation was to improve the course and undergraduate education, and
that the object of the study was the course as conducted, (2) the persons
in charge of the evaluation were independent of the course and its in-
struction or administration, and (3) the student responses were privi-
leged, that no one in the instructional or administrative roles would be
allowed to examine individual student responses. These facts were re-
emphasized at various other times during the period of the course both

as part of instructions to the various instruments and verbally before

 

performance can be found in: Robert Rosenthal, ”The Effect of the
Experirnenter on the Results of Psychological Research, “ Progress
in Experimental Personality Research, Brendon Maher, ed. (New
York: Academic Press, 1964).

 

»"

..a-H -‘ ‘

.... ._. ~-

 
 

u ..u ”I. .3 ..u ..U ..C a“ .C . p .
. .v L

a . . .n. ‘ . v!“ ....g you .A...“ 6

. A»... . L . . t 9‘ s . :5 p . cs

. vF. . . m u w w 2 .a‘. ... y .5;

_. .. . ,. . ... . . . L» I.

. ... .. . .u» (u... ...» ...w . ..u .12.».

. I,

 

 

 

92
different administrations (see instructions for each instrument in
Appendix B). In addition, inspection of the data (see Appendix C)
seems to support the notion that no major response-sets did occur
other than a general, overall tendency to rate some areas high which
were interpreted as a natural desire to be more positive in an intro-
ductory experience. This was especially true, as noted before, on
items such as Commitment to Enter the Profession which by the act of
being in the course would naturally be high. All of the variables, with
the exception of pre-test anxiety, either discriminated or showed a
relatively broad range of scores. The only observed problem was with
the attitude toward instructor data. It had the lowest number of re-
spondents (having been administered the day after Memorial Day) and
a noticeable amount of negative skewness. This might have been ex-
pected as an effect of the most positively-oriented students attending
class that day, but nevertheless, the instrument did significantly dis-
criminate between instructors. In all, we concluded that while response-
set effects were certainly possible, the resulting effect, if any, upon the
data would be to act as a conservative influence upon the data making
significant results more difficult to achieve.

Another concern was whether the evaluation itself created a
response-set, most likely negative, toward the evaluation. Every effort
was made not to interfere in the normal class procedure and to simplify
the means of responding by the students. However, a large number of

instruments were administered, and a certain amount of class time was

 

..‘._l

54,.

 

._-~
.-.
....»-
».~-‘

«146

:91

  

93

devoted to the evaluation (about five minutes before the start of several
of the lectures and the first two days of class for the pre-course assess-
ment and the placebo exam). Again, the data does not show any effect
which might be attributed to the evaluation, although it is possible that
the effect is hidden in reduced class attendance over the period of the
course, or some other unrecorded fact. A question was included in the
post-course assessment following the final exam which asked the students
to indicate the amount they felt the evaluation had affected either the
course or their participation in the course:

”Do you feel that the course evaluation which took place

this term has impaired either the conduct of or your

participation in this course? ”
Responses to this item indicated that 43 per cent believed not at all, an
additional 26 per cent believed very little if at all, 10 per cent did not
know, 13 per cent felt somewhat, and 3 per cent felt very much so (there
were 5 per cent omits and a total number responding of 947).

By far the most serious problem related to the data was that of
a differential number responding to the different instruments. The
reader can see in Appendix C that this differential in several cases is
quite large (up to 50 per cent difference between the final exam, n = 945,
and the attitude toward instructor, n = 459). The reasons for this
differential are mostly explainable by the fact that the numbers for
each administration basically represented the number of students attend-

ing on any given day. It was estimated that the greatest loss between

number of students attending a class on any given day and the number

. ....»
"v‘u
g,o\v~’
.
.
, , - a:
’ "’1‘
wou¥ ‘

b-.-.. .

w.‘b .

 

.
7“..-
‘v
1‘
ma“ ,

u

 

... ;h- ..

x 'C. ‘
a

.

‘-

...‘ o

0.1:
v‘(

 

~A

NFN

.M. .
CI“ '
d
C 1

4:251.“ ‘

A

\‘L

94
of responses returned was 10 per cent. The normal loss was generally
in the area of 5 per cent or less. As in the other situations above,
there is no definite way by which the effect of this differential can be
positively measured. In order to estimate the possible effect, an analysis
of the data of a group of students who had completed the majority of the
instruments (all but one or two) was conducted and then compared to the
totals on the respective administrations for all students (this group was
also used as the basis for multiple linear regression and other multi-
variate analyses). An inspection of the two different sets of data--one
for everyone in any particular administration and one for the group with
the most data--showed that there was not a noticeable difference between
the smaller group and all students responding on either mean, standard
deviation, skewness, or kurtosis. This does not mean that the results
on any single administration are generalizable to the entire group be-
cause, especially in the cases with the smallest number of respondents,
this is the sub-population of students that attended class. We can pro-
ject a certain number of absences on any given administration for
justifiable reasons, but several of these results go far beyond what
could possibly be accounted for by this assumption. About the most that
can be said is that first, attendance is an important piece of data related
to the course itself and should be considered an index of student involve-
ment and interest, and second, and most importantly, the evaluation was
concerned with the effect of the course on those students participating

in the activities of the course so that in many instances, the number

..J .

. I

 

.~. . s . .: .
. . . L» .
.Q .»u .C .. . .k.
.—— .‘v t v I.
... .3 ... ..C
II 0 - D (b «b

 

 

 

\
552‘
y‘e ‘1

.at
.»u «I;
.F\

C .. ‘
r\\

95
responding is representative of those with a contributive response to

make.

Measurement of Instructor (TA) Characteristics

For purposes primarily other than this evaluation, certain
measurements were taken from the discussion instructors (TA's) during
the period of the evaluation, but because they will be used in a limited
fashion later in this report, they will be briefly discussed here. The
data gathered included several psychometric personality instruments, a
series of open-ended questions concerning the course, the students and
the conduct of the discussion sections, and a questionnaire aimed at
providing information about the instructors' graduate studies, occupa-
tional aspirations, instructional background, and personal data. All
but one of the instructors completed these measurements, but because
the number was so small (11 = 15) it was impossible to derive any esti-
mate of reliability or validity. For those instruments with a previous
developmental history, reference will be made to the appropriate sources.
All instructor instruments are included in Appendix B.

The instruments administered to provide information about
personality characteristics included two standardized instruments and
three of a more experimental nature. The standardized instruments
were the Eysenck Personality Scales, the same as discussed previously,
which included an extraversion scale, a neuroticism scale, and a lie or

social desirability scale, and California “F” Scale which is a measure

 

 

a.

.v».

tun-A

“...-u.

~-.

A»-

p

91

gl

 
 
 

 

96
of authoritarianism. 20 The other instruments used included one
developed by Marlowe and Crowne which measures the individual's
social approval need by the number of socially desirable responses

made;21

one developed by Sanford and Gough which measures the
degree of the individual's rigidity of personality}2 and one developed
by Wallach and Kogan which attempts to get at the individual's will-
ingness to take probabilistic risks, (situations in which the individual

seeks to take risks with a 50 - 50 chance of success). 23

Although
the results on this instrument measure either risk-taking or certainty
of decision, or both, the confusion of the underlying continuunis is not
representative of a difference in overt behavior, but rather the cause
of the behavior.

The open-ended questions asked the respondents to describe
what they felt were the course objectives, the degree to which the

objectives were being met, the important behavioral objectives of the

discussion sections, what materials or methods or procedures were

 

ZOMilton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New York:
Basic Books, 1960), pp. 416-17.

21

 

D. P. Crowne and D. Marlowe, The Approval Motive:
Studies in Evaluative Dependence (New York: Wiley and Sons, 1964).

 

 

22H. G. Gough and R. N. Sanford, Rigidity as apsychological
variable,“ unpublished manuscript, University of California, Institute
of Personality Assessment and Research, Berkeley, Cal. , 1952.

 

23Michael A. Wallach and Nathan Kogan, ”Sex differences and

judgment processes, ” Journal of Personality, Vol. 27, 1959, pp.
555-63.

 

 

 
 

... x... .. w A o u . . .d 6.. M; F.. 1“ fl . JV .‘~ .6. “NA .
. «\u e . . .A S

. .L . : t. r .... a a ...: .... .2 o s I re
. ~ . . ... I

. .5 .... a” v . .. «... . .C ..L e .... . L: e p e ‘. fie
... A. . . . . .. .... u. v. .1. u. ..1. mi. ‘4 .3 a,» ... ...
r“ . .C _ .. ... .2 A... .1 P.. 3. ...... L. ‘1 F \ v»... ...ie. Cu

. a p . .. . 4 — e . u

... ... ”M q». «M .. C. n.‘ ..L Nu us ...‘w M. ... Hui. “In \us \

97

employed to achieve the discussion section objectives, how the
students should be evaluated in the course, the nature of the behaviors
the students should be able to exhibit as a result of successful com-
pletion of the course, and how the course could be improved.

The questionnaire simply established information about the
instructor's graduate program, educational background, teaching ex-
perience, future vocational preference, specific fact 8 about how the
discussion section was handled, and personal background data such as
sex, marital status, etc. The purpose of this questionnaire was pri-
marily to develop a description of the instructors as individuals with
certain strengths and limitations which would either enhance or de-
tract from their instructional abilities and efforts. Both the que stion-
naire and the open-ended questions were aimed at developing some
feeling for the instructors' familiarity with the course and its content.

The instructors were also asked to clearly show how they de-
termined the students' discussion section grades. This was to be
turned in to the evaluators at the end of the course. However, only
three of the sixteen instructors provided the information and although
others promised to do so at a later date, this data never appeared.
Efforts to obtain this data were abandoned finally after half of the

instructors had permanently left campus.

Procedure

 

Many of the procedural details have already been discussed in

the previous section on instrumentation, but are several elements of

-'.» av-

o .
...-

...
.-" .4

I
:"'_:,v--
‘C'xoc
Oh
ll...
4. me
~
In} x "A.
..U u:
v
‘
‘Mr-
“NAI‘, ‘
1 I

"35 13
n"-
u (EEC

 

. . .

\u“d':'

‘0

p

as ..

Hr" . pu‘
‘uJ‘.‘

LJ' ‘
I'l.‘

Fr...
‘U~(I

"TI

'.-3
\‘9 -
92%
i‘ I“:
Q
\‘.‘
H: ‘A

98

the procedure which must be explained in order to provide a feeling for
Sequence or needed detail for later discussions of analysis and inter-
pretation. The areas needing further explanation are: (l) administra-
tive approval and support, (2) randomization of students into discussion
sections, (3) administration of instruments including both sequence and
procedure, (4) the development of data files and data controls, and (5)
scoring of instruments and analysis of data.

The ‘study was approved by the School of Teacher Education
several weeks prior to the beginning of the term. Additional support
for the study was provided by the University's Educational Development
Project which is under the direction of the Provost's office. At this
time, the general direction and instrumentation of the study was de-
termined and approved. According to the accepted proposal, the study
was to be a multivariate evaluation of the beginning course in the School
of Teacher Education concerned with course outcomes, operations, and
instructional interactions. The original proposal was modified to
eliminate the active observation of instruction because of budgetary
limitations. It was agreed that the evaluation would be independent of
the course, but that the individuals responsible for administration of
the course would work closely with, and lend assistance to, the evalua-
tion. For the most part, this provision became a reality. All
management of the details and operation of the evaluation were handled
independently by those responsible for the evaluation. For as long as
funds lasted, a small staff of coders was hired to aid in both adminis-

tration and the development of data files.

Out.
”a“
‘-.r
'fl.‘
sg. -..
~~ -. o
.V‘IA
‘-..,...
h...‘_

DD." .

A

1'4

e
s

a;
flu.

99

All students who enrolled for the course, either by pre-registra-
tion or during the normal spring registration, were randomly selected
into the different discussion sections two days before the start of the
course. This was accomplished by taking the alphabetical list of
enrolled students and assigning a random number between one and six-
teen to each name (there were sixteen discussion sections for each hour
the course was offered) as it appeared on the list. After the initial
randomization of students had taken place, the discussion sections were
randomly assigned to the TA's by the same procedure. A second list
of random numbers was generated (also between one and sixteen) by
which any late additions to the course would be assigned to discussion
section. If a student dropped the course during this initial period, he
was replaced by a late enrolling student. No changes in section were
allowed with the exception of a few special cases (several foreign stu-
dents were assigned to an instructor who by reputation was effective in
working with these students, but the foreign students were excluded from
the analysis of data or other evaluative procedures because of the language
difficulties). Later drops from the course could not be avoided or re-
placed. However, the discussion sections terminated the course with
approximately the same number of students in each section, so it
appeared that the major effect of randomization was maintained through-
out the duration of the course. This assumption, which will be discussed
in the following chapters, is important to any statistical analysis between

discus sion sections .

q‘--A.P:‘

an».--
.

‘n. 'y.“
-..C

ug- _,

I
:'.";‘ h.
mu... 4

’I.§ _
‘\ 'vfi‘.
"‘ «.4

..__M ‘
3"":«3
‘ree

V:

100

With the exception of the pre-test, all instruments were adminis-
tered by the evaluators without the assistance of instructional person-
nel of the course. The pre-test was administered during the first
discussion period by the instructors, but they had set instructions to
provide the students and they had experience administering placebo
exams previous to this instance. All other instruments not a part of
the normal course procedure were handled by the evaluative staff
either by directly entering the discussion section and administering the
instruments (such as in the case of the Eysenck Scales and the Learn-
ing Set scale) or were distributed at the entrances to the lecture rooms.
In the case of instruments administered prior to lectures, all of the
students funneled through two or three points and were handed the
instrument, a machine-scoring pencil, and a machine scorable answer
sheet. After they had completed the instrument during the first five
minutes of class time, they retained them until after class when they
were collected as the student left the room. During the administration
of the first two instruments at lecture sessions, instructions were pro-
vided verbally as well as in written form. After these sessions, it was
assumed that the students could follow just the written instructions and
procedure. Each instrument included complete written instructions.

Due to the large number of evaluative activities and in order to
not disturb the normal functioning of the course any more than abso-
lutely necessary, the administration of instruments took place at

different periods of the course. These periods have been described

G'...‘.

101
previously as pre, mid, and post, but the exact timing of evaluative

activities and essential course activities is as follows:

March 25 randomization of students into discussion sections.

March 27 first day of class; pre-course assessment including
Pre-Course Motivation, A - H Test Anxiety
Scale, aspiration-expectation variables, course-
specific attitude variables, past performance
variables, personal and educational background
data.

March 28 first discussion section; Pre-Test and Test
Anxiety 1.

April 11 Eysenck Personality Scales and Learning Set.

April 25 Mid-Term Exam and Test Anxiety 2.

May 1 Mid-term assessment including aspiration-
expectation variables, course-specific attitude
variables, attitude toward mid-term.

May 6 instructor evaluation instruments distributed.

May 7 common student course project distributed.

May 23 - 28 student course project collected and ranked.

May 27 Post-Course Motivation.

May 31 Attitude Toward Instructor and aspiration-
expectation variables.

June 3 Final Exam, Text Anxiety 3, course-specific
variables, attitude toward final exam, attitude
toward evaluation.

June 6 Makeup on Final Exam and evaluation i'nstrurnents.

Because of the extensive number of instruments and the desire

to make comparisons between administrations, students, and sections,

the students were requested to identify themselves on each instrument

.6

T . \
. ... ..
s . . . .2
s . p” ,, « .4.
e «.9. ... rt.

 

h u \ . .‘ x fil‘
\ K ‘Ht AN.»
W .e N .. ‘ A
x a .\ n‘ .4 ......u
A “ \‘ V

P»

fink

102

by means of their student identification number. As mentioned, the
students were guaranteed anonymity from everyone but the evaluation
staff with the further safeguard added that no compilation of data by
student number would be begun until after the course had been com-
pleted and the grades had been assigned. Data for the study was care-
fully maintained by time of day and discussion section until the course
was completed. Any data not bearing a student identification number,
or with a number corresponding to the master student identification
list was not included in the study. The control lists of students were
also checked against discussion section results on tests and projects
to insure the completeness of the data and accuracy of comparisons
between design factors. In all, less than 3 per cent of the total number
of students enrolled in the course were not included in the final data
rolls and this number not included also contained 13 foreign students
with possible language difficulties. The final number of students
utilized in the study was 972 out of a possible 998 students. However,
as previously mentioned, the number of students included in any given
administration varied and a special sample of students with almost
complete data (missing none or only one or two administrations) was
constructed and numbered 532.

After actual completion of the course, all data was coded from
scored response sheets, open-ended instruments, or grade-rank forms
to a central file organized by the time the course was offered, the dis-

cussion section, and then by student number. This data was punched

-..-‘

3

.~..

A..‘

"\

L“;

IL

pd.

.c

~ .P. u

 

end

I n...

103
onto standard data~processing cards. The remaining steps were com-
puted transformations on certain variables previously indicated, under
instrumentation, addition of certain instructor characteristics, and
addition of the College Qualifying Test scores.

Special attention had to be paid to the smaller group of students
who had been selected for having complete or almost complete data.
This group was sorted out of the entire group and carefully checked
for any missing pieces of data. For those with missing pieces of data,
the mean values for the entire group were punched into the blanks.
This approach guaranteed the least distortion of the data and a more
conservative approach to hypothesis testing with this group.

Most of the instruments were constructed so as to be machine-
scorable. Machine scoring was accomplished by the scoring office of
the University's division of Evaluation Services. This service provided
not only scored answer sheets, but also item analysis, summaries of
the data, and programs by which to add weights to the responses on
instruments which called for this (such as the Alpert-Haber Test Anxiety
Scale). All data not machine-scorable was transposed directly from
the instruments to the central data files. Most of this data was plotted
according to set codes by a small staff carefully trained in this work.
All coding was carefully checked.

All data were first analyzed by a computer program which

allows for missing data and provides means, standard deviations,

104
numbers, variance, skewness, kurtosis, cross-products, and corre-
lations. 24 In addition, all data was processed by a simple program
which provides frequency counts for each variable by response cate-
gory. 25 These two programs were used across all breakdowns of the
data, including total, time-course-was-offered, sex, discussion sec-
tions, and certain cross-breaks such as high-low splits of the pre-
course and post-course motivation. On the smaller sample of students
with complete data, several prediction equations were computed using
a least squares multiple linear regression routine which establishes
the total multivariate prediction equation and then systematically de-
letes variables from the equation to form a new equation until certain
quitting criteria are reached.‘?'6 This program was used to predict
several of the outcome variables on the basis of entering characteristics
or on the basis of entering characteristics with the addition of course-
experience variables. All two-way analysis of variance summaries
included in this study were completed by hand using the partial summaries

provided by the missing data statistics program. For these analyses,

 

Z4Rubel, 22. <_:i_t.

25Larry Thiel and Linda Patrick, Percount: Technical Report
No. 18, mimeographed material, Michigan State University, Computer
Institute for Social Science Research, East Lansing, Mich. , May, 1968.

26Mary E. Raffer and William L. Ruble, Stepwise Deletion of
Variables from a Least Squares Equation: Stat Series Description No.
8, mimeographed material, Michigan State University Computer Center,
East Lansing, Mich. , Jan. , 1968.

 

 

 

105

the reader is referred to Hays' discussion on analysis of variance with
fixed effects. 27

To aid in the interpretation of results, the omega, squared
index was calculated on all significant analysis of variance results to
Provide some estimate of the degree of importance of the significant
difference. This index, shown asa)‘, was developed by Hays as a
means to reduce the relative uncertainty about the dependent variable
given a significant main effect on a factor(s) or an interaction. As Hays
describes this statistic, the valueU‘is " . . . the proportion of variance
in Y accounted for by X. ”28 More recently, the value of this statistic
has been called into question by Glass and Hakstian on the basis that
fixed effects cannot either logically or statistically be used to predict
relationships. 29 However, their argument is concerned with using
the index which they agree is correctly calculated, as a means of pre-
diction while the use of the index in this study was only to add further
description by way of showing the proportion of variance attributable
to the observed differences between levels of a factor on a given vari-

able. Because this was an evaluation study rather than an experimental

 

27Williarn L. Hays, Statistics for Psychologists (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), pp. 387-406.

 

28mm. p. 325.

29Gene V. Glass and A. Ralph Hakstian, ”Measures of Associa-
tion in Comparative Experiments: Their Development and Interpretation, "
American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3, May, 1968,
pp. 403-13.

 

 

... ._

I...
V- .-

 

106
study with all of the latter's concommitant controls, it seemed appro-
priate to provide as much explanation to the significance of results as
possible.

All other data used in this study was gathered, scored, and
analyzed by hand. This includes the instructor data and the assess-
ment of open-ended questions, or the content analysis of reports and
documents. Although the Computing Center, the Office of Institutional
Research and the Computer Institute for Social Science Research all
provided services and invaluable consultation, all decisions and re-
sponsibility for any aspect of the study were attributable to the two
primary evaluators. The documentation used to support certain points
or develop certain arguments came from the School of Teacher Educa-
tion, the Provost's office, and the Department of Counseling, Personnel

Services and Educational Psychology.

 

17'.

4v“,

5

 

‘
v

 

.‘p

-
.
w
.5

 

v,"
‘i

p;

 

 

Chapter IV

RESULTS AND DOCUMENTATION

In this chapter, the data and documentation will be presented,
interpreted, and discussed as it pertains to the individual study ques-
tions previously stated at the end of Chapter II. The questions will be
considered in the order of their original presentation. Due to the large
amounts of data in terms of variables, numbers of respondents, factors
of analysis, and varieties of supportive documentation included in this
study, only summary presentations will be included in the text, but
appropriate references to complete data or documentation sources, in-
cluding those contained in the appendices will be indicated. In this
chapter, each question will be considered independently although any
given source of data or documentation might pertain to more than one
question. In Chapter V, the results will be combined and interpreted
with regard to the central evaluative questions of course reliability and
validity.

The first four study questions all involve the analysis of student
variables. As indicated in Chapter III, the most important considera-
tion affecting the generalization and interpretation of results observed
on any given student variable is the number of observations included
in the measurement. Measurements taken during the initial class
periods and measurements related to course performance or grades

107

alts-i.
.fi.
««..
C3 us
.. ~b
p... .
o-...

r'--

 

.‘ ,\ e o is
«d a..\ \ .C .‘ VA
«Iv ml. q «-
s.\» .‘o e h a .. n . . flu
h .MJ .3 .1 Pk .

108
included virtually the entire student group; measurements taken during
other class periods throughout the term had some important differences
in the number of students responding to any given instrument. The
number of students responding to each instrument is included in
Appendix C and Appendix D by total, sex, time-of-day, and discussion
section. The differential numbers were primarily due to attendance
differences rather than failure of students to respond to the instruments,
and therefore can be considered as an indicator of attendance over time
and across the various divisions of the course.

Table IV-l shows both the base number of students by discussion
section, time-of—day, and totals and the proportion of students respond-
ing according to these same units at various points in time as represented
by certain important continuing measurements. The base numbers, as
shown on Table IV-l, were determined by the criteria of receiving a
final grade in the course. The total number of students enrolled in the
course after the initial week of drops and adds was 999 while the num-
ber of students receiving a final grade was 972. The difference between
these two figures is attributable to a small number of students who
dropped the course later in the term with a passing level of performance
and a decision to not include foreign students with language difficulties
who received considerably different treatment.

As shown on Table IV-l, there are observable and important
differences in the proportion of students responding to the respective

measurements both by class totals and across discussion sections.

.II) II,IIII

5.. LT. 12..--.- --. .-
e e at. .2... C e 2... :i.

.x.‘ .~ \ V...‘ \x...‘ V<x~ ‘. K ”V «MK
..2 : ... e. a a S < - - ,1
.x . ..- i 5‘. .... ....K e . . ...~.~ ,.. L. \\

- x. 5

Fe m.. 3.1

51.x tun... \ C. x e ...rh .. C a.» ......N s e 3.0
.\..._

...x.~ . \. T..~ up

109

mampoe paw mmmumonmsfle .GOHpomm QOHmmSUmHQ mp pmasopo mpsmESmecH pmpomamm op
mQHUCOQmom mpcmpSHm mo sowppomopm pom mUSpm cw UmpsaosH mpcmpSQm mo Lmnssz Hau>H magma

 

 

mpm. mm. om. om. amp mm. pm. pm. mm. pr09 .

mpm. pm. mm. Hm. oo.H mm. mm. mm. mm. 2m m Hemp m cOHpmpeompm mm pmpsoo
ppm. oo.H mm. mm. mm. pm. oo.H em. mm. 2p

Hmp. pp. mp. oe. me. me. pp. on. mp. Hmpoe
mmp. Hp. me. mp. me. He. pp. pm. Np. 2m N Hmpp m cOHpepmeeem we emppoo
mmp. mp. pm. me. pe. pe. mp. pp. pp. 2p

msm. mm. pm. pm. Hm. om. Hm. mm. mm. Hepoe

mmm. mm. mm. mm. mm. He. mm. om. mm. 2m H Hmpv H eOHpeemepee we pmesoo
5mm. pm. pm. pm. Hm. mm. om. mm. mm. Sp

mpm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. pm. proe

Hpm. om. mm. Hm. mm. mm. pm. pm. Hm. 2e H HHmp ppm meHepeeH
ppm. mm. pm. pm. pm. pm. mm. Hm. mm. Sp

ppp. mm. Hm. mp. Hp. mp. pm. mm. Hm. Hmpoe

map. pm. pm. mm. mm. Np. pm. pp. mm. 2e m Hemp p9 ppezoe epspHpep
mmp. mp. pp. mp. mp. pp. mm. mp. mp. 2p

mmm. mp. mm. mp. mm. Np. mp. mm. up. Hepoe

Hmp. mm. pm. pm. Hm. mm. mm. mm. Hm. 2m m Hemp epserpp empsoo-pmom
mmm. mm. mp. om. mm. mm. mm. mm. mp. 2p

ope. up. mp. pe. mp. Hm. on. mp. mp. Hepoe

HHe. mm. mm. me. mm. mm. pp. Hp. op. 2e H Hpmp Hmpoe - Boo
0mm. mp. pm. me. mp. mm. pm. me. mp. Sp

«mm. mm. mm. pm. mm. mm. mm. mm. pm. Hmpoe

mmm. mm. pm. me. mm. He. pm. pm. mm. 2e H Hmmp pmeeepp-peHom-ppepu
mum. mm. mm. Hm. pm. pm. om. Ho. pm. 2p

Hmm. Hm. Hm. pm. me. pm. mm. mm. pm. Hepoe

ems. me. mm. mm. me. me. mm. pk. mm. 2e H App pmee-ppe
5mm. om. pm. Hm. pm. pm. om. pm. pm. zp

mmm mm mp Op mp pp wp mm pp pr09 .

mam pm pm mm mm mm mm Hm em 2e m HHV He ppem pmmmp ppeeo emppoo
E mm em R mm pm OH R on e:

...l. i ‘.|'|i ...

Hmpoe m m, p w p m m:.. H mmppo meme m mHmpHmp>

eempp me e . emzH

 

 

 

 

 

....x... ~ .H ~

Q Mv¢¢o\s IULFN

...» uitffi ~e0rxv

_\1\ ..\.~\.\n

llO

 

 

 

 

Homsswpcoov “Hn>H mHan

mpm.oo.H pm. mm. pm. Nm. pm. mm. mm.Hmpoe

mpm.oo.Hoo.H mm.oo.H mm. pm. pm. pm. 2m m Homo m eOHpepmeepm we emppoo

ppm.oo.H mm. Nm. mm. mm. mm. pm. pm. 2p

Hmp. mp. mp. pp. pm. mp. mm. mm. mp.Hmpoe

mmp. mm. pp. Hp. om. pp. pm. mp. Nm. 2m N Hmpp N COHpepmmppm mm mp.38

mmp. pm. mp. Hm. mm. pm. mm. mp. mm. 2p

mom. mm. mm. pm. mm. mm. Hm. pm. Hm.Hmpom

mmm. mm. mm. pm. mm. pm. pm. Nm. Nm. 2m H Hmpp H eOHpmpmmppm mm empsoo

mmm. pm.oo.H Nm. pm. Nm. pm..om. Hm. 2p

mpm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. om. mm.Hmpoe

Hpm. mm. mm. pm. mm. om. mm. pm. pm. 2m H HHmp ppm meHepepH

ppm. Hm. Nm. Hm. mm. pm. mm. mm. pm. zp

ppp. mp. mm. mp. mm. mm. Np. mm. om.Hmpoe

mmp. Nm. Hp. mm. Np. pm. pp. pp. pm. 2m m Homo pm opezoe ppppprp

mmp. mp. mm. op. mp. pm» Hp. pm. pp. 2p

mNm. mm. mm. mm. Hp. pm. mp. mp. mm.Hmpoe

Hmp. Hp. mm. mp. pp. pp. Nm. pm. pm. 2m m Hva epspprp mmpsoo-pmom

mmm. mp. op. op. pm. mp. mp. pm. om. 2p

mmm. Hm. Hm. om. mm. om. pm. pm. mp.Hmpoe

opm. pp. mm. mm. mm. pm. mp. Nm. pp. 2m H Hpr Hmpoe . Boo

mmm. mm. mm. pm. mm. mm. om. om. mm. 2p

mmm. Hm. om. Hm. mm. mm. mm. Hm. om.Hepoe

mNm. mm. mm. pm. Hm. pm. Nm. om. Nm. 2m H HmNp emepeep-peHom-eompo

mom. mm..mm. pm. mm. Nm. pm. Nm. mm. 24

Hmm. mm. Hm. om. Hm. Nm. mm. mm. pm.Hmpom

mmm. om. mm. we. mm. pp. Nm..om. pm. 2m

mmm. mm. pm. m. mm. om. mm. pm. mm. 2p H App pmee-eem

Nmm. pmimm mm mp op Hp op Hp Hepoe

mmm HN pN HN pN mN mN mN mN em -

mmm mm mm mm mm mm pm mm pm 2p m HHV He pmmm emmmp pompo emppoo
Hmpoe pH pH pH mH NH HH oH m mmpHo mmme %: mHmpHmp>
pempo it,mmoeoomemzH

 

O Y EL C E EX: fl QC wk

.....H3. HE. R
vaQrHC ELQEIU NE

.\~./n| an.v0 Iolnk

onwopu tuna-L \i~muo Haw. x

tr»-.. on.u.-- v~T~Uo Gafuc Xi ‘1 aweszuU arravapflqu
.. (pail... .-..4. . r (11.3.. I....M:....-..I . ... . .JHYH—WJMI .... L... I I - be... .x.1. i... ..-. .. .. .M....+I|| - )N \Nyl - - (xii .II n II: I - ,..L.,s.|~l_\~l..~.?|\a

lll

. v mocmmpm> CH coaposomm Hmsomppomohm

ocm Amy moocopmmmmo mo Hm>mH mp Hmnmnopm wsmzogm mmHDMHpm> pamoSQm so

compompmpsm Amone pom whopomm mp mpstom mospmpm> mo mHmmHmc< Mo mmeESm "NI>H mapme

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.m.s poo. mo. .m.: N mm mwmho>mupsmomnmompo
.m.c .m.c No. OH. N mm m compmpomaxmusompwhmom<
moo. .m.: .m.s mHo. mo. x HN N compmpomQKMnnompmpHmmm
.m.s poo. mo. .m.: N om H sompmpomQXMusompmpmmm<
.m.c .m.: mmo. Hoo. x OH Hmpoe I: mem dem@
.m.s .m.: mHo. mmo. x m mEmpH
ommaam< In Eme Hanan
.m.s poo. OH. Nmo. Hoo. N m mEmpH HHmomm nu wam HmsHm
mmo. Hoo. .m.c pNo. Ho. N m mem Ehmeuomz
.m.c Ho. Hoo. .m.: N p pmmenmmm
.m.s .m.c pmH. Hoo. x m xsmm pommOMm mmpdoo
.m.: .m.: omo. Hoo. x p momho poposhpmsH
NHo. mo. .m.s mNo. Ho. N m mompo smxm Hmcmm
.m.s .m.: mHo. Ho. x N momho Epweuomz
.m.: .m.: mmo. Hoo. x H mowuo omhdoo
I. N3 m (Nm..e pin N3 ml m N .iIHaI Hmm I SEE:
20H o<mm92H M<oumonmzHe meHopmemZH ZOHB<mBmH2H2o<

13

03...:
0:..—
u.

’5

12~a~nt>

u c-FIII..\

max. 5 4 35 mp 223.;

ofitp

. w a... 3’5

..er fikmwx v, w- 6.2.;

...\-N \r..\ \ \ IS-.....

112

'1'. It- I‘ II. I.“ ‘.-.7I‘7i II II 1.1" - ii I -.Illl‘. t- I 1‘; -

Hooschcoov

 

”N|>H mHQmB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.m.c moo. OH. .m.: iiIisIIOw mlmmwmmnmmmpm-mqlfimkmqq
.m.c .m.c mNO. mNo. x mp N sOHpmpmmmnm mo mmpsoo
.m.: moo. HO. .m.: mp m mmomgm mo mocmpHOQEH
.m.: poo. HO. .m.: x Np H wsH
ugomoe pom mpHHHpmpHSm
.m.: .m.s No. HO. N mm mHmom mHH Hosmmmm
.m.n .m.s .m.c x mm mHmom
EmHoHpopsmz Hocmmmm
NHO. HO. poo. mo. .m.c H pm onom
QOHmHo>mexm Hocom>m
.m.c .m.: .m.c N mm meo@ mumesp mn<
NHo. mo. .m.e mNo. Ho. H Hm pmpe mcheepH
No. mo. . .m.s NNH. Hoo. Om HopoShuw
uaH opmzoe modepp<
.m.: mmo. OH. .m.s om modepp< mmHSOOIpmom
.m.: .m.: .m.s H mm modepp< monoconmum
.m.: .m.: .m.s H mm wCHHHopsm How sommmm
.m.p .m.e NHo. mNo. H pN Hmpom . pmpe mchmHHeso
.m.s .w.s .m.q H mm m>HpmpHpCmdo
- pmpe meHmHHHmpo
.m.e .m.p NHo. oH. H pN Hmppp> . peep mpHmmHHmpo
II. N3.:, m. .uoHu Aw. mH .w. .ImrN iaiH Hmp. mHmpHmp>
ZOHBOHmmBZH HposmonmzHe mmoeoommmZH 2©He<memHszo<

.n'l.

 

 

113
Since there are potentially conflicting interpretations to these differences
and no empirical evidence to support any given interpretation, it can
only be stated that attendance generally declined over time in the
course, and that the declining attendance was differentially represented
across discussion sections. However, these differences will be dis-
cussed speculatively in the summarization sections.

Table IV-2 summarizes the results of complex analysis of
variance on all student variables used to answer study questions one
through three. The results are displayed by level of probability (p) of
observed differences as determined by the ”f" test, and by 09‘ which
represents the proportional reduction in variance on the respective,
significant variable results attributable to the observed differences
between factor levels or the interaction of factors. The variables are
presented by approximate time of administration (pre, mid, and post),
and by the factors (discussion section TA and time-of-day) and their
interaction. Summary tables including means by cells, factor levels,
and total, and the analysis of variance summary tables, are shown in
Appendix G in similar order to the presentation of variables in Table
IV-2.

QUESTION 1: Were there significant differences attributable to the

discussion section (TA) factor on student entering-
course variables?

 

As shown on Table IV-2, there were no significant differences

attributable to the discussion section (TA) factor on any of the measurements

114
taken during the first two class periods (1. e. , Pre-test, Grade-Point—
Average, Aspiration-Expectation 1, Reason for Enrolling, Pre-Course
Attitude, A-H Anxiety Scale, or any of the course specific attitudes).
These variables represent the closest test of whether the initial ran-
domization was successful and the analysis of variance results indicate
that at the beginning of the course, statistical equivalency between dis-
cussion sections could be assumed.

The question of statistical equivalency as an assumption at con-
tinuing points of time during the course is to some degree confounded
(see Table IV-2). Measurements conducted approximately two weeks
later when analyzed resulted in significant main effects on the discus-
sion section (TA) factor for the student Learning Set, (p< . 01) and the
Eysenck Lie Scale (p< . 01). The results of analysis on the student
Learning Set are further confounded by a significant interaction (p<. 05).
There are two potential explanations for these results which because of
PreViOusly mentioned limitations could not be tested directly. First,
it is Possible that the equivalency between discussion sections was
upset due to students dropping or adding the course during the first two
Weeks}, or that randomization failed to establish equivalency in relation
to these variables in the first place. Second, the results may be due to
attendance factors, early course treatment, or both. As shown on
Table IV-l less students were in attendance on the da th -

, y ese measure
ments were taken than during the initial two days of class (those with

da
ta for both measurement periods numbered about 726 as compared

L ___

 

115
to 850 students tested the first two days).

In addition to the above confounding results, statistically signifi-
cant differences were also observed in the analysis of variance results on
the College Qualifying Tests (CQT's). There was a significant difference
(P < . 10) between discussion sections on the verbal portion of the CQT‘s
and on the total CQT score (p<. 025). These results may also support an
hypothesis of difference between discussion sections. However, University
records only included CQT results for 719 of the students and when these
results were crossed with the measurements of the first two days of the
Course this number was reduced to approximately 650. It is even more
likely that these results are spurious on the basis of decreased numbers

than the results pertaining to the Learning Set and the Eysenck Lie Scale.
Because the question of statistical equivalency is confounded,
the accuracy of later interpretations of significant results depends
1argely on the degree to which trends and other sources of supporting
e‘ridence can be established. In any event, all of the remaining discus-
Si011$ pertaining to the data must be discussed in light of potential de-
IDelldency on the three significant differences of the three entering

variables, the most important of which are the Learning Set and the

CQT - Total score.

Qt-TE-STION 2: What was the effect on the two factors-~discussion sec-
tion (TA) and time-of—day--of continuing measures?

There was no feasible way by which the random selection of

s
tudents into the two different hours of the day the course was offered

116

(time-of—day factor) could be accomplished. Because of the student

self-selection into the time-of—day factor, it was necessary to con-
sider the analysis of variance results pertaining to the continuing mea-
sures as two potentially separate questions both of which attempt to get
at the relative effect of the discussion section (TA) factor over time:

(1) where initial significant differences occurred on the

time-of—day factor; and,
(2) where no initial differences occurred on the time-of—day
factor.

In addition, it was necessary to look at the time-of—day factor indepen-
dently of the discussion section (TA) factor to attempt to answer the
question of equivalency of treatment according to what hour a student
ChOSe to take the course. However, any interpretation to this question
would be tenuous at best due to the failure to control randomly the choice
of hour.

Based upon the assumption of initial equivalency of discussion
Sections within each of the two fixed levels of the time-of-day factor,
the question of equivalent results of discussion section (TA) treatment
was considered according to trends across continuing measures both
by level of significance (p) and proportion of variance (9,) accounted
for by differences between levels (discussion sections). The continuing
1“r‘teasures included exams, measures of aspiration-expectation, and
attitudes. The results of analysis are shown on Table IV-Z.

There were no significant differences on the discussion section

(
TA) factor of the course Pre-Test. A significant difference was

m

117
observed on the Pre-Test attributable to the time-of—day factor (p< . 001).
On the Mid-Term Exam, there was a main effect (p<. 01) on the dis-
cussion section (TA) factor and a significant interaction (p‘. 001).
There was a significant main effect (p< . 001) on the Final Exam -
Total attributable to the discussion section factor and there were also
main effects on the two different parts of the final exam. A main effect
(P< . 10) was also observed on the time-of-day factor for the Recall
section of the Final Exam. The proportion of variance attributable to
differences between factor levels increases over the three measurements
on the discussion section (TA) factor and decreases on the time-of-day
factor.

These results may be interpreted as an increasing effect of
diffEll-ences between the discussion sections. Besides the increasing
trend of level of significant differences, the movement from a signifi-
cant main effect on the time-of-day factor to a significant interaction
and a significant main effect attributable to the discussion section
factor on the mid-measurement to only a significant main effect
attributable to the discussion section factor on the Final Exam -Total
VVOI11d indicate that the differences between the discussion sections in
te r1113 of treatment of students do make a difference on the students'
eJié‘i-l'nination performance. The possibility that the potential confound-
ing of the results is due to real differences between discussion sections
on the CQT indices seems unlikely when the trend in proportion of

v
a. . a a I u a o
rlance accounted for by the d1fferences 1n discussmn sections is

118

considered. If this were a confounding effect, it should appear con-

sistently, but as observed, the proportion of variance accounted for
by differences in the discussion sections increases rather than re-
maining constant between Mid-Exam and Final Exam. It is also pos-
sible that potentially real differences in the discussion sections on the
Stude nt Learning Set might confound these observed results, but this

t00 seems unlikely. The Learning Set attempts to measure the stu-
dent' s preference toward rote-recall learning and problem-applied
leaI‘ning. A real difference was observed on the initial time-of—day
fa“Itor and on recall items (similar to the pre-test items) on the Final
EKG—In, a significant main effect remains although it does not account
for quite as large a percentage of the variance. In both cases, an
e){arnination of the means (See Appendix G) shows the PM section of
the course higher.

The results on exam performance are similar to the results
of the continuing measurement of student Aspiration-Expectation. On
the se measurements the analysis of variance results include a main
effe ct (p<. 05) on the initial time-of-day factor and no significant
differences attributable to the discussion section (TA) factor. At mid-
Course, the results include a significant main effect (p <. 05) on the
dis cussion section factor and interaction EffeCt (P< - 15) WhiCh although
not significant showed the developing trend. A main effect (p<. 10)

was also observed on the discussion section (TA) factor on the final

A C O I
S131ration-Expectation measurement. On these measurements, there

119

was an increase, although slight, in the proportion of variance accounted
for by differences in the discussion sections.

The analysis of grade (reward) results also indicates the in-
creasing trend attributable to the discussion sections on both the level
of significance (p.<. 01 to . 001) and the proportion of variance accounted
for by the differences between discussion sections (69‘: . 017 to . 038).
In this case, initial differences observed on the time-of—day factor for
other performance measurements probably are reflected in the signifi-
Cant interaction (p< . 05) on the Final Exam grade.

The results on continuing attitude measurements are not as clear.
There is no difference attributable to either factor on Pre-Course Atti-
tude, but there is a significant difference on the Post-Course Attitude
attributable to the time-of—day factor (p< . 10). In comparing the means
C()I‘I'esponding to these results (see Appendix G) the PM section of the
Q0I..1.1'se, which also had significantly higher means on the other entering
Characteristics mentioned previously, had a lower Post-Course Attitude
than the AM section. It is possible that the students' attitudes toward
the entire course may have been affected by subtle changing of perform-
ance results and the corresponding subtle change in level of Aspiration-
I:J‘Pectation, thus resulting in a lower attitude for those with slightly
bet-ter ability. This explanation may also be the case with regard to
the specific final attitudes toward the Importance of Theory and the
ColSlrse as Preparation. This interpretation, although tenuous, is

1111131'oved by the results of the attitude toward the Course as Preparation

120

over continuing measures. There were no initial differences on this
measure attributable to either of the two factors. However, on the
mid-measurement, there was a significant difference attributable to
the discussion section (TA) factor and on the final measurement, there
was a significant difference attributable to the time-of-day factor. In
this case, as in the case of Importance of Theory, the PM mean was
lower than the AM mean (see Appendix G). It is possible that after no
initial differences in entering attitude, but initial differences in enter-
ing performance and Aspiration-Expectation, that the reflection of
diminishing initial differences was first seen as related to the discus-
Sign sections, but with continuing experience was finally attributed to
the course in general.

There were no differences on later measurements attributable
to either factor on attitude toward Commitment to Enter Profession or
SL1itability for Teaching which may indicate that the factors had no effect
on these attitudes 23533. Rather the commitment of students to teach
and their respective suitability for teaching as a career were indepen-
de ntly determined, and remained relatively uneffected by the course.
This seems an appropriate interpretation particularly when it was ob-
Served that this attitude increased over the time of the course, but the

attitude toward the course as preparation and the course's content de-

Cre ased over time in the course (see Appendix C).

121

QUESTION 3: Were there significant differences attributable to the
discussion section (TA) factor on:

 

a. reward (grade) variables with special attention
placed on those variables with potential systematic

TA variance
b. outcome test performance variables

c. instructor rankings of common student course
project performances

d. outcome level of EXpectation-Aspiration variables
e. student attitude toward discussion section and TA
f. student post-course attitude variables?
What this question asks, irrespective of anything else, is the
degree to which the discussion sections and respectively the TA's had
a differential effect on student course outcomes. The order by which
the Specific outcome areas are listed above reflects the area's impor-
tanCe to the ideal of "provision for student opportunity. ” How a student
perc:eives himself as a result of his performance and how he perceives
the CC>l:l.rse as fairly treating him in respect to other students is assumed
to be critical to the student's future involvement with a program and
his college experience in general. These performances and reward
c Onditions should then be reflected in the student's level of Aspiration-
BxpeCtation and his various attitudes.
As the results summarized on Table IV-2 indicate, there were
Significant main effects attributable to the discussion section (TA) fac-
tor 0n all of the reward (grade) variables. While exam performance

he course obviously contributed to the grade results, and these

122
exarr1 performance results will be discussed next, differences in exam
performance attributable to the discussion sections must be interpreted

more conservatively with regard to the direct effect of the TA than the
reward results. This is due to the freedom allowed the TA‘s by the

cour se administration in the determination of student grades. The

TA' 8 effect in this regard takes two forms. First, the TA, while not

determining the grade result for examination performance, did main-
tain the student record and so was aware of student performance other

than in the discussion section. Because the TA was solely responsible

for forty per cent of the student's course grade even though this grade
Was supposed to reflect only discussion section performance, the TA

POtentially could have used this grade to adjust the student's course

grade to the level he thought appropriate. It would be difficult to

im agine this record-keeping responsibility, in combination with the
grading responsibility, not to some degree pre-conditioning the TA's
determination of discussion section grade. Second, as will be indi-
Gated more clearly later, there was very little restriction placed upon
the TA as to both the performances upon which the discussion section
grade should be based and the level of grading standard the TA should

(1) the determina-

use These freedoms allow for two potential effects:

1:“
Ion of discussion section grade may be based upon widely diverse
Q .
rlteI‘ia across the respective sections, and (2) the relative levels of

r . . . . .
g a’dlng used across the respective sections may result in systematic

bi .
as 1n the discussion section grade, the student's chances for a given

123

Hmpm u so mpHSmom mosppr> mo mHmmHmc< pep .mHmpoe pom .mmo
umoamsHB .Hpov GOHpopm cOHmmoomHo mp memos momho pogoSLQmCH “mu>H oHme

 

 

 

mpm omm.mNp Hmpop

mop. pmm mmN.omm mpepmppm ersz

.m.e ..... pmp. mH mmm.p eOHpoepppeH
Hoo. mom.m mmp.m mH mmH.Nm mpopooepmcH
.m.e ----- omo. H omo. peep

m. m mohpsom smoE mo mokmmmm Mo 85ml. meadow
oHQme mmwsszm ooCmem> mo mHmmem<

pmm.m u coma mmpsoo MHm.m u cmmz Em Nmm.m u see: 2< mHmpoe
[Nopwm. mow.m. NOH.m mmm.m. mmm.m pmm.m OwNHWI,.ipwm.ml Hmpoe
.pmsH

 

Hmm.m me.m mom.m Nmm.m omw.m ©mp.m 00w.m oom.m Em

mmp.m pmm.m HHN.m mpm.m oom.m pom.m pHm.m Nmm.m E<
pH nH pH OH NH HH OH 0
whoposppmsH

 

 

 

HmN.p .mpmqm ommmw ppN.m me.m mpm.m. mpm.m HNm.m , Hepee
.pmsH

mp3 :3 mm: mp3 to? 18mm tmmmm spa Hm
lip? w. rmwk: EL.

)wlfllpvaé MO NHQEESW I It 1.111111

5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124
grade fluctuating on the basis of which section he happens to draw.

The analysis of variance results indicate that there were

systematic differences in the Instructor Grade. In addition to main

effect of discussion section (TA) factor on discussion section grade
(p< . 001), a considerable proportion of the variance attributable to
differences between discussion sections (“3" = . 070) is also the case.
In comparing the means occurring in the different discussion sections
(see Table IV-3), it can be seen that there is more than one entire
grade difference between the lowest TA mean (3. 102) and the highest
TA rnean (4.291). If the differences are due to different actual levels
0f performance rather than systematic grading differences of the TA's,
the result in terms of fairness to students is the same. Because of the
Col'relational results presented in Chapter III which show that the in-
Structor grade has little consistent relationship to other measures of
Student ability or performance, the best interpretation of the observed
diffeI‘ences between TA's grades is probably systematic bias in grading
level contributing most of the difference with some small part being
determined by differences in choice of performances judged. In any
event, both reasons probably play a part in the results.

The potential confounding effects of CQT scores and Student
Le arning Set would seem to make no difference with regard to instructor
grade results. There is virtually no correlation between the instructor

I:
g ade and either of these two variables. Because there are low but

si -
gnlficant correlations between the CQT - Total, the Learning Set,

125
and measures of performance, this would also support the interpreta-
tion of different grading levels as the major contributer to TA variance.
A student's performance on exams is obviously his own in the

sense that it is his judgment or memory that results in the determina-

tion of how well he does on the exams. However, under the course

”system" the discussion section and the TA are responsible for develop-
ing clarity and relevance to the student over material covered in the
course. If it can be assumed that there were: (1) no important dif-
ferences between discussion sections, and (2) equivalency of the student

composite across the discussion sections, then there should be no sig-

nificant difference attributable to discussion sections and TA's on
eKarriination results. However, the results of analysis of variance
(see Table IV-2) support a null hypothesis of difference. Although the
res ults are confounded by potential differences in two student attributes--
CQT ' s and Learning Set--the significant main effect attributable to dis-
Cus Sion section (TA) factor seems to be a real effect based upon the
diSCussion of trends in the previous question. The main effect (p<

' 001) attributable to the discussion section (TA) factor on the recall
items of the Final Exam is in addition to a main effect (p< . 10) attri-
but able to the time-of-day factor. This indicates that the discussion
Section effect was in addition to differences which occurred across the
time-of-day factor on entering pre-test results. On the Final Exam
apI31ied items which were less appropriate for analysis of variance

aged upon the highly leptokurtic configuration of the measurement,

126

there is also a significant main effect attributable to the discussion

section (TA) factor (p< . 025). These items, which asked the student

to make application of the content to educational settings were sup-

posedly based upon the type of experience the student would receive

in the discussion section. These results could be interpreted as an

indication that the students either did not receive the same application
BXperience in the discussion section or perhaps received essentially

the same experience but with differential degrees of instructional

effectiveness. Because of the leptokurtic nature of the measurement,

it would seem more likely that the results were truly a discussion sec-

tion (TA) effect rather than the result of confounding due to other poten-

tial differences. There is, however, a significant correlation between

the CQT-Total and both the Final ExaIn-Total (r = . 408) and Final-Exam-
Applied (r = .405).

The interpretation that students did receive systematic differ-
enCes in level of grading attributable to the discussion section (TA factor
is also supported by the results of instructor ranking of common course
project. There was a significant main effect attributable to the TA's
(p< . 001) as shown on Table IV-Z. In this case, the instructors were
reQUested to rank each student's performance according to set, closely
defined criteria. The results for each instructor conformed to the
expected normal curve of performances (see Appendix D) but there were
8 igIlificant differences between the level of individual TA curves. In

th-
18 Case, the proportion of variance attributable to TA's was higher

127
(w‘ = . 136) than the proportion on the instructor or discussion section
grade (6? = . 070). Although the instructors could not rank to criteria
reliably (discussed under the next question), these results still demon-
strate the relative differences in level of instructor grading irrespective

of criteria. Student performance on this course project might be slightly

related to student Learning Set since the project called upon the student
to integrate certain content to resolve a given problem. However, there
is no correlation between the ranking and the Learning Set although this

may be due to the instructor rankings rather than the true lack of relation-

ship between student performance and Learning Set. This further supports

the interpretation of systematic differences attributable to the TA's.

There was a significant main effect attributable to the discussion
Section (TA) factor on the student level of expectation-aspiration (see
Table IV-Z). These results were discussed quite fully under Question 2
and that discussion applies at this point also. Based upon trends as well
as the above indicated main effect, it would seem that student level of
exPeCtation-aspiration was differentially affected by the TA's. While
the Se results potentially may be confounded by other entering observed
differences, the relationship between the level of aspiration-expectation
and the student grade-point average on which there were no entering
differences is considerably higher (r = .464) than on either the COT-
Tot a1 (r = . 303) or the Learning Set (r = . 131).

The results of analysis of student attitude toward discussion sec-

1:10
11 and TA are severely limited by the number of students measured

128

(n = 451 or 46.4 per cent). This measurement was conducted immedi-

ately prior to the last lecture session when it was expected most students

would attend. As shown in Table IV-Z, there was a significant main

effect attributable to the discussion section (TA) factor (p<. 001) and a

significant interaction (p<. 05). The TA's accounted for 12. 2 per cent

of the variance and the interaction accounted for l. 2 per cent of the

variance.

Despite the limitation of the number of students responding to the
instrument, these results must be considered important for reasons in
addition to the inferred difference in treatment as a result of the TA's.
It is germaine at this point to discuss internal item responses in order
to I'rlore clearly interpret the meaning of the significant difference attri-
but able to the TA's.

The items on this instrument (see Table IV-4) were primarily

ConCerned with performance characteristics of the TA's. However, re-

sponSes to the items potentially involved some variance attributable to
the TA popularity or personality factors rather than just an independent
as sessment of the teaching characteristics and quality of TA instruction.
Interpretation of general results which to this point generally establish
instructor differences in relation to student outcomes would seem to
Support this idea. In addition, of the 459 students responding to the
illstl‘lnnent, 110 students responded positively to all twenty-three ques-
tions. Since there is no correlation between the scores on the atti-

tu
de toward discussion section and TA and any of the other student outcome

129

ea ese eoapeam

coemmSUmHQ Upozoe oodpflpp< namedpm Mo mpHSmmm mammamc< EmpH new mEopH uen>H mapme

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no 5000. fimm new a NeochHQXm haopmdvmvml:0fipomw
coemmzowfle map Mo mm>wpomnpo map who:
mo mqu. Rem wa 0H chHmmSQmflu map one“ cowpoom map Mo
mumpsme mnp Ham same on pmamppm op Boom
popudhpmcw Gowpomm scammSomHn men can
mm Hams. Rmm Rob mm escapomm :oammSOmHU
knob 09 wswow hemcm maampmcmw 50% ewe
mm mwon. Ram mmo mm mmawgznpsoz moonmwhmmxm soapomm
:oemm50mwe 950% hmvfimcoo haammmme do» on
we ewmm. $em Rab m wmamflpmpms manpoma cam 9x69 map mo m20fippom
padowmmac map hmwhmao vcm psmEmHQQSm mpSO
teem: no scammdomfiv m.hopo:hpmsw 039 was
Ho cows. mom fimb b «mamflpmpme on» now 8mm
ufimdnpam cam pmopmpCH cm 50% Ce Haapmcfi
popodppmcw coapomm scammSomfln ado» can
mm moeo. Rmm Row J wamfipmpms
mmMSOo map wcflecmpmhmvsd CH do» mama
mpsmscwwmmm soapomm :oammSUmHv mzp ewe
om mfimw. mom mom a “amazes owmempmem m cw mummoeoe
Be 33.8me $.38 23 Breakage.”
fit: iii 1 .833me $303 58238 .sa 3N
cowumzfi :Ofipmampnoo mmpwmmflm mmpm< pmgammllllllslllll 1. ll. - .
IEHhomwQ Hmwhomwm psmohmm pcmohom EopH

mo XmUCH lucflom

II.-- P

 

 

COHDWmSG

 

‘l'll‘l'

 

 

nu.
..-

 

130

Leaeeaaeeae ue->H aaaee

as meow. esp saw as empapaepes asp eeeaeap
mpcoUSpm opp nonpozz app: cospooaoo on op
Boom popudhpmsp cowpooo cowmmdomfio p50» own

we mooo. map Rem mp aeoammsemae seepage op esaonweaaam
o mo wooofi no msowpmoSq pnoodpm om:
popudhpocw cowpooo :oammSoch ocp can

em memo. mop ewe m eaappas some
spam opp mo amopw Spam o o>on op Eoom
popodppmcp Cowpoom cepmodomfiv Mach ope

om wqoo. Row Row N weeppoom scammdomwo opp ca op op
50% Uopooaxo on pans mo oposo so» oxos
poposhpmcp cowpoom :oammSompu Ado» van

No meme. Ram ewe NH empaaaapee emaaoe as» me eoapeeapaae
Hooppoopa opoppocoeoe vco oawoondEo
popudhpmcp cowpoom :oamosoopu opp own

00 damp. wam Run 4H wvoxwo
soapmozc onp pozosm pooh cw mCOHpmosv
op wcpnsoamop ca popoSmecw oSp was

ac emoo. emm ese OH emeOHpmeae
weapozmeo ego oaoppopoe ownsoo opp

wcpcfioaaxo cw moadsoxo om: hao>ppoommo

popudppmaw soapooo scammdomfle ado» can

 

we some. Rum Raw ma «coameQmHo mmoao opoassppo haaoposom

popudhpmcw soapooo :owmmSomwn osp van

:OHpocH cowpoaoppoo oopwompa oopw< gonadz Jill“ COppmosa
nappoopm awesomfim pcoopom psoohom EopH

HO XmUGH lufiflom

~-..._.....l.»..--~..~:,_...._xx. . . (....dw.~;.._w< ..~,,.....,..-_~.:M.l..?_,l -
... ,—.-.uu»t-.b.- .u...o;-.ha§.~ ..u..b~

131

ma

om

em

mm

am

we

mm

wmom.

Odom.

mem.

Oboe.

NmOM.

mmmp.

beam.

Aooscppcoov

RNA

“comma

ewe

Rem

Rum

Rmm

ne->H

Hm

5H

ON

ma

ma

magma

wmflmop poadmop o co
cOHpoom scammSompo onp ocoppo do% own

mwcpnomop up oopmopopcp op op Boom
popospmew Cowpoom scammSompo 9:0» ope

wmQOHCpao mmopaxo op
mpcoUSpm owmpsooco popoShpmap ogp ppm

meowpoom :opmmdompo
p50» ca o>ppcoppo haaopocow so» opoz

«coppoom

cowmmSomHo ocp mp ooompw new oopoSHo>o
on made: do» So: cpoaaxo hapooao
poposppmsw coppoom coammdompo opp ope

meOHpmozo op mpozmco m.popo:hpm
nap onp ocopmpooss haaozms 50% ope

wmpcpoazop> mhozpo
oco mooop Boa op o>ppaoooh pooamo
popodppmcp soapoom copmmSompo opp nan

 

cowpoap coppoaoppoo oopmmmmm

leLomwm
Mo xoocH

Howpompm pcoomom psoonom

pseom

oohwe poszz

BopH

ll

Bowpmosw

 

C036:

.9 i.

I...

'4“
3“!-
it
u ..
~¢

e

CCU
u.~s.t‘<
S

'
entre‘

.
9ft,“
an
~v no V
3f "
° H
Lfl.
‘a

. .i
Va.

#1..

E

a:

C01

132
results, it is reasonable to assume that there is a confounding in the
total score between popularity and proficiency. When the rank-order
of the individual instructor means on this instrument were compared to
the rank-order distribution of perfect positive scores for each instruc-
tor, there was only one important exception between the two rank-orders.
In other words, the instructor with the highest mean score for the
entire instrument had the greatest number of perfect scores and this
correspondence continued through the list of instructors with the
instructor having the lowest mean score also having no perfect
scores. Interpreting this in relation to item analysis results would
indicate that the result of relative instructor popularity had the effect
of inflating the overall attitude toward performance estimates of the
more popular instructors and depressing the estimates of the less popu-
lar instructors.

In looking at the item results (see Table IV-4) the column
marked "Item Number" indicates the original position of the item on the
instrument. "Percent Agree” and ”Percent Disagree” indicate the per-
centage of student responses in the respective categories; any difference
between the sum of these two percentages and 100 per cent indicates
the percentage of students who omitted the item. The point-biserial
correlation is between the specific response choice and the total score
and is one indication of the particular item's ability to discriminate.

The “Index of Discrimination” is the more popular Flanagan ”r" which

133
estimates item-instrurnent correlation from the tails of the distribu-

l The items are included in Table IV-4 in a descending order by

tion.
“Percent Disagree. "

The results of the item analysis showed that almost all of the
students responding to the instrument indicated they attended class on
a ”regular" basis (92 per cent) and were ”attentive” in the discussion
section (87 per cent). Examination of the item results shows that there
was a trend in content of the items corresponding to the relative per
cent disagreeing with the item. The least percentage of students disagreed
with items which referred to their participation in the discussion sec-
tion, the TA's interest in the students, and the notion that discussion
took place in the discussion sections. A noticeably higher percentage
of students disagreed with items which made reference to the TA's
knowledge of content and its application, his ability to answer questions,
and his use of examples. The most disagreement with items occurred
in relation to questions about the TA's ability to employ teaching
strategies such as explaining objectives, stimulating discussion, pro-
viding practice experiences, and enabling the students to understand

course materials. Also occurring in this group of items with the high-

est percentage of disagreement were questions relating to student

1John C. Flanagan, ”General Considerations in the Selection of
Test Items and a Short Method of Estimating the Product-Moment Co-
efficient from Data at the Tails of the Distribution, ” Principles of Edu-
Lational and Psychological Measurement, William Mehrens and Robert
Ebel, eds., Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967, pp. 369-75.

 

EDO‘C‘S’ELI O

.... l. .
... ...,» «t
inc IM“. (3.

o .o- ',
33 .I‘..t‘.'l'€.¢

(3396'? Ctr:

134
enjoyment of discussion section and feelings of discussion section worth.
The highest percentage of students disagreed with the ability of the TA
to interrelate the materials and concepts in a ”systematic” manner
(39 per cent).

If, as indicated previously, the percentage of students agreeing
to items is artificially inflated due to popularity issues, then these
trends would be even more marked than the relative percentage figures
indicate. Irrespective of this, the results taken literally are important.
Not only are there significant differences between the student attitude
toward discussion section and TA, the TA's are ranked least highly
on items which directly pertain to their instructional ability, the areas
which critically affect both ”quality instruction" and ”provision for student
opportunity. " To rephrase the general interpretation of these results,
it could be said that the students who responded to this instrument and
who also indicated a high degree of attendance in and attention to the
discussion section felt that the TA's did discuss and encourage discussion,
felt less sure that the instructor had a grip on the content, and had
clear reservations about the TA's skills which underlie good teaching
and student opportunity. It is also possible that the student assessment
0f TA knowledge and understanding of content and materials is inflated
by the nature of the authority relationship between student and TA in
the discussion sections; this is in reference to Trow's notion that teach-
ing assistants by nature of their position tend to be ”iconoclastic" or

I'debunking. "

135

There were no significant differences attributable to the discus-
sion section (TA) factor on other student outcome attitudes, except as
discussed under Question 2. These attitudes include Post-Course
Attitude, and specific course objectives attitudes. As indicated under
Question 2, these instruments pertained to the entire course and while
there were some observed effects related to the results on these
instruments, they appeared broader than attributable to just discussion
section. The only exception, as previously mentioned, was the atti-
tude toward the ”Course as Preparation - 2" on which a significant
main effect attributable to the discussion section (TA) factor was
observed (p = . 025). This measurement took place shortly after the
Mid-Term Exam and may reflect an effect on student attitude by discus-
sion section differences related to Exam performance. However, there
is a significant correlation between this variable and both the Pre- and
Post-Course Attitude (r = . 31 and . 30) which may indicate that differ-
ences between the discussion sections did subtly contribute to attitude,
but the instrumentation was generally not sensitive enough to measure
the difference.
@ESTION 4: Were the TA's as a group able to achieve acceptable

reliability in ranking student performance to set
criteria of performance?

 

The common course project and the result of an estimate of
instructor ability to rank students to criteria is discussed at length in

Chapter 111. Based upon a randomly selected sample of students drawn

p . .
| Man ‘ I F,
lr‘J-‘n 66C to C

Relativelv

rams we:

pa

at: beta-e

'1-..

6‘. a: «G. :Ve

136

from each discussion section, the correlation between the TA ratings
of student performance and the ratings of a trained, independent rater
was r = . 309. The original purpose of this project was to provide a
reliable non-multiple-choice index of student ability to integrate and
resolve a problem related to the material and future teaching activities.
Relatively extensive criteria were provided each instructor upon which
ratings were to be based (see Appendix B). In order to avoid a con-
flict between the evaluative choice of criteria and the instructors'
evaluative decisions, the ratings determined by the instructors did not
have to be used in their calculation of student grades. Because the
correlation between the instructors' ratings and those of trained,
independent rater only accounts for approximately nine per cent common
variance, the ratings could not be used as an estimate of student per-
formance, but they did indicate the unreliability of the instructors as
a group. Based upon the analysis of variance results on these ratings
which showed a significant main effect attributable to the TA's (see
previous question), it does not seem likely that the low correlational
results could be due to inconsistency in the independent ratings.

Previously it was indicated that in judging student performance
there were potentially two causes of differences between instructors
beyond instructional ability differences: (1) instructors appeared to
have different relative levels of judging student performance irrespec-
tive of what performance was being judged, and (2) instructors potentially

were judging student performance on the basis of different performances

EIEYDI'EEZL
I

.r ’11.::-. 'v-
u: ....crc..l'

"" Q
‘35 10% C L:
:Ce‘fjf" ”FF‘

“\‘V n.

18:112.: (1% 5:,

DC.

137
or criteria. These interpretations are supported by the results on
this instrument. The analysis of variance results support the first
interpretation which show that the proportion of variance attributable
to differences between the discussion sections (a; = . 136) is con-
siderably larger than could reasonably be attributed to either potential
confounding entering differences or different criteria interpretations.
The low correlational results between the TA's as a group and the
independent rater support the second interpretation. Neither the po-
tential different levels of grading nor the amount of variance accounted
for by the correlation, or the sum of both, comes close to reasonable
criterion reliability. If it is assumed that the TA's have some ability
to judge student performance, then a large proportion of the variance
must be attributable to differences in what performances were chosen
to be judged. This interpretation is also supported by the correlation
between the instructor ratings and other student outcome variables
(see Appendix E). Correlations between the ratings and the Course
Grade and the Instructor Grade (r = . 398 and . 585 respectively) are
potentially part-whole correlations and would be expected; all other
Variables have extremely low or no correlation with the ratings. These
composite correlations (TA's as a group) are not representative of
correlations between the ratings and other variables within the indi~
Vidual discussion sections (see Appendix F). These results clearly

Support the interpretation of lack of homogeneity across instructors.

.c-aw-v \' 2
' , \ It“ .‘

Hem-{Acy-

Ctr-7.:

“‘1Cu‘

‘

.

l~g
-\

.5.“

atig

138

QUESTION 5: What was the basis for selecting TA's?

 

There were no formal qualifications used as the basis of TA
selection other than the necessity of pursuing a graduate program in
the College of Education. The pool of potential TA's was created by
referral of the credentials of entering advanced degree students from
the different departments within the college, specific faculty recom-
mendation, and some direct student applications. Selections were
made by course administrative personnel on the basis of the academic
and background credentials, and where possible an interview. It was
stated by both the primary course administrator and the college teach-
ing intern director who together were responsible for the choice of
TA's that the most important consideration underlying choice was evi-
dence of previous teaching experience, not necessarily at the college
level. Secondary factors indicated were the general academic record
and content background. Pursuit of a graduate program in educational

psychology was not an important consideration.

QIESTION 6: What were the background characteristics of the TA's?

 

Graduate programs being pursued by the TA's were varied. All
but one of the sixteen were pursuing doctorates--five in the area of
curriculum and secondary education, three in elementary education,
one in math education, two in counseling and student personnel admin-
iStration, one in educational administration, and three in educational
Psychology. One was a master's degree candidate in college student

Per 3 onnel work.

...
1.x
.... -
‘1‘-ms (1.:
L

W: Ctfil Vs t;

Der C631: .31

:‘ 1:"

139

The amount of work completed on the individual graduate pro-
grams also varied widely. Twenty per cent of the TA's were less than
half completed; an additional twenty per cent were half finished; sixty
per cent were more than eighty per cent complete. However, sixty
per cent of the TA's had not started their dissertations; one-third had
begun preliminary work but had gathered no data; one essentially com-
pleted his program during the term.

Ten of the TA's were completing their first year (three terms)
of instruction in Education 200. Four more had instructed Education
200 for five or more terms. Two were new instructors the term of
the evaluation. Only one had no previous teaching experience; four had
had previous experience at the post-secondary level of teaching.

Ten of the TA's were twenty-nine years old or less; six were
more than thirty years of age. Twelve were male; four were female.
All but one were married, and nine were parents.

@ESTION 7: Did the graduate programs of the TA's appear to allow

time for the development of instructional skills and to
meet instructional responsibilities?

 

This subjective question is highly susceptible to differences
between individuals. The underlying idea, however, was to examine
the graduate workload of the TA's and other particular pressures which
might affect the ability to perform their instructional duties and develop
their instructional skills. In general it appeared that as a group the

TA's did not have sufficient time.

.—

, ,

I - .-

6u‘0—:l-r_q O

has.“ .44: s
5

£261! Cisc
‘er

' algc3i
b. ‘

hfiufg t0 I

140

There were certain ongoing requirements to be attended to in
fulfilling their teaching duties: Class preparation for the twice weekly
meetings of each of the two discussion sections; attendance at one of
two lecture sessions three times per week; mastery of the content of
new readings and/or lectures used that term in addition to command
of the regular course materials; preparation of handouts for use in
their discussion presentations; preparation and grading of quizzes,
term papers or projects; administration of general course tests;
attendance at staff meetings and seminars; and maintenance of office
hours to deal with student queries or problems. The TA's were re-
sponsible for specifically determining forty per cent of a student's
grade, and as the pivotal point between lecturers and course content,
indirectly responsible for a considerably greater percentage of the
student’s grade.

In addition to these basic teaching duties, TA's carried their
own graduate course loads. Not including research credits or teach-
ing intern credits, six TA's were carrying ten or more credit hours
during the term; four were carrying seven to nine credits; of the five
TA's carrying six or less credits, two were studying for compre-
hensive examinations to be taken during the term. In combination with
the normal pressure under which graduate students operate, most of

the TA's had at least some family responsibility.

 

were 22*. l

acareer

141

QUESTION 8: Were the TA's committed to a future career in under-
graduate instruction or the development of undergraduate
instruction?

 

Based upon the TA's indicated future plans, as a group the TA's
were not committed to teaching as a career. Four of the TA's indicated
a career in administration; three indicated a future career in student
personnel work; two expected to split their future work about 50-50
between teaching and research; seven indicated a future teaching
career. None of the TA's indicated a future career primarily in re-
search. Of the nine who indicated some future teaching plans, all
indicated that their primary teaching interests and efforts would be
directed to their graduate students in their area of specialization although
they expected to have to have some instructional contact with under-
graduates.

All of the TA’s stated concern about the conditions under which
they as graduate assistants had had to work. However, only three of
the TA's stated concern in terms of the effect on the education of under-
graduate students and provided any evidence of future interest in re-
Shaping the conditions or the organization of undergraduate instruction.
These three indicated an involvement in reforming their own teaching
approaches toward a more student-oriented instructional setting, but
that the ideas and attempts were based on their own experiences prior
to Education 200. The majority of the TA's indicated a commitment to
continuing the general model of undergraduate education provided by the

College of Education.

142

QUESTION 9: Was there congruence between the TA's perceptions of
course and discussion section objectives?

TA responses to open-ended questions concerning the course
and discussion section objectives led to two general conclusions: (1)
there was a broad difference between TA's in terms of both quality of
responses and perception of objectives, and (2) there was some con-
gruence on the general level of objectives similar to the course de-
scription, but there were many differences in the operational interpre-
tation of these objectives. The responses to the open-ended questions
generally confirmed observations by the course evaluators about dif-
ferences between the TA's.

The first conclusion was derived from an assessment of the
general quality and degree of explicitness of the TA responses, and
from the perspective by which the TA's answered the questions. Several
TA's provided long lists of course objectives which corresponded to
the materials covered in the course, broken generally into dual learn-
ing objectives of understanding and implications to teaching (applica-
tion). The majority of TA's abbreviated this listing process into
general objectives of understanding psychological principles and their
application in teaching. For example, a typical response was:

The objectives fall into two general areas, the

first of these being the understanding of basic psycho-

logical concepts which include the areas of social,

emotional, and physical maturation, learning proce-

dures, and methods of measurement and evaluation.

The second general area is the actual practice in appli-

cation of the above concepts so that students can and will
use the concepts learned in their future teaching.

143
Several other TA's were more skeptical about the course objectives.

For example:

Just an introductory course in educational
psychology stressing the views that are currently
popular with no emphasis on the way it is in the
public schools.

The responses pertaining to objectives of the discussion sec-
tions also varied from instructor to instructor, but the general notion
of discussion for the purpose of clarification of materials and applica-
tion to the act of teaching was present in most responses. None of the
instructors could phrase the discussion section objectives in behavioral
terms as requested. One instructor remarked that he " . . . didn't
know how to describe anything in behavioral terms. " All of the re-
sponses to this question were phrased in terms of what the instructor
would do, rather than in terms of desired resultant student behaviors.

The particular graduate program the TA was pursuing conditioned
the perception and orientation of objectives. These differences were
reflected by the TA's conception of the learner in relation to the objec-
tives. A TA pursuing work in counseling indicated the objectives in
terms of enabling the student to accomplish such and such. A TA in
developmental educational psychology indicated the objectives in terms
of integrating the materials and practical applications for students.
The two most popular ways of expressing objectives were "to provide"
and ”to give” the student understandings, etc. In general, the responses
0f TA's from the area of educational psychology more clearly exhibited

an understanding of the meaning of ”objectives, ” although two of these

T r ..? p
111519.» .

general ag
bu: that :1:
0316 Oh}
there “ET

the“; 31997.:

144
TA's felt that the course objectives lacked explicitness and were not
clearly applied.

The second general conclusion to the effect that there was some
general agreement over the course and discussion section objectives,
but that this agreement was not reflected in operational interpretation
of the objectives, is reflected in the above discussion. In addition,
there were broad differences in the procedures the instructors stated
they applied in the discussion section to achieve the objectives. Part
of these differences are obviously due to the lack of understanding ex-
hibited by the TA's of the term ”behavioral objectives. " This was also
apparent by the lack of congruence between the TA's statements of
objectives and their respective statements of what behaviors they felt

the students should be able to exhibit as a result of the course experi-

ence.

QUESTION 10: What in the way of materials or guidelines were pro-
vided the TA's to aid them in the conduct of the dis-
cussion sections, the judgment of student performance,
and the grading of student performance?

 

Prior to the start of fall classes, the TA's took part in orienta-
tion sessions designed to familiarize them with University and College
Of Education procedures in general, and to orient them to what would
be expected of them in the role of teaching assistant. In terms of the
latter, policies and procedures of the course were outlined such as
computation of grades, attendance, etc. Also provided was a mimeo-

graphed handbook outlining minimal guidelines for conduct of a discussion

seLf-cr

‘ r
tare: 1g

QKESZ;;:

I“In t}
15% IA

CW’ni

flit:

tine,

145
section and the otherathan-classroom responsibilities of the TA's.
Included was a list of ideas on how to develop discussion and examples
of various techniques which might be employed (e. g. , buzz sessions,
role-playing, application of classroom examples, etc. ). A video-tape
machine could be made available to tape classroom performance for
self-critiquing. Two seminars designed to develop instructional
skills (as specified in the Curriculum Review Committee's plan) and
taken for course credit by the TA's are discussed in the following

question.

QUESTION 11: Did the program of instructional development for the
TA's take place, and if so, what was the nature of its
content and experience?

 

No instructional development activities took place during the
term the evaluation was conducted. Two seminars designed to develop
the TA's instructional skills as specified in the Curriculum Review
Committee's plan were conducted during the fall term.

In one of these seminars designed to familiarize the TA's with
the course content the lecturers, prior to the actual lecture, would dis-
cuss with the TA's as a group the primary material to be covered.
After the fall term, the TA's had no formal contact with the lecturers
and virtually no unofficial contact concerning the course. This content
Seminar, according to several TA's, was of little value due to broad
differences in content background across the TA's and due to lack of
COgent examples of application of the content to the classroom. Several

of the TA's indicated that the content seminar should have concentrated

146

more time on the development of the research and theoretical implica-
tions of the materials since they had little previous background or under-
standing of educational psychology. Other TA's, particularly those in
educational psychology graduate programs, felt that more time should
have been spent on developing integration of the materials, while several
TA's with little previous teaching experience felt that the content
seminar should have concentrated on the application of materials in
terms of examples and anecdotes. The result of these problems, by
both direct observation and TA remarks, was that the TA's had diffi-
culty integrating the course for the students, and concentrated much of
their time in the specific areas with which they were previously familiar.

The second seminar was specifically directed at developing the
instructional abilities of the teaching assistant. As conceived, a pro-
fessor noted for his own classroom skills with undergraduates would
chair a seminar, serve as a resource person, and give direction to the
TA's development as college teachers over the course of the school
year. There was universal TA criticism and discreditation of the re-
sults. Most of these comments were preceded by the proviso that the
seminar director did make himself available at any time for discus-
sion (as did the course coordinator), would willingly purchase reference
materials asked for by the TA's, and that they recognized the direc-
tor's teaching skill in his own major field; but he seemed unable to

translate these experiences into transferable examples and experi-

enees for their instructional development. One problem consistently

A. ...
1','O-ou
.Cta.:..t

i
“’1 t:

113.,“ u

147

identified was that there were no clear directions inherent within the

seminar, that the seminar constantly turned into a “bull-session"

about philosophical issues. Other comments depicted the seminar as
failing to provide practical advice in the conduct and management of
the discussion sessions, particularly in the determination of student

performance and the management of classroom discussion toward a

particular learner objective. Infrequent classroom visitations were

conducted but feedback failed to focus on the application of instruc-
tional techniques and approaches. It was generally felt that in theory
the seminar was an excellent idea, but that it lacked substance both

in content and practical experience. TA discontent led to its abandon-

ment after two terms.

These observations would seem to justify the conclusion that
the instructional skills and the instructional approaches used by the
TA's were the product of their entering capabilities and background
interacting with trial and error experience in the discussion section.
Generally, the TA's seemed aware of these limitations, unhappy with
their discussion section results, and dissatisfied with both the time
they felt that had wasted in the internship and the failure of the course
to aid them in the development of their teaching.

QUESTION 12: Did the Course examinations allow for inferences to
the degree of approximation of course or undergraduate
instructional objectives?

The course examinations were primarily derived from the

readings and lectures. One way to approach an answer to this question

;.~y~.
-.C...
Q- ...
A: .i"

Cur:

'Q
(1)

CE 72‘.

(1)

I".
a

16 'y' E

C03;

148

would be to determine the degree to which these sources of the test
items represent the course objectives. The problem with this approach
is twofold: (1) As previously indicated, the objectives specified by the
Curriculum Review Committee represent very limited behavioral objec-
tives, far less than the stated purpose of this course would seem to
demand; and (2) there were considerable differences from one term to
the next in the choice of readings and lecturers.

What is more important is the fact that the tests determined
the objectives, at least to the extent of determining 60 per cent of the
level of student performance, which logically within the percentage
constraints supposes the degree to which students individually and the
course as a whole achieved course objectives. Test items were re-
used or discarded on the basis of their internal measurement charac-
teristics, rather than on the degree to which they represented some
specific objective. The reality of this procedure to the student would
result in primary efforts being devoted to memorizing the text and lec-
ture notes, and the test performance being determined by degree of
effort directed toward this task weighted by a combination of entering
ability characteristics. Under these conditions, some inference could
be made to ”quality instruction" differences between lecturers and
between TA's in terms of presentation and clarification of materials,
but the only other major inference which could logically be derived
from test results would be the quality of the internal measuring charac-

teristics of the tests (i. e. , the ability of the test to reliably differentiate

l y me:

D

to the C

149
students into grading levels).
QUESTION 13: Did the examinations judge student performance to

some established criteria, or did they simply dif-
ferentiate student scores into grading units?

 

Student grades for examination performance were determined
by where their scores fell in relation to cutting points on the distribu-
tion of scores for a given exam. Cutting points were determined by
locating the mo st optimal places in the frequency distribution so that
the grades would approximate a normal distribution. Any relationship
between a given student grade and some criteria could only be inferred
by the degree to which the test represented some criteria in combina-
tion with the degree to which the distribution of scores on the test
represented the various levels of criterion achievement. Because of
the weakness in both course and test criteria and because of the proce-
dures used in translating test results to grades, it seems reasonable
to infer that the tests served a primary purpose of differentiating
students into grading units.

QUESTION 14: What means were utilized to evaluate as part of on-

going procedure student affective change toward the
course and program goals?

 

Other than attempts included in this evaluation, there were no
procedures included in the course to evaluate affective change. Pre-
vious to the term in which this evaluation took place, periodic efforts
were made to assess student opinion pertaining to the TA‘s, but not

1'0 the course goals or content.

C‘H w-'
“ Ql
-..-J A.
._————

COLlISC‘

1e

150

QUESTION 15: What changes took place in specific student attitudes
toward the course, the course content, and teacher
education goals?

 

As part of the continuing measures (i. e. , pre-course, mid-
course, and post-course), the students were asked to indicate their
certainty about entering the teaching profession, the degree to which
they felt teaching was the occupation for which they were best suited,
the degree to which they felt the course would be a valuable part of
their teacher training, and the degree to which a knowledge of theory
and the principles of human behavior and development were important
to teaching. The results (see Table IV-5) indicated that the course had
little influence on the students' personal decisions about their suitability
for or their entering into the teaching profession (correlations between
consecutive measurements were above . 70). Student attitude toward
the course as preparation for teaching was lower on the entering
measurement, decreased slightly on the mid-measurement, and increased
slightly on the final measurement. Student attitude toward the impor-
tance of theory which was relatively high to begin with decreased markedly
over each continuing measurement. The results in Table IV-5 shown
below are the summaries of these results over the different adminis-
trations. The level of attitude is inverse to the size of the number (1 2
highest attitude, 5 = lowest attitude).

These results as trends were consistent across the different
levels of course grade received, and across levels of entering grade-

point-average (above 3. 0, between 2. 0 and 3. O, and below 2. 0).

gradE

151

Table IV-5: Means and Standard Deviations for all
Students on Course-Specific Attitudes

Pre-Course Mid-Course Post-Course
Variable Me an SD Mean SD Me an SD

 

Commitment to Enter
Profession 2.200 1.006 2.186 .941 2.015 .810

Suitability for
Teaching 2.342 1.027 2.296 .993 2.250 1.007

Course as Preparation 2.430 .732 2.455 .788 2.294 1.072

Importance of Theory 1. 695 . 780 l. 835 . 796 2. 456 . 719

 

However, in both the case of grade received in the course and the case
of entering grade-point-average level, as shown on Table IV-6, the
trends were represented at different levels of attitude. These results
will be discussed in the following question. The two most important
inferences derived from these results were (1) the relative lack of
effect of the course on student attitude toward entering the teaching
profession and the relatively low attitude to the course as preparation,
and (2) the consistently decreasing attitude toward theory and princi-
ples which were the primary content of the course.

QUESTION 16: Was there a relationship between entering student

ability or grade received in the course and the develop-
ment of student course-related attitudes?

 

The previous level of student performance in college and the
grade a student received in the course both potentially might have

affected the student's relative attitudes toward the course and toward

tltu
:n Co;

.5".

an.
A.” COMB—00 “Oral WCMZUUOE 005300
.1 L0 u ~0flHflL-VQULL \ALOUCS .HO Urnntsaoru

at... Puvyflhlfi out
A. 8:5...de503 \nflfififledadflnawu Drv ”ILJOU QUEEHLOQER U§¥HH¥<

"I.

152

Table IV-G: Means and Standard Deviations on Student Course
Attitudes Across Continuing Measurements by Grade Received
in Course and Entering Grade-Point-Average

COURSE GRADE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TGrade A Grade B Grade C Grade D-F
(n = 109) (n = 398) (n = 385) (n = 80)
VARIABLE mean sd mean sd mean sd mean sd
§h§ Pre 2.333 1.079 2.228 1.015 2.127 .972 2.220 1.012
liclw ’
3:453 Mid 2.283 1.009 2.238 .950 2.100 .892 2.130 1.002
M00
E02 Post 1.980 .837 1.977 .797 2.055 .818 2.088 .818
0449-.
>0
.11 Pre 2.501 1.057 2.017 1.052 2.207 .981 2.313 1.097
r-I b0
1;; 2 Mid 2.058 1.029 2.355 1.008 2.157 .971 2.380 .892
+3 0
~33: Post 2.388 1.032 2.282 1.010 2.180 .988 2.351 1.028
(nu-«B
8
3.3 Pre 2.029 .802 2.087 .780 2.390 .722 2.008 .729
«I
3:; Mid 2.000 .888 2.093 .809 2.021 .750 2.500 .792
$40.
=53 Post 2.378 1.098 2.320 1.029 2.915 1.081 2.501 1.173
on.
8,, Pre 1.877 .700 1.708 .787 1.708 .800 1.582 .878
‘3
+32 Mid 1.881 .728 1.817 .785 1.887 .809 1.978 .892
0
g,“ Post 2.381 .890 2.050 .718 2.088 .717 2.501 .782
HO
“O
9.99:? Pre 27.09 0.18 28.97 5.28 27.27 5.09 27.22 3.80
443:!
3333 Post 27.72 5.03 27.78 7.75 27.72 7.29 28.11 9.23

 

”able

a

3 L842: Ow
u“. H 39:59 a EEOU

UULJOU
LOW OflUUL-UQULQ ALOUZH 0W0 «Urn-“030“

... .

n: COflmfiUuOLL NCBSUUU~

... Q It

\Adfififinuupflan out. OULJOU «VOCUFLOQEH 0.03.9 NEHurtx

152a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table IV-6 : (Means and Standard Deviations Continued)
Grade-Point-Average
‘GPA Highi “GPA Middle GPA Low
(n = 171) (n = 515) (n = 100)
VARIABLE MEAN SD MEAN 50 MEAN SD
€0.50 Pre 2.301 1.028 2.199 1.038 2.805 .879
6000
3533 Mid 2.322 .981 2.216 .9512.019 .800
NH
€02 Post 1.990 .823 2.018 .812 1.970 .770
UFO:
31>; .
b0
'5; 5 Mid 2.075 1.011 2.330 1.005 2.052 .838
44 O
333 Post 2.000 1.088 2.253 .990 2.090 .913
COME-4
0
3-3 Pre 2.518 .738 2.027 .710 2.389 .711
(U
83 Mid 2.578 .8512.002 .780 2.391 .888
$400
§§ Post 2.038 1.130 2.305 1.082 2.087 .900
“gt. Pre 1.783 .7711.859 .789 1.725 .738
0
fig Mid 1.823 .788 1.812 .810 1.939 .823
OH
2.3 Post 2.078 .725 2.039 .898 2.025 .729
H
0
EB” Pre 28.00 0.88 27.08 5.29 27.53 0.00
O
«4'6‘4
33:33 Post 28.81 8.00 28.08 8.83 28.09 0.00
<PU

 

cam-s-
sham:
.8348

.3
«I.
.C

e
7...

:w ~

5.8: Dt‘h
Sr. ...
det‘Il

«U «3 CC . fl.‘
m e a r
n 1 r . Q
e e “A
1.... e ...- en.
t r a txu
O
O
O
o 0

out

1 Pu.

Qv

1
«pl

153
specific attitudes supposedly related to the course experience. The
grade a student received in the course represented a composite of his
course performance both on exams and in discussion section, and thus,
should include some element of the student's perception of how well he
felt he was doing at points in time previous to the end of the course.
Table IV-6 displays means and standard deviations of attitude measure-
ments over the continuing measures as organized into the Course Grade
levels and the entering levels of Grade-Point-Average (GPA High includes
the students with a 3. 00 average or above, GPA Middle includes the
students between a 2. 00 and 3. 00 average, and GPA Low includes
students below a 2. 00 average). The number of students indicated for
each level of the different categories represents the total number of
students in that category. The actual number of students reflected in
a given mean or standard deviation varies for each administration, but
these figures are provided in Appendix C. The more positive attitudes
on the course-specific variables are represented by the lower scores;
the more positive attitudes on the Pre- and Post-Course variables are
represented by the higher scores.

In general, the level of the students' entering grade-point-
averages seemed to affect both their entering and continuing attitudes
toward the course and course-specific attitudes. Those students with
a high GPA had both the lowest entering course attitudes and the lowest
post-course attitudes. Those students with the lowest GPA had the

highest entering attitudes and the highest post-course attitudes.

>‘<

- '

fl“ .

to. L

brie»

:-
*lTSt

154

Those students with middle-range GPA's had attitudes falling some-
where in between. The only noticeable exception to this pattern was
the attitude toward the relevance of theory to teaching. The results
on this continuing measure progressively decreased from essentially
the same entering course means for all three levels of GPA to essen-
tially the same post-course means for all three levels of GPA.

The results according to level of grade received in the course
(see Table IV-6) were not as clear although there was a significant
relationship between entering Grade-Point-Average and Course Grade
(r = . 523). With the exception of the attitude toward the relevance of
theory to teaching, the highest course-specific attitudes were held by
those students who received a ”C” grade in the course. The lowest
attitudes were held either by the students receiving an "A” in the
course or a ”D" or ”F" in the course. Those students receiving an
”A" in the course also generally had the lowest entering attitude, but
there was a noticeable shift in attitude of students receiving a ”D” or
”F” from higher entering attitude to lower post-course attitude. The
attitude toward the relevance of theory to teaching was directly related
to the grade received in the course.

QUESTION 17: What was the primary emphasis of the course includ-
ing both content and its form of presentation?

 

The primary emphasis of Ed 200 was overwhelmingly research-
oriented in the areas of educational psychology. Beginning with the

first content lecture in which the valued model of teaching behavior

R'-

6:

155

”2

was one of the teacher " . . . who demonstrates research behavior

and continuing through the course in both lectures and readings, both
the content and its mode of presentation were concerned with empiri-
cal and theoretical interests of educational psychology research. This
emphasis was congruent with the list of objectives suggested for the
course by the Curriculum Review Committee in its earlier report (see
Appendix A).

The texts used during the term (see course outline in Appendix
A) included: (1) a book of readings covering research studies and
theoretical positions in educational psychology, (2) an overview and
summary of research and theory in child development, (3) a theoreti-
cal-empirical presentation and hierarchical integration of experimentally-
derived types of learning, and (4) a book focused on the relationship
betwen teaching behavior and perception of self. The articles and
books not only represented the major area interests of the Department
of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology--learn-
ing and cognition, measurement, development, and clinical-«but also
represented a limited version of graduate program foundational read-
ings. Both the learning theory book and the child development book
were used in specialized courses in those areas. Many of the readings
were contributed by theorists and researchers the knowledge of whose

views was essential to successful completion of a graduate program.

 

2Included in the second course lecture, ”Scientific Aspects of

Teaching, ” and quoted in the Course Outline which is reprinted in
Appendix A.

 

“I
’ 1
(T:

I1
(I)
4. 4

V-K.‘
“lb.

“r,

5;.

1““:

'7
“-¢.

‘,-,

~.:~I:

1‘?
n I
(I)

.
b

h
L‘ee G

Then

156

Jersild's, When Teachers Face Themselves, would appear on the surface

 

not to fit this pattern, but in fact, represented the empirically less
precise graduate training interests of the more clinical faction of the
department.

The lectures were systematically organized into the different
areas beginning with child development followed in order by emotional
development, measurement and standardized tests, learning, and cog-
nition. For the most part, lectures were organized around the major
theories and research findings. While most lectures included some
minor concern for implications to the school setting or brief applica-
tion of some theory or research to an educational activity, these efforts
were limited both by reduced scope and by lack of integration. The
primary responsibility for this application and integration of materials
was left to the discussion sections. The mode of presentation was to
use the form of subjects and observations consistent with the area's
theory and research. Thus, development was presented through the
experimental and clinical studies of young children; emotional develop-
ment was presented through a consideration of self-concept and a self-
concept inventory; problems of growth and counseling were presented
through the analysis of a counseling interview; measurement was pre-
sented through standardized test scores and items and the units of the
normal curve; learning was presented through animal studies and
closely controlled human research; cognition was presented by appli-

cation of research learning-cognition tasks and their use in direct

ssssss

0f the 4

157
models such as programed instruction and instruction in foreign lang-
uage; and motivation was presented in terms of conditions and sum-
maries of the lecturer's own research on the characteristics of low
motivated students.

The discussion sections differed according to the teaching
assistant as to additional presentation and materials due to both the
personal orientation of the TA and his level of understanding and
familiarity with the content materials. However, as indicated, the
TA's were responsible for the clarification, development of relevance,
and integration of materials and so accordingly devoted some of their
discussion to the lectures and the readings. The course exams which
accounted for sixty per cent of the students' course grades were pri-
marily composed of items derived from the readings and lectures,
thus insuring student attention to the theory-research aspects of the
course.

The logic underlying the course also supports the interpretation
of the course as research-oriented. By determining the content on the
basis of the research specialties of senior faculty whose primary con-
cerns are to graduate training and empirical research, without placing
the responsibility for the entire course content or student outcomes on
this faculty, the obligation of faculty to the course becomes both limited
and specialized. In theory, the primary source of direction and means
by which the course must achieve direction are both a function and re-

sponsibility of the central course administration. In this case, the

158
person responsible was a newly-confirmed Ph. D. in one of the research
areas included in the course whose degree was directed by members
of the Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational
Psychology. By training, his background was responsive to the
research-orientation of the course, and in terms of position both
formally and informally, he was at a status disadvantage to those
faculty for whom he was organizationally supposed to provide course
leadership. Given these conditions, the amount of concern and the
nature of a senior faculty member's involvement in the course would
be determined by personal and vested interests, rather than by dele-
gated responsibility and administrative leadership.

QUESTION 18: What was the relationship of the course to the total
program of the College of Education?

 

There was both a stated and an implicit relationship between
this course and the teacher-training program, and the total program
of the College of Education. The stated relationship explains the
structure and organization of the course as it was observed during the
term of the evaluation; the implicit relationship partially explains the
course content and actual conduct. The stated relationships have been
in part summarized in earlier chapters and are included in their

original adopted form of the Report on Underjraduate Education pre-

 

pared by the Curriculum Review Committee of the College of Educa-
tion in Appendix A. Briefly, this report specified (and the resulting

organization included) the course as the introductory experience in

.2; 9”

y_4

(7")
'1

Part

159

the teacher training program with primary content in educational psy-

chology, but with a responsibility for introducing the student to the

teaching profession and the teacher training program. The new teacher

training program was organized into a block of required courses each

of which had certain assigned responsibilities. As stated by the Associate

Dean of the College, this organization, which was in keeping with the

letter of the recommendations of the University's Committee on Under-

graduate Education, was designed to aid the College in:

l.

5.

Developing more goal orientation of courses within our
required offerings. If we identified objectives for the
whole program the assignment of responsibility for
teaching these concepts to courses within the total
program would naturally follow. These assignments
would thus establish goals for each course.

Securing greater uniformity of content in multiple section
courses.

Eliminating unnecessary duplication of material in courses
since the program would be structured as a unit. Also
omissions of important concepts would be less likely to
occur than when courses were constructed more or less
independently.

Providing instructors of courses in the required profes-
sional sequences with better information concerning the
fundamental concepts covered in other courses in the
sequence.

Evaluating the success of programs against well defined
goals. 3

The development of the program of teacher education was only

part of a major reorganization of the entire college. Paralleling the

 

3

Leland Dean, Loc. (E.

160
growth of the teacher education program was the bifurcation of the
graduate level program into one series of courses primarily aimed at
the returning teacher-professional seeking additional credit and/or a
lesser terminal professional degree than the Ph. D. , and one series of
courses primarily aimed at the full-time doctoral candidate. Theo-
retically, this would provide for the needs of the generalist-practitioner
and the research-oriented specialist at the same time. These programs
in combination with the reorganized teacher education program supposedly
would then enable the College to meet its responsibility to the equally
important constituent groups of undergraduates, practitioners, and
graduate students in specialized Ph. D. training.

At the time of this study, all of the designated reorganization
had formally taken place. However, implicit in the College's plan was
a certain amount of "institutional upgrading, " the effort to increase the
College's prestige. This was particularly the case with the Department
of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology. Un-
like other programs where this procedure has taken place, the develop-
ment of the graduate educational psychology program was quite clearly
documented in a series of informal and formal position papers.

The graduate program in educational psychology which developed
out of this reorganization was based upon a conception of the field
composed of ”three general areas: (1) Educational psychology as a
field of study with a set of philosophical roots, historical antecedents

and trends, and a range of contemporary foci and positions; (2) Educational

three

ment (
Called

161

Psychology as a body of inquiring strategies, techniques and technolo-
gies, by means of which the researcher contributes to the development
of the field of study; and (3) the educational psychology of the above two
categories as a body of knowledge, understandings and skills which the
present graduate student must some day be prepared to teach. "4 The
new full-time graduate student was expected to gain competence in all
three areas.

The result of all of this was a new, expanded Ph. D. program
in educational psychology, initiated in the fall of 1965, which called for
three years of residential study with probably a fourth year devoted to
dissertation. In addition, several new faculty members were added to
the senior staff, strengthening the various specialties in educational
psychology theory and research. Added pressure was brought to bear
on the importance of faculty research and publication. Several new
research institutes closely related to educational psychology were de-
veloped, accommodating both new faculty and graduate students.

Prior to the actual reorganization of the College, the Depart-
ment of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology
called upon the College of Education to consider and make policy deci-
sions on the following issues:

1. Will the college take the final steps toward the large

 

4Unpublished position paper of the Department of Counseling,
Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology, undated but placed
during the fall of 1964 by a faculty member of the Department.

'1

(If?

I
1&4

162
c1ass--larger credit block goals of the EDP and commit
the savings to the development of a quality graduate
program? The faculty in educational psychology is
prepared to do this.

2. Are we prepared to mount a systematic campaign and
commit the necessary resources (somewhat like Sabine's
program on the undergraduate level) to recruit top candi-
dates for graduate study directly out of the colleges?

3. Can we commit money to expanding the laboratory
facility for educational psychology? We have made
only a start in this direction.

4. Are we willing to live with the proposition that more
than one conception of graduate training may be required
in the College of Education? We propose to develop a
leadership group and an elite, but at the same time we
accept the legitimacy of other conceptions of graduate
training for the areas within the College. The whole
problem of the ”new" 800 series is involved, of course.

The implicit relationship between the development of the

graduate program in educational psychology and the development of

Ed 200 was that the graduate program was very costly, required a
highly specialized, research-oriented faculty, focused its training

and effort primarily on the professionally dedicated graduate student,
and had little vested interest in undergraduate instruction needs, while
the reorganization of the teacher education program created the econo-
mies to at least in part provide funds for the graduate program, re-
lease senior faculty from the major instructional responsibilities in

the undergraduate program, and provide an additional source of em-

ployment for full-tiIne graduate students.

 

5lbid.

 

...“

why.

”A.

37‘

Flv

g:

163

Beyond these relationships which are now both realities and
documented by position papers, the discussion becomes highly specu-
lative. However, two additional inferences should at least be noted.
First, the objectives provided by the Curriculum Review Committee,
which was composed of members of the departments, focus on the
research specialties of educational psychology the accomplishment of
which, it might be argued, would only be possible through student ex-
posure to highly specialized staff. Second, it would be advantageous
to a research-oriented department to create a pool of potential graduate
candidates who were already in command of basic background material.
At the least, it seems legitimate to conclude that the graduate program
in educational psychology benefited from the organization and conduct
of Education 200 as much as the teacher training program and under-

graduate instruction.

 

r-:-.———

”1

it

C hapter V

EVALUATIVE FINDINGS

In Chapter IV, the evaluative findings were presented as they
pertained to the specific study questions. In this chapter, the findings
will be summarized and integrated according to the central evaluative
issues concerning the substantive operation and results of the course.
Those issues are: (l) the degree to which the course, and particularly
those aspects of the course directly involving the TA's, was "systemat-
ically" reliable; (2) the degree to which the course, given the existing
"predominant characteristics" of the College of Education, approxi-
mated "quality education" and "provision for student opportunity”; (3)
the degree to which the course substantively acted in the long run to
achieve greater congruence between ”predominant characteristics" and
the objectives of ”quality education“ and ”provision for student oppor-
tunity"; and (4) the appropriateness, given the observed course sub-
stance, of the widespread use of the TA as a means to compensate for
”predominant characteristics” to achieve the above goals.

Briefly in review, the concern in this study was not with indi-
vidual performances, pe_r__s_e, but rather with the operation of the
course as a planned intervention, an intervention designed as a ”system"
to accomplish certain instructional goals and to improve the conditions
of undergraduate instruction. It was implied by the course planners

164

F——

5L1,

P?

cu

'I‘)

.H‘

165
that the ”systems" approach was necessary to accomplish the goals and
improve the undergraduate instructional conditions because of the "pre-
dominant characteristics” of the College at that time. In order to com-
pensate for the ”predominant characteristics” the critical issue resolved
was to decrease faculty participation and responsibility in the course
and instead rely upon specialization and diversification of labor under
a central administration. An evaluative assumption was that if the
specified form proved to be substantively operational then the speci-
fied objectives might potentially be achieved. Given this, the primary
focus would necessarily be the performance of individuals as members
of groups or units and the relative effects of these groups or units on

student outcomes.

Summary of Evaluative Findings

 

The course as a structural and operational entity exists because
of the conflicting pressures within large, state-supported institutions of
higher education. These pressures are (1) those of a research-minded
faculty whose interests, if any, in teaching undergraduates is limited
primarily to those of high entering ability or mutual interests, (2) an
administration with certain duties and responsibilities to undergraduate
education, (3) a high student to staff ratio, (4) the forces of bureaucrati-
zation and ”systems" inherent within large institutions and their
administration, and (5) wide differences in the interests and abilities of
students both in kind and degree. Limited but direct evidence indicates

that this course was created in response to:

166

movement within the college to ”upgrade" or increase
the prestige of graduate programs, particularly educa-
tional psychology

a distinct alteration of valuing of professional staff
activities by the College of Education to a system where
research and the production of research-minded graduate
students became relatively more important

the need to economize on the undergraduate areas of teacher
education in order to partially support the developing
graduate areas

the need to "mass'' produce individuals accredited to
teach in the public school systems, but,

whose content orientation was to the research-graduate
training model due to the nature of senior faculty partici-
pation and interests, and departmental indirect control
over choice of content.

To meet these ”predominant characteristics" and pressures,

and at the same time respond to pressures for reform of undergraduate

instructional conditions, a "system" of instruction was instituted which

combined under central administration reduced, specialized faculty

participation, a large number of teaching assistants to fill the instruc-

tional gap, and a program of instructional development designed to

raise the level of the TA's instructional skills. The findings, after

the course had been in operation for two years and after the TA's with

two exceptions had instructed for two or more terms, indicated that:

6.

the majority of TA's used in the course were not pursuing
a specialization in the primary course content area (educa-
tional psychology)

there were observable and self-reported differences
between the TA's in their grasp ofcourse content

the TA's could not specify behavioral objectives for

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

167

their activities in the discussion sections or for the course
as a whole

there were important differences between the TA's in
their conception of the purpose of the discussion sections
as evidenced by their self-reported activities and
approaches

the most important prerequisite for being selected to be a
TA in the course was not interest, 22.5.8.3 in either college
teaching or the development of undergraduate instruction,
but rather previous teaching experience

little in the way of instructional development activities
took place in the terms prior to the study, and none at
all during the term of the study

the TA‘s were all carrying a difficult graduate load in addi-

tion to the responsibilities of the discussion sections and
any instructional development activities included in the
course structure, and several TA's were under other pres-
sures of graduate study, either comprehensive exams or
dissertations

although the TA's carried major instructional and student
evaluational responsibilities (forty per cent of the course
grade), only minimal guidelines for these responsibilities
were formally provided by the course administration

while all of the TA's were concerned about the conditions
under which they had to work, very few of the TA‘s stated
concerns in terms of the effect of the conditions on under-
graduates or in terms of improvement of undergraduate
instruction

barely a majority of the TA's indicated any interest in
teaching as a career after completion of graduate training
and of those that did indicate some teaching, the primary
emphasis was in graduate or specialized instruction

Irrespective of the functioning of the course structure, the

empirical analysis of student outcomes indicated that:

16.

17.

there were systematic differences between TA's in the dis-
cussion section grades assigned to students

the TA's could not rank student performances to set

168

criteria reliably although the individual TA rankings of
student performance did show a significant relationship
to discussion section grades

18. there were systematic differences attributable to TA's on
student outcome test performance; and accordingly,
systematic differences in student grades for exam per-

form ance

19. there were systematic differences attributable to TA's
in the students' levels of course aspiration-expectation

20. there were significant differences between TA's on the
student attitudes toward the discussion section and the TA,
although there were no consistent significant differences
attributable to TA's on students' attitudes toward the course
or on course-specific attitudes

Item analysis of student attitudes toward discussion section and
the TA, while limited by low attendance on the day of the measurement,
seemed to indicate that:

21. the students rated the TA's highest on items concerning
discussion taking place and TA interest in students' dis-

cussing

22. the students rated the TA's less highly on their knowledge
of content and its application

23. the students rated the TA's least highly on their ability to
employ teaching strategies such as explaining objectives,
stimulating discussion, providing practice materials, and
enabling the students to understand course materials

Very little could be said about the effect of the course as a whole.
The entering student population was very heterogeneous both in back-
ground and ability characteristics. If anything, the course seemed to
”normalize” the population of students on these entering characteristics,

and, when the instability of the instructor grades is taken into considera-

tion, the course grades were distributed largely according to this

169

”normalized" entering population distribution. The findings indicated

that:

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

tests were composed mostly of factual recall or simple
application multiple-choice items based upon readings
and lectures and were not clearly broken into any broader
course objective areas

tests were based upon items according to their ability to
discriminate between students rather than on their ability
to assess student progress toward given goals

from the student standpoint, the tests became the objectives
rather than mastery over materials and their application

mean student performance on the three exams progressed
from 55 per cent correct response on the Pre-Test to 75
per cent correct response on the Mid-Term to 67 per cent
correct response on the Final Exam

the mean test results may reflect the norm level of student

prowess in answering multiple-choice exam items adjusted

by other course performance demands on students and level
of course attendance (the workload and difficulty of material
increased during the second half of the term and the attend-
ance at lectures decreased)

As indicated by the Associate Dean of the College, the develop-

ment of student attitudes was an important aspect of the teacher training

program.

29.

30.

In this area, the findings indicated that:

the course provided for no systematic means of assessing
the movement toward general effective educational and
professional goals although previous measurements of
student attitude toward TA's had been taken

as indicated, the attendance in the course decreased over
time until the final exam and post-course measurements;
this fact might be taken as an affective index by itself,

but it also may have affected the generalizability of some

 

lLeland Dean, Loc. Cit.

In

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

170
of the study measurements of student course attitudes

student mean attitude to the course showed no change
between pre- and post-measurement

students with a higher entering GPA had a lower attitude
toward the course for both measurements than did students
with lower GPA's

students' attitudes toward entering the teaching profes-

sion and toward their suitability as teachers increased

over time in the course, but these attitudes were unrelated
to attitudes toward the course or course conduct and content

although all of the student course-specific attitudes were
relatively positive, the attitude toward the course as an
important part of their preparation was consistently least
positive over measurements

student attitude toward the importance of theory and the
principles of human behavior and development to teaching
were very positive at the beginning of the course, but de-
creased noticeably over each continuing measurement

generally, students who received a "C” grade in the course
had the most positive course-specific attitudes over continu-
ing measurements

generally, students with the highest GPA had the lowest
course-specific attitudes over continuing measurements.

Course ”Reliability"

 

The findings of this study failed to support the hypothesis that

the course was ”systematically” reliable, that there was consistency

either across instructional units or between individuals within instruc-

tional units .

However, before further discussing this conclusion, it

is necessary to consider two other factors which potentially might affect

the validity of this conclusion: (1) how dependable are the observed

outcome differences, and (2) how important are the observed outcome

0::

CU

171
differences?

There is no way by which the degree of confounding of empirical
outcome results can be directly tested. As indicated in the previous
chapter, randomization of students into discussion sections was success-
ful at the very beginning of the term; most importantly there were no
significant differences observed between discussion sections on the
entering student Grade-Point-Average. However, later measurements
on the students' College Qualifying Test - Total scores and Learning
Set scores did show significant differences attributable to discussion
sections. These results were based upon a noticeably smaller number
of students and were taken at a later point during the course than initial
pre-course measurements. It is possible that the student outcomes were
affected by a change in the initial randomization due to students dr0pping
and adding the course. It is also possible that the reduced number re-
sponding resulted in the observed significant differences. Another
alternative is the possibility that initial randomization of students into
discussion sections failed to achieve equivalency on these variables be-
tween discussion sections.

Considering these alternatives, the general conclusion that the
course was not reliable is based upon observed trends which indicated
that the variance attributable to differences between TA's increased
over different continuing measures and that there was initial equiva-
lency between discussion sections on the mo st important Course Grade

predictor, the entering Grade-Point-Average. This conclusion of real

1'62.

CTL‘.

DE?

o~o\

(7)

fl

172
differences between TA's is also supported by their failure to achieve
reasonable reliability in ranking student performances to specified
criteria. It is also supported by several interpretations of differences
between TA's in relative level of judgment of student performances.
When these results and interpretations are combined with the many
differences in characteristics and backgrounds of the TA‘s which appear
to have been relatively unaffected by any course instructional develop-
ment intervention, the only reasonable conclusion would be one of dif-
ference-between-TA effects.

Moving from the assumption of TA effect, it is obvious from the
findings that there were degrees of importance across the observed
differences in student outcomes attributable to the TA's. To a certain
degree, these differences are indicated by the reduction in the propor-
tion of variance on the outcome variable attributable to the differences
between TA's (d). The greatest proportion of variance reduction
respectively occurred on the Project Ranks, the Attitude Toward In-
structor, and the Instructor Grade. Because these outcome variables
reflect a potentially direct TA effect, they are obviously very important.
The TA's either used different criteria to judge student performance,
used a different range in assigning relative judgments, were differentially
able to judge student performance, or some combination of all three.
Considering the results of the student Attitude Toward Instructor and
trends observed in the item responses, students also recognized per-

formance differences between instructors.

173

Differences in exam results attributable to TA's is more in-
directly related to the differences between TA's and this is reflected
in the lower reduction in the proportion of variance. However, because
the course grade results were determined largely by these results,
from the standpoint of fairness to the students, the exam differences
attributable to the TA's are very important. The most plausible inter-
pretation of these significant differences is differences between the
TA's in understanding and clarifying content for students, but an
alternative interpretation might be differences in what the TA's empha-
sized in their discussion sections. The differences between TA's on
student level of aspiration-expectation is the most difficult to interpret
and so, how important these differences were remains mostly conjec-
ture. It is theoretically possible that level of aspiration-expectation
might have affected future student involvement in and attitude toward
later parts of the teacher training program. It is also possible that
these differences only reflected immediate student perceptions of rela-
tive achievement in the course and nothing more.

The specified instructional development activities were for all
practical purposes nonexistent. What activities there were, failed to
reduce the distance between TA instructional differences and were
seemingly resented by the TA' s. The evaluational activities of the
course acted primarily to differentiate students and provided no evidence
pertaining to the quality of the course in terms of either student per-

formance or affective development. As a "system" the course was at

W

h...

I...
Q

174

best internally unreliable and in certain cases almost inoperative.

By observation, there were obvious differences in the quality
of instructional performances and underlying instructional abilities.
This was true for lecturers as well as TA's. Some of the performances
seemed very good, others seemed very bad. Although it is not the
purpose of this study to become deeply involved in the analysis of
individual performances, student attendance as well as observed
student outcome differences suggest there were real quality differences
in terms of such instructional activities as establishing "rapport” with
the students, integrating different materials, using the appropriate
exaInple to clarify or apply a point. While it may well be contended that
there will always be differences between individual instructional per-
formances, in the context of this study, it is also true that these dif-
ferences resulted in real performance differences on the part of students
and real differences in the grade a student received dependent upon

which discussion section he happened to draw.

Immediate Im3rovement of Undergraduate Instruction

Whether the course, as observed during the term of the study
was better than what was previously offered is impossible to estimate.
As a "system" of instruction it failed simply by lack of internal relia-
bility to approximate ”provision for student opportunity" and instruc-
tional "quality" varied. The valuing of course content decreased over
time as did attendance. In comparing the course to the previously

indicated list of instructional responsibilities, the following conclusions

175

can be made:

1.

little, if any, determination of student readiness took
place; considering the heterogeneity of the student popu-
lation this may have been impossible, but in the case of
content, much of it was technically-oriented and of interest
only to a small proportion of the students

the primary motivation of students to learn, observable
consistently in the course, was the necessity of success-
ful completion of the course and relative grade aspira-
tions; other motivational elements occurred only differ-
entially in the various parts

the demonstration of skills and attitudes to be developed
was partially bifurcated between the re search-oriented
lectures and the teaching-experience-oriented discussion
sections where there were obvious quality differences in
the ability of the TA's to demonstrate

learning activities or practice tasks were fairly clearly
dominated by the student preparation for exams; course
projects were included but the inability of the TA's to
judge the student performance on these tasks lessens their
effectivene s s

considering the decreasing attitude toward the course con-
tent and the inverse relationship between attitude toward
the course and entering GPA, it would seem unlikely that
any systematic use of reinforcement or the development of
student satisfaction took place

by far the weakest aspect of the course was the provision
for the development of organization and meaning; integra-
tion of materials was left to the TA's which, by their own
self-reports, was indicated as their greatest weakness

the development of standards of performance and means

of judging student performance has been discussed at
length; it was concluded that there were important differ-
ences between the discussion sections on this instructional
responsibility and that student performance in general was
judged by a series of cutting points on the distribution of
student performances.

Perhaps most importantly, the course as a model of instruction

to students aspiring to become teachers was far removed from the

(I)

/ :0

W:
de

the

176
behaviors it suggested the students develop. The course ignored for the
most part the basic tenants included in its content about the importance
of differences between students, the conditions surrounding learning,
the means of developing motivation, and the importance of instructional
objectives. Even without the examples of these behaviors, there was
little provision for the students to attempt to behaviorally apply them in
the course. While one emphasis of the course was environmental dif-
ferences in entering student abilities and the necessity of providing for
these differences, no similar provision was included in course proce-
dures, with the exception of some special attention for foreign students
with liInited English ability. This breakdown between theory professed
in the course, and the actual practices observed in the course by the
students, suggests among other things that the conception of the course

was more one of form than one of substance.

Reorienting ”Predominant Characteristics" Over Time

 

Perhaps more important than the momentary “bestm approxima-
tion of the objectives inherent within a ”quality program” is the degree
to which the program acts in the long run to reorient the ”predominant
characteristics" toward these objectives. In the plan for Ed 200, pro—
vision for long term reorienting was only included with regard to the
development of the TA's instructional skills and interests. In effect,
the plan for the program indicated that the college could not or would
not attempt reorientation through existing senior faculty. In fact,

provision for senior faculty participation in the course moved the

177
"predominant characteristics" further away from the objectives by de-
creasing both senior faculty participation and responsibility, and by
providing for senior faculty participation only in the narrow areas of
specialization.

Thus, to achieve congruence with the general demands for im-
provement of and increased interest in undergraduate instruction, the
plan specified that a program be included which would develop both
skills and interest in undergraduate instruction in the TA's. The find-
ings of this study indicated that, at best, the college teaching internship
program was a formality which had little effect on the development of
TA's as instructors, which was partially abandoned after the term
immediately preceding this study, and which was negatively viewed by
the TA‘s. In terms of TA outcomes, many of the TA's had no plans to
engage in teaching after completing their degrees and those that were
planning on teaching after completion of their graduate training indicated
primary interest in instructing in their area of specialization with
emphasis on graduate instruction. In the eyes of the undergraduates in
the course, the most important weaknesses identified in the TA's per-
formances were in the area of actual instructional skills.

Any discussion of whether the plan was truly intended to work or
merely an afterthought following the reduction of senior faculty partici-
pation is purely speculative. However, without impuning individuals
involved in the course, it was obvious that the central administration

of the course lacked the powers or prestige to accomplish the development

E\

i:

th

EC

PU
flu

178
of a program which seriously demanded the involvement of senior
faculty or which could seriously alter the research-orientation of
graduate training programs. The TA's in the course were responsible
to the central administration for obvious required instructional activities,
and while some of the TA's responded positively and innovatively to the
freedom the course allowed them in the discussion sections, according
to the TA's themselves, their primary interest was in completing the
graduate programs specified by their respective graduate committees.
As one instructor indicated, the freedom allowed in the discussion sec-
tions was an advantage allowing him to try out ideas, but that the use of

this freedom should be encouraged rather than taken as if to fill a void.

Appropriateness of TA' 3

 

Previously, it was indicated that the ”critical is sue" resolution
underlying the Curriculum Review Committee's plan for Ed 200 was to
compensate for ”predominant characteristics" of the College by further
reducing the participation of senior faculty in the course, and then fill-
ing this instructional gap by employing widespread use of TA's to ful-
fill instructional responsibilities. Although the Committee's plan
differed in form from other courses also employing widespread use of
TA's, a central issue in this evaluation was the degree of substance in
these formally specified differences. An important scholar of higher
education, Martin Trow, had previously outlined at length the problems
and probable consequences of using TA's to compensate for these ”pre-

dominant characteristics" especially in the case of a heterogeneous

179
student population as usually found on large, state-supported campuses.

From an evaluational standpoint, what Trow suggested is that
the use of TA's to compensate for the predominant characteristics of
these large, state-supported institutions toward the objective of quality
instruction is neither valid nor reliable. The use of TA's is not valid
because: (1) it primarily serves the purposes of graduate programs
and research interests of faculty, (2) it does not provide for the future
improvement of instruction since the TA's get very little valuable train-
ing, (3) it exposes undergraduate instruction to TA's in a manner not
conducive to creating further interest in developing instructional compe-
tence, (4) it detracts from the primary purposes of both the senior
faculty and the TA’s, (5) it orients the content and experiences away
from the purposes of undergraduate education, and (6) it restricts the
institution's ability to reform undergraduate instruction and the depart-
ment's ability to reform graduate programs.

Beyond the invalidity of using TA's to compensate, Trow also
argued that TA's as a means of instruction are unreliable. This lack
of reliability is because: (1) TA's are often poor instructors simply
in terms of abilities, (2) TA's, by nature of the circumstance, are un-
likely to be good instructors irrespective of ability due to motivational
factors, other personally pressing demands on their time and energies,
and attitudinal factors vis-a-vis the faculty and the institution, and (3)
the resulting courses using TA's place the TA in a position of responsi-

bility for which he has very little understanding, experience, or competence.

Dc

180

The findings of this study almost totally support these conten-
tions. In addition, Trow predicted that the results of a program highly
dependent upon the use of TA's to fill the instructional gap with a large,
heterogeneous population of students would result in entering diversity
of students being graded rather than instructed. This contention is also
supported by the findings of this study when the systematic bias in in-
structor grades is taken into consideration. Even in the case of instruc-
tor grades, the best predictor was the student's mid-term exam per-
formance. Trow also indicated that in terms of student interest and
involvement in the course, the results would be:

1. the good students becoming lost, bored, and remaining
unchallenged

2. the middle students--and all of the students to some degree--
disassociating the material (theory and research) from their
lives and their futures and from implications other than re-
lated to the discipline

3. the poor students becoming totally uninvolved because they
are not taught, because they cannot compete with the good
students, and because within this setting, they cannot com-
pensate in any way for the entering differential.

The study findings do not as clearly support these contentions,
but the study design was not clearly directed toward this objective. How-
ever, there is some evidence which clearly supports parts of the pre-
dicted outcomes. The students with higher entering grade-point-
averages did have a lower attitude toward the course than did other
students. Irrespective of entering student characteristics, student

attitude toward the course content in relation to their future teaching

noticeably decreased. Attitude toward the course as part of their

OI

Sui

USE

181
preparation for teaching fluctuated, but was generally lower than other
attitude measures. Students receiving the lowest grades in the course
had the lowest course attitudes at the end of the course, and attendance

in the course lectures dropped off over time.

Summary

In summary, it is reasonable to conclude that the specified
course form lacked substance in regard to either "quality instruction"
or ”provision for student opportunity" and that it failed either to ”best"
approximate these objectives given "predominant characteristics” or
act positively toward reorienting in the long run the “predominant
characteristics” toward these objectives. Considering Trow's argu-
ments, and the close correspondence between the study findings and
these arguments, the widespread use of the TA even with the specified
variations included in this course was not an appropriate means by which
to compensate for the "predominant characteristics” of the College.
Although the course as a "system" failed to achieve reasonable relia-
bility as analyzed during the term of the study, this does not imply
that ”systematic” approaches, page, are inappropriate, but just that
building a ”system" of instruction based upon widespread, indiscriminate

use of the TA is inappropriate.

C_‘I‘

Chapte r VI

CONC LUSIONS

The main objective of this study has been to consider a particu-
lar ”system” of instruction in relation to a general model of undergradu-
ate instruction and some global objectives of undergraduate teacher edu-
cation. However, any consideration of the course in relation to
educational implications or means for impovement must take into con-
sideration some broader issues. Given the conditions of large, state-
supported institutions of higher education today which include widely
heterogeneous undergraduate student populations and broad differences
in both number and interests between senior faculty and undergraduate
students, it seems clear that undergraduate instructional conditions are
more a symptom than a cause. Instruction in and of itself is no more
than a means to some desired goals and the relative quality of instruc-
tion determines the relative effectiveness of the means to the ends.

Equally as import ant as the conditions and quality of instruction
are the choice of goals and their behavioral components including
standards for student accomplishment. Both instruction and goals are
inseparable for the development of a meaningful college experience,
but only when there is a high degree of consistency between them.

What distinguished the course observed in this study was not just the

relative weaknesses in the instructional conditions, but also the lack

182

183
of consistency between goals and objectives, between specified per-
formances and actual performances, and between stated purposes and
underlying purposes. Under these circumstances it appears highly
unlikely that any instructional end-product could have approached the
objectives of undergraduate instruction and teacher education. Although
the greatest performance inconsistencies were most clearly observed
in the program responsibilities delegated to TA's, in light of other course
inconsistencies these performance problems seem more effect than

cause.

Cour se Inconsistencies

 

The most obvious inconsistency in this course centered around
the course objectives. While it is not the purpose of an evaluation to
determine the relative correctness of objectives, in the case of this
course it was stated previously that the objectives represented extremely
limited behavioral competencies and were of little value in considering
the course in relation to either the broader goals indicated by the Col-
lege or the goals of improving undergraduate instruction. The lack of
agreement between the specific course objectives and the broader
course goals was one important inconsistency, but even if it were assumed
that the objectives were appropriate, there was a high degree of incon-
sistency between them and the specified structure of the course. The
objectives primarily referred to recall of content. There was some

congruence between the objectives, content as presented by texts and

5k

V11.

184

lectures, and content of exams. But the component of the course
responsible for insuring the learning of content, the TA's, were for
the most part weak in the content areas. There was little or no inte-
gration of the content materials, and the exams did not evaluate student
performance in terms of content areas but rather differentiated student
performance into grading units. All of this, in addition to a large
proportion of the students' grades being determined by TA awarded
grades which showed little relationship to other measures of content
attainment, indicates that the course objectives were either inappro-
priately pursued or did not provide a central theme around which the
course could be organized.

The inconsistency between the specified operation of the course
and its actual operation have already been discussed at length.
Another inconsistency briefly mentioned was between the specified
performances of personnel in the course and the choice of personnel.
In addition, there was a gross inconsistency between the specified duties
and responsibilities of the course administration and the actual authority
allotted to the course administration to perform these duties and re-
sponsibilities.

These inconsistencies represent more than just weaknesses in
planning or implementation. Underlying the course and College ad-
ministration seems to be the effect which Merton describes as

”ritualism"--the professing of certain goals and standards of behavior

185

while acting on the basis of previous goals and standards of behavior. 1
Underlying the senior faculty seems to be a form of ”goal displacement”
where the traditional educational values including undergraduate instruc-

tion are still maintained verbally, but actual performances are directed

to new values and goals.

I—rnbalance Between Graduate and Undggraduate Programs

 

This problem most clearly resided in the nature of the relation-
ship between the College's graduate program and the College's under-
graduate program. In this relationship, it would appear that two distinct
forces for change were operating which had different goals and dif-
ferent vested interests. The first force, previously discussed as
”institutional upgrading, ” was primarily graduate program and depart-
ment oriented. Roughly, this process was related to improving the
College's relative prestige in relation to other areas of the University
and other colleges of education. Prestige comes from having and ex-
hibiting certain quantities and/or qualities of that which is valued by
various social and constituent groups. What sets the valuing in higher
educational institutions are the disciplines of knowledge and their
professional organizations. As Gouldner indicates, this makes the

faculty, and accordingly the disciplines, more ”cosmopolitan” than I'local. "2

/

 

1Robert Merton, Loc. C_I_i_t.

2Alvin Gouldner, ”Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analy-
sis of Latent Social Roles -- I, II, ” Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 2 (1957-58), pp. 281-306 and 444-80.

 

1mde:
mem
units
Cour:
Versi
ment
with

186
What is rewarded by these ”cosmopolitan” groups includes qualitative
scholarship, quantitative publication, and novel ideas, none of which has
any direct relationship to instruction. The second force developed out
of the institutional movement toward a ”rational” system in which there
is congruence between structure, operation, and purpose or goal. This
force was primarily centered in the University's administration and was
directed toward more closely realizing the Institution's traditional goal
of providing for student growth and development. The first force was
represented by the upgrading in process in the area of graduate educa-
tional psychology. The second force was represented by the Committee
on Undergraduate Education's report and by the provisions in the teacher
education program for individual differences.

The College of Education as an administrative division of the
University had certain responsibilities to provide better instruction for
undergraduates. The College of Education as a compilation of depart-
mental units was directly subject to the immediate pressures of these
units' ”cosmopolitan” interests. The solution, as exemplified in this
course, was to create a structure which in form responded to the Uni-
versity goals, but which in substance responded to the faculty-depart-
mental goals. Thus, the result as observed was a structural form
without the ability to provide substance, and a substance without
structural means to insure the responsibility of its accomplishment.

This situation is represented by the decision, or "critical issue"

resolution, to decrease the participation of senior faculty in the course

187

while at the same time allow senior faculty to control the designation
of objectives and content for the course. When there are conflicting
forces residing in the determination of an issue which are unequally
balanced in strength, the resulting compromise is bound to be further
toward the direction of the stronger force. A compromise in relation
to this course was reached only after the other-than-undergraduate-
instructional interests of senior faculty were first insured.

The College, through the Curriculum Review Committee, was
correct in recognizing that conditions in higher education in general
create a situation in which it is difficult to attract qualified, research-
oriented staff if serious demands are going to be made on their time by
early undergraduate instructional responsibilities. However, the pre-
sumption implicit in this predicament is that research-oriented staff
is the only desirable staff to recruit. This presumption infers either
that undergraduate instructional interests of senior faculty are of
secondary importance or that research-oriented staff are better in-
structors. There is no evidence to support the latter conclusion and
the former conclusion supports the notion of an educational condition
in which research and graduate training is of greater value to the Col-
lege than undergraduate instructional interests.

Both graduate training and research interests, and undergraduate
instructional interests are institutionally desirable. But it should be
recognized that they represent different values, activities, and interests

although the two program orientations are not necessarily mutually

P1

n»

C(

188

exclusive. Thus the problem of recruiting staff is not only one of the
availability of people to recruit, but also the problem of recruiting the
appropriate staff member for a given area of concern. If institutional
resources and the availability of potential personnel were unlimited,
the problem would primarily be one of appropriate means of criteria
for choice. Since this isn't the case, the problem also becomes one
of achieving reasonable recruitment balance between graduate training
and research goals and undergraduate instructional goals. The problem
as represented by the results of this evaluation was that the balance was
seriously upset in favor of the graduate training and research goals.

The ability of the faculty to develop clear goals and behavioral
objectives in relation to its primary interests was not the problem, as
exemplified by the clarity of the goals and objectives of the doctoral
program in educational psychology. This does not imply that graduate
training is free from need to reform; the opposite is the case. What it
does imply is that a more balanced relationship needs to be established
between graduate training and undergraduate programs whereby the
needs of undergraduate students and provisions for their heterogeneity
are included in the development of program goals, objectives, and
instructional procedures.

To accomplish a balance between graduate interests and under-
graduate interests, the College should attempt to first establish clear
undergraduate behavioral priorities and corresponding criteria for

course structure and student performance. Briefly, these would

include:

1.

189

the types of global behavior a student should be able to
exhibit upon completion of the program

the means by which these behaviors may be exhibited, not
in the sense of content, page, but rather in structure and
outcome

recognition and provision for differences in student goals

provision for independent study and other student-derived
plans of procedure

reorganization of the current system of student rewards to
represent relative student movement toward program
behavioral objectives

establishment of on-going evaluational procedures which:

a. involve all participants (faculty and students) in the
critical questions of goals and procedures

b. provide frequent and relevant feedback to all partici-
pants

c. would be responded to by all participants.

To avoid the process of program development and evaluation

becoming an assertion of graduate-research interests and to insure the

maintenance of balance between graduate and undergraduate programs,

some of the following procedures probably should be implemented:

1.

a higher priority should be placed on the recruitment of
qualified faculty for instructional purposes in the under-
graduate program

the informal control of the graduate faculty and the depart-
ments over the organization, conduct, and content of under-
graduate instruction should be greatly decreased

any involvement in undergraduate instruction should include
active participation in the development of instructional
objectives, procedures, materials, and evaluation

190

4. clear minimal levels of instructional behavior should be
established, expected, and enforced

5. clear rewards for both instructional performance and the
development of instructional skills should be provided in-
cluding monetary, professional academic rank, and relative
course-load

6. the development of curriculum or instructional units and
experimentation with instructional approaches should re-
ceive the same consideration as other more discipline-
oriented research efforts

7. while high, relatively fixed standards of student perform-
ance should be developed and maintained, instruction should
be judged by the relative movement a teacher creates
toward these objectives on the part of all students

8. grading student behavior as it is presently conducted in
terms of the normal curve differentiation should be changed
to a system which allows for a broader range of entering
abilities and outcome performances (perhaps a pre-test,
post-test system)

9. graduate training should include as an optional provision
the development of instructional capabilities including the
development of understanding of undergraduate students,
the development of undergraduate instructional skills and
procedures in heterogeneous classrooms, and the develop-
ment, application, and evaluation of content to instructional
units in relation to undergraduate learning and goals.

No matter what specific steps are taken, the questions of balance
and educational development should be pursued openly within the College.
Not only do undergraduates have a particular perspective to be taken
into consideration, their views are also needed to create an iInportant
counterbalance to the weight of the graduate training and re search-
oriented forces which predominate in higher education today. By defend-

ing a perspective to undergraduate students, perhaps the effect of the

Closer interaction will both modify the position of senior faculty and

191
improve the relevance and understanding of research and empirical
behavior on the part of the undergraduates. At the least, this proce-
dure will present a model of educational regeneration which under-

graduates will carry with them into their professional teaching careers.

Graduate Students as Instructional Personnel

 

Trow indicated that TA's, as they are generally employed in
large, state-supported institutions of higher education, are a poor
way to compensate for the ”predominant characteristics" of the insti-
tutions. The findings in this study clearly support his contentions.
But does this mean that it is totally inappropriate to use graduate students
as instructional means to achieve program goals? The ”predominant
characteristics” of Michigan State University and similar institutions
include a high ratio of senior faculty to students and a very heterogen-
eous student population. To move toward the objectives of “quality
instruction” and ”provision for student opportunity" it is clearly neces-
sary that effort must be made to provide some individualization of
instruction. Individualization of instruction today me ans far more than
just a closer relationship between student and instructor (e. g. , pro-
gramed instruction, computer-assisted instruction, sequentially
organized curriculum, instructional aids), but some close relation-
ship would seem necessary considering the differing developmental
states of undergraduate students and the wide differences in their

entering abilities and backgrounds. The problem of achieving improved

192
undergraduate instruction and of reorienting the ”predominant charac-
teristics” of the institutions still remain.

What is supported by this study in relation to Trow's arguments
is that the widespread, indiscriminate use of TA's to compensate for
differences in both numbers and interests between senior faculty and
undergraduate students in order to support the primary research and
graduate training interests of senior faculty is inappropriate. As Trow
points out, there are potential weaknesses in the use of graduate students
as instructional personnel simply by nature of their status as graduate
students. The widespread, indiscriminate use of graduate students,
as found in this study, will accentuate this problem. What Trow also
argues is that the primary value system surrounding the undergraduate
courses in which TA's carry instructional responsibilities is not condu-
cive to enhancing instruction as a valued activity or to aiding the develop-
ment of instructional skills. This too proved to be the case in this
course.

However, the findings inherent in this study do not support an
argument of total abandonment of the use of graduate students in in-
structional capacities either. It does not even support the abandonment
of the use of TA's in a ”system” of instruction, only the abandonment
of the widespread use of TA's under conditions which are neither con-
ducive to undergraduate instructional goals nor conducive to the develop-
ment of instructional skills and values. The findings of this study indi-

cated that there were wide differences between the TA's in their

193
instructional interests and abilities. It also supported the conclusion
that the "system" of instruction was primarily oriented to research-
graduate training interests rather than undergraduate instructional
interests. And the findings also supported the conclusion that there
were no cohesive course objectives around which a positive program
of instructional development could take place.

If the use of graduate students for instructional purposes is
conducted in a program of instruction which includes not only the form,
but also the substance of undergraduate instructional objectives and
instructional development objectives, graduate students who are interested
in developing their skills and perhaps preparing for a career in college
teaching offer certain advantages. They are interested in students,
they may not be fully committed yet to research interests, because
they are closer to the undergraduate students than senior faculty they
more clearly recognize the frustration inherent in students when con-
fronted with weak instruction, and they are not yet in a status position
where they must act the role of professional research specialist and
thus are more susceptible to instructional development activities. But
to take advantage of these characteristics of certain graduate students,
it would seem imperative that conditions under which they instruct and
develop their instructional skills should be positive and clearly organized.

In addition to creating a more equal balance between graduate-
research and undergraduate programs, which correspondingly should

alter the primary value system surrounding undergraduate courses as

194
previously suggested, the use of graduate students for instructional
purposes should be clearly defined in keeping with the recommendations
of the CUES report. If graduate students are used to assist in courses,
they should clearly be assistants working directly under the guidance of
a faculty member responsible for course outcomes. If they carry
actual instructional responsibility, the graduate students should be
treated as college instructors and accordingly held responsible for
course outcomes. If they carry partial responsibility within a ”system"
of instruction, graduate students should have clearly designated areas
of responsibility, clear direction in meeting these areas of responsi-
bility, and be held responsible for the outcomes of this responsibility.

Some minimal conditions on the use of graduate students for
instructional purposes would appear to be: (1) an interest expressed
in developing undergraduate teaching skills, (2) a period of training
sufficient to insure undergraduate students a reasonable ”quality” of
instruction, (3) a thorough knowledge of the content and its applications
and relationships, (4) an active program of positive instructor develop-
ment evaluation, and (5) sufficient remuneration for the professional
role being fulfilled.

A comprehensive program of college teaching development might
include provisions for graduate students to advance in instructional
responsibility in accordance with the observed gains in their instruc-
tional competence and understanding of content. Depending upon enter-

ing interests and qualifications, a graduate student might begin with

oh
its

8 X

1‘6

1a:

Th0
tio:
Par
thh
Pro
actj
598
Pro!
uPO:
to 0!

arOQ

195

observation of different instructional approaches used within the
institution, move to actual assisting in a course with some limited
experience allowed in preparing materials for a class session fol-
lowed by critiques, revisions, and then application, and then based
upon proven development move on to actual instructional responsi-
bilities. Such a program might include peripheral parts devoted to
research on instructional development, to the development of curricu-
lar materials, to the problems and methodology of evaluation in in-
structional development, and to the relationship between instructional
approaches, degree of student heterogeneity, and patterns of student
growth.

For a program of instructional development of graduate students
to work, Trow's arguments and the findings of this study indicate
that the program would have to have reasonable independence from
more research-oriented programs and comparable prestige. In addi-
tion, the program's activities would have to be a real and meaningful
part of the graduate students' graduate training program. To accomplish
this it would seem necessary that successful completion of a graduate
program for students electing to take part in instructional development
activities would include development of instructional skills to some
specified standards of accomplishment. But irrespective of specific
programs or specific procedures, any success is largely dependent
upon a change in the zeitgeist surrounding undergraduate instruction
to one in which the curriculum and instructional activities are organized

around differing undergraduate student backgrounds and abilities and

196
are directed to providing an integrated experience in relation to their

needs.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bdrm

Com;

Crow

Curr;

David

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alpert, Richard, and Haber, Ralph Norman. "Anxiety in Academic
Situations, ” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
Vol. 61, No. 2, 1960, pp. 207-15.

 

Bandura, Albert, and Walters, Richard H. Social Learning and Per-
sonality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc. , 1963.

 

 

Berelson, Bernard. Graduate Education in the United States. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , 1960.

 

Bruner, Jerome S. Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press, 1967.

 

Buros, Oscar. (ed. ). The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook.
Highland Park, N. J.; The Gryphow Press, 1965.

 

Committee on Undergraduate Education. Improving Undergraduate
Education: The Report of the Committee. East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, 1967.

 

 

Crowne, D. P. , and Marlowe, D. The Approval Motive: Studies in
Evaluative Dependence. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1964.

 

 

Curriculum Review Committee. Rngort on Undergraduate Curriculum
Revision. Mimeographed material, East Lansing: College
of Education, Michigan State University, April, 1965.

 

Davidson, 0. M. ”Reliability of self-reported high school grades. ”
Unpublished research report, American College Testing
Program, Iowa City, Iowa, 1963.

Dressel, Paul L. ”The Role of Evaluation in Teaching and Learning. "
Evaluation in the Social Studies. Harry D. Berg. (ed. ).
Washington, D. C. : National Council for the Social
Studies, 1965.

 

197

198

Dressel, Paul L. The Undergraduate Curriculum in Higher Education.
New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education
Inc., 1963.

 

Dressel, Paul L. , and DeLisle, Frances H. Undergraduate Curriculum
Trends. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Educa-
tion, 1969.

 

Eysenck, H. J. , and Eysenck, Sybil B. G. Eysenck Personality
Inventory. ’San Diego, Cal. : Educational and Industrial
Testing Service, 1963‘.

 

Eysenck, Hans J. , and Eysenck, Sybil B. G. Personality Structure
and Measurement. (San Diego, Cal.: R. R. Knapp, 1967.

 

Gage, N. L. (ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago:
Rand McNally 8: Company, 1963.

 

Glass, Gene V. , and Hakstian, A. Ralph. ”Measures of Association
in Comparative Experiments: Their Development and
Interpretation. " American Educational Research Journal,
Vol. 6, No. 3, May 1969. PP. 403-13.

 

Gough, H. G. , and Sanford, R. N. Rigidity as apsychological variable,
unpublished manuscript, University of California, Institute
of Personality Assessment and Research, Berkeley, Cal. ,
1952.

 

Gouldner, Alvin. ”Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of
Latent Social Roles--I, H. ” Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 2 (1957-58), pp. 281-306 and 444-80.

 

Hays, William L. Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

 

Katz, Joseph (ed.). No Time for Youth. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1968.

 

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. , 1964.

 

Kuder, G. Frederic, and Richardson, Marion W. "The Theory of the
Estimation of Test Reliability. " Principles of Educational

and Psychological Measurement. William A. Mehrens and
Robert L. Ebel, eds. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967.

 

 

199

Lewin, Kurt, Dembo, Tamara, Festinger, and Sears, Pauline. "Level
of Aspiration. " Personality and the Behavior Disorders.
J. McVicker Hunt (ed.) New York: Ronald Press, 1944.

 

Mager, Robert F. Preparinglnstructional Objectives. Palo Alto,
California: Fearon Publishers, 1962.

 

Macmillan, C. J. B., and Nelson, Thomas W. (eds.) Concepts of
Teaching: Philosophical Essays. Chicago: Rand McNally
8: Company, 1968.

 

 

Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York:
The Free Press, 1957.

Raffer, Mary E. , and Ruble, William L. Stepwise Deletion of Variables
from a Least Squares Epuation: Stat Series Descmtion No.
8. Mimeographed material, East Lansing, Mich. , Michigan
State University Computer Center, Jan. , 1968.

Riesman, David, and Jencks, Christopher. The Academic Revolution.
New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

 

Rokeach, Milton. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books,
1960.

 

Rosenthal, Robert. ”The Effect of the Experirnenter on the Results of
Psychological Research. " Progress in Experimental
Personality Research, Brendon Maher. (ed.) New York:
Academic Press, 1964.

 

 

Rosenthal, Robert, and Jacobson, Lenore. Pygmalion in the Classroom.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968.

Ruble, William L. , and Raffer, Mary E. Calculation of Basic Statistics
When Missing Data is Involved, Stat Series Description No.
Q. Mimeographed publication, Michigan State University
Computer Center, East Lansing, Mich. , Oct. , 1967.

Sanford, Nevitt (ed. ). The American College. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1962.

 

Siegel, Laurence, and Siegel, Lila L. ”Educational Set: adeterminant
of acquisition. ” Journal of Educational Psychology, 56,
1965, pp. 1-12.

200

Siegel, Laurence, and Siegel, Lila C. The Instructional Gestalt in
Televised University Courses. Mimeographed research
report, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, June, 1966,
p. 49.

 

 

Thiel, Larry, and Patrick, Linda. Percount: Technical Report No. 18.
Mimeographed material, Michigan State University,
Computer Institute for Social Science Research, East
Lansing, Michigan, May, 1968.

 

Trow, Martin. ”The Undergraduate Dilemma in Large State Universi-
ties." Universities Quarterly, December, 1966, pp. 17-35.

 

Wallach, Michael A. , and Kogan, Nathan. Modes of Thinking in Young
Children. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.

 

Wallach, Michael A. , and Kogan, Nathan. "Sex differences and judg-
ment processes." Journal of Personality, Vol. 27, 1959,
pp. 555-63.

 

Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Desig. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962.

 

A PPE NDICE S

APPENDIX A

Course Outline and Curriculum Review Committee Report

II.

COURSE OUTLINE
EDUCATION 200
Spring, 1968

GENERAL PURPOSE OF EDUCATION 200:

The objective of this course is to help you toward a greater
understanding of the principles underlying the task of guiding
children toward maximum self-realization. The aim is to pro-
vide, not specific answers and prescriptions, but rather view-
points, outlooks, and professional understanding of children
and the procedures by me ans of which their growth and learning
can be promoted most effectively.

There are no simple answers to the many questions regarding
human behavior. The reason for your taking a course in edu-
cational psychology is not to provide you with cook-book recipes
and rules of thumb aimed at dealing with the nonexistent ”average”
student. Rather , it is to provide you with insights into the psy-
chology of being a teacher, to acquaint you with the role that
every teacher plays as an educational psychology-~an educator

and a psychologist.

 

 

EDUCATION 200 FACULTY:

Several members of the senior faculty play a major role in the
conduct of this course. These individuals include:

Dr. Keith Anderson, Assistant Professor - B.S. , (Music and
Social Science), St. Cloud State College; M.Ed. , Wisconsin
State University; M. A. , Michigan State University; Ph. D. ,
(Curriculum and Teacher Education), Michigan State University.

Dr. Norman Bell, Assistant Professor - B.S. , (Math), Wheaton
College; M.S. , Northern Illinois University; Ph. D. , (Counsel-
ing Psychology), Purdue University.

Dr. Harvey Clarizio, Assistant Professor - B.S. , (General
Psychology), St. Thomas College; M. A. , University of
Minnesota; S.Ed. , University of Minnesota; Ed. D. , (Educa-
tional Psychology), University of Illinois.

Dr. James Costar, Professor - B.A. , (History), University of

South Dakota; M. A. , University of South Dakota; Ed. D. ,
(Counseling and Guidance), Michigan State University.

201

202

Dr. William Farquhar, Professor - B.A. , (Physical Sciences),
University of Omaha; M. A. , University of Omaha; Ph. D. ,
(Counseling and Clinical Psychology), University of Minnesota

Dr. Donald Freeman, Assistant Professor - B.A. , (Biology),
GrinnellCollege; M. A. , Michigan State University; Ph. D. ,
; (Educational Research), Michigan State University.

Dr. Robert Green, Associate Professor - B.A. , (General Psy-
chology), San Francisco State College; M. A. , San Francisco
State College; Ph. D. , (Educational PsycholOgY). Michigan
State University.

Dr. Donald Hamachek, Associate Professor - A.B. , (Psychology
and Sociology), University of Michigan; M. S. W. , University of
Michigan; Ph. D. , (Educational Psychology and Child Develop-
ment), University of Michigan.

Dr. Clessen Martin, Associate Professor - B. A. , (Psychology),
Ahna College; M. A. , Wayne State University; Ph. D. , (Experi-
mental Psychology), Wayne State University.

Dr. Lee Shulman, Associate Professor - B. A. , (Philosophy),
University of Chicago; M. A. , University of Chicago; Ph. D. ,
1: (Educational Psychology), University of Chicago.

Dr. William Sweetland, Professor - B.A. , (History), Colorado
State College; M. A. , Colorado State College; Ph. D. . (Philosophy),
Michigan State University.

Three members of this faculty are concerned with the administra-
tive coordination of Education 200. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding any phase of the course, feel free to con-

tact one of these individuals:

Office Number Telephone Number

 

 

Dr. Keith Anderson 316 Erickson 353-3986

Dr. Donald Freeman 321 Erickson 355-1773

Dr. William Sweetland 317 Erickson 355-1769
III. DISCUSSION SECTIONS:

 

There will be two discussion periods each week. These discus-
sion sections will have two main functions: (1) to provide oppor-
tunities for‘ clarification of points covered in the lectures and

IV.

203

readings, and (2) to discuss practical applications of the
principles and research findings presented in the course.

The discussion sections will be staffed by the following advanced
graduate student in the College of Education:
Clifford Bee - B. A. , M. A. , Western Michigan University

Robert Boeck - B. A. , Valparaiso University; M. A. , Marquette
University.

Thelma Boca - B. A. , M. A. , Michigan State University

David Harley - B. A. , Southwestern University; M. S. , East
Texas State University.

Ermon Hogan - B. S. , University of Minnesota; M. S. , Atlanta
University.

Frederick Howe - B. A. , M. A. , Michigan State University
John Klanderman - B. A. , Hope College.

Albert Oosterhof - B. A. , Hope College.

Frederick Staley - B. A. , M. A. , Western Michigan University.
Aaron Steenbergen - B. A. , M. A. , State College of Iowa.

George Thompson - B. A. , De Paul University; M. A. T. ,
Oklahoma City University.

Lyman Van Winkle - B. A. , Calvin College; M. A. , Michigan
State University.

Warren Wilde - B.Ed. , University of Alberta.

TO PIC OUT LINE:

 

UNIT 1: HUMAN GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

A. Various Phases of Development (Dr. Clarizio and Dr.
Harnachek)

1. physical development
2. social development

204

3. intellectual development
4. emotional development
5. “self-concept” of the teacher
B. Educational Implications of Differences in Rate and/or

Direction of Development (Dr. Freeman, Dr. Mehrens,
and Dr. Costar)

1. dealing with differences through the guidance
program
2. diagnosis of differences through the use of

standardized tests

UNIT II: PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN LEARNING

A. Basic Learning Principles (Dr. Green, Dr. Bell, and
Dr. Martin)
1. the role of environment in learning
2. Gagne's Hierarchy of Learning Tasks
a. classical conditioning (signal learning)
b. instrumental or operant conditioning

(stimulus-response learning)
motor and verbal chaining
formation of verbal associations
multiple discriminations
concept learning

principle learning

problem solving

human

D‘O’Q

B. Educational Implications of Principles of Human Learn-
ing (Dr. Farquhar and Dr. Shulman)

1. motivation and learning

2. teaching strategies based on Gagne's Hierarchy
3. programmed instruction

4. the changing role of the teacher

RE ADING ASSIGNME NTS:

 

The reading assignments for the course are as follows:
UNIT I. HUMAN GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
Bernard, Harold W. and Huckins, Wesley C. , Readings

in Educational Psychology. Cleveland and New York:
World Publishing Company, 1967.

 

VI.

205

Articles #3, 19, 28, 36, 9, ll, 25, 37, 42, 43, 20,
48, and 27.

Jersild, Arthur T. , When Teachers Face Themselves.
Columbia: Teachers College Press, 1955.

 

Mussen, Paul H. , The Psychological Development of the
Child. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

 

Chapters I through IV.

UNIT II. PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN LEARNING

Bernard, W. H. and Huckins, W.C., Readings in
Educational Psychology.

 

 

Articles #17, 30, 33, 34, 35, 32, 29, 13, and 39.

Gagne, Robert M. , The Conditions of Learning. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.

 

Since these assignments are closely related to specific tOpics in
the course, it will be to your advantage to adhere as closely as
possible to the assigned reading for each set of lectures. (Section
VI of this document.)

DATES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE LECTURES:

 

(1)

(2)

Introduction to Education 200

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27 - DESCRIPTION OF THE
COURSE - Dr. Freeman

Dr. Freeman will describe the course organization,
reading assignments and method of evaluating your
performance in Education 200. The administrative
coordinators and discussion instructors will be intro-
duced.

FRIDAY, MARCH 20 - SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF
TEACHING - Dr. Green

The body of knowledge known as educational psychology
is directly related to the results of research studies in
human behavior. Understanding educational psychology,
therefore demands understanding empirical research.

(3)

(4)

206

This initial lecture is designed to provide you with a
rudimentary basis for interpreting the results of
empirical investigations. In approaching this topic,
Dr. Green describes three general attitudes which
teachers tend to adopt in relating their behavior as
teachers to continuing investigations of human behavior.
These attitudes are: (l) the “dispenser of knowledge, "
(2) the teacher with a “research attitude, ” and (3) the
teacher who demonstrates ”research behavior. ”
READING ASSIGNMENT: Bernard and Huckins,
Articles #3 and #19

UNIT 1. HUMAN GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

 

A. Various Phases of Development

physical development

social development
intellectual development
emotional development
"self-concept" of the teacher

U'lv-PUJNv—a

MONDAY, APRIL 1 Through FRIDAY, APRIL 5 -
PHYSICAL, SOCIAL, AND INTELLECTUAL DEVELOP-j
MENT - Dr. Clarizio
Dr. Clarizio introduces Unit I with a discussion of the
three phases of development listed above. This discus-
sion focuses upon the following topics: the impact of
heredity and environment on a youngster's "readiness"
for school related tasks; the role of "developmental
tasks" in the socialization of the child; and, Piaget's
description of cognitive or intellectual development. The
educational implications of each of these topics are also
considered.
READING ASSIGNMENT: Mussen, Chapters I - IV;
Bernard and Huckins, Articles #28 and #36.

MONDAY, APRIL 8 Through FRIDAY, APRIL 12 -
EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - Dr. Hamachek

Because an individual's perceptions of himself have a
decisive impact on general behavior, teachers must be
aware of the factors which influence one's ”concept of
self. " Dr. Hamachek describes the formation of one's
self-concept and the role which these self-perceptions
play in shaping classroom behavior. Dr. HaInachek also
considers the general topic of ”mental health” and its
implications for teaching.

READING ASSIGNMENT: Bernard and Huckins, Articles

207

#9, ll, 25, 37, 42 and 43; Jersild, When Teachers
Face Themselves*

 

 

B. Educational Implications of Differences
in Rate and/or Direction of Development

1. dealing with differences through the
guidance program.

2. diagnosis of differences through the
use of standardized tests.

(5) MONDAY, APRIL 15 Through WEDNESDAY, APRIL
17 - DEALING WITH DIFFERENCES THROUGH THE
GUIDANCE PROGRAM - Dr. Costar
A teacher's efforts to individualize instruction are facili-
tated by programs of guidance and pupil personnel services
which have been established in most school systems.
These services deal with the educational, vocational, and
personal-social development of all children in the school.
In the guidance program, every professional staff member
(teachers, administrators, and guidance specialists)
has an important role to play.

Dr. Costar will discuss the function and operation of
elementary and secondary school guidance programs.

He will then describe the guidance responsibilities of

the classroom teacher and school counselor. This de-
scription will be highlighted by Dr. Costar's analysis of
tape recorded counseling interviews.

READING ASSIGNMENT: Bernard and Huckins, Article #27

(6) FRIDAY, APRIL 19 Through WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24 -
STANDARDIZED TESTS - Dr. Freeman
It should be evident that extensive differences in rate
and/or direction of development exist among any group
of youngsters. Before educators can effectively deal
with these differences, some method must be used for
making comparisons among individuals as well as for
diagnosing the strengths and weaknesses of a given

 

*This book deals with the ”self-concept" of teachers (see topic
outline). It represents the primary source of information on this topic
and should, therefore, be read during the week following Dr. Harnachek's
lectures.

(7)

208

individual. Most school systems have adopted a standardized
testing program as an aid in making these inter— and
intra-individual comparisons.

Dr. Freeman's lectures are aimed at providing you with
some basis for interpreting the results of standardized
tests. In his approach to this topic, Dr. Freeman pro-
vides examples of items which appear on intelligence
tests; discusses the meaning of various forms of express-
ing an individual's level of performance on exams (grade
equivalents, percentile ranks, standard scores); and,
finally, describes how a teacher should and should not
use standardized tests in making educational decisions.
READING ASSIGNMENT: Bernard and Huckins, Articles
#20 and 48.

THURSDAY, APRIL 25 - MIDTERM EXAMINATION

UNIT 11: PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN LEARNING

(8)

(9)

A. Basic Learning Principles

1. The Role of Environment in Learning

2. Gagne's Hierarchy of Learning Tasks
a. classical conditioning
b. instrumental or operant conditioning

c. motor and verbal chaining

d. formation of verbal associations
e. multiple discriminations

f. concept learning

g. principle learning

h. problem solving

FRIDAY, APRIL 26 - FILM ”Portrait of an Inner City
School"

MONDAY, APRIL 29 Through WEDNESDAY, MAY 1 -
THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENT IN LEARNING - Dr.
Green

Evidence suggests that a strong relation exists between
one‘s prior experiences and one's ability to profit from
new experiences. Teachers must, therefore, be aware
of the factors on a youngster's background which will
either inhibit or enhance school achievement. Dr. Green
identifies several of these factors (home, community,
school, and peer group) and describes how each is re-
lated to various indices of school achievement.

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

209

READING ASSIGNMENT: Bernard and Huckins,
Articles #17, 30, 33, and 34.

FRIDAY, MAY 3 - FILM "Behavioral Theory and
Practice: Parts I and 11"

FRIDAY, MAY 6 Through WEDNESDAY, MAY 8 -
INTRODUCTION TO GAGNE'S HIERARCHY OF LEARN-
ING TASKS - Dr. Bell

Nearly every teacher soon realizes that learners vary
dramatically in their approach to, and performance on,
given learning tasks. Gagne traces these differences

in performance to two fundamental sources: (1) condi-
tions within the learner (basic skills and abilities one
brings to the learning task), and (2) conditions within
the learning situation. Variance along these two dimen-
sions serves as the basis for Gagne's hierarchy of learn-
ing tasks (classical conditioning to problem solving).

Dr. Bell begins his discussion with an overview of
Gagne's position, and learning research generally.

He then focuses on one type of learning, namely,
operant conditioning. Dr. Bell describes the factors
influencing this form of learning, and shows the critical
relevance of these factors in the formulation of teaching
strategies and the development of instructional aids.
READING ASSIGNMENT: Gagne, Chapter I (skim pp.
8-20 and pp. 22-29), 2, 3, and 4.

FRIDAY, MAY 10 Through WEDNESDAY, MAY 15 -
COMPLEX LEVELS OF LEARNING - Dr. Martin

Dr. Martin's lectures extend the description of Gagne's
hierarchy to the higher or more complex levels of learn-
ing. Dr. Martin's initial lecture is concerned with
individual differences in the formation and retention of
multiple-discriminations. This discussion is then extended
to an analysis of the conditions influencing retention and
forgetting of all forms of learning. Finally, Dr. Martin
describes problem solving behavior and discusses
"creativity" within this problem solving framework.
READING ASSIGNMENT: Gagne, Chapters 5, 6 and 7

FRIDAY, MAY 17 Through WEDNESDAY, MAY 22 -
MOTIVATION AND LEARNING - Dr. Farquhar

One of the most critical roles which teachers play is that
of enhancing and/or maintaining academic motivation.
Dr. Farquhar's initial discussion is concerned with the

VII.

(14)

(15)

210

general nature of motivation. This discussion concen-
trates on factors within the learner and within the learn-
ing task which have been shown to influence motivation.
The product of this discussion is a list of general
characteristics of low motivated students.

Dr. Farquhar then presents a set of practical guidelines
for teachers who are having trouble motivating students.
READING ASSIGNMENT: Bernard and Huckins, Articles
#32 and #35.

FRIDAY, MAY 24 Through FRIDAY, MAY 31 - FORMU-
LATING EFFECTIVE TEACHING STRATEGIES - Dr.
Shuhnan

In this final series of lectures, Dr. Shulman considers
the problem of developing effective teaching strategies.
Clearly, a single optimal strategy does not exist for a
given teacher in all situations, or for any set of teachers
faced with the same situation. Rather, many relevant
factors must be considered, including: characteristics
of the students (as discussed in Unit I) relevant research
in human learning; the general culture; and, the objective
which the teacher is attempting to accomplish.

Dr. Shulman's discussions center around the general
teaching strategies suggested by Gagne's ("simple to
complex") and Bruner's (”complex to simple") positions.
This contrast is illustrated with examples of teaching
reading, social studies, and foreign language, as well

as the development of programme instruction. In the final
lecture, Dr. Shulman and Dr. Farquhar consider the
impact of changing patterns of educational technology and
our general culture on the basic role of the teacher.
READING ASSIGNMENT: Bernard and Huckins, Articles
#12, 29, and 39. Gagne, Chapter 8, 9, and 10.

MONDAY, JUNE 3 - FINAL EXAMINATION
5:45 - 7:45 p.m. Room assigmnents will be announced
during the last week of classes.

EVALUATION:

 

Your final grade in Education 200 will represent a combination of
the grades you receive in each of the following areas:

(1)

Midterm Exam: A midterm examination will be administered

 

on Thursday, April 25th. This exam will deal with the

211

lectures and reading assignments from Unit I of the
course. It will consist of 40-50 objective items (multi-
ple choice, true-false, etc.)

(2) Instructor's Evaluation: You will also receive a grade
from your instructor which depicts your level of per-
formance in the small group discussions. In general,
it is the option of each instructor to determine how this
grade will be derived. Typical sources of evaluation
include: papers, essay exams, quizzes, quality of parti-
cipation in discussions, etc.

 

Because each instructor will determine the assignments

for his section, the basis for determining your final

grade in Education 200 will vary somewhat from section

to section. However, an attempt has been made to insure
that the quantity of work involved and the method of assign-
ing grades will be reasonably consistent across all sections.

Your instructor will describe the method by which this
grade will be determined within the next few days.

(3) Final Exam: The final exam will consist of approximately
80 objective items. This exam will deal with the lectures
and reading assignments for the entire course. However,
it will emphasize the material in Unit II. As indicated in
your schedule under "Common Final Exams, " the date for
this exam in Monday, June 3.

 

 

COMPUTATION OF YOUR FINAL GRADE:

You will receive a letter grade (”A", "B", "C", etc.) in each of the above
three areas. Your final grade in Education 200 will consist of the weighted
combination of each of these grades:

 

 

 

Relevant Area Assigned Weight Critical Date
(1) Midterm Exam 20% Thursday, April 25
(2) Instructor's Grade 40% Arranged

(3) Final Exam 40% Monday, June 3

5:45 - 7:45 p. m.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Grades below a "D-" will carry a negative value
in the above computations. In order to receive a passing grade in the
course you must: (1) complete every assignment, every exam, and data
from each research study in which you are asked to participate, and (2)
maintain at least a "D" average.

212
Date: April 21, 1966

TO: Educational Development Project
FROM: Lee Dean
SUBJECT: Curriculum Review in College of Education

Two years ago a faculty committee was appointed in the College of Edu-
cation to review the undergraduate curriculum required of all students
seeking teacher certification. The committee was asked to identify
those basic understandings, skills, and attitudes which characterize a
teacher who can respond competently to all the situations within which
he must function. It was expected that the identification and agreement
upon the basic understandings would be helpful to us in:

a. Developing more goal orientation of courses within our required
offerings. If we identified objectives for the whole program the
assignment of responsibility for teaching these concepts to courses
within the total program would naturally follow. These assigmnents
would thus establish goals for each course.

h. Securing greater uniformity of content in multiple section courses.

c. Eliminating unnecessary duplication of material in courses since
the program would be structured as a unit. Also omissions of
important concepts would be less likely to occur than when courses
were constructed more or less independently.

(1. Providing instructors of courses in the required professional sequences
with better information concerning the fundamental concepts covered
in other courses in the sequence.

e. Evaluating the success of programs against well defined goals.

The committee worked for many weeks before bringing to the faculty a
tentative listing of the components of our professional program which
should be required of all future teachers. The faculty was asked to
respond to a questionnaire indicating their judgment as to the importance
of the various components suggested. This judgment was expressed on
a five point scale ranging from ”irrelevant" to "should understand well. "

Faculty responses were then reviewed by the faculty committee and a
new listing of suggested competencies was developed following faculty
suggestions. This new listing was again circulated to the faculty and
committee hearings were scheduled at which time faculty members were
invited to come in and meet in person with the committee to suggest
modifications or changes.

213

Suggestions obtained from faculty members during the hearings were
incorporated and a final draft of the basic understandings, skills and
attitudes expected from the required undergraduate program was
finally agreed upon. This total listing was then categorized into areas
and assigned to specific courses within the total program. Each of the
four required courses thus was assigned a set of specific goals and
these formed the basis for development of course content.

A copy of the final document which was ad0pted by the total faculty of
the College of Education on April 5, 1965, is attached.

214

DATE: April 5, 1965
TO: Faculty Curriculum Committee
FROM: Curriculum Review Committee

SUBJECT: Report on Undergraduate Curriculum Revision

A sub-committee of the Curriculum Committee was appointed in Decem-
ber 1963, to study the undergraduate required curriculum and propose
appropriate revisions. Early last fall they asked the faculty to react to

a proposed definition of goals and content of the curriculum. These
reactions were analyzed by the committee and a revised listing of compe-
tencies resulted. These behavioral expectations were assigned to speci-
fic segments of the total program.

During the first part of Winter Quarter, hearings were held by the com-
mittee. Faculty members wishing to express their judgments concerning
the curriculum proposals were scheduled to discuss them directly with
the committee. The total process has resulted in the present proposal.

SummarLof Recommendations

 

A. The proposed goals for each of the courses making up the total re-
quired undergraduate curriculum were distributed to faculty members
in January. Page two of the present document identifies additional
competencies added as a result of suggestions made in the faculty
hearings.

B. In considering the total program of teacher education, the committee
included recommended course work which the institution might re-
quire of every teacher beyond initial certification before a permanent
certificate can be issued. This now involves a total of 15 term
credits following a bachelor's degree and under the proposed new
certification code, it will be increased to 45 term credits after the
bachelor's degree.

C. The course, ED 301, School and Society, should be scheduled as a
post-student teaching course rather than a prerequisite to student
teaching as at present. This should make possible the study of
certain topics which are more appropriate after the student has had
an opporunity to gain some background of experience in a school
situation. To conform to an appropriate sequence of course numbers
this course number should become ED 450.

D. The number of credits for secondary methods courses (ED 327)
should be increased from three to five. This increase should be
used to offer some general methods as a part of the total teaching

 

’1‘ fl
H

111 ad.
Conti:
0f or}

H
(h

H n n—J

”D

O

215

methods course and to achieve specific objectives in the evaluation
of instruction. The time each week would be divided between
studying general methods as a total group and special methods

in the major field in specialized subject area groups.

The number of credits granted for ED 200 and ED 301 (450) should
be reduced from six to five credits each. In the large sections,
three hours each week should be used for lecture and two hours
each week used for discussion purposes. The discussion sections
should be divided according to level (elementary and secondary)
so application of theoretical concepts to classroom situations can
be directly related to student's primary interest.

A student should become eligible for student teaching beginning with
the second term of his junior year. (At present, a student is not
eligible until the third term of his junior year.)

The student teaching coordinator should be responsiblt for teach-

ing specific course content as a part of the seminar which accompanies
student teaching. In addition, supervising teachers are expected to
teach specific skills when a deficiency is noted in a student teacher.
Supervising teachers should be helped to assume this responsibility
through regularly scheduled supervising teacher seminars.

In addition to the above recommendations the committee also recommends
continuing study of certain problems with the possibility of implementation
of other changes as soon as practical. Included among these are:

A.

An evaluation program designed to assess continuously the effective-
ness of the courses in the undergraduate program and to identify
weaknesses which should be remedied and needed changes which
should be considered for adoption.

The development of a library of recorded classroom episodes which
could be used as teaching aids throughout the on-campus phase of
the program. These simulated classroom situations would at least
partially help to overcome our inability to provide early classroom
contacts for all of our students.

The lengthening of the period of field experience so that methods
instruction could be combined with the experience in public school
classrooms.

Moving further in the direction of organizing course content on a
sequential rather than disciplinary basis by including in the fir st
course those concepts in the various disciplines best taught at the
introductory level and in later courses the more sophisticated
concepts in those areas.

216

Course One

 

The responsibility for the development of expected competencies in
educational psychology, human growth and development and human
learning are assigned to ED 200, THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE SCHOOL,
for five term credits.

 

In addition, an orientation to the profession is expected since this is the
first course in the required sequence

The student who completes this course:

Orientation to Professional Education

 

Understands the structure and relevance of the various aspects
of the program of Teacher Education at Michigan State University.

Recognizes the criteria by which a profession and a professional
educator can be identified, and measures himself against these
criteria.

Observation and Interpretation of Behavior in the Classroom

 

3.

10.

Recognizes the pupil behaviors characteristic of different
levels of mental ability.

Recognizes the pupil behaviors symptomatic of possible emo-
tional disturbances.

Recognizes the range of individual differences in abilities
between pupils in the same classroom.

Recognizes the differences among abilities manifested by the
same pupil.

Distinguishes among the kinds of thinking which can be expected
of children of different ages.

Recognizes the relationship between levels of thinking and what
can be taught and learned.

Recognizes the wide variety of non-cognitive variables affecting
learning in the classroom, 6. g. , sex, social class, specific
needs, etc.

Recognizes the differences in frustration tolerance characteristic
of pupils of different ages.

ll.

12.

217

Determines the proper length of teaching units on the basis
of an understanding of frustration tolerance.

Understands the internal needs of pupils and their relationship
to various kinds of teacher-induced motivation.

Learning and Thinking in the Classroom

 

l3. :Discriminates among the kinds of learning that take place in

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

the classroom.

Distinguishes among the learning of skills, information, con-
cepts and principles.

Distinguishes between cognitive and attitudinal learning.

Distinguishes between the products and processes of learning,
i. e. , between what is learned and how it is learned.

Recognizes the positive and negative consequence of ”ability"
and other kinds of grouping in developing formal classroom
groups.

Recognizes inter-pupil and pupil-teacher behavior situations
in relationship to principles of group psychology and individual
development.

Analyzes teaching behaviors which elicit different educational
outcomes, e.g. , rote memorization, problem solving, self-
expression.

Recognizes the hierarchial nature of objectives; that is, that
more complex behavioral changes presuppose the prior modi-
fication of simpler behaviors.

Recognizes that objectives can be of different sorts, e. g. ,
cognitive, affective, psychomotor, and that these are
developed by specific kinds of learning experiences.

Recognizes the differences in levels of objectives, e. g. , know-
ing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing.

Understands the value of many kinds of standardized psychological
tests and their general areas of application.

218

Human Growth and Development

 

24.

25.

26.

Recognizes the developmental tasks and general conflicts
characteristic of children of different ages.

Recognizes the developmental changes in physical growth
among school children and the relationships of physical
development to classroom functioning.

Recognizes the patterns of development for various human
characteristics and the points in time when educational inter-
ference is most likely to be successful in modifying.

219

Additional Comyetencies to be Developed Prior to
Permanent Certification

 

 

It seems unrealistic to attempt to develop in the beginning teacher all
the competencies expected of permanently certified professional educa-
tors. In the past the tendency in most teacher training programs has
been to provide at least some instruction in all competencies perceived
as necessary for the teacher. This approach has sacrificed depth for
breadth and may have resulted in the masters level courses commonly
elected to apply toward permanent certification seeming to repeat
undergraduate materials even if at a more sophisticated level.

The present proposal insists that the course work to be applied toward
permanent certification be a planned, sequenced, and required part of
the teacher preparation program of this university; and that the compe-
tencies judged to be required of permanently certified teachers but not
necessarily crucial for successful induction to the profession be deferred
to the period after initial certification.

The competencies to be expected of teachers recommended by this insti-
tution for permanent certification should include (but not necessarily be

limited to) the following:

Classroom Teaching and Learning

 

1. Uses evaluation techniques to compare different teaching behaviors
for comparable students.

2. Evaluates in order to compare effects of teaching on groups of
differing readiness.

3. Analyzes reports of educational research.

4. Evaluates the relationship of educational research to theories and
practices in teaching.

5. Recognizes the relevant differences among theoretical positions
concerning the learning process.

6. Matches principles of learning with the kinds of objectives and
developmental levels for which they are most appropriate.

7. Identifies the different major theories of knowing.

8. Differentiates research as encompassing

I???

12..

20,

21,

10.

11.

220

a. a teaching attitude.
b. a range of investigatory models and techniques.
c. a body of specific findings.

Demonstrates the logical and psychological relationship between
the concepts being taught and the objectives sought.

Understands the psychology and sociology of decision-making and
of behavior change.

Understands and implements the psychological and physiological
processes underlying the basic skills used to receive, organize,
and communicate information; e. g. , reading, mathematical
thinking, speaking and writing.

The School in American Society

 

12..

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20

21

Understands and interprets to others the goals and practices of
the profession.

Analyzes the nature, program, purpose, values and value' of
professional organizations in education.

Understands representative philosophies of education and their
implications for educational practice.

Possesses the tools for analytical activity concerning statements
about education.

Understands the processes through which education initiates and/or
implements social change.

Understands the basic technical terms, concepts, principles, and
controversies in the philosophy and sociology of education as a
basis for more advanced work in the field.

Identifies instances of economic, political, and social injustice
in the school and community and the means possible to gain

community support for their removal.

Analyzes the role of government in education at the Federal, State,
and local level.

Analyzes the role of the church in public education.

Analyzes trends and cycles in education in relation to the history
of American public education.

221

Building the Curriculum

 

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

Makes decisions regarding the scope and sequence relationships
among curricular experiences.

Understands the advantages and disadvantages of such administra-
tive patterns as: Departmentalized; Self-contained; Grade levels;
Non-graded; Homogeneous; Heterogeneous.

Understands the role of the specialist in the school program,

i. e. , nurse, visiting teacher, home-bound teacher, diagnosti-
cian, etc.

Analyzes the relative advantage and disadvantage of such instruc-
tional patterns as: Separate subject; Correlated; Core; Unit;

Team Teaching.

Constructs programs which show promise for creating social
change.

Identifies, analyzes, and justifies curriculum scope and sequence.

Develops effective procedures for curriculum planning.

Financing the Educational Enterprise

 

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

Understands the sources and allocation of funds for all levels
of education.

Analyzes the me ans by which educational opportunities are or may
be equalized.

Understands the role of education in national development.
Understands the factors influencing public support for education.

Plans strategies for gaining community support for education.

222
ORGANIZATIONAL PLAN FOR FOUNDATION COURSES

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

Introduction

 

Providing quality programs to large numbers of students is one of the
most challenging tasks faced by large universities. The task is more
difficult because of the increasingly short supply of competent college
teachers. Some institutions have attempted to overcome the shortage
by staffing undergraduate courses with graduate assistants and have
achieved varying degrees of success.

In order to give undergraduate instruction the emphasis which we believe
it deserves, the College of Education has designed a plan which will
bring our undergraduate students in contact with outstanding senior
faculty members and at the same time allow for student identification
with a small group where his individual questions and comments can
become meaningful.

During the next school year (1966-67) our new undergraduate curriculum
will be implemented fully. This will mean that ED 200 will be offered

for 5 term credits and will be required of all students including transfers.
ED 450 will replace our old ED 301 and follow student teaching rather
than precede it as formerly.

Our projection shows that approximately 1, 350 students will enroll in
ED 200 during the fall term. This number will drop to approximately
1, 000 for winter term and 800 for spring term.

Due to the change in sequence of courses, it is more difficult to predict
the numbers expected to enroll in ED 450 during the next school year.
We do expect that by spring term we shall have approximately 800
students in this course.

gourse Organizational Plan

LECTURE SESSIONS--The coordination involved with courses enrolling
such large numbers is an extremely difficult administrative task. It

is our plan to separate much of the administrivia connected with the
Operation of such courses from the professional contribution which our
senior staff members can make. It is proposed, therefore, that next
Year a course coordinator be appointed for each of these foundations
courses enrolling large numbers of students. It will be his responsi-
bility to coordinate the operation of large lecture sessions (approximately
450 each) but he will not necessarily be responsible for delivering any

0f the lectures himself. Instead, he will be the person responsible for

CC
'FC

\

223

bringing unity to the course which will involve several different faculty
lecturers. He will also be responsible for the coordination of the
discussion sections and be working closely with a faculty member
responsible for course evaluation and a faculty member responsible
for a college teaching internship offered for graduate assistants help-
ing with instruction in the course.

Senior faculty members who have a particular competence in some
portion of the course content and who are known to be outstanding lec-
turers will be invited to give lectures on that portion of the course
which falls within their particular area of interest and competence.
Each senior faculty member thus will be involved with only from 3 to 6
lectures covering a particular unit of the course. Other time he will

be free to pursue other research or instructional responsibilities. We
expect he will be given generous load credit for his contribution to these
basic courses and we hope that to be asked to participate in this manner
will be viewed by the faculty member as a distinct honor.

ORGANIZATIONAL PLAN FOR LARGE GROUP INSTRUCTION

 

CHOOL OF TEACHER
EDUCATION

 

 
     

BASIC PROGRA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL I
CONTENT SEMINAR! I COLLEGE TEACHING
FOR GRAD. : OURSE COORDINATOR)" INTERNSHIP
ASSISTANTS l : I \ SUPERVISOR
LECTURE SE ———-—- --—-—1---—
WITH SENIOR COURSE SMALL GROUP
FACULTY 3 HOURS EVALUATOR DISCUSSION
WEEKLY . SESSIONS

 

 

2 HRS. WEEKLY

We expect that it will become much easier for us to employ competent
new staff whose responsibility it will be to only make specialized
contributions to the instruction in the undergraduate basic coUrses than
it would be to employ staff solely for instructional responsibilities at
the undergraduate level.

DISCUSSION SECTIONS--Besides the large lecture sections scheduled
for 3 days each week, the students will meet twice weekly in small
(under 35) discussion sections which will be conducted by graduate
assistants employed for this purpose. During these sessions it is
expected that the student will have an opportunity to have his questions

C1

224

clarified and be identified as an individual within the total group. It
is expected that the discussion sections will be related closely to the
lectures and that here the student will be concerned with the applica-
tion to classroom problems of the concepts covered during the lecture
sessions.

In order to assure competence on the part of discussion leaders, all
will be required to enroll during fall term for a credit seminar on the
general course content. This seminar will be conducted by the senior
faculty members who are responsible for specific lecture sessions.
Each lecturer will meet with the graduate assistants the week preceding
his presentations to the large groups of students in our Kiva. At this
time he will cover in greater depth some of the material he expects to
discuss with students the following week and will provide the graduate
assistants with a list of readings which will better acquaint them with
the material which he expects to cover. Any graduate student appointed
to one of these positions will be told in advance that the seminar is a
part of the requirements.

COLLEGE TEACHING INTERNSHIP--In addition, all graduate assistants
will be enrolled in a college teaching internship for 3 term credits each
quarter. A member of our faculty will be assigned full time to work

on the development of the graduate assistants as college teachers, much
the same as our coordinators of student teaching function in relation to
elementary and secondary school teachers. Regular group and individual
sessions will be held with the assistants, centered around their teach-
ing responsibilities. We feel that such emphasis upon good teaching

and efforts to improve teaching will be beneficial both in terms of the
quality of the undergraduate course that is being offered and in the
development of strong graduates who expect to go into college teaching.

EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS--Examinations in a course enrolling
large numbers of students are doubly important. The construction of
evaluation instruments which will properly measure the progress
students make toward the predetermined goals of the course is a most
important function. To insure the development of reliable evaluation
procedures, a person will be assigned full time to construct examina-
tions for the two basic courses, ED 200 and ED 450. This person, of
course, will work in close cooperation with the faculty members and
graduate assistants involved in teaching the course content. Eventually
it is expected that a written examination will be developed which will
properly measure a student's competence and make possible the comple-
tion of the course requirements by examination only.

Attached is a more detailed explanation of the responsibilities of the
course coordinator and the college teaching internship coordinator.

225

THE ROLE OF THE COURSE COORDINATOR FOR ED 450

In Course Development:

1.

Serve as Executive Secretary of the course curriculum committee.
This course curriculum committee will be made up of three
faculty members selected from the Social Foundations
specialists on our faculty. It will be responsible for structuring
the course to implement the purposes established for the course
by the College of Education faculty in May 1965.

Arrange for the lecturers for various units of the course.
Arrange for more detailed descriptions of material to be
covered in each unit. (This will consist of expanded descrip-

tion of course goals already determined by faculty. )

Develop calendar with lecture schedule determined for each
quarter.

In Coordination of Lecture Sessions:

1.

40

Build bridges between course units. Provide the thread that
weaves the course into a unified area of study rather than a
series of unrelated lectures.

Provide each lecturer with precise instructions as to material
to be covered.

Orient each lecturer as to what precedes and what follows his
assigned unit so that he clearly understands how his portion of
the course fits into the total course.

Make suggestions concerning instructional aids which might be
developed for lecturers.

In Coordination of Course Evaluation Procedures:

10

Develop a plan for determining students' grades and make sure
students clearly understand these procedures.

Work closely with person responsible for test development.

Coordinate the suggestions of discussion section leaders
related to development of test items.

Arrange for continuous course evaluation by students.

226

In Coordination of Discussion Sections:

10

7.

Provide instructions for discussion leaders concerning goals
for each discussion session. These instructions should be
contained in a discussion leaders handbook which will also
contain suggestions for conducting each scheduled session,
instructional materials which might be used, etc.

Provide means of feedback from discussion leaders to lecturers
regarding student reactions to their work in the course.

Develop well in advance a schedule of seminar sessions for
graduate assistant discussion leaders conducted by course
lecturers each week.

Conduct a pre-school workshop each fall for discussion leaders.

Provide information to graduate assistants regarding enrollment
in seminars scheduled exclusively for them each fall term.

Work closely with the faculty person responsible for the
supervision of the "College teaching internship" in which each
group leader will enroll each quarter during the year. Make
sure this requirement is clearly understood by each graduate
assistant and his graduate program advisor.

Serve on the selection committee for graduate assistants for
the forthcoming year.

In Long-Range Course Development:

1.

As soon as curriculum structure will permit, develop a syllabus
which can be provided for each student. This is needed as

soon as it can be developed within practical limitations. This
should provide the student with greater security than he now
feels regarding the total course objectives and how the parts

fit together.

Develop with the course curriculum committee and lecturers
a book of readings which will become the text for the course.
This, along with the syllabus, should be printed for the College
of Education and royalties from its sale returned to the College.

227
THE ROLE OF THE COLLEGE TEACHING INTERNSHIP COORDINATOR
l. Supervise the work of the graduate assistants serving as discussion
leaders in ED 200 and ED 450.

2. Provide a weekly seminar on the problems of college teaching for
these graduate assistants.

3. Give individual attention and help to graduate assistants in the group.

4. Work closely with the course coordinator in integrating the discussion
sessions with the lecture sessions to achieve total course goals.

5. Serve on a selection committee for graduate assistants for the
forthcoming year.

A PPE NDIX B

Instruments

‘lf.’

3»

"U
n:

EDUCATION 200
PRE-COURSE STUDENT ASSESSMENT

Spring Term, 1 968

School of Teacher Education

Mic hig an St ate Univer sity

The School of Teacher Education in conjunction with the Office
of Institutional Research at Michigan State University is engaged in an
extensive investigation of classroom instruction in its basic courses.
One aspect of the over-all program concerns students' reactions to the
course and other elements of instruction right at the beginning of the
term.

There are four parts to this pre-course assessment. The first
two parts are to be answered on the special answer sheet provided with
this booklet. The last two parts are to be answered in the booklet itself
according to the instructions given. Although you are required to identify
yourself on this form and on the answer sheet, please be assured that
your replies will have no bearing at all upon your grade in this course.
The completed questionnaires will be analyzed by a special staff, unre-
lated to the instructional and evaluative personnel for Education 200.
All replies will be treated with complete confidence.

The instructions for each part are listed at the beginning of that

part. Do not omit any of the items. Fill in the information called for

 

228

229

below and at the top of the answer sheet now.

 

 

 

 

Name Student Number
Major G. P. A.
Number of credit hours completed Age

 

 

How many credit hours including this course are you carrying this term

 

230

EDUCATION 200

Part I -- Pre-Course Attitudes

This part consists of 57 statements of initial attitude toward the
course. Read each statement and decide whether or not you agree with
it. If the statement represents your own attitude, blacken the space
between the dotted lines labeledi (agree) on the special answer sheet.
If you disagree with the statement, fill in the space labeled 2 on the
special answer sheet. You will see that there are five spaces for each
answer on the answer sheet. Do not fill in any space but _1_ or _2_.

Please consider every statement carefully and mark your reac-

tion to either the 1 (agree) or the _2_ (disagree) column. Do not omit

 

any of the items.

 

l. I feel I will be wasting my time in this course.
2. I wish I could have avoided taking this course.

3. I would recommend that as many students as possible
. avoid taking this course.

4. Even if I have the chance in the future, I will avoid having
anything to do with this subject.

5. I have no interest in this subject area.

6. I anticipate that this will be a dull course.

7. A large portion of the course will be just "dead wood. "

8. I do 139$ expect this course to help me broaden my outlook.
9. This course deals with impractical things.

10. I have heard that the instructors do not make the material
under standable .

11.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.
20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

231

This course will contribute very little to my fund of
knowledge.

I have heard the instructors cannot teach.

I feel this course does not fill a gap in my previous back-
ground.

This course will 1191; tie in with the work I intend to do.

I have heard that the instructors are not intellectually
stimulating.

I have heard that the instructors do not care whether or
not their students learn the material.

I believe there will be too much emphasis on outside
readings in this course.

I anticipate that I will do little in the way of original
thinking about the subject matter of this course.

I have heard that the instructors teach over your head.
I expect this course to be too hard for me.

I registered for this course mainly because my adviser
told me to do so.

I have heard that this course does not inspire the students.

I have heard that this course does not relate the material
to many other fields.

I expect this course to be too easy for me.
I expect this course to deal with detailed material.
This course is not in my major field of study.

I do not feel strongly one way or the other about being in
this course.

I have heard that attendance is not taken in this course.

I believe there will be little emphasis on outside readings
in this course.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

232
I anticipate that this course will deal little with theory.
I have heard that the instructors are easy graders.

I have had very little of the material presented in this
course before.

I expect this course to deal with concepts and principles
rather than facts.

I do not expect this course to be mainly a memory course.

This course will be concerned with practical, down to
earth matters.

I have heard that the instructors do not teach over your
head.

This course will not duplicate material I have had before.
I feel I will got be wasting my time in this course.

I have heard that the instructors know their material well.
This course deals with practical things.

I have heard that the instructors care whether or not their
students learn the material.

I heard that the instructors make the material interesting.
I am glad I am taking this course.
I can see how I could apply this course content in real life.

I anticipate that I will do a great deal in the way of original
thinking about the subject matter of this course.

I have heard that the instructors are intellectually stimulating.
The instructors have the reputation of being good teachers.

I think I will forget less about this subject than about most
other subjects.

I am in this course because I want to broaden my outlook.

This course deals with material about which I want to learn.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

233

I have heard that the instructors are a great inspiration
to their students.

This class will be more stimulating than most of the
others I have taken or will take.

I anticipate that this will be an exciting course.

This course will cover material which, for the most part,
I consider to be vital and significant.

This course will help me realize my professional or
vocational goal.

I believe I will enjoy this course more than any other I
am taking this semester.

I believe I will learn more from this course than any
other I am taking this semester.

234
EDUCATION 200

Part II -- Test Attitude

This part consists of 19 statements numbered from 58 to 76
about reactions to testing. Read each statement and decide to what
degree it pertains to you. Under each statement are listed five alterna-
tive degrees of agreement with the statement. Pick the alternative that
most closely represents your feelings and blacken the space of that
alternative in the corresponding place for that item on the answer
sheet.

In the following example, if you felt that nervousness while
taking an exam hindered you from doing well about half of the time,

you would blacken number three (3) on the answer sheet.

EXAMPLE:

58. Nervousness while taking an exam or test hinders me
from doing well.

Always ANSWER

 

l.

2. Usually 1.-- 2 3 4 5
3. Sometimes 58. ::: ::: II. ::: :::
4. Rarely

5. Never

Please consider every statement carefully. Do not omit any of

 

t_h_ese items. If you make a mistake or change your mind on any item,

 

erase the incorrect response thoroughly and blacken the correct response.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

235

Nervousness while taking an exam or test hinders me from
doing well.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Always
Usually
Sometime s
Rarely
Never

I work most effectively under pressure, as when the task is very

important.

1. Always

2. Usually

3. Sometimes
4. Rarely

5. Never

In a course where I have been doing poorly, my fear of a bad
grade cuts down my efficiency.

«11¢ri

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Usually
Always

When I am poorly prepared for an exam or test, I get upset, and
do less well than even my restricted knowledge should allow.

i.
2.
3
4
5

This never happens to me

This rarely happens to me

This sometimes happens to me

This usually happens to me

This practically always happens to me

The more important the examination, the less well I seem to do.

014:th

Always
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
Never

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

236

While I may (or may not) be nervous before taking an exam,
once I start, I seem to forget to be nervous.

I always forget to be nervous during an exam
I am rarely nervous during an exam

I am sometimes nervous during an exam

I am usually nervous during an exam

. I am always nervous during an exam

U'IAUoNt—I

During exams or tests, I block on questions to which I know the
answers, even though I might remember them as soon as the
exam is over.

1. I always block on questions to which I know the answers

2. I usually block on questions to which I know the answers

3. I sometimes block on questions to which I know the answers
4. I rarely block on questions to which I know the answers

5. I never block on questions to which I know the answers

Nervousness while taking a test helps me do better.

1. It never helps

2. It rarely helps

3. It sometimes helps
4. It usually helps

5. It always helps

When I start a test, nothing is able to distract me.

1. This is always true of me

2. This is usually true of me

3. This is sometimes true of me
4. This is rarely true of me

5. This is not true of me

In courses in which the total grade is based mainly on one exam.
I seem to do better than other people.

1 . Never

2. Rarely

3. Sometime s
4. Usually

5. Always

68.

69.

70.

71.

237

I find that my mind goes blank at the beginning of an exam, and
it takes me a few minutes before I can function.

1. I almost always blank out at first
2. I usually blank out at first

3. I sometimes blank out at first

4. I rarely blank out at first

5. I never blank out at fir st

I look forward to exams.

1. Never

2. Rarely

3. Sometime s
4. Usually

5. Always

I am so tired from worrying about an exam, that I find I almost
don't care how well I do by the time I start the test.

1. I never feel this way
2. I rarely feel this way
3. I sometimes feel this way
4. I usually feel this way
5. I almost always feel this way
Time pressure on an exam causes me to do worse than the rest
of the group under similar conditions.

1. Time pressure always seems to make me do worse on an
exam than others

2. Time pressure usually seems to make me do worse on an
exam than others

3. Time pressure sometimes seems to make me do worse on
an exam than others

4. Time pressure rarely seems to make me do worse on an exam
than others

5. Time pressure never seems to make me do worse on an exam
than others

”I

 

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

238

Although ”cramming" under pre-examination tension is not
effective for most people, I find that if the need arises, I can
learn material immediately before an exam, even under con-
siderable pressure, and successfully retain it to use on the exam.

I am always able to use the "crammed” material successfully
I am usually able to use the ”crammed" material successfully

I am rarely able to use the "crammed” material successfully

I.
2.
3. I am sometimes able to use the "crammed'material successfully
4.
5.

I am never able to use the "crammed" material successfully

I enjoy taking a difficult exam more than an easy one.

Always

Usually

Rarely
Never

1.
2.
3. Sometimes
4.
5.

I find myself reading exam questions without understanding them,
and I must go back over them so that they will make sense.

. Never
Rarely

Usually

I

2.

3. Sometimes
4.

5.

Almost always

The more important the exam or test, the better I seem to do.

1. This
2. This °
3. This '
4. This '
5. This

is
18
1s
18
is

true of me

usually true of me
sometimes true of me
rarely true of me
never true of me

When I don't do well on a difficult item at the beginning of an exam,
it tends to upset me so that I block on even easy questions later on.

. This never happens to me
. This rarely happens to me

. This usually happens to me

1
2
3. This Whappens to me
4
5

. This almost always happens to me.

239
EDUCATION 200
Part III —- Course Aspirations

(Repeated with minor alteration
three times during the course)

This part consists Of a series of questions relating to your

particular aspirations and expectations to this course. The instructions

on how to respond to each item are indicated for that item. Pleas consider

every question carefully. Do not omit any of the items.

10

 

On the grade scale below please circle the lowest grade you
think you might receive in this course.
AA-B+BB-C+CC-D+DD-F

On the grade scale below please circle the highest grade you
think you might receive in this course.
AA-B+BB-C+CC—D+DD-F

On the grade scale below please circle the grade you think

you actually will receive in this course.

 

AA-B+BB-C+CC-D+DD-F

On the grade scale below please estimate in percentages your
chances of getting each particular grade. For example, if
you think you have a 50 percent chance of getting a "B" then
write 50 below the letter B. Please write an estimate below
each grade. (You can estimate zero (0) percent.)

A B C D F

240
On the scale below please circle the appropriate response to
this question:

How difficult do you think this course will be?

i I fl
ve1ry mo're average less very
difficult difficult difficulty difficult e asy

than most than most

241

EDUCATION 200

Part IV -- Pre-Course Teacher Role Expectations

(Repeated with minor alteration
three times during the course.)

In this part, you are asked to respond to some questions concern-

ing this course and your future role as a teacher. In answering these

questions simple circle the number of the alternative that most closely

corresponds to your feelings. Consider each question carefully. 131

not omit any of the items.

 

1. How strongly committed are you to entering the teaching

profession?

I. I am absolutely certain I will become a teacher.

2. I am quite certain I will become a teacher.

3. I am somewhat undecided, but I will probably become
a teacher.

4. I am somewhat undecided, but I doubt that I will
become a teacher.

5. I am certain that I will not become a teacher.

2. How important do you feel a knowledge of the theory and
principles of human growth and behavior will be in success-
fully performing as a teacher?

10

An understanding of the theory and principles of human
growth and behavior is essential to performing adequately
as a teacher.

An understanding of the theory and principles of human
growth and behavior is an important prerequisite to
adequate teaching.

242

An understanding of the theory and principles of human
growth and behavior should aid a teacher in her work.

The theory and principles of human growth and behavior
have little to do with adequate teaching in the classroom.

The theory and principles of human growth and behavior
may be fine for the specialist or the college professor,
but they have no relevance to teaching in the school
classroom.

How important do you feel this course will be in preparing
you to successfully understand and deal with students in both
their learning and personal development?

1.

50

I expect the content and experiences included in this
course will be the most critical part of my training for
successfully understanding and dealing with students in
both their learning and personal development.

I expect the content and experiences included in this
course will be an important part of my total training
for successfully understanding and dealing with students
in both their learning and personal development.

I expect the content and experiences included in this
course will probably be helpful, but not necessarily
critical, in my training to successfully understand and
deal with students in both their learning and personal
development.

I expect the content and experiences included in this
course may be helpful, but one learns to understand

and deal with students in both their learning and personal
development primarily by experience.

Understanding and dealing with students can only be
learned by experience.

How strongly do you feel that teaching is the occupation for
which you are be st suited?

l.

2.

3.

Very strongly
quite strongly

only moder ately

4.

5.

243

unc e rt ain

not at all

Why did you enroll for this course?

1.

2.

The course was required or I would not have enrolled.

The course was not required, but even though I enrolled
for it I doubt the wisdom of this action.

The course was required and I do not know whether or
not I would have enrolled for it otherwise.

The course was required but I would have enrolled for
it anyway.

The course was not required but I wanted to take it.

244
EDUCATION 200
Spring Term, 1968
Practice Examination

(Example 3 of Items)

Michigan State University
College of Education

 

 

 

DISCUSSION
SECTION NUMBER INSTRUCTOR
NAME STUDENT NUMBER

 

General Instructions
This is a practice examination. The results of this exam will
have no effect upon your grade in this course. Do as well as you can.
The results of this exam will: (1) provide you with an indication of the
content to be covered in this course, (2) be used to determine instruc-
tional emphasis on particular content areas, and (3) acquaint you with

the nature and types of questions you will be asked on the mid-term and

final exam.

Specific instructions for completing the exam are as follows:
1. Fill in the information requested at the top of this page.

2. Fill in the information requested on the answer sheet. Be
sure to include your student number in the appropriate spot.

3. Select the one best answer to each item. Blacken the number
of your choice on the answer sheet.

 

4. Answer every item. There is no penalty on this or future
exams for guessing.

245

Are you anxious or worried about the examination you are about
to take?

Not at all worried or anxious.
Only slightly worried or anxious.
Somewhat worried or anxious.
Quite worried or anxious.

. Extremely worried or anxious.

mph-ri-I

Given no other information, which of the following youngsters is
most apt to be highly anxious within a school setting?

John, who has both high intelligence and creativity.

Sam, who has high intelligence, but low creative ability.
Scott, who has high creative ability, but low intelligence.
Mark, who is low in both intelligence and creativity.

hpUJNI-H

For the past three years, Mark's parents have spent several hours
each week encouraging their six year old son to read children's
stories. Training of this type, which precedes maturation:

H
C

will probably result in sizable gains in reading performance.

2. will probably not result in immediate gains in performance,
but will nevertheless pay off in the long run.

3. will not have much effect on performance and may even result

in a lack of interest or a negative attitude toward reading.

Which of the following junior high school youngsters is most apt
to have a high level of academic motivation?

1. Sally, who has an I.Q. of 100.

2. Mary, who has an I. Q. of 130.

3. Jim, who has an I. Q. of 100.

4. Sam, who has an I. Q. of 130.

5. Impossible to say, since there is no relation between I.Q.
and level of academic motivation.

Teaching history for its psychological implications would involve:

1. an emphasis on names and dates in order to improve a child's
memory functions.

2. an attempt to foster creativity by asking youngsters to imagine
themselves in past situations.

3. frequent discussions of how human motivations influenced the
people of the past.

4. descriptions of only those events which had a major psycho-
logical impact on the general populace.

246

EDUCATION 200
STUDENT LEARNING ATTITUDE

Instructions

We have selected several courses in which large numbers of
students tend to enroll. For each course we have listed a variety of
topics covered, items of information presented, and tasks to be
accomplished.

Assume that you are enrolled in these courses and therefore are
required to learn about each of the topics listed on the following pages.

The topics are listed in groups of three. Decide which one of the
three topics in each group would interest you most and which one would
interest you least. Rank the topics in each set of three indicating the
extent to which each one interests you by assigning

1. to the topic that interests you MOST
2. to the topic in which you have an intermediate interest
3. to the topic that interests you LEAST

You may not omit a rank for any topic or assign the same rank to
two topics within a set. Although it may sometimes be difficult for you
to make a decision, it is imperative that you do so by assigning ranks of
l, 2, and 3 to the topics listed in each set.

Assume you are enrolled in a GEOGRAPHY course and must learn
about the following:

 

A. Items 1 - 3

H
o

The factors responsible for westward population migration in the U.S.
The names of the capitals of the European countries.
3. The names and locations of the 10 largest rivers in the world.

N

 

B. Items 4 - 6

4. The average annual per capita consumption of petroleum products
in the U. S.

5. The definitions of loess, mesas, drumlins, lithosphere, playas,
and biosphere.

6. Requisites for artesian well systems.

 

247

C. Items 7 - 9

\1

How artesian wells are formed.

8. Forecasts about the weather to be expected in New York City during
the next 48 hours from examination of a weather map.

9. The chemical composition of laws.

 

D. Items 10- 12

10. The meaning of ”cold, " "warm, " "occluded, " and ”cyclonic" fronts.

11. The five major world producers (in order of importance) of iron,
lead, zinc, and copper.

12. The role of seaports in national economy.

 

E. Items 13-15

13. The factors considered by geologists in attempting to locate oil
deposits.

14. Statistics on the average family size for each socioeconomic subgroup.

15. Population shifts in the United States during the past 50 years.

 

F. Items 16-18

16. The names of the world's major glacial areas.
17. The influence of terrain upon agricultural crops.
18. The route taken by the St. Lawrence Seaway.

 

Assume you are enrolled in a SOCIAL SCIENCE course and must learn
about the following:

 

A. Items 19-21

19. Environment as a partial determinant of mental illness.

20. The relationship between I. Q. and scholastic success in a college
or university.

21. Average ages at which children first begin to creep, walk, identify
colors, etc.

 

B. Items 22-24

22. The difference between a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and a
psychoanalyst.

23. The percentage of youngsters apprehended as juvenile delinquents
who subsequently are apprehended by the law for committing a
major crime.

 

 

l"\J
CIJ

4".
2 ‘4

34.
35.
36,

 

1|! ...,gdmm'fiw __

24.

248

The role of psychological testing in vocational guidance.

 

25.
26.
27.

C. Items 25-27

The proportion of United States residents now over age 65.
The effects of caffeine upon muscular coordination.
The meaning of "percentile" in interpreting test results.

 

28..

29.

30.

D. Items 28-30

The primary symptoms differentiating psychotic (insane) behavior
from neurotic behavior.

The specific human capabilities known to deteriorate after about
age 60.

The average incomes of various classifications of workers in the
U.S. (e.g., unskilled, semiskilled, technical, professional, etc.)

 

31.

32.
33.

E. Items 31-33

The percentage of family income that ought to be budgeted for rent,
food, clothing, recreation, etc.

What it is that the psychoanalyst attempts to do.

The current divorce rate in the United States.

 

Assume you are enrolled in a BUSINESS 8: ECONOMICS course and must
learn about the following:

 

34.
35.
36.

A. Items 34-36

The functions of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Factors operating to diminish the size of the U. S. gold reserve.
Why an "easy money" policy may be unsound public policy.

 

37.
38.
39.

B. Items 37-39

The names of the components of the "Gross National Product."
The meaning of an "odd lot" in stock purchases.
The purpose underlying agricultural price supports.

 

249

C. Items 40-42

 

 

40. Major events in the growth of U. S. labor unions.

41. The names of the nations constituting the "common market. "
42. Factors underlying a decision to invest vs. a decision to save.
D. Items 43-45

43. The name of an inflationary potential in the economy which is
artificially kept from registering itself in prices.

44. The relationship between disposable incomes and total expendi-
tures for consumer goods.

45. The ways in which Federal Reserve monetary policy attempts to
accomplish its goals.

E. Items 46-48

46. How to read entries in the stock market page of a newspaper.

47. The present established worth of an ounce of gold.

48. What is meant by a "holding company. "

 

Assume you are enrolled in a GOVERNMENT course and must learn
the following:

 

A. Items 49-51

 

 

49. The uses of international law in government.
50. The steps involved in amending the United States Constitution.
51. The functions of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
B. Items 52-54
52. The causes of the Cuban crisis.
53. The reasons for official U.S. opposition to recognizing Red China.
54. Comparative armed strength of the U. S. and Russia.
C. Items 55-57
55. Pros and cons of alternative solutions to U. S. housing problems.
56. Consequences of technological unification of the world.
57. A statement of the Marxist theory of history.

 

58.
59.
60.

61.

62.
63.

64.
65.
66.

250
D. Items 58-60

The functions of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The estimated annual cost to the U. S. of the "cold war. "
The pressures Operating to produce European unity and disunity.

E. Items 61-63

Differences in the social and economic characteristics of midwestern

republicans and democrats.
The limits of authority of a Justice of the Peace.
The names and dates of office of the U. S. presidents.

F. Items 64-66

The ways in which states are admitted to the Western State System

The meaning of government to John Locke.
The name of the international organization conducting surveys of the

world food situation.

Assume you are enrolled in a NATURAL SCIENCE course and must
learn about the following:

A. Items 675-69

 

67. The explanation for the fact that it is sometimes difficult to
recognize voices on the telephone.

68. The distances from earth to the other planets in our galaxy.

69. The critical velocity required to escape the earth's gravitational
pull.

x

B. Items 70-72
70- The names of the elements included within the "halide” group.

71.
72.

Statement of Newton's third law of motion.
The significance of a pH of 6.

_._\

73.

74.

75.

251
C. Items 73-75

Formula for converting centigrade temperature readings to
fahrenheit readings.

The difference in chemical structure between H20 (water) and
H202 (hydrogen peroxide).

The distinction between ”anode" and "cathode. "

 

D. Items 76- 78

 

76. Chemical factors associated with transmitting neural impulses.
77. Why thrust is generated by a jet engine.
78. The chemical structure of penicillin.
E. Items 79-81
79. The relative conductivity of certain substances (e. g. , iron, copper,
zinc, wood).
80. The meaning of "specific gravity. "
81. The effect of increased pressure upon the boiling point of a liquid.

 

Assume you are enrolled in an ENGLISH course and must learn about
or do the following:

 

82.
83.
84.

A. Items 82-84

Write a report on the novel entitled 1984.
The names of Shakespeare's comedies.
The reason why Hedda Gabler (in Ibsen's Hedda Gabler) kills herself.

 

 

85.
86.

87.

B. Items 85-87

The names of 10 contemporary authors and their most important
works.

Write a biographical sketch based upon library research of any
author (no longer living) of your choice.

The effects of 19th century American history upon the American
literature of the period.

 

252

C. Items 88-90

 

88. The elements in a play that lead to its classification as a ”tragedy. "

89. The correct spelling for the word meaning ”to pay" (1. e. , is it
"renurnerate" or "remunerate").

90. Write a theme about the most interesting person you have ever met.

D. Items 91-93

91. The dates and major works of well-known poets like Whitman,
Longfellow, Wordsworth, etc.

92. The role of the playwright in contemporary society.

93. The structure (i.e. , number of lines, rhyming schemes, etc.) of

s onnets .

 

 

2 53
EDUCATION 2 0 0
INSTRUCTOR QUESTIONNAIRE

Spring Term, 1968

Open-Ended Que stions

 

lo

EXPLICITLY AS POSSIBLE, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE ARE THE
GENERAL COURSE OBJECTIVES OF EDUCATION 200?

 

TO WHAT DEGREE DO YOU FEEL THESE OBJECTIVES ARE
BEING MET (indicate as explicitly as possible both strengths and
weaknesses)?

IN BEHAVIORAL TERMS, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE TO BE THE
MOST IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES OF YOUR DISCUSSION SECTIONS?

AGAIN BEHAVIORALLY, WHAT PROCEDURES, METHODS,
MATERIALS OR TECHNIQUES DO YOU EMPLOY IN YOUR
DISCUSSION SECTIONS TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES YOU
HAVE INDICATED? (This could relate to how you structure your
classroom, the type of materials you use to make points or provide
certain experiences, how you control and direct discussion, how you
evaluate your students or provide feedback, etc.)

HOW DO YOU THINK STUDENTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN THE
COURSE AND TO WHAT DEGREE SHOULD THE DISCUSSION SECTION
INSTRUCTOR HAVE CONTROL OVER THE STUDENT EVALUATION
(this pertains to the type of evaluation, the conduct of the evaluation,
feedback, etc.)?

WHAT BEHAVIORS DO YOU THINK A STUDENT SHOULD BE ABLE
TO EXHIBIT AND/OR USE UPON SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF
THIS COURSE (in answering this question use the minimum 'C' of
the School of Teacher Education and higher grades as criterion for
successful completion).

 

HOW CAN THE COURSE BE IMPROVED? (you are probably in
the best position to see specific areas where improvement can be
made; feel free to comment on the structure of the course, the
administration, the teacher education program, policies or proce-
dures. Be as specific as possible--your remarks can relate to
any aspect of the course such as lectures, discussion sections,
materials, objectives, the in-service training of interns, work-
load, pay, etc.)

254

8. TO WHAT DEGREE, IF ANY, DO YOU FEEL THE COURSE EVALUA-
TION HAS EFFECTED EITHER YOUR DISCUSSION SECTIONS
AND/OR GENERAL COURSE CONDUCT AND OBJECTIVES--
please be as specific as possible--?

Backgound Information

 

Please respond to the following questions by either circling the
number of the most appropriate alternative or filling in the appropriate
information in the blank provided. If you feel that for any of the items
there is no appropriate alternative provided for your situation, then add

the appropriate statement after the last alternative and circle it.

1. In which department in the College of Education are you currently
pursuing your graduate training?

 

2. What is your major?

 

3. At what level of progress are you in your graduate program?
A. Course work:
1. less than half completed
2. about half completed
3. 80% or more completed
B. Comprehensive examinations
1. not completed
2. taking this term

3. completed

C.

255
Dissertation
1. not started
2. started, but not yet gathering data
3. gathering data
4. data gathered, in analysis and writing stage

5. essentially completed

What degree are you currently pursuing?

l.

2.

3O

4.

Masters
Ph. D.
Specialists

Ed. D.

How many course hours are you carrying this term (do not include
999 credits or intern credits)?

1.

2.

4.

5.

0-3

4-6

7-9

10-12

12 or more

When do you expect to complete the work for your degree ?

this term
by the end of the summer
by the end of next school year

later than the end of next school year

How heavy do you perceive your work load this term as compared to
previous terms?

256
1. much heavier
2. heavier
3. about the same
4. a little less
5. much less

After you receive your degree, what form of work do you expect
will dominate your time?

1. administr ation

2. teaching

3. research

4. about 50/50, research and teaching
5. clinical or special ed. or other

Do you have teaching experience previous to instructing Education
200?

1. yes
2. no
If yes, at what level?
1. elementary
2. secondary
3. post-secondary
4. both elementary and secondary
5. both secondary and post-secondary
6. both elementary and post-secondary

7. all three levels

10.

ll.

12.

257

If yes, other than your Education 200 experience, how many years
teaching experience have you had?

1. one or less

2. 2-3
3. 4-5
4. 5-10

5. ten or more
How many terms have you instructed Education 200?
1. first term of instruction
2. 2nd term of instruction
3. 3rd term of instruction
4. 4th term of instruction
5. 5th or more
How often do you take roll in your discussion sections?
1. regularly
2. once a week
3. only on special occasions
4. only on the first day or two of the course

Do you attempt to learn all of the students' names in your discussion
sections?

1. yes, by the end of the first week or two
2. yes, by the end of the course
3. no, only those that need or request special attention

4. no, only those names which are retained out of normal
interaction in the discussion section

5. both 3 and 4 above

13.

14.

15.

16.

258

Do you have students identify themselves to other members of the
discussion section group?

1. no

2. no, but 1 structure the small group setting so that they
get to know each other

3. yes, they introduce themselves at the start of the term

4. yes, they introduce themselves at the start of the term
and also provide a background sketch of themselves

Do you use visual me ans of identifying the students in your sections
(such as the use of name tags, name cards, etc. )?

1. yes
2. yes, at first but later dropped or used only rarely
3. no

How do you handle the seating arrangement in your discussion
sections?

1. students generally sit where they want in standard fashion
facing the front of the classroom

2. students sit where they wish, but in a circular or semi-circular
arrangement

3. students sit in special groupings (such as discussion, project
or buzz groups)

4. no predominant seating pattern, varies from day to day
What is your marital status?

1. single

2. married, no children

3. married, one child

4. married, more than one child

5. other

259

17. Sex

1. male

2 . female

1. under 24

2. 24—26
3. 27-29
4. 30-34

5. 35 or older

19. Where did you receive your undergraduate education?

 

20. When did you receive your bachelor's degree?

 

260

EDUCATION 200
INDIVIDUAL STUDENT PROJECT

The following pages outline the pattern of a series of

behaviors observed in a classroom. The last two paragraphs on
page three specify the use you are to make of this material in developing

Your written analysis of the situation.

Papers should be typed, double-spaced, unless otherwise
having made previous arrangements. A guide to paper length (a question
inevitably asked) is in the vicinity of five to eight pages, although length
bears little relevancy to quality, and redundancy should be avoided at

all cost_

DUE DATE: May 23

261
INDIVIDUAL STUDENT PROJECT
EDUCATION 200

You are in your final term at university. In past years you've
volunteered your services as a student assistant in the public schools
and this year is no exception. You've been doing some observing of
student behavior in a 4th grade elementary room in a nearby small
towni.

At the moment the youngsters are engaged in a vocabulary task
in which words are chosen from a vocabulary list and written in the
appropriate blank space in a story in their reading workbook. While
doing (1 little over-the-shoulder looking you mention to Tommy Oures,
who' S about half-finished, that he's missed a space in writing his
answe r s and so his words are out of order. Tom smiles and says he
hadn't noticed, and you both agree the easiest solution is to draw an
arrow moving the words up. Later, Tom's work is not turned in to his
teacher but remains on his desk, all words erased. This intrigues you.
as the Other day he completed only the first three arithmetic problems
out of twenty, although those finished were correct. Yesterday the
language arts lesson necessitated students rearranging a series of
mixed-up sentences into sequential order to form a logical story, and
turning the work in as a written composition. N0 paper appeared from
'Ton1,'bllt , . . .

you noticed the sheet on his desk contained the first two

Sent '
ence s and on the edge of list of numbers ordering the sentences

Correctly

 

are
out
C011

EI‘I'

aVe
a101

sile

0n;

01115

262
Tom's teacher is not surprised when you mention your observa-
tion. Reporting this is his standard behavior, she shows you his weekly
spelling test paper. Twenty words were read to students--Tom's paper
contains only three, although all are correct. She mentions that there
are five or six students who consistently fall below a score of fifteen
out of twenty on the weekly spelling test, and that these scores would be
considered "failures" since all words must be correct for an A, one
error is a B, and so on. Currently, Tom is not doing satisfactory work
in any of his subject. Her reports are that after repeating first grade
Tom has been promoted yearly, although his work has been below
average. His teacher last year, a male, tells you that when reading
aloud Tom does so he sitatingly and unwillingly. He rarely initiated
silent reading activity of his own.
Tom's cumulative record reports that his reading test score
on a paper and pencil test administered this year falls at the tenth per-
centile. On a mathematics achievement test also administered this
year his score fell at the 35th percentile. In first grade the school
diagnostician reported a score of 109 on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Test. This year when tested with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children Tom's score was 114.
Tom is the second eldest of four sons. His parents are interested
in S(211001 activities and willingly cooperate. His father, an accountant,
engaged in activities with his sons. The mother, who does not work

outside the home, sets aside a short period of time to be with each

263
child individually each day, in addition to the usual family interaction.
Tom's period happens to be his nightly bath-time, when she bathes him.
The other boys have different periods. His older brother, Tom's
elder by two years, has not shown any such behavior in school, and
teachers consider his performance satisfactory. The brother younger
than Tom by one year has reading difficulty, though less severe, and
is in remedial reading. Tom himself has not responded to the remedial
reading program.

Tom is in no way belligerent in class. Although somewhat re-
served, he's well-liked by his classmates and a part of their activities.
His teachers do not class his behavior as any less mature than that of
his age-mates. He seems to particularly enjoy class discussions,
although reserved in overt participation himself. However, when he does
respond his answers show careful thought and an ability to draw to-
gether disparate ideas. On occasions when he does complete assignments
they are rated excellent. When you suggest he be given additional time
to complete assignments his teacher says she has employed this strategy
but it bears no correlation with whether or not the work is completed.

The week following your observations Tom's teacher must un-
avoidably leave the school system when her husband is moved. It is late

FCbruary and no elementary teacher can be found to replace her on a
perm anent basis for ths remaining school year. You've worked as an
aSSiStant in this school system for three years and the position is offered

to you. Since you'll graduate in March and have no real plans except to

 

 

f.

264
wait for the draft (ladies excepted, of course), you decide to accept and
work under a special permit. You aren't trained as an elementary
teacher nor are you sure you want to make a career of teaching.
However, Tom Oures now becomes mi; problem. He's not atypical
of the problems encountered daily in thousands of classrooms, but this
baby is all yours. How would you go about dealing with it within the class-
room setting itself?

Now, as Dr. Green noted in his opening lecture, a teacher need
not be the stereotype of the mad scientist or laboratory researcher to
reflect attitudes and behaviors which permit precise observation of
student behavior, leading to more accurate analysis of the interaction
of variables in any given situation and hence to definite constructive
steps to alter behavior.

With this in mind, you are to assess what you consider to be
the pertinent information provided in Tom's case. First, raise and
discuss questions related to variables that are present which you might
possibly manipulate to alter Tom's behavior in a direction you consider
constructive. Certain aspects are beyond your control and certain
attempts at remedy have not been successful in the past. Explain why,
in t€I‘Ins of educational psychology theory, the variables you choose
seem most pertinent.

Second, based on this analysis discuss alternative strategies
for 20111? handling of the situation within the classroom to bring about

desired change. Here again explain why, in terms of educational

265
psychology, these strategies seem the best alternatives. You have a
series of lecture notes accompanied by class discussion and readings
throughout the term which will discuss various topics relating to the

variables in this situation. Might this be an organizational strategy?

 

 

 

 

h

266

DISCUSSION OF CRITERION FOR GRADING OF THE
EDUCATION 200 INDIVIDUAL STUDENT PROJECT

Several assumptions underlie the writing of the student project.

First, it seems to be a sad fact but true that all too often parents re-
turn from conferences with their child's teacher feeling that they gained
little understanding of what was really taking place in the classroom situa-
tion that had necessitated the conference, and that the teacher was

unable to offer them few insights into the child's behavior beyond their

own intuitive approach. Rather than mouthing panaceas the hope is that

the teacher analyzes behavioral acts to determine patterns over which

he has sufficient control to increase the probability of success in bring-

ing about behavioral change, and to set aside those over which he has

little control rather than using them as rationales for inaction.

Secondly, it was felt that the situation provided your students

for analyzing should be structured not along lines that allowed broad,
sweeping generalizations, which are often made with little critical
thought, in terms of "socio-economic deprivation, " "underachievement, "
"reluctant reader, " ad infinitum. Hopefully, this child is representative
of the type of problem encountered daily in classrooms and not within a
specialized setting, and typifies not a gross behavioral problem in terms
0f Classroom organization but rather one of those gnawing problems
tea'Ch'EBI‘s must grapple with while keeping the program moving in the
classroom.

Third, the project assigned your students had to be more than

267
a question which if rewritten could constitute a multiple choice exam
case. And, even more importantly, you are their instructor, not I.
In the final analysis you would demand, and rightly so, the flexibility
to determine in your own terms what constituted an acceptable discus-
sion by the student. Therefore, I attempted to make the situation
broad enough to allow students to take different approaches in discus-
sing the material, but precise enough to force them if they wish to do
well in terms of scoring to think critically and to organize seemingly
disparate materials into a problem solving experience.

You will notice that the student has two tasks. First, to analyze
and discuss variables that are present which he might possibly be able
to manipulate to change the child's behavior in a direction considered
constructive (as determined by your student). Second, the student is
to discuss alternative strategies for his handling of the situation within
the classroom to bring about desired change. Alternate approaches to
handling the situation abound. You will notice that there are any number
of clusters of behaviors which in turn regroup into interactions, and at
any of these points alternative approaches are possible. Omof the critical
factors in judging an answer is the degree to which students weigh the
consequences of suggesting certain alternatives. Certain alternatives
are more logical than others, based upon what students have learned in

the Course. Throughout the situation, students are provided with cues
to aid them in choosing alternatives. For example, the remarks con-

cerning Tom's interaction with his mother as outlined in the paper

268

might provide students with data for an interesting discussion of their

relationship, but in many ways this cue was provided as a dead-end.

The assignment for your students asks them to analyze patterns and

strategies over which they have influence so that they may manipulate

the environment, as Dr. Green suggests in his Opening course lecture.

As we are very aware, what goes on in the home is to a great extent

beyond the control of the teacher in terms of manipulation for change,

and in this case is a very gross measure. How would the student work

around this ?

I. The types of behavioral cues provided for the student include
behaviors such as:

 

 

lo

7.

The seeming inability to complete a task if there is error
involved. Several examples are provided which make this a
possible conclusion.

Test performance on individually administered intelligence
tests.

Test performance on paper and pencil achievement tests.

Tom's ability to engage in discussions involving problem-
solving ability.

His apparent lack of hostility toward suggestions from the
teaching assistant (at least judged from behavior) and reports
of similar behavior patterns from previous teachers.

The seeming consistency in behavior regardless of the sex
of the teacher.

The academic behavior of his brothers suggesting the problem
is neither unique nor all-inclusive.

ll. Sneh behavioral cues could lead to discussion of the possible
Conclusions the teaching assistant might draw from these
behaviors. This might involve such considerations as:

8.

269
The seeming need for performance close to perfection.
Possible unrealistic levels of aspiration.
Low risk-taking ability in terms of written work.
The low risk-taking syndrome as not necessarily reflected in
other areas such as his willingness to commit himself in class
discussions which need have no pat answer or in performance
on the individually administered intelligence tests.
His present teacher's behavior in terms of spelling tests which
would appear to reinforce low risk-taking ability and the need
for perfection.
An apparent willingness to cooperate in activities (former
teacher reports, performance in discussion), until his risk-

taking level in written work was jeoporadized.

Social acceptance by classmates suggestive of cooperative
inter-relationships.

Physical maturation as considered normal.

The various topics covered in the course provide the student

with logical arguments with which to back up the conclusions drawn
from his analysis. The following offer examples of such points,

 

 

 

as covered in lectures, texts, and films.

1.

MOTIVATION

Factors such as level of aspiration, risk-taking, and achieve-
ment levels are discussed by Farquhar and McClelland in
"Achievement Motivation. "

HUMAN GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Dr. Clarizio's discussions and the readings refer to intellectual
development, particularly as reflected by Piaget. A student in
discussing Tom's problem solving ability and intelligence

might point out where he seems to fit in Piaget's stages, and
whether this might be considered normal. In addition, a student
might comment upon Tom's concept of self in the light of what
might be expected due to his seeming problem in risk-taking,
and discuss this in terms of such things as dependency needs.

270
3. TESTING

From the discussions in he course of testing, the student
could be led to questions of what the individual testing more
precisely was able to pinpoint in terms of the child's attack
on test items or academic problems, than was the paper and
pencil type test. Tom's problems seem to center on how he
attacks tasks, to a large extent. At a more general level,
the student would refer to his scores in relationship to
"normality, " or talk of "achievement" versus "aptitude"
measures.

4. ENVIRONMENT

Tom's relationship with his peers is reflected in the textual
assignments here. Students could refer to the powerful and
consistent environment approach in terms of the .teacher's
behavior in relation to spelling. Reference might be made to
Dr. Green's point that in fact the school and particularly the
teacher have little control over and can do little to manipulate
variables within the home, and rather must try to work with
those which 3.33 accessible to the teacher's manipulation.
This argument might be used to point out that Tom's relation-
ship to his mother is in many ways not under the influence of
the school when actual behaviors are in question.

5. LEARNING THEORY

The student might refer to Gagne's levels of learning to discuss
Tom's ability to perform cognitive tasks. The student might
refer to Tom's seeming abilities at problem solving, the highest
order task variety in the hierarchy. The student might direct
himself to such points as reinforcement, and the necessity

of determining what in fact _i_s_ the act that the student feels is
rewarded. How should a teacher go about rewarding a case
such as Tom's, where perfection seems the level of aspiration?
Since the paper is due prior to Dr. Shulman's lectures, these
could not be considered in any framework designed by the
student.

IV. Based upon the analysis of the variables open for manipulation,

and the arguments put forth as rationales for conclusions drawn from

 

the analysis, the student can offer alternative suggestions for ossible

attacks on the problem. Now, based upon the particular variables

 

271
chosen for analysis and the conclusions drawn these suggestions are
going to vary widely. However, within these limits, grading criteria
are possible. The critical criterion is: to what extent does the student
fulfill the requirement outlined at the end of page three--namely, to
specify possible courses of action which are under his control, based
on the variables that he can, in fact, manipulate? Second, to what
degree are they spelled out precisely so that, in fact, they might be
implemented by the teacher within the classroom? That is, are the
possible courses of action glittering generalities, or are they plausible
acts? Third, to what degree do they follow logically from the analyses
and conclusions drawn in the first part of the paper? For example, a
student might suggest that in order to try to raise Tom's capacity to
take a risk the teacher might engage in some form of "betting" activity
with the student, to the extent of suggesting, for instance, that he ob-
tained three right on the spelling test, and did he think it possible to
get between four and seven right the next time. Over a period, the ante
could be raised and made more precise in terms of narrowing the range
of scores allowed. (Now, you and I can point out any number of reasons
why this technique might fail, but it _i_§_ a possible course to try, based
on some of the behavioral cues provided. The student might have pointed
out the imperativeness of getting Tommy to abandon all-or-nothing
responses and suggests this as a technique to try.) Another suggestion
might be that the teacher would abandon for the remainder of the year

the all-or-nothing approach reflected in the grading of spelling, and

272

reinforce risk-taking with a more realistic grading criterion. Another
alternative suggestion might be that the teacher avoid placing Tommy in
a position where only dichotomous response of "yes" or "no" is possible,
such as board work in front of the class involving responses which are
all-correct or all-wrong. A fourth part Of your grading criterion might
be the extent to which student's suggestions avoid generalities which
merely label but don't suggest specific behaviors, such as use of the
panaceic "underachiever" without following this up with a good explana-
tion of what is me ant by this term in the student's View.
V. RANKING SCALE

The various points outlined in parts I, II, III, and IV are examples
of the types of variables which can be used to establish a ranking system
for the papers.
ASSIGNMENT OF A RANK OF 5

1. The student answers the two questions. That is, he applies his
remarks specifically to the two questions he was asked to discuss.

 

2. Discusses a majority of the cues provided, and does so in terms
of specific acts which are open to classroom manipulation.

3. Illustrates that he can integrate a series of acts into a logical
pattern of behavior with regard to this particular situation.

4. Illustrates an understanding of the principles of ed. psych. by
using principles discussed in the course to back up each of the
conclusions drawn from analysis of the cues.

5. Suggests in terms of specific acts several courses of action which
might be implemented and which follow from the conclusions drawn
in part one of the paper. In sum, this student indicates ability to
apply Dr. Green's principle that specific behavioral acts form
patterns which if observed over time may be used as bases for
possible alternative conclusions concerning that behavior.

273

ASSIGNMENT OF A RANK OF 1

l.

The student answers the two questions. While he confines his
remarks to analysis of the two questions he shows less ability
to identify a number of interrelated cues and suggest alternative
conclusions.

Identifies a number of cues, but cannot interrelate them into
more than a generalized pattern of behavior.

Conclusions, though generalized, follow logically from the cues
selected for analysis.

Uses principles discussed in the course to defend conslusions
drawn.

Suggests in terms of specific acts several courses of action
which might be implemented and which follow from the conclusions
drawn.

ASSIGNMENT OF A RANK OF 3

10

The student answers both questions, but rather than specific
acts serving as bases for discussion the student discusses
generalities.

While the student identifies several variables which can be
manipulated by the teacher, he cannot integrate them into possible
patterns of behavior. Rather, they remain partially isolated
pieces of behavior.

Conclusions drawn relate in a generalized manner to the behaviors
chosen for analysis, but suggest inability to discuss a behavioral
act in terms of specific criteria.

Uses ed. psych. concepts to defend conclusions drawn, but the
concepts are "glittering generalities" such as "self concept"
without specifying the student's definition of this term.

The remedial suggestions are largely ill-defined to the extent
that they do not suggest specific actions or do they necessarily
follow logically from the conclusions drawn in part one of the

paper.

ASSIGNMENT OF A RANK OF 3

10

The student does not answer the questions asked but rather
answers the question in terms of variables beyond the teacher's

274

control in the main.

The student identifies several variables which can be manipulated
by the teacher, but does not discriminate these from others beyond
the teacher's immediate control.

The variables remain isolated acts of behavior with no more than
vague references to any consistency in behavior patterns.

Defense of the chosen variables consists mainly of statements
which do not differentiate between an understanding of at least
basic educational psych. principles as delineated in the course
and generalized statements which label but do not define.

Suggestions of possible courses of action are confined to one or two
highly generalized remarks which are jargon labels unapplicable to
more specific acts and which do not give indication of being developed
as logical outgrowths of conclusions drawn in part one of the paper.

ASSIGNMENT OF A RANK OF_1_

1.

The student does not answer the questions. He does not spell
out the variables in terms of cues from the question nor does
he pay more than lip-service to attempts to suggest remedies.

Variables are discussed randomly, and are mixed with conclusions.
The student does not identify variables precisely nor differentiate
manipulative classroom cues. (In less precise terms I suppose
you could say this student indicates he probably was scrambling

for an answer, gives little indication of having tried to analyze

the data provided, and is either unable or unwilling to discuss

the problem in terms of the course content.)

No attempt is made to integrate behaviors into patterns. Behaviors
remain isolated.

With the exception of one or two references to concepts of ed.
psych. no concrete rationale is offered for statements made.

Remarks as to alternative remedies are confined to one or two
generalized remarks unrelated to specific behaviors, and with
little reference to the discussion in the previous paragraphs.

The remarks suggest to you that the remedies are not based upon
specifying the possible alternatives open to teacher manipulation.

VI.

275
USE OF THE CRITERIA AND RANKING SYSTEM

A student's overall paper will be assigned one of the five ranks,
based upon which of the five sets of criteria his paper most
closely approximates.

As this is a rank and not a grade, there are only five possible
assignments, of which one is chosen.

Five is the highest rank; one is the lowest.

Students need not be told the rank unless you already use this
method in your overall grading scheme.

In terms of the letter grade assigned each paper and returned to
the student, that is certainly your prerogative and our intention
has not been to infringe on this in any way. The letter grade is
essentially independent of the ranking. For example, the five
ranks do not correspond to A, B, C, D, F, for us. If you choose
to adopt this strategy it is your individual preference. Someone
else may have a system under which the five ranks represent

A+, A, A-, B+, B; for another, B, B-, C+, C, C-.

Perhaps in grading of papers you prefer to utilize criteria such
as ”overall quality of written expression, " or "quality of under-
standing. " This again is certainly your prerogative. However,
in establishing the five rankings it was felt that if the student
showed he met the criteria in terms of analyzing the cues,
illustrating that his conclusions were based on this analysis,
offered logical explanations in terms of course content, and was
consistent throughout the paper in following this strategy, the
paper should, in precise terms, be illustrative of "organization"
and "integration, " etc. If you choose to expand the criteria,
feel free to do so in terms of your letter grade assignment while
confining the ranking to the limited criteria specified.

WEIGHTING OF PARTS ONE AND TWO

Since the student's recommendations for courses of action in part
two are dependent upon the careful rationale developed in part one
of the answer, careful analysis of part one in terms of identifying
cues and integrating disparate concepts is perhaps the most criti-
cal point in the assignment. Therefore, in assigning the overall
rank, the weighting of the parts should be in the approximate
proportion d two-thirds to one-third--two thirds on part one, one-
third of the grade based upon decisions on part two.

276

8. The length suggested on the cover sheet is no more than a guide-
line to relieve the minds of over-anxious students. The actual
length, if you have a preference, is certainly your right to assign.

277

EDUCATION 200
Spring Term, 1968

DISCUSSION SECTION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION

 

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ASK YOU TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY,
NATURE AND CONTENT OF THE DISCUSSION SECTION WHICH YOU
ATTENDED. DUE TO THE LARGE ENROLLMENT IN THIS COURSE

AND THE CORRESPONDING LARGE NUMBER OF DISCUSSION SECTIONS,
YOU ARE THE MOST QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION.
PLEASE BE SURE YOU HAVE IDENTIFED YOUR DISCUSSION SECTION
NUMBER OR THE NAME OF YOUR DISCUSSION SECTION INSTRUCTOR
ON THE ANSWER SHEET.

1.

10.

11.

Were the objectives of the discussion section adequately explained?
1) yes 2) no

Did your discussion section instructor make you aware of what he
expected you to do in the discussion section? 1) yes 2) no

Did the discussion section instructor clearly explain how you would
be evaluated and graded in the discussion section? 1) yes 2) no

Did the discussion section assignments help you in understanding
the course material? 1) yes 2) no

Did the instructor's discussion or handouts supplement and clarify
the difficult portions of the text and lecture material? 1) yes 2) no

Did your discussion section instructor instill in you an interest and
enthusiasm for the material? 1) yes 2) no

Did yourdiscussion section instructor seem to be interested in
teaching? 1) yes 2) no

Did your-discussion section instructor seem to have a firm grasp of
the subject matter? 1) yes 2) no

Did your discussion section instructor interrelate the course
materials and concepts in a systematic manner? 1) yes 2) no

Did your discussion instructor effectively use examples in explaining
the course materials and answering questions? 1) yes 2) no

Did your discussion section instructor seem to be concerned with
whether the students learned the materials? 1) yes 2) no

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

l7.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

278

Did the discussion section instructor emphasize and demonstrate
practical application of the course materials? 1) yes 2) no

Did the discussion section instructor use student questions or
ideas as a springboard to further discussion? 1) yes 2) no

Did the instructor in responding to questions in fact answer the
question asked? 1) yes 2) no

Did you usually understand the instructor's answers to questions?
1) yes 2) no

Did the discussion section instructor seem to attempt to draw
all the members of the section into the discussion? 1) yes 2) no

Did the instructor encourage students to express opinions?
1) yes 2) no

Did the discussion section instructor appear receptive to new
ideas and others' viewpoints? 1) yes 2) no

Did the discussion section instructor generally stimulate class
discussion? 1)yes 2) no

Were you generally attentive in your discussion section?
1) yes 2) no

Did you attend the discussion section on a regular basis?
1) yes 2) no

Did you generally enjoy going to your discussion section?
1) yes 2) no

Do you generally consider your discussion section experiences
worthwhile? 1) yes 2) no

279

EDUCATION 200
Spring Term, 1968
Post-Course Attitudes

SINCE IT IS LlVlPOSSIBLE TO TAKE YOUR TIME TO ASK YOU EACH,
PERSONALLY, YOUR IMPRESSIONS OF EVERY ASPECT OF THE
COURSE, THESE ITEMS ATTEMPT TO COVER THE MANY POSSIBLE
REPLIES YOU, AS A GROUP, MIGHT POSE. THESE SHOULD TAKE
ONLY A MOMENT OR TWO. PLEASE MARK THEM AS YOU HAVE TIME
THROUGHOUT THE HOUR.

 

Key:
Mark 1 if you agree with the statement.
Mark _2_ if you disagree with the statement.

1. I have wasted my time in this course.

2. I wish I could have avoided taking this course.

3. I would recommend that as many students as possible avoid taking
this course.

4. Even if I have a chance in the future, I'll avoid having anything to
do with this subject.

5. I have no interest in this subject area.

6. This was a dull course.

7. A large portion of the course was just "dead wood. "

8. This course did not help me broaden my outlook.

9. . This course deals with impractical things.

10. The instructors did _r_1c_3_1_:_ make the material understandable.
11. This course contributed very little to my fund of knowledge.
12. The instructors cannot teach.

13. This course did po_t fill a gap in my previous background.
14. This course did _I_1_o_1_:_ tie in with the work I intend to do.

15. The instructors were not intellectually stimulating.

l6.

17.

18.

19.
20.

21.

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.

28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.

36.

280

The instructors did not care whether or not their students learned
the material.

I believe there was too much emphasis on outside readings in
this course.

I did little in the way of original thinking about the subject matter
of this course.

The instructors taught over your head.
This course was too hard for me.

I registered for this course mainly because my adviser told me
to do so.

This course did 3th inspire the students.

This course did _I_1_g_t_ relate the material to many other fields.
This course was too easy for me.

This course dealt with detailed material.

This course isno_t_ in my major field of study.

I do not feel strongly one way or the other about having been in
this course.

Attendance was not taken in this course.

There was little emphasis on outside readings in this course.

This course dealt little with theory.

The instructors have been easy graders.

I have had very little of the material presented in this course before.
This course dealt with concepts and principles rather than facts.
This course was Eat mainly a memory course.

This course was concerned with practical, down to earth matters.

The instructors did not teach over your head.

37.
38.
39.
40.

41.

42.
43.
44.

45.

46.
47.

48.

49.
50.
51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

281
This course did {1.9.3 duplicate material I have had before.
I feel I have _I_1_O_E wasted my time in this course.
The instructors know their material well.
This course dealt with practical things.

The instructors cared whether or not their students learned
the material.

The instructors made the material interesting.
I am glad I took this course.
I can see how I could apply this course content in real life.

I did a great deal of original thinking about the subject matter
of this course.

The instructors were intellectually stimulating.
The instructors have the reputation of being good teachers.

I think I will forget less about this subject than about most other
subjects.

I took this course because I wanted to broaden my outlook.
This course dealt with material about which I wanted to learn.
The instructors were a great inspiration to their students.

This class was more stimulating than most others I've taken or
will take.

This was an exciting course.

This course covered material which for the most part I consider
to be vital and significant.

This course has helped me toward realizing my professional
or vocational goal.

I enjoyed this course more than any other I took this term.

I learned more from this course than any other I took this term.

A PPE NDIX C

Descriptive Data Summaries for all Student Variables
Including Number, Mean, Standard Deviation,
Skewness, and Kurtosis Categorized by Total

Students, Students by Time-of—Day,
and Students by Sex

Appendix C - 1:

282

Descriptive Data Summaries for all
Student Variables 'by Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

   

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

   

 

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 
 

 

 

  

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N Mean S.D. Skey. Kurt.
Course Grade (1) 972 .821 -.174 2.989
Mid-Term Grade (2) 971 .989 -.198 2.732
Fina1 Exam Grade (3) 971 1.034 -.208 2.726
Instructor Grade (4) 968 .807 -.122 2.712
Course Project Rank (5) 909 I 3.525 .930 l -.208 2.799 ,
Ere-Test (6) 827 22.151 3.562 -.273 4.488
Mid-Term Exam (7) 897 30.531 3.928 -.602 3.399
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) 967 28.845 I 4.159 -.453 3.440
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) 967 24.462 4.092 .815 12.851
,Final Exam -- Total (10) 967 . 53.286 . 7.182 -.250 5.198
High Expectation 1 (11) 870 10.807 1.221 -.740 p 3.086
High Expectation 2 ' (12) 692 9.892 1.605 -.424 2.642
High Expectation 3 (13) 432 90.935 5.345 -.441 2.789
Actual Expectation 1 (14) 868 1.534 -.193 2.995
Actual Expectation 2 (15) 690 1.719 -.282 3.028
Actual Expectation 3 (16) 435 7.100 -3.408 37.207
Low Expectation 1 (17) 869 1.586 -.005 3.839
Low Expectation 2 (18) 690 _ 1. 744 -.026 3.423
Low Expectation 3 (19) 432 11.028 -3.189 20.297
Aspiration-Expectation 1 (20) 860 1 . 446 - . 201 3 . 923
Aspiration-Expectation 2 (21) 684 1 . 542 .058 2 . 633 1
Aspiration-Expectation 3 (22) 430 ' 1.585 -.271 2.621
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) 831 .490 .532 3.198
Qtaiitying Test -- Verbal (24) 719 14.412 .143 1.805
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) 719 14.628 .314 1.865

 

 

 

283:
Appendix C-1:' (continued)

N .. Mean. Skew. Kurt.

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S.D.
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) 719 14.496 .299 1.758
Reason for Enrolling (27) 852 3.270 1.099 .-.'554 3.080
Pre-Course Attitude (28) 844 27.118 4.975 .156 17.796
Post-Course Attitude (29) 514 7.351 1.912 15.203
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) 451 I170751] 5.600 -.932 3.364
Learning Set (31) 819 20.425 6.259 -.150 2.720
A - a Test Anxiety Scale (32) 832 37.565 9.298 --.080 3.251
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) 827 1.028 l .237 9.394 96.700
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term (34) 953 2,783 .939 .216 2.821
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) 965 3.018 1.041 .664 2.488
Eysenck Extraversion Scale. (36) 836 13.208 3.901 -.404 2.748
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) 836 10.541 4.599. .128 2.478
Eysenck Lie sca1e (38) 836 2.568 H 1.589 .495 2.928
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) 855 2.200 1.006 .599 2.754
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) 688 m .941 .556 2.753
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) 921 -- .810 .156 1.967
[Suitability for Teaching (42) 850 1.027 .624 2.825
Suitability for Teaching (43) 662 2.296 .993 .531 2.621
Suitability for Teaching (44) 920 2.250 1.007 .667 2.893
Importance of Theory (45) 855 m -780 .783. 2.676
Flmportance of Theory (46) '667 .796 . .500 2.389
Importance‘of Theory (47) 919 .719 .569 2.966
Course as Preparation (48) 349 .732 . .704 3-262
Course as Preparation (49) 562 .788. .586 2.982
Course as Preparation (50) 921 1.072/ .655 2.705

 

 

 

 

284

Appendix-C-Z: Descriptive Data Summaries for all

Student Variables by AM Section

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N Mean S.D. Skew. Kurt.
Course Grade (1) 577 3.549 .820 -.083 2.767
Mid-Term Grade (2) 577 3.536 .979 -.116 2.793
:inal Exam Grade (3) 576 3.241 1.030 -.170 2.684
Instructor Grade (4) 574 3.732 .798 -.080 2.557
Course Project Rank (5) 544 3.539 .959 -.286 2.726
Pre-Test (6) 512 21.859 3.614 -.463 5.004
Mid-Term Exam (7) 545 30.428 3.913 -.485 3.001
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) 575 29.037 4.255 -.417 3.302
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) 575 24.416 3.820 -.056 3.241
Final Exam -- Total ‘ (10) 575 a 53.452 6.987 -.267 3.525
High Expectation 1 (11) 527 10.708 1.285 -.735 3.241
High Expectation - 2' (12) 419 9.864 1.623 -_-.401 2.706
High Expectation 3 (13) 252 90.754 5.721 -.429 2.701
Actual Expectation 1 (14) 526 8.681 1.530 -.236 3.085
Actual Expectation 2 (15) 418 8.548 1.750 -.280 3.157
Actual Expectation 3 (16) 252 - 82.845 6.158. -.712 5.345
Low Expectation 1 (17) 526 _ 5.863 1.609 .090 3.840
Low Expectation 2 (18) 418 6 .074 1. 729 .072 3.304
Low Expectation 3 .(19) 250 70.872 10.493 -2.827 17.534
Aspiration-Expec tation 1 (20) 524 8 . 130 1 . 440 - .328 4. 614
) Asviration-Expectation '2 (21) 416 8.202 1.542 , .141 + 2.629 7 .

ASPirqtion-Emectation . 3 (22) 248 8.327 1.613 -.2087] 2.506
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) 506. 2.491 I .471 .562 3.111
Qualifying rest-u Verbal (24) 438 23.297 14.282 .181 1.815
‘ Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) 438 21.03 14.340 .359 1.917

 

 

 

 

 

285.

Appendix C-Z: . (continued) 4

Skew; Kurt.

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N Mean S.D.
Qualifying Test -- Total (26). 438 I21.189 14.385 .312 1.760
Reason for Enrolling (27) 513 I 3.267 1.070 -.556 3.201
Pre-Course Attitude (28) 509 27.338 4.659 .071 17.065
Post-Course Attitude (29) 320 28.194 7.496 2.077 15.649
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) 252 17.557 5.667 -.325 3.479
Learning Set (31) 487 20.530 6.271 4.231 2.934
A - 11 Test Anxiety Scale (32) 504 37.938 9.180 -.015 3.228
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) 512 1.010 .132 14.142 206.664
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term (34) 572 2.813 .927 .181 2.906.
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) 575 3.049] 1.058 .009 2.453
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) 496 13,435] 3,913 ...440 2,741
. Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) 496 10,565 I 4,649 .064 2,294
Eysenck 1.ie Scale (38) 496 1.592 .494 2.849
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) 516 .993 .627 2.784
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) 420 .917 .514 2.681
' Commitment to. Enter Prof. (41) 546 .800 .167 1.948
Suitability for Teaching (42) 513 .992 .713 3.068
Suitability for Teaching (43) 402 .957 .594 2.790
Suitability for Teaching (44) 546 1'.006 .675 2.901 _
Importance of Theory ' (45) 516 .762 .805 2.692
Importance of Theory (46) 405 J 1 832 .791 (.547 2.630
Importance of Theory (47) 545 .591 .510 3.089
Course as Preparation (48) 512 .747 .685 3.242
. Course as Preparation (49) 403 .778 .702 3.124
Course as Preparation (50) 546 1.072 .738 2.836 ‘,

 

 

 

Appendix. C-3:

286

Descriptive Data Summaries for all
Student Variables by PM Section

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25)

 

 

21. 964] 15.075

 

 

N Mean S .D . Skew. Kurt .

Course Grade (1) 395 3.532 .825 -.305 3.294
Mid-Term Grade (2) 394 3.629 1.004 -.252 2.666
Final Exam Grade (3) 395 3.220 1.042 -.260 2.779
Instructor Grade (4) 394 3.713 .821 -.175 2.905
Course Project Rank (5) 365 3.504 .885 ' -.072 2.925
Pre-Test (6) 315 22.625 3.428 .123 3.148
Mid-Term Exam (7) 352 30.690 3.950 -.785 4.045
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) 392 28.564 4.004 -.548 3.662
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) 392 24.531 4.466 1.590 19.770
Final Exam -- Total (10) 392. 53.043 7.463 -.218 7.046
Eigb Expectation 1 (11) 343 10.959 1.099 -.620 2.103
High Expectation 2' (12) 273 9.934. 1.580 -.457 2.527
High Expectation 3 (13) 180 91.189 4.774 -.386 2.655
Actual Expectation 1 (14) 342 8.848 1.538 -.132 2.831
Actual Expectation 2 (15) 272 8.544 1.674 -.285 2.774
Actual Expectation 3 (16) 183 82.639 8.240 -4.777 46.500
Low Expectation 1 (17) 343 6.017 1.562 -.154 3.904
Low Expectation 2 (18) 272 5.996 1.770 -.162 3.561
Low Expectation 3 (19) 182 70.566 11.751 -3.507 22.164
Aspiration-Expectation l (20) 336 8.348 ~1.448 -.013 2.775
' Aspiration-Expectation 2 (21) 268 8.220 1.543 -‘.071 2.645
Aspiration-Expectation 3 (22) 182 8.522 1.544 1 -.353 2.828
Univ. cradeJ-Point Average (23) 325 2.562 .515 .460 3.235
Qua1itying Test ::VVerbal (24) 281 23.968 14.628 .084 1.794
281 .245 .1.793

 

a

 

287

Appendix C - 3: . (continued)

Skew .

. Kurt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ N Mean S.D.
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) 281 121.975 14.680 .278 1.750
Reason for Enrolling (27) 339 I 3.274 1.143 -.550 2.912
Pre-Courae Attitude (28) 335 I 26.785 5.410 .286 17.912
Post-Course Attitude (29) 194 1 27.067 7.067 1.590 17.300
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) 189 13.042 5. 507 4.033 3,221
Learning Set (31) 332 20.271 6.247 -.031 2.419
A - E Test Anxiety Scale. (32) 328 36.991 9.463 -.l60 3.244
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) 31.5 1.057 .343 6.601 48.432
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term (34) 381 2.738 .957 .273 2.721
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) 390 2.972 1.015 .145 2.560
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) 340 12.876 3.858 -.366 2.785
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) 340 10.506 4.531 .227 2.775
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) 340 2.547 H 1.586 .496 3.046
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) 339 2.260 1.025 .554 2.708
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) 268 2.157 .978 .621 2.839
'LCOEmitment to Enter Prof. (41) 375 2.051 .824 .136 1.983
Suitability for Teaching (42) 337 2.451 1.071 .484 2.544
Suitability for Teaching (43) 260 2.319) 1.048 .444 2.395
Suitability for Teaching (44) 374 I 2.273 1.010 .656 2.883
Importance of Theory (45) 339 I 1.740 .805 -.741 2.622
Importance of Theory '4 (46) 262 J 1.840 .805 . .430 2.041
Importance of Theory ' (47) 374 I 2.529 .752 .486} 2.786
Course as Preparationf (48) 337 I 2.439] .709 .. 2.742. 3.279
Course as Preparation (49) 259 I 2.475' .804 .‘419 2.801
Course as Preparation (50) 375J 2.368' 1.069 .543 x 2.563

 

288‘

Appendix'C-4: Descriptive Data Summaries for
Student Variables by All Males

311;

Skew.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1T lueaul 3.1). Fairt.
Course Grade. (1) 331 3.474 .868 -.074 2.835 .
Mid-Term Grade (2) . 330 3.512 1.008 -.104 2.632
Final Exam Grade (3) 330 .3.185 1.077 -.168 2.621
Instructor Grade (4) 330 3.658 .811 .083 2.526
Course Project Rank (5) 308' 3.484 .925 ‘ -.088 2.684
pre-Test (5) 273 22.077 3.575 .120 .2.853
Mid-Term Exam (7) 314 30.045 4.176 -.612 3.415
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) 330 28.482 4.302 -.399 2.705
Final Exam -- Applied Items - (9) 330 24.388 3.983 -.301 3.416
Final Exam -- Total (10) 330. 52.894, 7.175 -.316 3,084
High Expectation 1 (11) 290 11.107 1.239 -1.493 5.337
Eigb.Expectation 2' (12) 231 9.978 . 1.667 -.480 2.719
Eigb.Expectation 3 (13) 134 91.388 5.487 -.358 2.197
.Actual Expectation 1 (14) 290 8.983 1.614 -.378 3.266
Actual Expectation 2 . (15) 231 8.567 1.870 -.269 3.058
.Actual Expectation 3 (16) 135 82.052 9.219 -4.526 39.170
Lou Expectation 1 (17) ~290 6.179 1.758 -.347 3.451
Low'Expectation 2 (18) 231 6.009 1.967 -.125 3.044’
Lothxpectation 3 (19) 133 70.459 12.683 -3.030 16.926
ASpiration-Expec ta tion 1 (20) 287 8 . 355 1 . 566 - . 344 3 . 053
ASpiration-Expectation 2 (21) 229 8 . 227 1 . 600 ..' . 084 2 .653
ASpiration-Expectation 3 (22) 133 8 .376 1 . 782 - . 295 2 . 336
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) 281 2.485 .444 .664 3.401 .
Qualifying Test -- verbal (24) 239 22.536 14.858 /.191 1.786. ‘
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) 239 26.544 15.029“ -.164 1.750 '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix _C -4:' (continued)

289*-

Kurt .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t N Mean S.D. Skew.
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) A 239 24.941 14.858 .030 1.654
Reason for Enrolling (27) 284 3.335 1.229 -.440 2.553
Era-course Attitude (28) 279 26.480 4.957 -1.715 5.991
Post-Course Attitude (29) 162 26.500 7.514 1.058 12.006
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) 141 18.511 5.267 -1.511 4.873
Learning Set (31) 281 20.032 6.669 -.130 2.704
A - 11 Test Anxiety Scale (32) 275. 36.367 9.476 .110 3.387
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) 273 1.015 .148 11.110 134.733
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term (34) 323 2.622 .942 .303. 2.843
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) 328 2.899 1.010 :167 2.626
Eysenck Extraversion Scale. (36) 292 13.092 3.929 -.363 2.544
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) 292 9.332 4.256 .118 2.297
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) 292 2.627 1.729 .502 2.728
Commitment to Enter Prof. 1. (39) 286 2.472 .976 .283 2.507
Commitment to Enter Prof. 2 (40) 231 2.459 .959 .370 2.614
Commitment to Enter Prof. 3 (41) 314 2.086 .824 .148' 2.115
IFSuitability for Teaching 1 (42) 282 2.535 1.027 .448 2.499
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43) 218 2.541 1.034 .378' 2.368
Suitability. for Teaching 3 (44) 313 2.399 1.005 .467 2.610
Importance of Theory 1 (45) 286 1.815 .848 .742 2.717)
Importance df Theory 2 2 (46) 220 1.945 .848: . .509 2.633
Importance’of Theory 3 (47) 314 2.570 .730 .569 2.752
Course as Preparation 1 (48) 283 2.558 .762. .694 3.177
Course as Preparation 2 (49) 217 2.581 .772 .454 2.719
Course as Fraparation , 3 (50) 314 2.446 1.069 .409 2.365

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

290

Appendix C-S: Descriptive Data Summaries for allE
Student Variables by All Females

‘\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N .Mean S.D. Skew. Kurt.
Course Grade (1) 635 3.583 .791 -.187 3.006 ’
Mid-Term Grade (2) 635 3.616 .975 -.245 2.794
Final Exam Grade (3) 635 3.266 1.008 -.218 2.772
Instructor Grade (4) 632 3.761 .795 -.191 2.758
Course Project Rank (5) 597 3.541 .931 -.270 2.879
Pre-Test (6) 551 22.198 3.562 -.475 5.338
Mid-Term Exam (7) 579 30.812 3.765 -.564 3.266
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) 633 29.036 4.086 -.475 3.884
Final Exam -- Applied Items V (9) 633 24.449 3.834 -.l36 3.612
Final Exam -- Total (10) 633 53.534 7.157 -.202 6.316
Eigh Expectation 1 (11) 577 10.660 1.183 -.410 2.416- .
Eigh Expectation 2 ' (12) 459 9.858 1.566 -.396 2.587
Eigh Expectation 3 (13) 296 90.770 5.274 -.512 3.109
Actual Expectation l (14) 575 8.631 1.482 -.130 2.875
Actual Expectation 2 (15) 457 8.543 1.639 4.300 2.927
Actual Expectation ' 3 (16) 298 83.131 5.878. -.691 5.623
Low Expectation l (17) 576 _ 5.792 1.475 .167 4.312
Low Expectation 2 (18) 457 6.070 1.619 .079 3.587
Lov Expectation 3 (19) 297 70.892 10.256 -3.213 21.875
Aspiration-Expectation l p (20) 570 8.146 1.381 A -.142 4.615
Aspiration-Expectation 2 (21) 453 8.210 1.507 '.145 ° 2.612.
Aspiration-Expectation 3' (22) 29.5 8.444 1.476 -.227 ~. 2.749
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) 547 ' 2.540 .507 .524 Y 2.927
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) 478 24.084 14.194 :1 ' :24 1.809
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) 478 18.872 13.752" .541 2.192

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

291’

Appendix C - 5:' (continued)

ldurtm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N Mean S.D. Skew.
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) 478 19.828 14.023 .422 1.874
Reason for Enrolling (27) 565 3.237 1.030 -.681 3.423
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ‘562 27.450 4.957 1.083 23.376
Post-Course Attitude (29) 351 28.382 7.199 2.451 18.708
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) 307' 17.420 5.734 -.717 2.968
Learning Set (31) 534 20.616 6.017 -.155 2.670
A - E Test.Anxiety Scale (32) _ 554 38.181 9.130 -.156 '3.249
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Teat (33) 551 1.034 .271 8.501 78.505
Test Anxiety -- mud-Tern’ (349 626 2.866 .930 .185 2.833
Test.Anxiety -- Final (35) 633 3.079 1.054 ..005 2.444
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) 539 13.256 3.879 - .436 2.883
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) 539 11.180 4.641 .090 2.504
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) 539 2.532 1.512 .471 2.988
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) 566 2.060 .996 .817 3.156
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) 455 2.051 .903 .656 2.904
JLCommitment to Enter Prof. (41) 603 1.980 .801 .152‘ 1.867
Suitability for Teaching (42) 565 2.241 1.013 .743 3.113
Suitability for Teaching (43) 442 2.174 .947 .593 2.785
Suitability for Teaching ((44) . 603 2.172 1.002 .791 -3.139
Importance of Theory (45) 566 1.633 .738 .755 2.394
'Importance of Theory (46) 445 1.780 .766 ..456 2.029
Importance of Theory (47) 601 2.401 .705 .568 3.053
Course as preparation (48) 563 2.362 .706 .692 3.254
Course as Preparation ' (49) 443 2.391 .787 .672 3.194
Course as Preparation (50) 603 2.212 1.063 .805 3.018

 

 

APPENDIX D

Descriptive Data Summaries for all Student Variables
by Discussion Section Including Number
Mean, Standard Deviation and Skewness

Z92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

can... 956 03.3 M ma woe. «mom www.mrwir ma 3.3 n coaumuoonxm amsuo<
0:... wow; and ON Hmm. can; and am .93 N cowumuoomxm Hmauo<
3.»... mwoJ W oqu mu mac. . :0; N36 «m 3.3 H moaumuomaxm Hmsuo<
who. on: 83.8 a 3 9:. mafia 80.8 3 a: m mononuoooxm amam
mom... 8: m 813 om omm. 63; 26.x S 33 N moamouoomxm swam
m3..- mmoé 893 mu tuft NS; coax: mm QC H aoflmuoomxm swam
m3... mafia 22mm 3 8m... 8mm 36...} mm 83 Hooch... .... amxm Homam
com... 334 «2.3 R mum.-. mom.m swam on 8v 3de mafia: .... mem Human
woo... «mmfi Zion nu mom... wumxu Huwmu an A3 mamuH HHoomm ...... mem Hmawm
Sm; an; memdm cm 2a... 8: «2.: mm 8 spam 58.32
so. Sm...” 23.8 2 So... Sea 30.: mm 3v onoedmm
03.1 osm. mom.~ . mm . mam. new. mnmJ an A3 xmmm uoofioum omusoo
ooo. emu. ~86 R . mam. Ni. mafia an A3 compo 633:5
own... as; mama H 3 SN... can. Need an. 5 mouse anxm Somme
mam. mom. 325 5 man... So; aid mm 5 scape 5.8.32
it». one. 325 ,, R 23.. max. so; on 3 ounce onmooo
.3008 I .n.m 2 com: T Z Seal—'3 . # 0.335;
m t 24 .

 

g possum—ma: no.“ mofinmwnmkr Hamper—m :m HOW mownmEFSm mqu o>3mfluomofl "Hum Nawcomaafi

293

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So. com. com; mu 8: 3:. T8; mm 88 comatose .. 3352. once
on“... Sex Sean 2 .20.. Ram Toma.” an 33 Show hoaxes m .. <
82. no.6 «8.8 «a 2m... «8.x _nmmé an :8 mom mcacmoom
can... mama .88.: 2 35.7 38.6 «8.3 S 88 uooooumaom cannon spouted
So; 222 ”8.8 S mam; $2: 13.: S as ooouaooa unmooobaom
8?? 89m 08.2.. mm mom... mom.m 24.3 mm as ooooaoum oenoomdum
«on... non. ~36 eN 2K... so; no; mm :3 mcazomcm pom conoom
moo.- oH~.mH mom.c~ on mma. cox.aa mam.s~ em Ammo deuce -- onus mcHAmaamso
6mm. m~o.a~ oma.ma ma emu. oom.ma mea.s~ am Ammvoeaoooaoaooo -- shoe mcaamaaooo
men: 33.2 woman 3 man. 832 «2.: R 98 Humans .. case 9.1333
3a.- .33. song 2 at. 83. mafia 2 SS omens: monomuuoonm .325-
30.1 mg?“ mmm.w ma H2... mmmé «mud we 33 m coaumuoomxmucowumuwmmxa
3w. Earn 08.5 cu 3a. mum; 302w Hm 9.3 N Gowumuoomxmicowumuwmm’w
one... So. on: 3.... 2m. 3m; 33 em 83 a mofifiomeaméoflefimmx
an a: e. . . . e
e . g: a: e : a
§§§
mm/gflwd . .H ~88 S as
fly! am one can N (cameos
g .a.m 82m mm an... «on; an; an no moo/Em
// Saw: 2 .3008 .Qom cmmz Z .3300me 30A
2A . E # (I,
anmem>

 

3935303 "TD unnonommxw

 

 

 

294

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

moH. awe.” o-.~ mu w¢~.. «ca. NNN.N on Aomv aoflumuamoum an amazon
mm~. aum. 05H.~ NH mmN.H ohm. ~o¢.~ om Aa¢v aofiumumnoum an omuaoo
Hmm.H NH“. th.~ «a «55., can. ooo.~ mm Am¢v acqumumnmum «a mausoo
qmm.- «NB. con.~ ¢~ omo.H «no. ~n¢.~ on .A~«V huomsa mo ouauuuoasH
«we. ¢No. mum.H NH m¢~. mum. moo.~ on Aoqv auomna mo ouawuuomEH
mam. emu. wo~.H «N omq. omw. NH¢.H «m Anqv snowsk mo mocmuuomsH
qma.n MHm. oom.~ mm Hen. Hem. me.N on A¢¢v magnumoa now mafiawnmuasm
om¢. mHH.H neo.~ NH mom.. «Na. mmm.~ on Anqv magnomma you zufiflflnmUHsm
emq. O¢o.H Boo.~ «a moo. omm. ~m~.~ mm Au¢v magnomma new muafifipmuwam
ho~.- Hmm. o-.~ mu moo.- n¢h. -~.~ on Afiev .moum pagan ou unusuaasoo
wmm. omH.H oom.N ma omm. mam. me.N Hm Ao¢v .woum uwucm cu ucmsuwaaov
Hoc. mao.H mwm.m «N «mm. NmH.H m¢H.N «m AmmV .moum uwuam ou ucmsufiasoo
0mm. omn.a waw.~ Nu ndqr oH¢.H mww.a on nwmv wamum meg xocmm%m
So. a2 .q SN. 2 «NH. ammJ 353 CS 33w 53033st x333

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omm. oo~.H Nam.nfi NN mam.- «wo.m omm.ma on Aomv mamam aogmum>muuxm.xoaow»m
maa.- ~o¢. nma.m ha HoH.- on. ano.m mm Anny Hmafimm.a hyaaxa4 “may
2.». . \ NW; So. 5. £3 mm... 98 53.32 .. 83% w . ,
. mxw. \me\ awry ..5w . .. . \wer
.55. . Va a m 582 ”w w
.Q.m _AammVpr\\\V map
"a ..Q xmflamunfi.

a? 053M #30 UV

 

295

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ Huo.- H¢o.c wan.¢w W mH HHm.- oHo.¢ ono.¢m mH .HoHv n aoHuauummxm Hcauo<
Hmm.- SN; 02$ r. 5H 8H... NR; oqmd mu AnHv N coHumuumaxm H.334
QOH.- mH¢.H m N-.a , mH mHo. qu.H 0H0.» «m H¢Hv H aoHumuomaxm Hasuo<
HHm.- ¢o¢.¢ W mHo.Ha mH nqm.- nHm.¢ omw.Hm wH HmHV m aoHumuuoaxm anm
aoH.- mHm.H ‘ HH¢.oH ‘ HH Hoo. Hmm.H owa.m nN ANHV N aoHumuumnxm ame

oo~.H- aHo.H wH~.HH. wH onq.-.. mm~.H an.oH «m HHHV H aoHumuomaxm anm
omm.- Hmo.m mmo.mm H~ «NH.- amm.o HmH.mm Hm HoHV HmuoH -- saxm Hach
oOH.m me.¢ mom.o~ HN «oH. o¢¢.m coo.m~ Hm HHV mamuH vaHaa< -- amxm HmaHm
Hom.- mow.m ooo.a~ HN moo.- mqo.¢ aqo.m~ Hm Hwy mawuH HHmomm .. swam wmaHm
Hoo.- mNH.m oHH.Hm HN ~m¢.- m¢m.m NoH.om Hm HHV amxm aume-cHz
NHo. o¢w.¢ omu.-_ OH wmo. . Haq.m Hmo.m~ mm Hov unma-oum
mun. 9%. H255. HN . SN; mg; Nuod mm 03 xcwm uoonoum mausoo
O¢o. new. Hmm.m HN mmo. nHm. omm.m Hm qu manna HouusuumaH
3m. com. mmm.m Hm o2. mHm. Hmn.m mm Amv .wkuo swam .3ch
N8. :3. 23 _ z E: 23 8.} HH 8 320 €3.35
Hg. 3w. New...” Hm «3. man. €36 mm A3 33.0 03.93
.338 dd cwwk ,. 12! .338 .n.m :82 z . #

 

 

 

/ E E _ , , ngfi

0
magma 255.539 ..N

N Heron/“wax 3w wvafldwym P udflfld no“ moHHdGuduHH ..nn xwddoma/w
aw Had

296

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:05. 03.. moo; 0H ooo. ooo. Too; mm 33 unmanmum nu humflxfiw ummH
mg... «no.5 OmH.mm ON oNHF qoo.oH Tmadm mm 33 mamum 5332:“ m ... <
o¢0.- «mo.H mm¢.~H 0H «oH.- mHm.¢ _mmn.¢H on AHmv umm mchumaH
Hoof": oou.m oom.oN H: NnmJn wmu.m «moon n.— 83 HouusuumaH 1.3309 moauauu<
Hum.~- muo.n «om.m~ HH Hm¢.H- omm.m Hmm.m~ NH Ammo ousuHuu< mmuaoo-umom
HHVNJn .SNJ om¢KN om Qumran $3..» mmnom mm 33 mosuwuu< mausoououm
«mo.H- mmH.H Hmm.m mH ¢m¢.- qu.H mom.~ mm HHNV waHHHouam you acmmmm
mam. mqo.oH ~o¢.o~ mH mmH. mHm.NH «NH.N~ mm Homo HauoH -- “may wcHHHHHmsa
qu. mmm.oH oqm.o~ MH Hoo. mNH.mH NHH.¢~ am Amuvm>HuauHuamso .. Hume maHHHHHmso
«NH. Hum.wH wom.¢m mH mmH.- «Hm.mH Hmm.¢~ an quv Hanuo> -- “may waHHHHHmso
mom.u oow. @moJ 3 «an. ohm. Nm.».u ..Hm Ammo mmmum>< unwOMnoomuU gas—H4
Hmo.- amn.H Hm~.m mH ¢m¢.- «oH.H «Nw.m HH HHNV m aOHumuomgxm-=0HumuHam<
«on... NNN.H Sod 3 Hon. man; oo~.w nN 33 N :owuwuoomxmluoauwuan:
m3... «3H ommd wH Hmm. mom; ~36 mm 83 H :oHuBuoaxméoHuSHa:
Ho~.- Hmm.o Hmo.mm mH HMH.- omn.H ~H¢.HH HH HmHo m :oHumuuaaxm 30H
wgmmm» NH¢.H mmm.o HH waH. mum.H o~o.m mm Ava N coHumuommxm 30H
. wmm. E3?" @310 ma mum. mam; 2.9m «m CS H coaumuomaxm 304
.335 .n.m 5.52 z .338 .Q.m ammz 2
2m «2 # wHQmHHm>
Acmsquqooo "Nd 538%?

 

IL il’ lll‘llt‘lllll‘l

297

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mom. omm.H om¢.~ on mam. omm. «HH.~ on .Aonv coHuauammum no amusoo
mm¢.u «on. mHm.~ 0H nmN.H «ma. mm¢.~ «N Aodv coaumuamonm mm onusoo
awn. «Ho. H~¢.~ mH mom.. HHm. mn~.~ mm HwHV aoHuaummmum an «mason
NHo. Hmm. ooH.~ cu wow. mac. Hom.~ on AHHV muoasa Ho moaauuoaaH
man. mHH. omo.H 0H «Nm. one. omH.H «N Aoqv mucosa mo moaauuoasH
HHH. com. HnH.H aH 0mm. on. Hao.H mm HnHV Huomsa Ho oucmuuoaaH
Hmm. Hmu.H oo¢.~ a“ can. com. -N.~ on Heqv waHnummH you HUHHHanHsm
coo.- no~.H mm¢.~ 0H ooe. Haw. omN.N mm HnHV waHgomma you HHHHHnmuHam
moo. NmH.H ¢n¢.u as non. omm. «mH.N mm Au¢v wafisommfi you huaaanmuwsm
mam. cam. cow.H ow mam. cos. wHH.H on Hqu .Houm umuam cu HamsuHaaoo
mcmw. mmH.H om~.~ 0H can. Hmm. oou.~ mu Hoqv .Houm uuuam on unmauHaaou
Hmm. «mH.H HHN.N ma mmn. oNo.H Hoo.N mm AmmV .moum umuam ou ucmwuassoo
«Hm. HQH.H ~¢m.~ HH HNN. oHH.H o-.m Hm Ammo mHmom oHH Huammmm
dm~.Hu H¢H.~ wom.n ma o¢H.u mmo.m wm~.HH Hm Ammo «Hmom amwuwuouswz sodamhm
«#0. wH~.N me.o ad wno.n w~m.m mmm.¢~ Hm Acmv meum aoflmnm>wuuxm xuamwhm
Hoo.- nHH. ooo.m Hm mHo. mHH.H N0H.M Hm Ammo . HmaHm -- mumea< “may
coo. «no. coo.m Ha Hmm. mus. mmw.~ on quv auoa-cHz .. mumHWa<.umua
.3mxm .n.m o cum: 2 .3mxm .a.m cam: z # mHanum>
_zm eam .
€263.83 ”win x3323,»

 

298

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

woo. #omo opium _ w Hmm. mom.~ _ooo..¢w o." 33 n coaumuumnxm ~25un
man... 304 wand fl 5 com... com; mood ma 33 N aowumuowmxm Husuo<
moo. Noch c o~o.o mm -H.- HNH.H cHH.o RN AoHo H ooHuouoocxm Hoccoo
mHN.- ch.o mom.oc o ccc.H- coo.m ooH.~o cH Ach m aoHumcuocxm cme
-Noo.- ccc.H oom.o HH mnH.- ccc.H o~o.oH cH ANHV N :oHumcomcxm :mHm
Hon»- coo. ccc.HH no ccc.H- «Ho.H Hoo.oH RN HHHV H aoHuouuwcxm cme
NHo.- coH.H o coN.~m. om _ «Ho. cNH.c ooH.on cm AoHc Hmuoa .. amxm HmaHm
coo. ouc.m ~o~.o~, om oNH. «mo.o moo.o~ on c Aoo maouH omHHcc<_-- scam Hmch
$0.: womxu 53.: , «N — wmo. «mod Suom on A3 mamuH :womm .... mem Madam
mum... WEI» No~.om cw — Qua... mooJ wtém 5N AC aaxm Bumauvflz
oom.- ccc.H on.- «a coo.. ccc.H cHo.NN Ha Acv coca-oum
coo. coo. coo.o no . mn~.- Hon. occ.m om Ano scam commoum omucoo
now. How. ooc.m no coo. coo. com.o om Acv mcouo youucuuocH
c~o.- ocH.H ooH.m no coc.- ccc.H Hom.m om AmV oomuo amxm Hoch
NcH. ccc.H ooc.o no moo.- cos. HHH.o om Auc momuc aHoH-cHz
coca. Hmm.. o~m.m nu moo. one. coma on AC mkuo mmunoo
40xm_ .Q.m chmmz oz .396 magmaumcw

 

 

 

 

 

m .HOHUSHumHHH .HOH mozwwhmk/ unmvHHum Sm .H0w mmHHMFHHbHHHm mama m>flmwuomofl "an NHUHHQQQHN

299

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«on; coo. ooHH «a ooo. coo. _coo..H R 88 $3-ch .. .3332 38.
«oH.- mHo.cH ooH.cm HN com. coo.c _Hoo.Ho no Homo «Hugo ouonao_: - o
coo. ooH.H moo.o~ oH coo.- Noo.o ooc.- mu HHmV cum ooHauooH
-omm.- coo.n -~.HH c oHo.- onc.o coo.oH oH Homo HouocuumaH cumsoa moccHuu<
ooa. Nom.m ooo.¢~ m «NH.N H¢Q.HH mam.m~ 0H Ammo mosuwuu< mausoonumom
coo. ccc.H Hoo.o~ HN ccc.H- mom.o ccc.HN no Acwv mocuHuu< cocooc-muc
w¢m.u mom.H «om.m mm oao.n «Hm. omm.m mm Anmv wcaaaoucm you acmwmm
coo.- Hoo.~H coo.c~ oH Hoo.- mmm.mH oom.o~ no Homo Hauoa -- coma moHccHHooo.
.Nma. Hmo.na moo.¢~ 0H mmq. mmo.m~ nmo.ma mu nnmvo>fiuwuauam=o nu ume mcflzmwamso
coo.- HHm.~H mom.om cH who. nom.oH coo.c~ mN Hooc Hmcuoc -- coma mchMHHoco
moo. mmc. wmm.N ma Hon. «Ho. ¢¢¢.~ nu Amuv mmwum>¢_ucwomnoomuo .>acb-
«on. ¢H¢.~ moo.w m wm¢.| mo~.H oo¢.o oH ANNV m cowuwuuwnxmncowumuwmm<
oc~.- mHH.H coo.o HH moH.- ccc.H mo~.o oH AHNV N ooHcmuuocxmuooHuouHom<
ocH.- mHm.H Hom.o mu mHo. ccc.H Hmo.o no Homo H :oHuouoocxm-coHumuHcc<
«mw.n mum.m www.mn m wHN.I onn.m oo~.Hn oH Aoav m aowumuummxm Boa
oo~.- Non.H mcH.m NH ooc.- «No.H onH.c cH HoHo N ooHuocuocxm.soH
a ccc.H ccc.H «HH.c mu com. ccc.H occ.m Ha HHHV H coHuocoocxm soH
.3mxm .n.m com: 2 .3mxm .n.m com: 2
Sm c2 # mHQMHHmH/
Hoosqfiqooo 2WD anionic.

 

300

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ufl-{fi‘

J‘d’

 

 

coo. 39H oooJ om oom. ooo.H homo cm. 83 aoHuouoomum on 3.58
ooo. moo. ooo.o ,oo oHo. coo. oHo.~ oH Hoov =OHuoumooum om mouooc
Koo. ooo. Hoo.~ om «no. ooo. oo~.~ so Hooo ooHoouocoum on mouooo
Noo.H moo. ooo.~ mo coo. coo. coo.~ co Hooo mucosa mo mocouuoosH
«oH.- «on. ooo.~ oH ooo. coo. ooo.H oH Hooo ouomoa oo ouaoouocaH
Hoo.H moo. ooo.H om ooH. Hoo. coo.H no Hooo mucosa mo mucouuocsH
HHH. ooh. 3H~.o no coo. ooo. Boo.o co Hooo ooHouoma you o:HHoSHco
con. NHo. ooo.~ oH moo.H ooo. ooo.~ cH Hooo ooHooaoa goo ouHHHoouHco
moo. ooo.H ooo.~ mo moo. .ooo. oo~.~ so Hooo oaHooome goo ouoHHooUHoo
ooo. moo. oo~.H no moo. coo. ooo.H co AHoc .ooum “moon cu ocoEUHaaoo
who.. mmn. Ego; ma So. cum. Ono; ow 83 .moum Haunm cu ucosudueoo
NHo. HoH.H ooo.~ mu oHH.- moo. -~.~ no Ammo .moum “moon on uamauHasoc
coo. oHo.H HHH.~ oH ooo. moo.H Ho~.~ om Homo oHooo oHH xooooom
oo~.u mqmé «3.3 me new: mom.m count: on £3 onum sowoguounmz gunman
moo..- oqmé :02: o.— moo... mZJ 53.2 on $3 «doom coaoum>muuxm.xucoomm
Boo. ooH.H oom.o co ooH. oco.H oo~.o co Homo HooHo -- ooon 4 yoga
Hoo. moo. noo.~ om ooH.- ooo. ooo.o co Aooo auoaucHz .. moonoo oooa
.333 .n.m saw: 2 .338 .Q.m H.802 z # mHQMHum>
_zm you .
326353 "TD 5325.0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

301

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wNN. Rim o, nmm.mm NH «um... mowiu T346 4m 3 33 m acqumuumaxm 13504
«.3. oco.H . oomé . om moo... 1wwa.~ Tood mm 35 N aowumuummxm ~250qu
own... «on; M 915 W. S 0:. mmoJ T36 mm $3 .— aooumuummxm stuo<
ooo. ooo.o rmoo.Hofl. NH omo.- moo.o _omN.Ho mH HoHv o aoouoouooxm so“:
moo.- «mo.H W coo.o N co 4 ooH.- coo.H _oom.o oo ANHV o aoououomoxm ooHo
oom.- oo~.H cHo.oHfl Ho Hom.u4, moo.H ooo.oH om HHHV H aoHooooooxm oon
moo. Ro.o c oom.Ho oo No5. ooo.m mom.Ho mm Hch Hoooo -- aoxo HoaHo
c~o.- oHo.o _ com.o~. om moo. moo.o oom.mo mo Aoo oaouH ooHHooo.-- aoxm anoo
moo.- oom.o omc.m~ oo ooo. oco.o omo.mo no Hoo oaoum HHoooo .. soxm Hoaoo
coo.- oco.o. ooH.Ho oH moo.- oHc.o ooo.om No Hmo aoxm auoo-on
ooo. ooo.~ o ooH.~o Ho moo.-. moo.o ooc.- om on uooa-muo
coH. oco.H ooo.o mo. moo. coo. Hoo.m mo Aoo xooo ooooouo mouooo
omo. ooo. oHo.m mo ooo. moo. ooo.o oo Aoo moouo HoououoooH
ooH. Hoo.H mcH.o om moo. ooc.H. ooo.~ mo Hmo ocouc aoxm HooHo
ooH.- oHc.H c Hoo.o mo Hoo. ooo.H moo.o oo Amy moouo auoa-ooz
ooo. moo. . Hom.o < oo oHH. ooo. Hoo.m oo AHV ocouo mouooc
.333 .a.m :mmSJJoldMu-Hmljmflwl .

 

 

 

 

# wannaum>

 

_zm ooo

 

 

o. 903533: new mofingum> unmvdum 2m new mmwumegm «~qu m>3mwnomofl "qu NHmamm<

302

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooo. ooo. ooo..H Hm ooo. ooo. _oooJ on 38 uncacmum 2. .3352 noun.
mom.- oHH.HH mm~.Hm HN «on. «mm.oH ¢H¢.mm mm Ammo «Haom mumea<.m - 4
wmm.- ¢o¢.@ Hm~.o~ on ~m¢.- mm~.o omH.o~ an AHmo umm waHaummH
mmmH- Sod Zoom NH m-.Hu «cm; 35.3 S 88 83525 3..on €332
mnq.H- ¢H¢.¢ mHm.HN m Hoq.~ No¢.m «om.a~ Nu Ammo musuHuH< mausou-umom
HHoHH- qu.m wm~.m~ HN mq~.~- HHH.¢ HHm.HN mm Ammo «csuHuH< mausoo-mum
umwm.- mmn.H omo.m om mo~.- mo~.H mmm.m «m HHNV waHHHouam you commmm
mmq. m2.2 oN¢.H~ nu Ho~.H mom.mH ¢o¢.oH mm Homo Hauoa -- “may maHHHHHmao
«mm. ¢Hm.oH ooH.HN mu one. ~0H.¢H Hmm.aH mu Anmvm>HuauHuamso -- “mos mcHHMHsto
omo. HHo.HH oqm.¢~ mu ohm. ¢om.mH mam.wH mu AHNV Hanum> -- puma mcHHMHHmao
one. onm. ooo.~ on can. own. NH¢.N om Ammv mwmum><.u:«omumcmuw .>«a=
moH. NHH.H omu.m NH mmH.- mHo.H mmm.w HH ANNV m :oHumuomnxu-aoHumuHam<
«on. HHn.H omm.m mH ¢¢~.- mmm.H ooo.w mu HHNV N coHumuuoaxm.aoHumuHam«
omo.- qu.H ¢H0.m HN HmH.H- o~o.~ Hoo.H on Homo H aoHuwuoamxm-aoHumuHam<
Hmm.: ooh.o mmm.o~ NH Hou.Hu o~o.w mwm.oo NH Amav m coauwuommxm 30A
mm..- oo¢.~ ooo.o om mHH. m¢¢.H Hoo.n mu HmHv N aoHHmuumaxm.on
moo. mg; 93.0 3.. RH... omné omn.n on CC H aowumuumaxm 304
.3mxm .Q.m. 2mm: 2 .398 .Q.m 5mm: 2
T w y . m2 # mHQMHHmS
82.5303 "Tn “£53me

 

303

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm. mao.H HHo.~ om mHe. moo.H mmH.~ on Homo aoHuauaaoum no amusou
mmH.- mqh. omo.~ om omm. mmm. ¢H¢.N mu HHHV aoHuuuanoum an amusoo
mHm. .How. ooH.~ om mou.‘ won. cho.~ Hm Amev sowumumnmum ma omuaoo
¢¢H. «$5. one.~ Hm qu. moo. mwm.~ on Huey mucosa mo moamuuoaaH
«HH. . mmu. ooa.H oN oHH. mun. Hma.H HN Ho«v muomsa «0 moamuuomaH
03.. SK. ooo.H om oooé «2. So; on $3 mucosa no 35335
«Hm. mmo.H «Ho.~ Hm «HH. mum. H©H.~ on AHHV waHnomma you HHHHHnmuHam
ooq. omo.H omo.~ om an. «mo.H oHN.~ mu anv maHnommH you HHHHHnaHHam
omo._ oNo.H om~.~ ow HNo.H wow. ~mm.~ «a HNHV waHnomoe How HHHHHnmuHam
ooH. How. HHH.~ Hm moo. mmu. qqa.H on HHHV .Houm umuam 0“ HamsuHaaoo
HoHWH amm. om¢.H oN HoH. mnm. me.~ am AoHV .moum Hogan cu uaoauHaeoo
HHH. «mm. oo~.~ om mmm. com. mwo.~ «n Aamv .Houm umuam ou HcoauHaaoo
HmH. Ha¢.H wow.~ on me. ooq.H H¢o.m mm Ammo «Hmom mHH Hocmmzm
R3. wmflm 35.3 cu moo. Sofi 313 mm :8 0.23m 33039.st xuamgm
in... H mma.¢ 98:: cu «mm... 39m mmoJH mm .33 38m aofloumgmuuxm scammmm
2N... me..H on?” mu «NH. mom. 3N.m um L4 93 and; .... .3352 “Home
.Nma. «Nqu god. «a How. wow. mmo.m mm 33 5.35qu .... .3355 Hum».
.336 .n.m Smcmwz z :5me .Q.m imam: z # maflmaumkw
825333 "Him x852...

 

304

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mg... gmd H¢m.Nw,_ SN... 03... _meaij NN GHV N 83339.». H353.
1 39- 35H H35 NN mNH.H.. 22H _NoNd om QHV N :ofimuommxm H253
. «no... $N.H 8N4. .HN 3m... 8.: rid mm GHV H aoHuSooenm H353
on... N86 02.: NH NS... H36 NNH.8 NN HNHV m coflfiooaxm .35
297 9:..H . NNNaH NN 8a.- NNNH m8.oH on HNHV N 83.33% :35
RN..- NNo.H _ 80.2 «N 2H. + mNH.H ¢N¢.oH mm AHHV H aoHuSooaxm .HmHHH
Non... 8mg o 03.2. N NE... N86 23% mm 83 H33. .. saxm H23.
30. $3” 80.: , aN Sq... 3N6 mmwéN on A8 83H @3ng .. amxm H23
8.... 8: 393 N N8... 02.... 3.13 mm A8 28H HHSBH .. ESE HE;
NNN...H- H3... «NNNN aN 9%.. $05 23.8 on E 5me 5%..qu
o8... N85 3n.NN NN 0N0... Hi.N NNHNN Nm Go “nevus
HUN... NS. «26 NN . mom. 8m. H36 mm 5 .EBH “some: 338
3o... can. 085 N 2m... 8m. Ema mm o: .35 333:5
mo~.u omm. m¢m.m mu m2... Hmm. T36. on A3 0285 amxm Hagan
3m... mac; owm.m mm 58.: wqm. End mm as 23.3 8&3...on
NNN.- «Hm. mmo.m aN NNN. awe. NNm.m mm HHV mmuuo mausoo

.3mxm # .o.m :mszJII ,.
2m manmflum>

 

m Non—0.9.334 no“ m03§ud> achHSm 2m New mmHnmflHEdm momma 035:0me "mum 59.3994.

170$

305

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooo. 08. 8o; NN ooo. ooo. Too; Nm 8% 3363 .. .3352 ”Soy
wad; 93;: mNHHM «N Nao. 0.56 Tome um 38 0.30m .33384 m .. <
5... mafia NNNJN N N2... 235 _oflaN on :8 umm 32:3
Nofi.an NNN.¢ oma.mH NH ooo.: qmfi.w _on.oN mu Aomv nouosuumaH vumzoa mvnuNuu<
8a.? 03;” $0.3 3 mNe.N.. NNqJ :93 N 33 3332 358.33
NmN: NEH NSNN «N Sq... 8N.m 30.3 mm as 3332 3.38-9.5
«Nm.: mam.H mo~.m «N mom.| new. m«¢.m Hm Anmv waaaaoucm How cammmm
moN. NNN.¢N ooo.ON NN eon. qu.oN ow¢.NN mN AoNv Nauoa -- umma chNmNNmso
NNN. 03.2 30.2 N 2.». N32 8....2 2 33933353 .. 38.. $532.25
.30. $52 NSNN N in. :3: 23.2 mN QNV 38> .. ~an 9.1233
Ram. «mm. moo.~ «a fine. men. oaq.~ mm Amuv owwuw><_ua«omumvmuo .>Haa-
mwm. ¢mm.a NH¢.w NH mn¢.u moo.H ooo.m Nu ANNV m coaumuoomxmncoaumuamm<
m¢o.n Hmm.H mun.w Nu Hmm.: on.H mom.m on AHNV N cowuwuoomxmuaofluwuwnm<
Hum.n aHm.H oom.m «a Hm¢.u wm¢.H N¢~.w mm Aomv H :owumuommxm:aowumuwmm<
¢mo.ma amo.aH mmm.mo NH owo.H on¢.n aom.mn NN Amav m coaumuowmxm 304
.Nmmwu mmH.N nmm.c Nu ¢~H.n nun.H mm¢.o on Awav N cowuwuummxm 30A
can... So; nNoé «N SN. mNmJ Sax. mm £3 N aofiauuomxm 33
.Bme .Q.m cmmz z .3mxm .Q.m :mmz z

z z< # manmanm>

625333 6-0 532$...

SOS

306

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNN. new. oco.H NN Nom.A Nma. <NN.N. mm Aomv coNuauamoum no «lance
NNN. HNNN. «em.N NN mmo. omm. aoo.N NN ANNV aoNuauunmum an «apnea
Noo.N .NNN. oom.N «N mqm.. NNN. NNN.N Hm AmNV aoNuaummmum um «mason
.
eNo. NNo. NNN.N NN nnN. Now. NNN.N mm aNNV Nuoona mo oucauuoasH
Nno.N NNN. NNN.N NN NNN.N oNN. mmo.N mN Aoqv Nuomna mo moamuuoasH
ego. NoN. NoN.N «N «Nm. NoN. NN©.H Nm An¢v Naomna mo mucuuuonaH
oom.~ NQN. NNN.N mN NNN. m¢w. NNN.N mm ANNV waNnomaa you NNNNNQuuNsm
NNN. eNm. ooo.N NN NoN.. Nam. oNN.N NN Anev maNnumoa you NNNNNnmuNsm
qu. Nana. NNN.N mN NNo. oqo.N qu.N Nm anv maNnomma you NNNNNnmuNsm
qu. com. NNN.N mN «No.- mNN. Nmo.N mm Aqu .moum Hogan cu unusuNaaoo
momJ NNm. Nmo.N NN fine. qu. ooN.N on Aoqv .Noum “oucm ou unusuNaaou
aNN. Hmm. mwo.N «N Nun. owe. moc.N Hm Ammv .moum umuam ou unusuNsaou
NNN. Nam.N omo.N NN NNN. amm.N oNN.N Nm AmnV mNmom mNN-xucmmNm
.ooo. NN¢.¢ mom.¢ mm mqo.n ¢m~.¢ mm~.oa mm Aan «Haum amfiowuouumz xuammzm
, Hmm.... . «man N-.~H mm :H... owm.m 3mg; . mm 30 3QO dowmum>muuxmxuammhm
NNNN _¢¢o.N NmN.N NN omo.- NNN.N NNN.N mm Ammv NacNm ---mume=< away
3N. .. Km. «34.. 3 «3. New. ooo.m on $3 53“....sz .... mumaxc< umoa
“.3mxm ..n.m sacmmz z .3mxm .n.m z¢cmmz z # manmNum>
626N303 ”Tn “£539..

908

307

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

3m... _ NNNJ Simmfl N NE: NNN.m wNNNm 3 30 m aoflauuoaxm :32.
NS: N8; 21m . S 23.- 3“; Sea NN G: N cofimuomaxm :32
SN... . an; 33. .. NN oi: o3; TNod mm 90 H 5338me $32
«3.: _ 03.0 30.3 M. m A 03.: . 00m.¢ Tact; 0H 3.3 m cogumuuomxm swam
N34. 8m; 32:. 3 N8: N2; _WSN NN ANS N 833892.. :3:
m3..- SN; 33: NN SNIJ m2; #8.“: n... 3: N aofifiomaxm :35
N8. omNd 33% NN NS... m3.N NmmNm Na 80 N33 .. 53 N23
N00. 0:6 03.3 mm moaf. «our.» 21% mm 80 mamuH 003,54 .... Smxm 3ch
«no... €34” «0m.m~ mu m9... 30$ mmmdu mm 80 mama...” :momm .... mem Hanan
E... 5: 26.2 NN o3: mNNJ 52.8 on 8 sea, 58..-sz
mg. on; NRNN 2 EN... Nmm.N NSJN 3. $0 $3-8m
sea. «me. 034.. mm. Hmm. Hmm. mend 3 A3 scam uummoum 3.500
«S. mam. .am~.m mu man... can. 35m mm. 90 00.95 HouusuumcH
«on... 9;. 3: mN 23... So; 926 8 A8 3me Sam NEE
NE... SN. m2} NN NR: 2o; 036 Nm ANV 32o a,NmH..Bz
. .bm“. «mm. N36 mu mom; Smfi - 33.0 @3500
1a.... Inn... . HEN. .32...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o noggin—mag no.“ mmanmwumxr unmvdum :m new mmwhmfigm 0qu m>flafinummfl "onn— Nflucomnrw

LOE

308

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooo.. o8. ccc.H NH 08. 08. Too; 3 $8 3%....3 .. 33x5 ”:35
HHc. omH.N oo¢.om .oN NmH. Nm¢.N _HNH.mm mm ANNV «Hmum Numea«_m - 4
men... 936. mN¢.NN HN So. m2: _owqu mm 28 Hum @233
N50.Hn mom.m NNN.0N m ¢MN.u «Nn.¢ nN.~H NH Aomv HouosuumaH vumzoa mvsuwuu¢
mmN.Hu mw¢.m wom.wN ma 0mo.N 0Nn.0H HMN.NN 0N Ava mcnuwuu< mausoouumom
NNNNN- HNq.m NNN.NN HN ooq.m NHH.N NHN.NN «m ANNV monuHuH< amusoo-aum
on.- mmo.H NNH.N NN mqm.- N¢o.H No¢.m Nm ANNV waHHHoucm How commmm
NoN. NoN.oH HHH.NN NH ONN. moo.mH HNn.oN NN HoNV Hmuoa -- Hmmy waHNHHHmso
wmn. mm0.NH HHH.HN 0H nmN. Nmm.ma omN.NN 0N Aana>HumuNuamso I: uan wcwmmwamsc
mNH.- 00¢.0H NNN.mN NH NNN. mqm.mH ¢o¢.NN NN HqNV Hanum> .. Hmoa maHNNHHmso
000. men. 00m.N NH m¢n.a w¢¢. Nq¢.N ¢m Ava mmmum>¢ unwomnovmuo .>Ha=4
Hmm.u 00H.N mum.w m NHN.u HNN.H me.m 0H aNNv m coaumuowmeuaoaumuwmm<
NNN.- NNN.H oom.m 0H NNH.- NNH.H one.» NN HHNV N aOHumHomaxmlaoHumuHNm<
oo¢. «NN.H omN.N HN omw.- mN¢.H ooo.m mm HoNv H cowumuoonxm-coHumuHmm<
HmNLH- 00¢.HN ooo.No m Hmo.m- www.mH mNH.oo 0H HoHV m aoHumuummxm soH
emm.u maa.~ 0mN.o ea NNN.I 00¢.H mNm.m 0N Away N coaumuummxm 30A
on.- oNo.H oNH.@ NN NNH.- NNo.H oom.m mm HNHV H aOHHmHoomxm 30H
«.3me .Q.m 5.52 z .BmUHm .n.m 5.62 z # mHQmHHm>
_zm HsN .
GmsaHquov $-Q 5323....

 

309

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omw. Wmoo.H NNN.N HN «No. NNN.H mw¢.N mm. Honv :oHuuuummum an amusou
H¢¢.u .Nmo. 00¢.N ma mao.n NHo. mmH.N 0N Am¢v doauauummum an cannon
mam. ooo. ao¢.N NN «Nm., Hem. mo¢.N Nn Amev coHumuamoum mm amazon
NNN. on. HNn.N HN oNH.- «Ho. N¢N.N mm Hqu mucosa mo mocuuuonaH
mmH. .Noo. wme.H 0H HNq. NNN. omN.H NN HQNV mucosa Ho moamuuoaeH
NNN.H NNN. NNo.H NN com. ch. mmm.H «m Amqv Nuomsa Ho mocmuuoaaH
NNN. mmm. oNN.N HN mHN. oHN.H NNN.N mm Aqev manummN New NHHHHnmuHam
ooo. emN. ooo.N mH moq. NNN. NmN.N NN quv maHgomma you NHHHHnaHHam
NNN. «mm. NNH.N HN NHN. NNN. mo¢.N Nm ANNV waHnomma you NHHHHanHsm
«mo.- mow. wqo.N HN «mo.- mom. omo.N mm HH¢V .Houm umuam ou HamauHaaoo
moNM- NNN. «NH.N mH oNN. NNN. oNN.N NN Aoqv .moum Hausa cu uaweHHaaoo
NNN. New. H¢o.N NN NoN. mNo.H ooN.N «m Hva .Houm Nmuam ou HamaHHaeoo
HNN. ow¢.H NNN.N NN Noo.H «oo.H «NN.N «N mev mHmom oHH Nuaomam
03.: 033 NNNdH NN Sm. NmoJ mafia «m C8 3an amwowuousmz xoammmm
m¢¢y o~¢.¢ m¢m.mH NN non.u an.m mmN.¢H «m Aomv oawom aonuo>muuxm sodommm
moH.- NNN. H NHN.N NN NNN. oHo.H Hmo.m Nm Hmmv Hmch -h Numwm=<.umme
. Hmm. NNo.H QNN.N NN NNN. NHN. «NN.N Nm quv aNmH-sz -- Nuon=<_ummH
.55va .n..m _ 532 z :5me .D.m 532 z # magmang
Ham Ham
32.5303 "AVG “3.393.

 

310

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ woN.- NNw.¢ . HNn.nm . «H NHo. mmH.m ¢H¢.Nm NH HoHv n aoHuauuoaxm Hanuo<
.Jnm0.n H00.H H moN.a ma NNN. mNm.H NNm.w mN HAmHv N cowumuommxm Hmsuu<
0mH.| NH¢.H H mwo.m #N nmo.u #wm.a mon.w mm .Aqav H coaumuommxm stuu<
moo. NNN.¢ mN¢.N¢ . «H Nom.- HNN.© «Nm.om NH ANHV m aoHumuumnxm gNHm
mm¢.| 50¢.H on.0H .mH 0mm.n «om.a mmm.m MN ANHV N doaumuommxm swam
on.H- «Ho.H mNm.HH . «N Nam.- HNH.H nmw.oH mm HHHV H aoHumuumaxm gmHm
Nmo.H moN.oH on.Nm NN NmH. H¢m.o NNN.mm on HoHV Hmuoa -- amxm Hmch
ooN.n NHw.¢ 0¢Q.MN mN 00a. 000.m mmH.nN mm Amv mamuH vowamn< In amxm Hmcwm
J_mmm.n nm0.¢ omw.mN mN 0m¢.n 0HN.¢ m0~.0m mm va mawuH Hamomm.un wam Hanan
NNo. mwm.m «NH.NN NN oNo.- mmm.m a¢0.om Nm HNV amxm sumasqu
NmN.- eNo.N NHN.NN NN NN¢.. Nam.m moN.HN Nm H00 umaa-uum
NNN. can. 0Nm.m mN _ mwm.u nmn. ooo.m mm Amv xcmm uoofioum unusou
wme.- NNN. mHe.m 0N Hm¢.- NQN. NNN.N on qu «cane HouozuumaH
Hmm.- NNN.H NN¢.N oN oNN.- «HN. Nm¢.m an HNV «cape amxm HmcHH
HN0.- NoH.H mmw.m 0N «we. omN. mmm.m mm ANV aways auma-cHz
mam.n om0.H «mo.m mHm.m mm AHV wkuw mwusoo

 

manmwum>

 

N. you—05.39: new modnmwnmkw “Govdum 2m .8.“ mownmggm .mHmQ 0>Emwhom®n~ ”huQ vanona’w

 

311

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o¢m.N NNN. NNHHH NN ooo. ooo. oco.H Nm mmmv unuauoum .. Nume=<_uooa
NNN. mNo.m «HN.om HN NNH.- NNe.HH «Ho.mm an NNNV «Haum Numea¢.= - N
oN¢.- NNN.N NHN.NN NN NHo. NHN.m www.0N «N NHNV “om maHaummH
mqm.n omw.m 000.mH mH .qu.u NaH.m Noo.mH wH AomV HouosuumcH vuw3oa mcsuHuu<
0N¢.Hc mmH.m mmm.oN mH omo.Hn mmm.m ¢N¢.oN aH Ava mvnuHuu< mmusoouumom
oHN.- wa.N Noo.NN HN NNN.H- oHN.¢ qu.oN mm NNNV ocsuHuH< «musou-oum
NH¢.I HqH.H woN.m «N moN.u 0HH.H moH.m mm ANNV wcHHHouam now cemmom
nwo.- owH.cH oom.oN «H HmN. moe.NH NNH.NN mN NoNv Hauoa .. Hmma waHNHHHmso
NNN.- mow.mH Nqo.mN «H men. NNN.NH oNN.oN NN Nanm>HuuuHuamso -- “may wcHNNHHmao
NNo. NHo.mH «HN.NN NH NNH. mqo.mH Nnn.mN mN AHNV Hanuu> -- puma maHNNHHmsc
Nm¢. Haw. mHN.N HN qu.u mnm. Nm¢.N mm Aan mmmuo><.u:Homnmvmu0 .>H:DJ
omH.n Nam.H Nmm.a «H «NH. NHa.H oNH.m NH NNNV m :OHumuomaxMaaOHumuHmm<
cum.u 0mm.H N¢m.w mH HoN. NNN.H Nwo.w mN aHNv N =0HumuomaxMt:0HumuNmm<
NNH.- «mm.H NoN.N «N HHN. oNH.H NNH.N mm NoNv H aoHumHooNxN-aoHumuHNm<
HNN.- noN.N «NH.NN «H mNo. HNH.N NNN.oN NH NNHV m coHHauumem soH
mNo.- HoN.H m¢m.o NH HNq. omo.H HON.o NN ANHV N aoHuaHooNxm aoH
mmH.- mHo.H oom.o «N NoN. NNN.H mNm.n Nm NNHV H aoHumuomaxm soH
.3wxm .a.m .cmmz z .zmxm .n.m cam: z
w 4 gm . z< # mHanum>
333280 HNAH £quan

 

 

 

 

312

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNN. NNN. NNN.N NN NNN. oNH.H NNN.N on NoNV :oHuuuuNoum Na amusoo
NNN. NNN. NNN.N NH NNN. NNN. NNN.N NN NNNV :OHuuuaNoum Na auuaoo
NNN.H NNN. NNN.N NN Noq. NNN. NNN.N mm NNNV aoHumumNmNN an «musoo
nmmmuuni moo. NNN.N NN NHN. «No. ooN.N on NNNV Naomsa mo mucmuuoNsH
000. N00. 000.N mH MMHN. NMN. mMN.H MN 33 huomfi. mo 0239395
3M. MNM. NmN.H .NN NMo. Nqo. mNn.H MM AMHNV .3095. no muamuuomaH
NHH.H NNN. NHN.N NN NNN. NNH.H NNN.N on quv wcHnumoN you NNHHHNNUHNN
NNN. NNH.H NNN.N NH Non. NNH.H NHN.N NN NNNV waHsumos you NHHHHnauHsm
NNN. NNN. NNN.N «N NNN. oNo.H NNN.N mm HNNV waHHoamH you NuHHHpmuHam
m3... 0HM. HoN.N MN NHNo. oMN. NNm.H MM A30 .moum non—am cu ucguHaaoo
NNN. NNH.H NNN.N NH NHN. mmo.H NHN.N NN HoNV .moum uuuam ou HamaHHaaoo
HNN. Now. NNN.H «N NNN. oHH.H NNH.N mm NNNV .Noum “wwam ou HamsHHaaou
NNN. NHN.H NHN.N NN NNN. NNN.H NNN.N «a NNNV onuN mHH socmmNN
NNN. NNN.N NNN.HH NN NNH.- _ NNN.N NNH.HH Na HNNV «Hmom ENHOHuouamz HocmNNm
NNN.- HN¢.N NNN.NH NN mom. NNN.N NNN.NH «N NNNV «Huom aoHNNo>auuxN NuammNm
NHo. Nmo.H oNN.N NN NNH.- NNN. NNN.N NN NNNV HNaHN -- Nuon=<.uNmN
NNH.H NNN. ooN.N «N NHN. NNN. NNN.N mm HHNV auoN-qu -- Numen<.uNoH
.3mxm .a.m saw: 2 .3mxm .n.m saw: 2 # mHQmHum>
Ham Ham
625353 HNAH xHHEommHN

 

313

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3mxm

 

.Q.m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omq.- NNN.N NNN.NN N HNN. NNN.N NHNJNN NH NNHV m aoHuuuouNxm anuo<
NNN.- NNN.H NNN.N NH NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NH ANHV H aoHkuomaxm Hnauo¢
NNN.- NNN.H NNm.w Nu HoH. NN~.H NNH.N NH NNHV H aoHumuomaxm Hmauo<
wm¢.Hu an.¢ www.ma m «mo.n mmo.m ooo.om we ,Amav m coauwuooaxm Amam
NNN.- NHN.H NNN.NH NH NNN.- NNN.H NNN.N NH AHHV N aoHumuowam anm
NNNH- HNN.H NNN.NH «N NNN.HLN NNN.H NNN.NH Na AHHV H :oHHNHuNNxm amHm
NNN.- NNN.N NNN.NN om oHH.- NHN.N NNH.¢N «m HoHv Hauoa -- saxm HmaHm
NNN.- NNN.N NNN.N“ , om NNH. NNN.N NNN.NN Hm HNV NaouH umHHNN< -- awxm Hmch
NNN.- NNN.N NNN.NN NH NNH.- NNN.N NNN.NN Hm Nev NauuH HHNoom -- aaxm HmaHm
o3“... NNN.N NHN.NN NH r RH. NNN.N 8N.HN on E swam sumaéHzL
NHN.- NNN.N NNH.N~ NH _HNH.H4 NNN.N NNN.H~ NN Nev Huma-mum
nun: nun: nun: aunt nuns nun: nun: nun: Amy xamm uomfioum amusoo
m¢o. mmq. o¢m.¢ on mo~.a mmq. H¢~.¢ ¢N Aqv mkuo nouuauumcH
NNN.- NNH.H NNN.N NH NNN.- NNN. NHN.N Hm Amv mvmuo amxm HmaHm
.omm. oo~.H NNN.N on «BN. Now. NNN.N mm HHV «cane aumH-NHz
wn¢.n cow. ooo.¢ Adv wvmuu onusoo

 

 

 

 

 

manmwnm>

 

w neaodnumaH .HOH mofinfinm> acmvdum 2m .HOH mmfiumggm mqu 033:0me ”qu x3339?»

ooooooooooo

 

 

 

314

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNN.N NNN. NNH.H NH ooo.! ooo. _ooo.H NN NNNV uaoaumum N- NNNHNNN uuma
NNN.- NNN.N NNN.NN NN oNo. NNN.N _NNN.NN 0N NNNV NHNNN Nuon N‘s - N
Nmo.- NNN.N Hmm.oN HN on.- HNN.N ;omN.oN NN NHNV umm waHaummH
000. «2.0 000.3 a «an... «00.0 :06." .3 A03 nauuauumcH 0.5309 25:34
NNN.- NHN.N NNN.NN oH NNN.- NNN.N NNN.NN NH NNNV ocsuHuu< amu5o0-umom
NNN.N- NNH.N NNN.NN NN NNo.H- NNN.N NNH.NN NN NNNV muzuHHNN omuaoo-oum
Hmm. HNN. NNN.N NN NNN.- HNN. NNN.N NN NNNV wcHHHoucm you commwm
NNH.- NHN.NH NNH.NN NH HNH. NNN.NH omo.HN oN NNNV Hauoa -- NNNN maHNNHHmao
NNN.- NNN.NH NNN.NN NH .NNN. NNN.NH NNN.NH oN NNNVm>HHNuHuaN=o -- ”Nun NNHNNHHNNN
NNN. NNN.NH NNN.HN NH NNN.- NNH.NH omm.NN 0N NNNV Hmnuo> .. “may maHNNHHmso
03. mmm. «omJ mm 000. Ch. ¢0N.N 0m 83 mmwumiw unwomnmvmuu .325-
ooo. NNN.H NNN.N N NNN. NHN.H NNN.N NH NNNNV m aoHuNuuaNxm-aoHuNHHNmN
NNN.- NNN.H NNN.N NH NNH. oHN.H NNN.N NN NHNV N aoHuNuomem-:oHumuHNNN
NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NN NNN. NNH.H mNN.N NN NoNv H aoHuNuoonxm-coHumuHNmN
NNN.- NNN.NH HHH.HN N NNN.- NNN.N NNN.NN NH NNHV m coHuNuomem 3oH
r;wwm.- NNN.H HNN.N NH NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NN NNHV N NNHuNuumem 30H
FHNN. H00; 03.0 Nu I, N3. Nm0J 02.0 0m 35 H cowumuummxm 33
$me .00 Cam: 2 _.3mxm .Q.m 0 saw: z
20 _ z< # mHQmNHmNH
62.5283 "MTG 5050.3

 

315

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NHN. New. NNN.N NN NNN.N HNH.H NNN.N Nm. NonV N :oHumuNNoum Na «Nance
NNN.- New. NNN.N NH NoN. NNN. NNN.N NN HNNV N NOHHNNNNNNN Na cannon
~00. ~0N. N00.N Nu 0N0. «an. 0N0.~ Nu Am¢v H GOHumummmum an muuaoo
000. H00. 005.0 00 000.H 000. 0N0.~ N0 A000 0 huomna mo mucwuuomaH
NNN. NHo.H NNN.H NH NNH. NHN. NNN.H NN HNNV N Naomsa mo NoamuuoNsH
NNN. NNN. NNN.H NN NNN. ooN. NHN.H NN NNNV H Nuomsa No NocmuuoNaH
NNN. Nmo.H NNN.N NN NNN. NNH.H NNH.N NN NNNV N waHNNNoN New NuHHHnNuHam
NNH.- mNo.H ooN.N NH NNN.. NNN.H oom.N NN NNNV N waHsumNN Now NHHHHQNNHNN
NHN. NNH.H moN.N NN NNH.H NNH.H wNH.N NN NNNV H mcHnummN you NuHHHnmuHsm
00H. «00. 00H.~ 00 000. 000. 000.N N0 Aqu 0 .moum umuam ca uamEuHBEOU
~00” 0N0.H 000.N NH mum. 0HH.H H00.N 00 A000 0 .woum umuam cu ucmEuHaaoo
Non. Noo.H NNN.N NN_ HmN. NHN. NNN.H NN HNNV H .moum Hogan on uamaHHssou
NNN.H NNN.H HNN.N HN NNN. NNo.H NNN.N NN Nmmv oHNoN oHH NuammNm
00H. NNN.0 00N.HH HN 00¢. 500.0 00H.HH mu A500 me00 amHUHwousoz xucmmmm
0No.Hu 000.0 000.0H H0 000.: 050.0 www.mH 50 a000 mHmom :OHuuo>muuxm xuamm00
Nopnn NNN. NNN.N NN NNo. NNN.H Hmo.m _NN Anny Hmch -y Numea<.HNNN
NHN. NNN. NNN.N NN NNN. mNo.H NNN.N Nm NNNV aHoN-NHz .. NuonaN away
.Bmxm .00 cmmz z .Bmxm .Q.m cmmz z # rmHQmHumN’
_zm Ham

 

 

‘31.

 

 

AHuwHHGH HGOUV

”qu NHUHHHXHQHV

316

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNN.- NNN.N HNo.NN NH NNN., NNN.N NNN.HN NH ANHN N aoHNNNuuaxm HNNNNN

NNN.- NNN.H m NNH.N oN NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NN NNHN N aofiuauomaxm HasuuN

NNN.- NNN.H N NNN.N NN NNN.- NNN.H NNH.N NN NNHN H aoHuNuuNNxN HNNNNN

NNN.- NNN.N HNN.NN NH NNN. NNN.N NHN.NN NH ,NNHV N aoHumuomem NNHm

NNN.- NNN.H r NNN.N oN NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NN NNHN N aoHuNuoNNxm NNH:

NNHN- NNN. NHN.NH NN HNN.-- NNN.H NHN.NH NN AHHN H aoHNmuuoNxm 00H:

NNN.N- HNN.N NNN.NN NN NNH.- NNN.N HNN.NN NN NNHN Hmuoa -- smxm HNaHN
NNN.H- NNN.N NNN.NN NN NNN.-. NNN.N NHN.NN NN ANN NauNH NNHHNNN -- amxm HNNHN
30.0.. NH0.0 000.00 00 H00... 000.0 000.00 00 30 new“; HHwomm .... amxm Hmcwm
NNN.- NNN.N NNN.NN NN NNH.- NNN.N NHN.NN NN ANN amxm.auoN-NHz

NNN. NNN.N NNN.NN HN NNN.. NNN.N NNN.NN NN ANN NNmN-NNN

000.... 000. 000.0 00 . 000... N00.H 000.0 00 A00 xnmm uummoum $9300

000... 0H0. 000.0 00 0H0. N00. 02.0 00 90 0095 HauusuumnH

ooo. NNN. NNN.N NN NNN.- NNN.H HHH.N NN ANN NNNNN amxm HNNNN

NNN.- NHN.H NNN.N NN NNN.- NNN. NNN.N NN ANN NNNNN auNN-NHz

;000.u, 000. .000.0 00 H00. 000. 000.0 00 AHV mowuu mausoo

saw: 2 .Bmxm .n.m cmmz
20 H2 # mHanum>

 

 

 

0 .HOuoHHHumHHH .Ho.H moHnmemxw unmvdum HHHNv N00 mmHHmEEHHm .0qu ®>Humwnomofl “mum NHHNHHNNQQHNN

317

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000.0 000. 00H..H H0 000. 000. 000.H 00 0000 300.130 .... .3355. uamm.
NNN. NNN.N NNN.NN NN NNN.- NNN.N HNo.HN NN NNNN NHNNN NNNHNNN:N - <_
NHN. NNN.N HNN.NH HN NNN. NNN.N NNN.NH NN NHNV Now NNNNNNNH
NHH.H NNN.N NNH.NH NH NNH.- NNN.N NNH.NH NH NNNN nouoauumaH Numsoa NNNNHNNN
NNN.H- NNN.N HNN.NN NH NNN.N- HNH.N NNN.NN NH nNNN NNNNHNNN «Nusou-umom
NNN.H- 08.0 NHN.NN 00 NNN.H- 000.0 30.00 00 8N0 333: 338.30
Il0fl0fi... 000.H 000.0 00 H00... 00H.H 00H.0 00 A000 0:039:30 How acmmmm
NNN. NNN.NH NNN.NH NH NNN. NNN.NH NNN.NN NN HNNN HNNoN -- NNNN NNHNNHHNNN
NNN. NNN.HH NNN.NH NH NHN. NNH.NH NNN.NN NN NNNNN>HNNNHNNN=0 -- Nmma NNHNNNHNNN
NNN.- NNN.HH NNN.NN NH NNH. NNN.NH NNN.HN NN NNNV HNNNN> -- “amp NNNNNHHNNN
NNN. NNN. HNN.N NN N NHN. NNN. NHN.N NN aNNV NNNNN>N.NNNNN-NNNNN .>ficn‘
NNN.- NNN.H NNN.N NH NNN. HNN.H NNN.N NH NNNN N aoHuNNoNNxm-aoHuNuHNNN
NHN. NNN. NNN.N NN NNN. NNN.H NHN.N NN aHNv N noHumuoonxm-aoNNNuHNNN
NNN.H NHN.H NNN.N NN NNN. NNN.H NHN.N NN HNNN H NNHNNNooNxm-aoHNNNHNN<
00.0. 000.0 000.00 0H 000... 00H.0 000.00 0H A03 0 :OHumuowmx030H
NNN. NNN. NNN.N oN NNN. NNN.H NNH.NJ NN ANHV N coHNNuuNNxm so;
NNN.H NNN.H NNN.N A NN NNN.- NNN.H NNN.N NN NNHV. H NNNNNNNNNNN NNH
.050me .Q.m zmcmmz z .3mxm .Q.m 240G020 z “a” wHQMHHme

 

AHNmHHHHHuNHOUV

Noun NHHNHHOQQ<

 

318

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HHN. NHN. 0NH.~ Nu NNN. HNo.H NNN.H NN HNNN coHuNuNaoum Na amazon
NNN. .NNN.H NNN.N NH NH0. oN0. NHN.N Hm HNNN aoHuNuamNum Nu «Nuaoo
HNN.- NNN. NHN.N NH N0o.H. NNN. NNN.N NN HNNN aoHuNuanoum NN Nmuaoo
NNN. NNN. NNN.N NN NNN. 0HN. mNN.H NN ANNN mucosa «0 NucauuoNsH
HNo. NNN. 0NN.H NH NON.H NNN. NNN.H «a aNNN auoNNH No oucuuuoNaH
NHo. NNN. NNN.H Nu HNN. NNN. NNH.H NN HNNN NHNNNH No NocauuoaaH
NNN.- NNN. NNN.N Nu NNN. NNH.H NNH.H NN HNNN NNHNNNNH Now zuHHHNNNHNN
HNH.- NNN. HHH.N NH NNN. HNN. NNH.H HN HNNN NNHNNNNH HoN muHHHNNNHNN
HNN. NNN. NNN.N NN NNN. NNN. .~N~.N NN HNNV NNHNNNNH you muHHHNNNHaN
HNN. nNN. NNN.N NN NHN. NNN. NNN.N NN AHNN .Noum Hogan ou NNNsNHaaoo
HNN. 0NN. NNN.H NN NNN. NNN. NNN.N Nu AoNN .Noum “Nuam ou uaNsNHaaoo
NNN. NNN. NNN.N Na NNN. NNN.H HNH.~ NN ANNV .moum Hausa ou uamsuHaaoo
NNN. NNH.H NNN.N HN HNH.- NNN.H mnN.~ NN ANNN NHNNN NHH Noammmm
0H0.: C00.m 000.NH Hm 00¢.u 000.0 Hmo.oH mm 0000 onum amHuHuousoz xuamnam
mmo.wn 000.0 0H0.NH Hm «00.: 000.0 00H.¢H 00 A000 oHaom aOHmuo>muuxm xucmmmm
oco. NHH.H NNN.N NN NNN.- NNH.H HNN.~ NN ANNN HNNHN -- muuHxaN “Nay
HNN.. NNN. NNN.N NN NNN. NNH.H NNN.H NN NNNV auNH-NHz -- NNNHNNN.NNNH
.3mxm .n.m cmwz z ..3mxm pn.m cum: 2 # mHanum>
» ., Ham Ham

 

AHdeHHHu—coov no :0 #33893.

 

319

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

HNH. NNN.N mmN.oN H HH Noo. NNN.N NNN.NN NH HNHN N aoHNNuumem Hasuo<
NNN.- NNN.H NNN.N . NH NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NN ANHN N coHuNuomem Husuo<
2m. NNo.N ooo.N N. NH 0N0... HNN.H NNN.N on 9H0 H :oHuSumem HN30<
NNH.- NHN.N NNN.NN H NH HNN. HNN.N NHN.NN NH ANHN N aoHuNNooNxm NNHN
NNH.- NNN.H NNH.N NH NNH.- NNN.H NNN.N NN ANHN N aoHuNNomem NNHm
oNN. NHN.H NNN.NH NH NNN.- NNH.H NNN.NH oN AHHN H aoHNNNumem NNHN
NNN.- NNN.N NNN.NN NN NNN.- NHN.N ooN.oN_ NN HoHN HNNoH .. amxm HNNHN
NHN.- HNN.N NNN.NN NN NNN. NHN.N NNN.NN NN ANN NaouH NNHHNNN -- aaxm HNaHm
NNNN- HNN.N NNN.NN NN NHN.- NNN.N NNN.NN NN ANN NamNH HHNNNN .. aNxm HNNHN
NNH.- NNN.N NNN.NN NN NNN.- NNH.N mNN.NN NN HNV amxm_auoH-NHz E
NNH. NNN.N NNN.NN oN NHN.N NNN.N NNN.HN NN ANN NNNH-NNN
mNN.- NNN. oNH.N NN . mNm... NNN.H NNN.N mm 000 scam 300.85 23:8
NNN. NHN. NNN.N NN NNN. NNN. NHN.N NN ANN NNNNN NNNNNNNNNH
NNN. NNH.N NN NNH.- NNN. NNN.N NN ANN NNNNN swam HNNHN
HNN. NNN.N NN NNN. NHo.H NNN.N NN ANN NNNNN aNNH-NHz
LNNN. NNN.N NN NNN. NNN. mNN.N NN HHN NNNNN Nausea
.HH.m

 

 

.mHanum>

 

oH HONUDHHmcH H00 mmHanum> unvvdum HHm .How mmHumfiHgm mumD 0>EQHHomOQ "oHuQ NHHNGQO<

320

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNN.N NNN. NNH.H oN NNN.N NNN. HNN.H NN 0NNO uauaamum -- NuonaN.NNoa
NNN.- NNN.N NNN.NN NN NNN.H- NNN.N NNN.NN NN HNNV NHNNN NNNHNNN m - N
NNN.- NNN.N NHN.NN HN NNN.- NNN.N NNH.NH 0N AHNN NNN NchNNNH
NNN.H- NNN.N nnN.NH HH NNN.H- NNN.N NHN.NN NH ANNN HouosuNNaH Numsos NNNNHNNN
NNN.H- NNN.N NNN.NN N NNN.- NNH.N NNH.NN NH ANNV NNNNHNNN NNNNou-NNoN
NNHHH- NNN.N NNN.NN oN HNN.H- HHN.N HNN.NN NN ANNN NNNNHNNN NNNNNN-NNN
NNN.- HHN. NNN.N NH NNN.- HNN.H NNN.N NN HNNV NNHHHouaN NNN.NNNNNN
NNN. NNN.NH NNN.NH NH NNN.- NNN.NH NNN.NN NN HNNV HNuoH -- NNNH NNHNNHHNNN
000. 000.0: 00H.ou 0H 000. 000:: 00H.HN mm 00~0Q>HumuHucwsd .... “.an mcHhmHHmao
NNH. HNN.NH NNN.NN NH NHH. NNN.NH NNN.NN NN HNNN HNNNN> -- NNNH NNHNNHHNNN
000. 000. 000.N ON 000. 03. 000.N 00 A000 mwmum>< uaHomuwkuu .325
NNN.- NHN.H NNN.N oH HNN. NNN.H NNN.N HH HNNN N noHNNuomeN.aoHNNNHNN<
oNo. NNN.H NNN.N NH NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NN HHNN N :oHNNNoNNxmlaoHNNNHNN<
NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NH NNN.- NNH.H NNN.N oN HNNV H NNHNNNooNxm-aoHuNuHNN<
NNH.H NNN.N HNN.NN HH NNN.- NNN.N NNN.NN NH HNHN N , coHNNuomem sou
ooo. HNN.H NNN.N NH NHN.- HNN.H NNN.N NN NNHN N aoHuNuuNNxm sea
NNN. NNN.H NNN.N . NH NHN.- NNN.H NNN.N oN ANHN H coHNNuuNNxN aoH_

.3wxm .n.m saw: 2 .3mxm .n.m N saw: 2
, 2 Ni # mHQmHHm>

 

AHVODHHENHOU0

Ho H AH 50:3me

 

321

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNN.- NHH.H NNN.N NN NNH.H NNH.H NNN.NH NN. 0oN0 aoHNNNNNNNN on amazon
HNN. NNN. NNN.N NH NNN. NNN. NNN.N NN 0NNO aoHuNNNNNum Nu NNuNoo
NNN. NHN. NNN.N NH NNN. NNN. NNN.N NN HNNV coHuNNNNNNN Na «Nusoo
NHN. ..NNN. NNN.N NN NNN. NNN. NNN.N NN HNNN NuoNNH No NNNNNNoNsH
NHN. NNN. NNN.H NH NNH. oNN. NNN.H. NN HNNO Naomna No NoamuuoNsH
0H0. 000. 000.H 0H 000. 000. 000.H an 0000 .3005. no 0003.395
NNN. _Noo.H .HNN.N NN HNN.H NNN. NNN.N NN HNNV NNHNNNNH No0 NNNHHNNNHNN
NNN.- NNN.H NNN.N NH NNN. NHN. NHN.H NN HNNV NNHNNNNN you NNHHHNNNHNN
Noo. NNN. HNN.N NH HNN. NNN.H NNN.N NN HNNV NNHNNNNH NON NNHHHNNNHNN
NNN. NNN. NNN.N NN mNo.- NNN. NNN.N NN HHNV .Noum Hogan ou NamauHasoo
NNow NNH.H NNN.N NH NHN. NNN. oNH.N NN HoNv .Nonm Houam ou NamauHasoo
H00. 000. 00H.N 0H 000.H ~00.H 000.0 00 .0000 .moum #325 3 000538500
NNN.H NNN.N NNN.H HN NHN. NNN.H NNN.N NN HNNV NHNNN NHH NNNNNNN
000. 000.0 30.0 HN 00H. 000.0 000.0 00 0000 3000 53030302 000000.000
000. 000.0 H00.0H H0 000.... 000.0 000.0H 00 0000 3000 00H0H0>0uuxm 0.0009000
HNN. NHN.H NNN.N NN .NNN. NHN.H NNN.N NN ANNV HNNHN -- NNNHNNN NNNN
000. 000. 80.0 00 00H. 000. 000.0 00 0000 8.3.0...sz ..... 000.380 000.0.
.3006 . a. m 000: z .3008 . Q. 0 0mm: 2 # wHLQmHHme
. 2m . 2d
8.303280 SHAH NHHuqonHm<

 

322

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

000.N: 000.0~_ 000.00 000.0 «00400 fl 0H 00H0 0 dOHumuomnxm Haauo<
H00.Hn 000.N ,.000.0 NNO.H 000.0 00 .00H0 N 00Huwuommxm Hmauowi‘
{HHN. NNN.H NNN.N NNN.H NHN.N NN HNHV H coHNNNNNNxm HNNNNN
NHN. NNN.N Y NNN.NN NNN.N NNN.NN NH HNHN N coHNNuoNNxm NNHm
NHH.- NNN.H NNN.N NNH.H NNN.NH NN HNHN N aoHNNNoNNNN NNHN
NNNH- NNH.H0 NNN.HH . NH NNN.M+ NNH.H NNH.HH NN AHHV H aoHNNuomaxm NNHN
,00H.~u 000.0 0 000.H0 . 00 000.: 000.0 000.00 00 ,00H0 Hmuoa I: mem Hmch
NNN.- NNN.N M NNN.NN NN HNN.- NNN.N NNH.NN NN 0N0 NaNuH NNHHNNN -- smxm HNNHN
NNN.- NNN.N NNN.NN , NN NNN.- NNH.N HHN.NN NN 0N0 NamuH HHNNNN -- amxm HNNHN
NNNJH- NNN.N NNN.NN NN NNH.H- NNN.N NNN.HN NN ANN swam ENNH-NH2
NNN.- NNN.N 0 NNN.NN NH NHN. NNN.N NNN.NN oN 0N0 NNNH-NNN
000.: 000. 000.0 00 . 0NH.: 000. 000.0 00 000 3000 0000000 ownsoo
H00. 000. 000.0 00 000. 000. 000.0 00 000 mkuu uouusuumaH
NNN.- NNN. NNN.N NN NNN.N NNH.H NNN.N NN 0N0 NNNNN swam HNNHN
HNN.- NNN. NNN.N NN NNN.- NNN. HNN.N NN 0N0 NNNHN aNmH-NHz
HNN. NNN.N NNN. NNN.N NN 0H0 NNNNN Nausea
.Q.m Gmmz
Sm MHNHmHHm>

 

 

  

 

 

HH .HOuoNHHumHHH .HOH moHndHHm> unvvsum :0 How mmHumFHHHHdm .0qu 0>SQHH000Q NHHIQ NHUG0QQ<

323

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNN. NNN. NNN.H NH NNN., NNN. yNNN.H NN 0NNO unoaumum .. NNNHxN<.uNNN
NNN.- NNN.N NNH.NN NH NNH. NNN.N NNH.NN HN 0NN0 NHNNN NNme=N_m - <
NNN.- NNN.N NNN.NH NN NNN.- NHN.N NNN.NN NN NHNN NNN NNHNNNNN
000... 000.0 000.3 HH 000.0: 000.0 000.0H 0H 0000 .HouosuumcH 30300.. 003300
NNN.N HNN.NH NNN.NN NH NNN.N- NNN.N HNN.NN NH 0NNO 00332 0330-030
NNN.N NHH.HH NNN.NN NH NNN.H- NNN.N NNN.NN HN 0NN0 NNNNHNNN NNNNNN-0NN
000.: 00~.H 000.0 0H 000.: 00H. 000.0 00 0000 wcHHHoucm Mom 000000
NNH.- NHN.HH NNN.NN NH NNH.. HNN.NH NNN.NN NN HNNV HNNNH .. NNNN NNHNNHHNNN
NNN. .NHN.NH HNN.NN NH NNN. NNN.NH NNN.HN NN HNN00>HNNNHNNNN0 -- NNNH NNHNNHHNNN
NNN.- NNN.NH NNN.NN NH NNN. NNN.NH NNH.NN NN NNNN HNNNNN -- NNNN NNHNNHHNNN
NNN. NHN. NNN.N NH NNH. NNN. NNN.N HN NNNN mNNuN>N_uaHoN-NNNuN .>HNN.
NHH.H- NNN.H NNN.N NH NNN.- HNN.H NHN.N NH HNNN N NNHNmuomem-NoHNNNHNNN
r NNN.- NHN.H NNN.N NH NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NN AHNV N NNHNNNomnxmucoHumuHNNN
NNN. NHN.H NNN.N NH NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NN HNNN H NNHNNNNNNNN-NNHNNNHNN<
NHN.- NNN.N NNN.NN NH NNN.- NNN.N NNN.NN NH ANHN N NNHNNNNNNNN 30H
,HHNNH- HNN.N NNN.N NH NNH. NNH.N NNN.N NN HNHN N NNHNNNNNNNN 30H
000. 000.H 000.0 0H 0H0. 000.H 000.0 00 00H0 H 00.3300me 30A
.30xm .0.m :00: z .30xm .0.0 :00: z
:01 Na - N «Swims
30003080 HH HAH 5000000.

 

324

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0mm. NNH.H wm¢.~ «a mmn. HNN.H «Hm.~ mm .A0n0 coauaummuum an «munoo
mmq. 0mm. Nmm.m «a NNN.H 00m. Hmm.u AN Am¢0 noauauwmoum No amusoo
NoN. HNN. NHN.N NH NNN.H. NNN. NNN.N HN NNNO aoHuNuNNmuN Na mmuaoo
NNN. NNN. NNN.N NN NNN. NNN. NNN.N NN NNN0 Nuoosa «0 mucuuuoasH
NNN. HNNN. NNN.H NH NNN. NNN. NNN.H HN HN¢0 Nuoona No muaauuoNaH
NNN. NHN. NNN.H NH NNN. NHN. NNN.H NN NNNO Nuouna No moamuuoNaH
NNN. NNH.H NNN.N NN NHo. NNN. NNN.N NN N¢¢0 NaHsomaN you NuHHHNNuHNN
NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NH HNo. NNN. NNN.N HN HNNV NaHNONmN you NNHHHNNNHNN
HHN. NNN.H NNN.N NH NNN. NNH.H NNN.N NN NNN0 NaHnumma you NNHHHnmuHaN
NNN.- NHN. NNH.N «N NNN. NNN. NNN.H NN NH¢0 .Nonm Hausa ou uamsuHaeoo
HoN.H NNN.H NNo.N NH NNN. NNN. NHN.N «N No¢0 .moum umuam ou unmauHsaou
Hmo. ¢w~.H NmN.N ma NHm. m~0.H HNN.N um A000 .moum umuam ou unmaufisaoo
0N0. m0m.~ mam.~ Nu H50. Num.H 0NH.N Hm Amm0. mHmom mHA scammhm
~m~.n 000.m 00¢.NH NN NNN.: m00.¢ 0NH.0H Hm Anm0 mamum amuoquousoz xucmmam
00s.: «00.0 000.0H mu 0m¢.u 00N.m wm~.~H Hm Aom0 macaw cowoum>muuxm xocmmzm
NNH. NNN.H NNN.N «N NNN. HNN.H NNN.N NN NNNO HNcHN -- Numea<.uNmN
HNN. N NNN.H NNN.N «N NNN. NNN. NNN.N NN NNNv aumN-NNz -- NumeaN Name
.338 ..Q.m 582 z .26me .Q.m cum: 2 # mHQmHum>
.zm 0am .
30553000 H: nQ xwwaommzw

 

325

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hon... NNN.N 03.3 N HNN.H: N«N.HH NNN.NN NH GHO N 8333me .2253
NNN.- NHN.H WNNN.N NH NNN. HNN.H NNN.N NN ANHV N aoHuNuomaxm HaauoN
NH«.- NNN.H NN«.N HN «NN. NNN.H NNN.N oN N«H0 H aoHuNuuoNxN Hmauo<
N«N. «NH.N wNNN.HN N NNN.-. HNN.N NNN.NN NH HNH0 N aoHumuumeN NNHN
NNN.... HNN.H .NHH.0H NH «00.: HNN.H NNN.N NN ANS , N coHumuomaxm :03
NNN.- NNN. HNN.HH HN NNN..+ NNN.H NNN.HH oN HHHO H aoHumuuuNxN NNHN
NHN.- NNN.N NNN.NN «N «NH. «NH.N NNN.NN NN NoH0 Hmuoa .. aNxm HmaHN
NNN.- NNN.« 0 NNN.NN «N NNN. NNH.« NNN.NN NN NNO NamuH NNHHNNN -- auxm HmsHN
N«N.- NNN.N NNN.NN .«N N«N.- NNN.N NN«.oN NN NNO NauuH HHNomN .. awxm HmaHm
N«N.- HNN.N NNN.HN ‘ NN NNN.- NN«.N NNN.HN NN NNO swam sumN-NNz
N«N. NNN.N NHN.NN NH NNH.. NNN.N «N«.HN NN HN0 umma-mum
000. an. 0 02.0 .«N man. 000. «3.0 00 A00 x030 nommoum mmuzoo
NNN. 0mm. 000.0 nu «no. 000. 000.0 00 Aq0 mvauw acuosuumaH
«00... 000.." 30.0 mm ~00... N00. 000.0 00 a00 2:30 8832. Hgam
:3... N00. 000.0 mm «mm. ~00. 0¢N.0 00 Q0 -0095 .588..va
50...? :0. 000.0 mm 0.3. 3N. 0:.0 00 30 009.5 3.500
..3mxm .0.m Smammz z _ .3wxm .n.m ZNcNmz z # anmHum>
11-uy «
NH .HoHNoHHuumcH new moHnmNHm> ”0:00de 2m .HOM mmwnmggm wanna o>3QNHUmOQ NNHuQ ”$5254

 

326

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000. 000. oooJH NH «00.N NNN. HNN.H NN 800 $3-3m .... NumefiN NNN.H.
NNN. NNN.NH 8«.o« NN NNN. NNN.N NNN.NN NN HNNO NHSN 53x5 m .. 4.
NNN. NNN.N NNN.NN NN N«N.- NNN.« NNN.HN NN NHNO NNN NNHNNNNH

ANNN.H- NNN.NN. NNN.NN N «NN.- NNN.N NNN.NH NH NNNO NouoauumaH Nuasoa NNNNHNNN
N00. 00H.0 000.NN HH 00~.H 000.N NNH.0~ 0N Am~0 mvsuHuu< mausoouumom
NNN. NNN.N «HN.NN HN NH«.N- «HN.« NNN.NN NN HNNN stuHNNN_oNusoo-muN

.IMMH.- NNN. NN«.N HN NNN.- N«o.H NNH.N NN HNNN NcHHHouam NoN coNNNN
NNH. NNN.«H HN«.NN NH «NH. NNH.NH NNN.«N NN NNNN Hauoa -- Name NaHNNmeao
NNN.- NNH.NH NNN.NN NH NNN. H««.NH NNN.NN NN HNNNN>HNNNHNNNNN -- Name NNHNNHHNNN
«n«. NNN.NH NNN.NN NH HNH. H«N.NH NNN.NN NN N«NN HNNHN> -- NNNN NNNNNHHNNN
HHO.H H00. Hmm.~ H0. 000. 000. 000.N 0N a0m0 mwmum><.u=Homumvmuw .>Hc=‘
NN«. NNN. NNN.N N NNN.- NNN.H NHN.N NH HNN0 N :oHNmNoNNxN-coHNNuHNNN
N«N.- N«N.H NNN.N NH NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NN NHNO N aoHuSuNNxméoHumuNNNNN
HNN. NNN.H N«N.N HN NNN. N«N.H NNN.N oN 8N0 H aofimuumeNéoHufiNNNN
NN«N- NNH.Nj NNN.NN N NN«.H- NNN.«N NNN.NN NH NNH0 N coHNNNUNNxm soH
NNN. «NN.H NNN.N NH NNN. NNN.H «««.N NN NNHN N aoHNNNoNNxN 30H
000. 0N0.H NNN.N A HN 0N0. 0HN.H 000.0 00 ANHO H cowumuommxm 30A

.336 .n.m Smcmmz z .398 .Q.m N 882 z # wHQmHHmS

zHN .
8233500 HNNH.NH xHNqoma<

 

327

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HNN.H NNN.H NNN.N NN NNN. NNH.H H««.N «N HNNN aoHuNuNNNuN Na «Nance
0H0. H00. 000.N 0H H00. «mm. 000.N 00 Am¢0 :OHumummmum Na mnuaoo
NNH.H 00N. one.~ HN 00¢. 000. 000.N mu A0¢0 cOHumummmum Na muuaoo
NNN. N«N. «NN.N NN NNN. NHN. HN«.N «N HN«N NuooNN No NoamuuoNaH
NNN. «NN. NHN.H NH NHN. N«N. NNN.H NN HN«0 NNONNN No NuaNNNoNsH
«NN. NNN. NNN.H HN NNN. NNN. NNN.H NN HN«0 NuoNNN No NoamuuoasH
HN«. H«H.H HNN.N NN NNN. NHN.H NH«.N «N N««0 NNHNNNNN uoN NNHHHNNNHNN
N«N.- N«HNH NNN.N NH NHN. «NN. NNN.N NN HN«N NsHNonN NON NNHHHNNNNNN
HNN. NNN.H «NN.N HN N«N. NNN. NNN.N NN NN«0 NaHNumoe uoN NNHHHNNNHNN
NNN. NNN. NHN.H NN N«N. NNN. NHH.N «N NH«0 .NouN Nmuam oN NaNsNHsaoo
NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NH NNN. HNN. NNN.N NN HN«N .Noum NNNNN on NamsNHaaoN
,NNH. NNN.H HNN.N HN HHN. NHN. NNH.N NN ANNN .Noum nouam oN NcNaNHasoo
NNN. NNN.H NNH.N NN HNN. NNN.H NN«.N NN HNN0 NHNuN NHH NoammNN
NNN. HNN.« NNN.N NN NNN.- HNN.« NNN.NH NN HNNN NHNON sNHoHNNwsoz NocmNNN
NNN.: 0Nw.0 00H.NH 0N NH0.| 000.0 000.0H 00 A000 meom cOHNum>wuuxm xoammam
NH«N NNN. NNN.N «N NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NN NNNN HmaHm --.NNNHxa< Name
NNN. NNN. NNN.N NN NNH. NNN. «HN.N NN N«NN auoN-NHz -- NNNHNNN.NNNN
.Bmxm .Q.m Smammz z .3mxm .Q.m Edcmmz z # mHanum>

 

3253.800 NNH-HH x6225...

 

328

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

.000. 005.0 — 550.00 0H 00H. 0H0.0 000.00i 5H AOH0 0 00Hu0uu00xm H0suu<
NNN.- oNH.H — NNN.N NH NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NN HNH0 N aoNNNuumaxm HNNNNN
N«N.- HNN.H , NNN.N NN NNN.- NNN.H NNN.N NN N«HN H NOHNNNNNNNN Hmauu<
NNN. NNN.N NNN.HN NH «NN. NNN.N NNN.NN NH NNH0 N aoHNNNuoNxm NNHN
N«N.- NN«.H . N«N.N NH «NN. NN«.H NNH.NH oN HNHN N aoNNNNuwaN NNHN
NNNN- NNN.H NNN.NH NN NN«.H“. NNN.H HNN.NH NN NHH0 H aoHumuuoaxm NNHN
H«N. NNN.N NNN.NN «N NNN.- NNN.N NNN.NN NN NNHN Hmuoa -- 50x0 HNcHN
NNN. NN«.N N NH«.NN «N NNH. NHN.N «N«.«N NN NNV NaoNH NNHHNN< -- 50x0 HNNNN
00H. 000.0 000.50 00 000.: 500.0 00H.0N 00 A00 080uH HH000m I: a0xm H0ch
NNN.- NNN.N NNH.NN NN NNN.- N«N.N NNN.NN NN HNN swam 2000-0Nz
«NN. NNN.N .ooN.NN NN NHN.4 NNN.N NHN.NN HN ANO NNNN-NNN
00H. 500. 005.0 00 . 00H.| Hmm. 00H.¢ 00 A00 3000 000moum 00uaoo
0H0. H05. «05.0 «N 000. 005. 000.0 00 .A00 00090 nouusuumcH
N«N.- NNN.H 0 NNN.N «N NNN.- HNH.H NNH.N NN ANN NNNHN 30x0 HNNHN
NNN. «NN. NNN.N «N «HH. «NN. NNN.N NN NNO NNNHN auNH-NHz
NN«.- NNN. NH«.N «N «NH.- NNN. NNN.N NN NHN ,NNNNN «Nazca
.30me LIIII .

 

 

 

 

 

 

0H90HH0>

 

.a.m :00: . z .30xm .n.m
E 210‘

 

0H non—05.393 .HOH 00Hn0Hu0> NG0HNHSm HH0 .Ho.H 00H00§§m 000D 0>HumHuom0Q "0HIQ NHUHH0N3<

329

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNN. ooo. NNNJH NN ooo. ooo. NNN.H HN NNNV 0009-000 -- NuonaN.0000
NNN. NNH.N HNN.NN NN N««.- HNN.N NNN.0« NN NNNN 0H000 NuoNst.0 - 0
NNN.H- NNN.N NHN.NH HN NNH. NNN.N NNN.NN «N HHNN NNN NcNNNNNN
NNN.H- NNN.N NNN.NN NH NNN.- HNN.N NNN.NH NH NNNO 0000:0000H 000300 NNNNHNNN
NNH.H- NNN.N NNH.NN NH NNN.N NNN.N .oNo.NN NN NNNN mNsuHuNN 000000-0000
«NN.H- N«N.« NN«.NN NN NNN.H- NNN.« HNN.NN NN HNNN 00:0N000 000500-000
H00... 00H.H 000.0 00 000.... 000.H 0H0.0 00 A500 00HHHou0m mom 000000
NNN. NNH.NH NNN.NH NH NHN. NNN.«H NNN.NH HN NNN0 H0000 -- 000a NaNNNHH0=0
NHN. HNN.NH NNN.NH NH NNN. NN«.«H NNN.NN HN NNN00>HN0NH00000 -- 0000 NNHNNNHNNN
NNN. NNN.NH NNN.NH NH NH«. NNH.NH NNN.NN HN N«N0 H0Num> -- 0000 NaHNNHHNNo
000. 000. 000.0 00 000. H50. 050.0 00 A000 000.330. 2500700050 .309-
N«N.- NNN.H NNN.N NH NHN.- NNN.H. NNN.N NH ANNO N 00300000000300.0200
NNN. NNN.H NNN.N NH NN«. NN«.H NN«.N NN NHN0 0N 00000000000-00HN00N00<
000.: 500.H 000.0 00 000.u 000.H 000.0 00 A000 H 0OHu0uu0mxmu00Hu0uH00< 0
NNN.- N«N.N NNN.HN NH NNN.- «NN.N HN«.HN NH HNHO N aoHNNNomaxm 300
NNN.H NHN.H NNN.N NH HNN. «NN.H NNN.N 0N HNHO N aoHN0Nooaxm 300
0H0. .H00.H 500.0 A 00 000. 000.H H5H.0 00 A5H0 H 00.30000an 30H
Lw30xm .0.0 0002 2 .30xm .0.0 0002 2
. 00 . 20 # 0Hn0000>
80003080 nNHAH 5000000.

330

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000. 00H.H 000.0 00 000. 050. 000.0 00 A000 00H00u000um 00 000000
050. 000.. 000.0 5H 000. 000. H50.0 H0 0A000 00000000000 00 000000
000. 005. 00H.0 00 .000. 000. 000.0 00 A000 00000000000 00 000000
00H. 055. 000.0 00 000. 055. 000.0 00 A500 000008 00 000000008H
HHO. 000. 000.0 5H 00H.u H00. 500.0 H0 TA000 000009 00 000000008H
NN«. NHN. NNN.H NN NNH. NNN. NHN.H «N HN«0 Nuomsa No 000000000H
«NN. NNN. NNH.N «N NNN. NNN.H N«N.N NN N««0 00000000 000 N00HHN00HNN
NHN. HNH.H NNH.N NH N«H. NNN. NN«.N HN HN«V NaH0000N 000 NNHHNNNNNNN
NNN. NNN.H NN«.N 0N NNN. NNN.H NN«.N NN HN«N 00000000 000 NNNHNNNNNNN
.NN«. NNN. NHN.H «N HNN. NNN. «HH.N NN NH«0 .0000 000:0 00 ucmsNHasoo
NN«W NNN. NNN.N NH N«H. NNN. N«N.N HN HN«V .0000 000:0 00 usuaNNasoo
000. 500. 00H.0 00 000. 050.H H00.0 00 A000 .0000 00000 00 00080Hsaoo
NN«. NNN.H NNN.N NN «NH. NHN.H N«N.N NN HNN0 0H00N 0H0 NONNNNN
500.H 000.0 055.0H 00 000. 000.0 0HH.HH 00 A500 0H000 3000H00000z 0000000
NNw. N«N.N NNN.NH. NN HNN. NNN.« «HN.NH NN NNNN 0H000 000000>00000 NuaNNNN
NNH.- NNN. NNN.N «N HNN.- NNN.H NNN.N NN HNNO H0000 -- N000xa< 0000
NNH. HNN.H NNN.N «N «NNN. «HN. NNH.N NN N«N0 00000-002.-- N00000<_0000
.30xm .nH.m 000: z .3000 .90 000: 2 0+ 0H00H00>
2<
00000000000 HN H -Q 00000000.

 

331

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

mow. owo.m , moo.mw w 050. mmH.o oaa.owt NN noav n 00000000mxm H0000<
w5N. mmo.m 00m.5 m...” own... awn; $36 5N 95 N 00000000Axm H000";
00H.H- 000.H 0 000.0 0H 500. «HN.H 0m0.w 0m H«Hv H 00H000000xm H0000<
000.- 050.0 J 000.00 0 mNH. mmo.5 «00.00 NN HmHV m 00H00000000 00H:
0««.- NHN.H . N0«.0 «H mm«.- 000.H 000.0 NN HNHV N 00H000000xm stm
«0««. H00. «H0.0H . 0H «Hm... 00H.H 005.0H 0m HHHV H 00H000000xm stm
000.- HNN.N 00H.mm HN ,0HN.H- mNm.m 000.Hn mm HoHv H0000 -- 5000 H00H0
H00.. 000.« 0H0.«N HN 000.- omo.« NNN.0N mm H00 00000 00HH00< -- 00x0 chHm
000.- moN.« 0 NN0.0N HN 00H.H- 0m0.« N«m.mN mm H00 00000 HH0000 -- swam H00H0
000.- 000.0 000.0m 0N Hmo. 000.0 000.0N 0m H50 00x0 0000-0Hz
000. HNH.« 0 000.NN 0H m««.. Nno.m 000.HN Nm H00 0000-000
wwm.| 4 Hw¢. omH.m HN . mom. oco.H moH.m mm Any 300% uommoum 000000
H0H. 000. 000.N HN 0HH.- 0H0.H HHN.m 0N H«V 00000 000000000H
000.- 0«H.H 00N.m HN NHN.- oco.H 0N0.m 0N H00. 00000 0000 H00H0
H0m.- 0N0. 0N«.m HN 0H0. 050. 0Hm.m mm HNV 00000 2000-0Hz
«0a.- 0N0.L 00H.m HHN.N HHV 00000 000000
.3006 0 .Q.m 200002 01000000,.

 

 

 

 

H; 00005000GH 00w 00H30000> 2000005 :0 00w 00H00Q0G05m 000Q 0>EQH0000Q uwHuQ 0020:2310.

 

332

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooo. ooo. oco.H 0H ooo. ooo. oco.H um 88 38...on .... 33:5. anon.
mNH. NmH.oH Ho¢.¢m mH HHN. omH.oH mNo.mm mm Away mHmum Huwaa¢.m - <
mow.- o¢m.¢ mmH.o~ 0H NHm. N«H.m «mo.H~ Hm HHmv Ham waHauamH
mam.- ¢m~.m om~.wH m HH~.H- mmw.¢ Hwo.mH mu Homv HouuauumcH vumaoa musuHuu<
mmm.- mum.m oom.mH oH Hom.H- mo~.m mqm.HN mu Hmuv mcsuHuu¢ mausoo-umom
wwfi.an oom.¢ «HN.NN «H www.mu mmm.¢ «Ha.wu mm Awmv avauwuu< monsoonmum
0mm.: moo.H om~.m 0H Hmm.- Hoo.H Hm¢.m mm HHNV maHHHoucm you commmm
39H mmHHH «8.: NH 35. . «on. NH 85.: um 33 HSoH .. $8“ maHfiHHgo
Hmm. H¢¢.mH NH«.wH NH «Hm. N0H.HH Hmu.mH Hm Anuvm>HumHHuam=o .. umma waHHHHHmao
¢o¢. mwm.HH HH¢.oH NH HmH. mum.~H om~.~N Hm HHNV Hanuo> -- Hump wcHHHHHasc
oqm. wH¢. mm¢.~ ea wme. qu. mH¢.N mm Ava mwwum>< Hafiomuovmuw .>«ami
omH.u me.N omn.m w ooo. Noo.H ooo.w Nu Amwv m coauwuommxmuaoaumuwmm<
«HH.- mom.H mHo.H mH oHH.- oom.H Hmo.w NH HHNV N aoHumuomme-=oHumuHam<
«oH.- om~.H mHm.m 0H om~.- «cm.H HHH.m on Homv H aoHuauomnxm-aoHuuuHam<
mmH.u mmq.w mNH.mn m mom. Nom.m mo¢.Hm NN Amav m cowuwuummxm 304
;cm~4- ¢m~.~ , ~o¢.m «H eHw. A mw~.H mmo.o NH HmHv N , coHuauumamesoH
cam. Hmm.H mwo.m oH Hmm.- nmo.H Hmm.n on HHHV H =OHuaHomaxm 30H
.zmxm .n.m saw: 2 .3mxm .n.m cmmz 2
2m 92 # manmflum>

 

Avmdcwucouv "vain fivcvmmqu

 

333

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8m. H3. oo~.~ 8 «Ho; 89H Sea mm. 83 .6333me an 3.38
mam. owq. mom.~ mH Hos. Hem. Hoo.~ RN quv noHuauamoum an mmuaoo
mow. mm¢. mam.~ ea qu. saw. nmN.N mm Aqu coaumummmum ma mmunoo
own. @mn. ooo.~ on own. mmw. #Hm.~ mm ahwv huomsh mo ooamuuonBH
and. .awo. oew.a ma NHN. mum. me.H 5N Aoqv huomna mo moamuuomEH
«on. How. mao.H 0H «NH. amm. mqm.H mm quv J muomsa Ho ooaauuomeH
HHN. Hmm. oco.H ow mha. moa. «HH.N mm HHHV waHnumma you HuHHHamHHsm
qu.H Hmm. mon.H mH on. mHH.H nHH.~ cu Hmev maHnumma you ~HHHHHHSHsm
oHo.H cow. muw.H 0H HHH. Hoo.H «HH.N mm Huqv maHaummH you auHHHnmuHsm
wmo.- owe. omo.N on qu. new. 0mm.H mm HHHV .Houm umuam cu HameHHsaoo
ooh“ ooo. wmm.H mH om». HHo.H omo.~ mu Aoqv .Houm nouam ou uamsHHaaoo
mmd. ¢o~. wwo.H 0H mom. moH.H «HH.N mm Ammv .moum umuam ou ucoauasfioo
NNN. ~H©.H omH.~ 0H qu. Noo.~ HoH.m Hm Hmmv oHaom oHH Hoammmm
¢¢m. mm¢.¢ mmw.oH 0H own. mmm.q omN.oH an Aan onum amfiowuounmz xoaomam
mam. o-.~ 0mm.¢a 0H mcw.n m¢¢.m www.ma Hm Aomv mamum cowmum>muuxm xoammzm
Hag. . Hum. wqo.m HN HHH.- mom. on.m mm Ammv HmaHm -- Humea< umma
moi: cum. omm.~ on 0:. 9m. ammé mm 33 Emma-32 .... 53x5. gums
.3mxm .Q.m Cam: 2 .3mxm .Q.m cmmz z # manmwum>
Han
82535“; "Hid fiuqoma<

 

334

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

  

 

H©H.H Hw¢.m oo¢.Hn OH Hmm.- Hao.n omo.Hw HH HoHv n aoHuouomaxu anuu<
.Hmm. «mm.H mmm.~ mH mo¢.- mmm.H qu.m ow AnHv N aoHuauuoaxm Hunuu<
NHo.- Hom.H HNH.» NH muo.- Ham.H ¢¢m.m mm Hqu H coHuuuumaxm Hasuo<
Hmm. oqm.w1u cow.mm oH moo.- omo.n «om.am HH HmHV m coHumuuomxm stm
HHH.- mmH.H wn¢.¢ 0H «mo.- mom.H oom.m om HHHV N aoHumuumnxm anm
Hmmw- HoH.H Hmm.oH mu Hmo.- ~o~.H mHn.oH mm AHHV H aoHumuomaxm anm
8H... ones 39: 3 _ an... 02.0 30.3 mm SHV H33 .. 596 H25
HHH. Hmm.N wo~.n~ .«N _ oHH.: Hmw.m «om.m~ mm Amy «souH voHHaa< -- saxm HmcHH
m-.- H¢o.m mmm.~u «H qu.- oqm.¢ ohm.n~ mm Hwy uaauH HHaomm -- aaxm HwaHm
N«H.- ¢o~.¢ HH~.w~ mu mow.- ouo.¢ mmH.m~ mm AHV swam eHoH-qu.H
8%. can 398 HN «3.. «SJ HHH.HN an A8 unmaaum
00¢. «an. omn.N «N . moo. HHo.H Hmo.m mm Amv scam uomnoum mausou
wmm. com. NH«.n «a w~o.u omw. onm.m mm Aqv ovmuw nouosuumaH
mnm.y HHH. mum.~ «N mmH.- mmH. mHm.~ mm Amv oumuu swam HmcHH
m¢o.u «ma. wo~.m «N mwm.u m-.~ qmm.m mm ANV momma Eucaucaz
;mNN.u «oh. noa.m «m onn.n eon. a¢o.m mm AHV «vauw mausoo
dwlumm k .Q.mhzmcmm2 manmaumxw

 

mH HouUdHumnH Hem mmfinmwuwxr unmvsum :m new mvwamggm muwQ 933:0on HmHmQ Nfivnommmw

335

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¢¢~.q omq. m¢oHH HN ooo. ooo. _ooo.H Hm Anny uuoaumum -- huona¢_uaua
oem.- «Ho.m OHm.5m HN omH. om¢.oH ooo.mm Hm Hunv «Haum aHon=<:: - <
mom. mm~.o omm.aH mH mem.- mqo.5 ~¢o.oH «N HHmV Ham maHaummH
NHo.- .Hnm.¢ ooH.5H oH an.H- mm».m Hmo.om HH Homv HouosuumaH cumaoa mcsuHuu¢
mmo.H- ¢m~.m «H5.mN «H «M5.H omm.HH omm.5~ om HHNV «csuHuu< mmusou-umom
mmo.H- om5.5 oum.m~ mu Ham.H- «om.m Hmo.o~ Hm mev manuHuu< amusoo-oum
5mm.n o¢o.H i m¢o.m «N 0mm.u 0mm. NwH.m mm A5~v wawaaouam How :Ommmm
mHo. HoH.¢H ooo.- HH 50¢. m5H.oH omo.aH mm Houv Hauoy -- Hume maHHHHHmso
NH«. m¢~.¢H 05¢.mH HN «on. omo.HH omo.aH mu Anuvo>HuauHuamsa .. Hume mameHHmao
«mu. mma.qH mqo.m~ HN MHN. o55.mH omm.HH VmN AHNV Hanua> -- “mug waHHHHHuso
NmH. 5cm. Hmm.~ HH Hoo. moH. mom.~ Hm HmHV omnum>< aaHom-ocauu .>Ha=‘
5N0. amo.H 055.5 0H o~o.u mmo.u oom.5 OH Ammv m dowumuummesaowumuHAm<
Ho¢. Hom¢.H 500.5 ma qum.n H¢N.H Oom.5 mu Aamv N aowumuuwmelaoHuuuwmm¢
mam.n ¢¢o.m ooa.m om mmN. ¢N~3H wo¢.5 an Aomv H dowumuumnxmacowumuwmm<
mmwf 55m.w oowdo OH ¢5m.~u N«N.. 5.... mm¢.¢o 1.: 3.5 m 693300me 304
3c... 53; m5m.m 3 «ma... N50; «28 ow 8.0 N aowumuommxm 30A
03.- mmm.~ Hand mm Now. non; 9&8 mm A53 H cowuwuomaxm 33
.3mxm .n.m cows 2 .3mxm .n.m .cmmz z
_ Sm! 24 # manmwum>

 

 

 

Avmscficoov "manna vaflomnga

 

336

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘1 ‘ 9’ ‘3

 

 

m3. oH~.H 03.5 «a com. Hmm. mNHJ Hm 83 .3333on an 3,583
So; $3. an: 3 omH.H mam. Hmm.~ 8 8i aoflaummmum an 03:8
Hmm. omc.H «H5.~ H5 Hom.H mam. nmq.u mm HmHV aoHuaummmum an amusoo
55¢. 5H0. m5m.~ «N 5mN. «we. me.N Hm 55¢V 5uomsa mo occuuuoasH
ooo. 5Hw. oco.H 0H mom. «Ho.H omH.~ mu Aoqv 5uomga Ho muamuuoaaH
“Hm. mam. mom.H Hm MHH. on. 05m.H mm 5mqv muomna Ho moaauuomsH
mac. mH~.H m3.~ «N H9. 2». Rog Hm 53V 9:585 you muHHEBHsm
qu. «om. mm¢.~ 0H on. 505. mqo.~ m5 HmHV maHsumma you 5uHHHHmHH=m
man. 5¢o.H me.~ NH H5o.H ooo. NHH.N mm Auqv maHnomma you 5HHHHnmuHsm
ooo. «mm. oco.H «N n5o.- owe. moo.N Hm AHHV .Houm Hogan oH unusuHaaoo
««H. m55. om~.~ 0H Hoq. me. oco.H cu Hoqv .Houm Hagan on acmaHHasoo
«on. 55H.H omo.~ NH mac. 5cm. N«N.N mm 5mmv .Houm umuam cu ucaauHssou
m3. mmoJ HamJ m.— 5mo. «an; mum; ON $3 3an 0.3 xocmmhm
omH. «Hq.¢ H~¢.oH mH 5oH. 5H~.¢ nmm.a om 55mv meom amHUHHousoz guaum5m
555.- o¢o.¢ moH.mH 5H mmm.- mHo.¢ m~¢.¢H OH AOMV oHaum aonum>muuxm Huammmm
omo.- «mo.H on~.m «N _qu. oo~.H 555.5 mm 5mmv HmaHm -- zumea<_umma
05m. m55. «m5.~ «H oHH. moH. ooo.m mm quv auoa-sz.-- 5H¢Hxa< “mug
.Bmxm . n. m cum: 2 .395 . a. m :8: z # mHmmHug
Ham Ham\
5323303 HmH..nH vacoma<

337

_
_
%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

500. 000.0 000.00 00 000. 000.0 000.00 50 A000 0 aowuwuumaxm Hwauu<
00a. Nom.H 5mm.w 0H com. ¢mo.~ oqo.m nu HmHV N aoHuauuomxu Hmauu¢l
000.: 005.0 1 050.0 50 000. 000.0 000.0 00 5000 H coaumuomaxm Hmauu<
wlwme.- o5H.0 oom.ma 0H mom.-. mma.m «mm.Ha 5H AmHv n coHumuomaxm smHm
on. «~0.H . 0H~.oH 0H _ NmH.- 0mm.H oma.o mm ANHV N aoHuauomme :wH:
Hm~.H- Hmm. mmm.HH 5H HHO.». omm.H mHm.oH mm HHHV H aoHumuuoaxm stm
0mm.- m5w.5 @50.mm H~ m0o. omo.o ¢~o.nm mm HoHv Hnuoa -- aaxm Hach
mmm.- w0~.0 . m¢o.n~ Hm «oH.- m~m.0 m0m.n~ mm 500 mamuH umHHan< -- amxm HaaHm
ma0.- ~0H.0 . ¢~0.m~ HN J NmH.- H55.m ome.m~ mm 5wv namuH HHmuom -- aaxm.Hm=Hm
Nm0nH- 5H~.0 ooa.¢~ on omn.- 5mo.0 5mo.Hm mm 550 saxm sHuH-VHz
500. 050.0 050.00 00 000.1 050.0 005.00 H0 n00 unmasmHM|a
000. 000. 000.0 00 . 000. 050. 005.0 00 Anv xamm uuunoum mmunou
5¢o.- m5¢. H5n.m Ha H5o.H- 50m. m~o.m mm 500 manna HouuauumcH
000.: 000.0 000.0 H0 000. 000.0 000.0 00 500 mkuu mem Hagan
omH.- w5o.H . «an.m HN o5~.- Hno.H omo.m mm 5N0 mango aumH-nHz
000.: 000. . 000.0 H0 000. 005. H50.0 00 A00 mvmuu amusoo
.3mxmL .n.m Smammz z mHanum>

 

 

0H Hon—05.59: new moHQmTHm> unmvsum 3m new mmwumegm mqu v>flawuommfl ”0HIQ Navammmxw

338

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000. 000. oco.H 0H 000. 000. oco.H H0 5000 000a-0um -- muona<.uuos
0HH. 000.NH 000.Nm 0N 000. H50.0 000.00 mm ANnv oHaom xuon=0.m - <
5NH. 5H0.0 . 000.NN 0H 005.- 00H.0 000.NN 0N HHmv 000 wchuauH
000.N- NN0.0 000.0H HH mmN.- HH0.0 0N0.0H 0H 5000 nouoauuuaH 000300 00:0H004
N0o.H- 000.0 000.0N 0H 050.- 5No.m 000.0N 0H HON0 00:0Huu< 000000-000m
H00.H- 000.0 omN.5N 0N 55N.- NHO.m 0N0.5N mm 50NV 00=0Huu< mausooumum
005.: H00.H 000.0 00 005.: 000. 050.0 00 a50v wcaHHoucm you canwmm
00H.- 00H.5H 00N.5N 0H 0H0. 000.5H HHH.0N 5N 50Nv Huuoa .. 000a waHmmHHmao
N00.- 0N0.0H 500.0N 0H 00o. 500.0H 000.0N 5N 50N00>H000H000=o -- “may waHzmHHwao
HoH.- H50.0H 005.0N 0H oHH. 00H.0H 000.0N 5N 50N0 H00uo> -- 0009 00H50HH0=o
00o.H 500. 000.0 00 _ 000. 000. 000.0 00 a00v owwum>< Hawomnovmuw .>0a24
50H. 000.H 505.0 HH 00H.u m0m.H 000.0 0H 5000 0 :OHuwuummxmacoHumu0900
005. ~00.H 000.0 00 500. 000.0 000.0 00 A000 0 aowuwuuwnxmnaoaumuamm<
000.: 000.H 000.0 00 000.: H00.H 000.0 00 A000 H aoHuwuommxmuaoHumuHmm<
000. 005.0 N0H.05 HH 000.- 505.0 00N.N5 .1NH HaHv 0 aoHumuommxm 30H
0N0. 000.H 500.0 0H 00H.- N00.N ooN.0 0N A0H0 N aoHuauuamxm 30H
55H.- 000.H 500.0 5H 000. HNO.H 050.0 mm H5HV H cofiumuomnxm soH
a .nH.m . saw: 2 .3wxm. ..Q.m cmmz z # man—0H5“;
.20” Has .
62:03:30 H0H.nH x6530.

 

...—‘4

9|

 

 

 

 

339

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000. 050.0 500.0 00 000. 000.0 500.0 00 5000 :00umuaaoum aw omunoo
000.: 050.0 500.0 00 000. 000. 550.0 00 5000 :OHumummoum am mmuaoo
000. 0H0. 000.N 0H 0N0. 005. 000.N mm 5000 8333me 0... 03:8
000. 050. 050.0 00 005. 050. .000.0 00 5500 muomny mo muamuuomsH
000. 005. 500.0 00 500. 005. 005.0 00 5000 huomzk mo mocmuHOQEH
0H5. 08. $0; 0H 500.H 80. 000; mm 5000 .309: 00 803305
000... 050.H H50.N HN HN0. H5o.H H5H.N 00 $00 050289 no... 533330
00N... 00H.H 005.N NH H00. N8.H H0N.N 0N 300 050003 30 3333.000
000. 00N.H 000.N 0H 0Ho.H $0. m5N.N 00 900 0:232. 80 30:00:00
000. 000. N00; HN 000. 000. 80; mm 530 .030 03:0. 3 0553.68
000% 550. 000.0 0H 000. 550. 55o.N 00 800 .095 .820 3 0550558.
000. 000.0 000.0 00 000. 000.0 000.0 00 5000 .woum umucm ou ucmEu0ano
000. 000M0 000.0 003 000. 550.0 000.0 50 5000 m0wom 000 scammmm
050... 09.0 05N.oH 0H 0N0. 80.0 80.3 5N 5500 onum afloflousmzmucmmam
000. 000.0 000.00 00 000.: 000.0 000.00 50 5000 00000 0000u0>muuxm sodommm
000. 000. 500.0 00 000.: 000. 000.0 00 5000 00:00 :1 auo0xa< umoH
3H. 00N.H H00.N HN 000. 0N0. 00N.N mm 5000 5833: .. 30.384 003.
.3mxm .Q.m cme z .wam .Q.m cmmz Z # . w0mm0um>
2m. 20
€023,603 H0HunH £0qu90.

 

A PPE NDIX E

Intercorrelation Matrix for all Student Variables
by Total Students and Students by Time-of—Day

' 340

Appendix E-l: Intercorrelation Matrix for all Student Variables by Total Students

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Course Grade (1)
Mid-Term Grade (2) .676
Final Exam Grade (3) .774 .516
Instructor Grade '" (4) .644 .371 .289 7]
Course Project Rank E5;— .398 .219 .181 ' .585
Pre-Test '(6) .302 .270 .302 .124 .112
'Mid-Term Exam (7) .676 .914 .522 .374 .261
Final Exam ~~ Recall Items (8) .724 .479 .832 .305 .186
Final Exam.--.App1ied Items (9) .606 .401 .765 .239 .134
Final Exam -- Total (10) .765 .514 .910 .313 .179
High Expectation 1 (11) .286 .222 .302 .165 .118
High Expectation 2 (12) .587 .701 .458 .339 .242
High Expectation 3 (13; .451 .455 .374 .285 .213
Actual Expectation 1 (14) .286 .226 .289 .199 .167
Actual Exvectation 2 (15) .578 .700 .453 .342 .224.
.Actual Expectation 3 (16) .401 .413 .340 .279 .148
'Low Expectation 1 (17) .244 .222 .211 .174 .138
Low Expectation 2 (18) .502 .609 .380 .308 .208
Low Exvectatlon 3 (19) .298 .356—— .213 .235 ----
A5piratioanxpectation 1 (20) .274 .253 .278 .174 .136
Aspiratioanxpectation 2 (21) .618 .686 .485 .342 .237
.ASPiratioanxpectation 3 (22* .600 .644 .416 .477 .286
Univ. Grade-Point.Average (237 .505 .456 .449 .355 .209
Qualifying Test -— Verbal (241 .288 .252. .310 .101 ----
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) .285 .265 .317 .117 ----
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

 

341

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2)

Appendix E-l: (continued)

1. ._ ,enee -en~m_maw-,uummwn-_ _ ;"
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) .345 .310 .383 .122 ----
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- ---- ---- ---- :1--
Pre-Course.Attitude (28) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Post-Course Attitude (29) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) ---- ---- -.134 ---- .‘-9
Learning Set (31) .227 .192 .266 ---- ----
A-H Test.Anxiety Scale (32) L-.240 -.268 -.265 ---- 3----
TeSt Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Test Anxiety ~- Mid-Term' (34) -.152 -.100 -.160 --—- ----*“
Test Anxiety ~- Final (35) -.160 -.l81 -.156 ~--- ----"~
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
COmmitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- ---- .195 ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (42) ---- ---- .149 ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (43) ---- .102 .142 ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (44) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (45) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (46){ ~--- -.100 -.101 ---- ----
_EEPortance of Theory (47) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
hEPUISe as Preparation (48) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
'COUrSe as Preparation (49)[ ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
-—-___ .i
Lfgiiieas Preparation (50)l ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

' (1) <3) <4) <5)

 

Appendix E- 1:

Pre-Test'

Mid-Term Exam

342

(continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) I .249 .493 -l
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) i .243 .397 .486
Final Exam -- Total (10). .274 .524 .856 .752
High Expectation . 1 (11)! .209 .200 .251 .273 3 .304
High Exncctation 2 (12)' 332 .682 .415“? .367 .464
High Expectation 3 (13)] 309 .467 .363. .268 .331
Actual EXPcctaticn 1 (14)' .198 .221 .251 .249 .291
Actual Expectation 2 ‘ (15). .327 .667 .427 .345 .449
Actual Expectation 3 (l6)| .232 .411 .309 .226 .338 A
‘Low Expectation 1 (17)| .149 .201 .217 .164 .217
Low Expectation 2 (18). 285—» .608 .376 .269 .381
LOW'Expectation 3 (19) .145 .342 .241 .123 .213
A3piration4Expectation 1 (20) .197 .230 .223 .241 .261 —
ASpiration-Expectation 2 (21) .315 .691 6.437 .373 .480wV
A8piratioanxpectation 3 (22) .328 .651 .408 .303 .439
Univ. Grade-Point.Average (23) .215 .413 .399 .373 .480 “
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) .285 .296 .220 .352 .342
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) .130 .250 .230 .320 .3299;
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) .274 .320 .281 .465 .408
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Post-Course Attitude “ (29) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----—A
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) --:- -.103 ---- ---- -.121A
(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

 

343

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-l: (continued)

Learning Set (31) .174 .224- .239 .219 I .277
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) -.134 -.276 -.224 -.250 '-.279
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) ____ ____ __.__ l ____ ____
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term (34) -.145 -.110 -.169 '-.164 -.180
Test Anxiety .. .Final (35). -.101 ”168 -.152 ____ ”160
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) -.122 -.112 ..-..- ...113 -.113
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ......- ---- ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- ---- ---- ' ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) .111 ---- ---- ' .101 ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) .106 7--- .105 .. ‘ ----- .118
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- ---- ---- I ---- ----_—
Suitability for Teaching (42) .107 ---- .120 | .159 .134
Suitability for Teaching (43). ..--.. .102 .127 ' .166 .152
Suitability for Teaching (44)| .171 ....-- - ..-..- .101 .112
Importance of Theory (45) ....-- -....- ---- W---- ----
importance of Theory (46,) ..--- ..--- ' ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (:7) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparatign (48) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation (49) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
C'ourse as Preparation _ (50) .143 ---- ---- ---- ----

A (6) <7) <8) - (9) 4(10)

 

Appendix E - 1: (continued)

344

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High Expectation 1 (11)!
High Expectation 2 (12)] .526 I
High Expectation 3 (13)| .532 ' .635 '
Actual Expectation 1 (14)| .714 .486 .513
Actual Expectation -2 (15)| .491 .827 .636 .570
Actual Expectation . 3 (16). .335 .513 .721 .400 .562
Low Expectation 1 (17) .407 .345 .337 .597 .570
Low Expectation 2 (18)| .380 .641 .490. .480 ~.766
Low Exnectation 3 (19)[ .193 .478 .308 .266 .541
A5piration-Expectation 1 (20)l 621 .437 .473 .781 .530
ASpiration-Expectation 2 (21)| 479 .812 .623 .569 .353
ASpirationnExpectation 3 (22)| 468 .704 .666 .520 .757
Univ. GradeePoint.Avcrage (23)! .420 .404 .365 .475 .448
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24;l .343 .335 .256 .341 .335
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25). .254 .284 .266 .173 .200
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) .398 .392 .342 .354 .352
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Post-Course Attitude (29) -.109 ---:* ---- ---- ----
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Learning Set (31)i .208 .208 .217 .181 .199
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) -.362 -.363 -.352 -.352 -.398
Test Anxiety ~~ Pre-Tcst (33S ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Test Anxiety -- Mid:Term (34) -.l73 -.130 -.169 -.180 -.211
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) -.167 -.177 -.203 -.182 -.224
'— V (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)

 

Appendix E-l:

345

(continued)

 

Eysenck Extraversion Scale

(36$

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (374 «-.131 ---- -.172 -.114 -.139
Eysenck Lie Scale (38* ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39A ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40):l ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
ASuitability for Teaching (42% ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (43) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (44) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (45; ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (46) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (47$ ---- ---- ---- .124» ----_A
Course as Preparation (48) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----..
Course as Preparation ‘*k (49) .109 ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation (50) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
(11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
Actual Expectation 3 (16)
Low Expectation 1 (17) .320
LOW'Expectation 2 (18) .482 .565
Low Expectation 3 (19) .559 .257 .576
ASpiration-Expectation 1 (20) .400 .630' .507 .292
(16) (17) (18) (19) (20) TV

 

 

346

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-l: (continued)
.Aspiration-Expectation 2. . (21)~ .571 J .515 “’ .790 ’ .545 .563
{ASpiration-Exncctation 3 (22) .749 .445 .690 .497 .519
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) .329 .399 .412 .190 .475
Qualifying Test ~~ Verbal (24) .237 .198 .316 ---- .289
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) .136 .125 .161 ---- .205
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) .235 .210 .300 ---- .326
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- ---- ---- .139 ----
Pre-Course Attitude (28) --i. ---- ---- ---- ----
Post-Course Attitude (29) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
{Attitude Toward Instructor (30) ---- ---- ---- ---- .106
Learning Set (31) .115 e--- .159 ---- .157
.A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) -.289 -.263 -.351 -.208 4.373
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Test Anxiety ~- Mid-Term (34) ---- -.150 -.202 -.121 -.216
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) -.148 -.147 -.235 -.146 -.227
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) -.118 ---- -.106 ---- ----
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. 1 (39) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. 2 (40) ---- "" "" "" ""
Commitment to Enter Prof. 3 (41) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching 1 (42) ----A# ---- ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43) ---- ---- ---- ---- .---
Suitability for Teaching 3 (44) ---- ---- ---- ---- .110
Importance of Theory Mi 1 (45) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
<16) (17) (18) (19) (207

 

347

Appendix E- 1:: (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Importance of Theory 2 (46) ---- | ---- | ---- ---- ----
hTmportance of Theory 3 (47) ---- ' .108 I ---- ---- .108
Course as Preparation 1 (48) ---- l ---- ' ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation V 2 (49)! ---- ' ---- ' ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation 3 (50)! ---- | ---- ' ---- ---- ----
(16) (17) (18)- (19) 74(20)
.AsPiration-Expectation 2 (21)[
Aspiration-Expectation 3 (22; .757 I
Univ. Grade~Point Average (23% .496 I .464“]
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) .326 .280 ‘ .395
Qualifying Test -~ Quantitative (25) .227 .205 ' .299 .288
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) .352 .303 i .451 .807 .714
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- ---- ' ---- ---- ----
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- ---- ----3 -.117 ----
Post-Course Attitude (29J ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) -.108 ---- -.147 -.148 ----
Learning Set (31) .205 .131 .232‘ .314 .163
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32% -.395 -.339 -.374 -.420 -.245.
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Test Anxiety -- Mid~Term (34) -.186 -.173 -.115 -.198 -.154
Test.Anxiety -~ Final (35% -3235 -.227 é.173 -.l62 -.123
A A“ (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)

 

 

 

- ., . -
- u - - n
- .. - -
s m .
a .. ..
x >- N
. . .
. .
l .
e
11' ll
i‘lll

 

 

..---

h...“ an-“

—--~=n—

..---

anon-

_
u
g
n

...n- ~-u.~ --.- unu-

 

 

Appendix E - l:

348

(continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36). ---- I ---- ' -.l97 -.204 -.115
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37)! ---- -.106 ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Lie Scale (38). ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. 1 (39) ---- ---- ---- ---- .137
Commitment to Enter Prof.» 2 (40) ---- ---- .107 ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. 3 (41) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Suitability forTTeaching 1 (42) ---- ---- A---- —#.107 .161
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43) ---- ---- .106- .117 .153
‘Suitability for Teaching 3 4(44) ---- ---- .129 ---- .113
Importance of Theory 1 (45) ---- ---- ---- ---- .-::::.*'
Importance of Theory ‘14» 2 (46) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory 3 (47) ---- ---- ---- ---- -—::::—~\
COurse as Preparationf 1 (48). ---- ---:w] ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation _2_ (49)] ---- ---- l ---:w] ---- ----
‘Course as Preparation 3 (50)| ---- ---- ‘ .106 I .126 ----
' (21) (22) ' (23) (24) (25):

Qualifying Test -- Total (26)
Reason for Enrolling (27) ----
Pre-Cpurse Attitude (28) -.l61 .366
Post-Course Attitude (29) -~-- .226 .633
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) -.116 .13;w .182 | .152 I

V (26) (27) (28) S (29) ' (30) ‘

349

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-l: (continued)
Learning Set (31) .310 ---. ---- ---- -.137
A-H Test Anxiety Scale ' (32) -.453 ---- ---- ---- ----
TeSt Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Test Anxiety -- Mid—Term (34) -.246 ---- ---- ---- ----
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) -.234 ---- ---- ---- ----
kEysenck Extraversion Scale (36) -.205 ---- ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- -.169 ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) .150 .110 -.149 ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) .131 .120 -.141 ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41). ---- -.l64 “'-.213 -.370 ----
Suitability for Teaching (42) .170 ---- -.203 ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (43) .191 ---- -.204 -.145 ----
Suitability for Teaching (44) .138 .113 -.160 -.117 ----
Importance of Theory (45) ---- -.130 -.318 -.187 ----
Importance of Theory (46) ---- -.140 -.292 -.253 ----
Importance of Theory (47) ---- -.105 -.240 -.285 ----
Course as Preparation (48) ---- ---- -.399 -.193 ----
.Course as Preparation (49) .109 -.123 -.314 -.300 -.200
Course as Preparation (50) .154 ---- -.183 -.140 ----
(26) (27) (28) (29) (30)

 

350

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-l: (continued)

Learning'Set (31;-
A-H.Test Anxiety Scale (32) -.210
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) ---- ----
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term (34) -.165 .362 .123
STest Anxiety -- Final (35) -.117 .348 .115 ' .557
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ---- ---- ---- ' ---- ----
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- .264 ---- ' .227 .201
Eysenck Lie Scale 4‘ (38) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. 1 (39) ---- -.104 ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. 2 (40) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. 3 (41)| ---- ---- ---- ---- ---:_‘
Suitability for Teaching 1 (42)! ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- —
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43)| ---- --4:‘ ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching 3 (44). ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory 1 (45) ---- ----_ ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory 2 (46) ---- ---- ---- .---- ---- -
Importance of Theory 3 (47) ---- ---- ---- ---- -.105 ‘
Course as Preparation iv 1_ (48) .107 ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation 2 (49) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation L“ 3 (50) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----‘:

(31) (32) (33) (34) (35)

 

 

351

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-l: (continued)

Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36)
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) -.138
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) -.149 -.165
Commitment to Enter Prof. 1 (39)? ---- ---- -.128
Commitment to Enter Prof:‘- 2 (40% _7.105 ---- -.116 .734
Commitment to Enter Prof. 3 (41) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching 1 (42) -.138 ---- -.161 .713 .616
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43% -.158 ---- -.147 .624 .782
Suitability for Teaching 3 (44) -.109 ---- ---- .707 .773
Importance of Theory 1 (45) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory 2 (46) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory 3 (47) -#---- ---- -.102 ---- .141
Course as Preparation 1 (48) ---- ---- ---- .139 .158
Course as Preparation 2 (49) ---- ---- ---- _---- .119
Course as Preparation 3 (50) -.146 ---- -.109 .609 .692

(36) (37) (38) (39) (40) 7
Commitment to Enter Prof. 3 (41fl
Suitability for Teaching 1 (42fl ----
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43% ---- .711
Suitability for Teaching 3 (44) ---- .595 .703
Importance of Theory 1 (454 .386 ----. .127 ----

(41) (42) (43) (44) (45)

 

352

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-l: (continued)

Importance of Theory. (46) .462 ---- ---- ---- .383
Importance of Theory (47) .423 .103 .197 .188 .I59
Course as Preparation (48; .230 .185 .178 .149 .315
Course as Preparation (49) .343 ---- .182 .109 .198
Course as Preparation (50; ---- .609 .735 .802 .102

(41) (42) (43) (44) (45)
Importance of Theory (46)
Importance of Theory (47) .329
Course as Preparation (48) .344 .268
Course as Preparation (49) ..391 .497 .302 _*
Course as Preparation (50) ---- .214 .161 .101

(46) (47) (48) (49) (50)

353

Appendix E-Z: Intercorrelation Matrix for all Student Variables by Total
Students by AM Section

 

Course Grade

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) .
Mid-Term Grade (2) .663
Final Exam Grade (3) .771 .514
Instructor Grade (4) .628 .332 .278 I
Course Project Rank (5) .406 .222 .178—hr—T610—m]
Pre-Test (6) .350 .321 .324 ' .137 .121
Mid-Term Exam (7) .671 .914 .526 .351 .247
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) .707 .472 .843 .288 .192
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) .653 .429 .804 .269 .148
Final Exam -- Total (10) .786 .519 .950 .317 .192
High Expectation l (11) .324 .229 .346 .174 .109
High Expectation 2 (12) .579 .695 .441 .312 .238
High Expectation 3 (13) .427 .404 .361 .259 .180
Actual Expectation 1 (14) .315 .239 .315 .213 .169
Actual Expectation 2 (15) .562 .678 .441 .306 .202
Actual Expectation 3 (16) .458 .502 .370 .323 .226
LOW'Expectation 1 (17) .229 .221 .195 .154 .117
Low'Expectation 2 (18) .487 .597 .362 .276 .186
Low Expectation -— 3 (19) .355 .433 .289 .274 .147
ASpiration-Expectation l (20) .298 .253 .300 .161 .113
ASpiration-Expectation 2 (21) .607“; .662 .469 .337 .210
A5piration—Expectation 3 (22) .576 .609 .397 .431 .305
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) .530 .473 .482 .337 .206
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) .254 .203. .295 ---- ----
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25f .285 .243 .304 ---- ----

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

 

354

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E -2: (continued)

(Qualifying Test ~- Total (26;&_ .318 .264 .366 ? ---- 1‘ ----
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
POStucourse Attitude (29) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
.Attitude Toward Instructor (30) ---- -.104 -.150 ---- ----
Learning Set (31) .213 .158 .278 ---- ----
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) ~-.256 -.246 -.287 ---- 3----
TeSt Anxiety -- Pre-Test (333 -;-- ---- ---- ---- ----
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term' (34) -.151 ---- -.168 ---- ----
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) -.164 -.148 -.159 ---- ----
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) -.101 -.117 -.114 ---- ----
Eysean Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (42) ---- ---- .122 ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (43) ---- ---- .151 ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (44) ~--- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (45) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (46) ---- -.107 -.121 ---- ----
Importance of Theory (47) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation (48) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation (49) ---:~ ---- --:- ---- ----
Course as Preparation (50) ---- ---; ---- ---- ----

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)'

 

355

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-Z: (continued)

Pre—Test' ' (6l—
Mid-Term.Exam (7) I .332 (I
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) I .264 I .488
Final Exam --.Applied Items (9) I .269 .424 .510
Final Exam -- Total (10)I .304 .527 .884 .846 I '
High Expectation . l (11)I .232 .233 .287 .360 .369
High Expectation 2 (12), .378 .698 .397 .371 .442
High Expectation 3 (13) .298 .427 .327 _ .343 .375
Actual Expectation l (14) .214 .261 .279 .317 .333
Actual Expectation 2 (15)I .390 .671 .429 .351 .451
Actual Expectation 3 (l6)I .361 .522 .367 .309 .382
‘Low Expectation 1 (17)I .173 .225 .221 .162 .221
Low Expectation 2 (18)I .336 .597 .381 .275 .377
Low Expectation 3 (19)I .268 .454 .315 .218 .298
AsPiration-Expectation l (20) .217 v .272 .256 .295 .311.
ASpiration-Expectation 2 (21) .330 .534 .441 .394 .431
A8piration-Expectation 3 (22) .381 .638 .405 .377 .441
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) .252 .494 .457 .458 .527
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) .243 .258 .193 .369 .322
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) .104 .267 .216 .340 .324
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) .242 .311 .249 .424 .387
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- ---- ---- ---- --:-
'Post—Course Attitude (29) ---- ----. ---- ---- ----
Attitude TowardvInstructor (30) ---- -.138 ---- -.150 -.134

S (6) <7) <8) <9) (10)

 

356

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-Z: (continued)

Learning Set - (31) 182 .221- .223 . .240‘ .264
A-H Test Anxiety Scale ' (32) -.189 -.281 -.239 -.283 -.298
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) ---- ---- ---- I ---- ----
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term (34) -.118 I ---- )I.-.171 I-.134 -.183
Test Anxiety -- .Final (35)I -.124 -.151 -.141 I-.111 -.150
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36)I -.154 -.135 ---- ---- -.117
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) -..-.. -....- ""." ---- ----
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- ---- I ---- -.105 ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- ---- I ---- .114 .111
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- 4--- I ---- I .108“ .114
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- ---- I ---- I ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (42) ---- ---- I .104 I .159 .149“
Suitability for Teaching (43; ---- A ---- .127 .201 .187
Suitability for Teaching (44), .126 ---- ---- I ---- .100
Importance of Theory (45) ..--.. ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory ((46) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (47) ---- ---- ---- ---- --..-
Course as Preparation (48) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation (49) ---- -.100 -..-- ---- -..--
Course as Preparation (50) -..-- -..-- -..-- -..-- ----

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

 

357

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-Z: (continued)

High Expectation l (11)
High ExpectEtion 2 (12)I .547
High Expectation 3 (13)I .586 I .619 II
Actual Expectation 1 (14)I .726 .490 I .559 I
.Actual Expectation -2 (15)Iflv.520 .832—~J_:6;;—h .574
Actual ExpectationWT—B (16)I .489 .657 ‘ .724 .513 i .699
Low Expectation 1 (17) .421 .347 .327 .595 .450
Low Expectation 2 (18) .441 .648 .484. .521 .765
Low Expectation 3 (19) .280 w~.501 .418 .344 .534
A8piration-Expectation 1 (20) .632 .464 .507 .766 .532
Aspiration-Expectation 2 (21) .515 .823 .624 .581 .845
Aspiration-Expectation 3 (22) .536 .705 .655 .574 .747
Univ. GradeePoint.Average (23) .463 .442 .379 .528 .481
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) .332 .333 .301 .344 .327
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) .254 .235 .239 .213 .154
Qualifying Test_-~ Tetal (235 .385_ .366 .356 .383 .326
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- ---- w---- ---- ----
Post-Course Attitude (29) ---- ---:_ -.106 ---- ----
Attitude Toward Instructor» (30) ---- ---- -.156 -.120 -'-'fi
Learning Set (31) .239 .197 .286 .249 .203
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) -.378 -.384 -.407 -.416 -.428
TeSt Anxiety -- PreuTcst (33) ---- ---- ---- --::' ----
Test Anxiety ~:iEid-Term (34) -.157 -.100 :.174 -.200 -.220
Test Agxiety ~-*Final- V~S (35) -.170+ -.156 -.219 -.196 -.212

T' V (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)

 

Appendix E-Z:

358

(continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37% -.147 -.114 -.213 -.152 -.151
Eysenck Lie Scale (38; ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41)l ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (42) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
ASuitability for Teaching (43$ ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (44) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (45; ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (46) ---- ---- -.111 ---- ----
Importance of Theory (47% .123 ---- ---- .170 ----
Course as Preparation (48* .116 ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation (49* .122 ---- ---- .108 ----
‘Course as Preparation (504 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

‘ (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
Actual Expectation 3 (16)
Low Expectation 1 (17) .415
Low Expectation 2 (18; .636 .591
Low Expectation 3 (19) .663 .313 .573
ASpiratioanxpectation 1 (20) .500 .623“ .551 .379

(16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

 

Appendix E - Z:

A 1“

359

(continued)

_.__,__‘“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A5piration~Expectation 2 (21) .711 . 503 . 735 . 55o . 584
ASpiration--Expectation 3 (22) . 739 .447 . 703 . 566 . 552
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) .415 .373 .445 .301 .521
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) .286 .172 .329 .158 .295
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) .218 .164 .132 ---- .259.
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) .317 .208 .293 .139 .356
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- --..- ---- .114 ----
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ”1.13 ---- ----- ---- ----
Post-Course Attitude (29) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) ----A -..-- ..--- ..--- -.139
Learning Set (31) .203 ---- .170 .145 .190
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) -.345 -.281 -.391 -.316 -.444
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) ..--- ..--- ---- ---- ----
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term (34) -.124 -.175 -.200 -~.---- -.261
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) -.211 -.154 -.237 -.147 -.250
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ..-..- ---- ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) -.132 -.125 -.100 ---- -.l42
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- ---- ----: ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39S ..--- ---- ---- .107 :-
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- ---- ---- ""- ""-
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- ""- "" "" ""
Suitability for Teaching (42) ....-- ---:‘ ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (43) ____ ____ __.._ --.... ....--
Suitability .for Teaching (44) ---- ---- ---- .128 .102
Importance of Theory * (45) ..--.. ....-- ......- ---- ----
<16) (.17) <18) (19) (207

 

360

Appendix E372: - (continued)

A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Importance of Theory 2 (46) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
[Importance of Theory 3 (47) ---- .109 ---- ---- .118
Course as Preparation 1 (48) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation ' 2 (49) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation 3 (50) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
(16) <17) <18); (19> <20)
A5piration-Expectation 2 (21)
ASpiratioanxpectation 3 (22) .744
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) .516 .501
Qualifying Test —- Verbal (24) .319 .310 .374
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) .212 .180 .279 .311
Qualifying Test —- Total (26) .341 .305 .440 .817 .714
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- ..--- nu .- . 1o 5 ----
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
POStuCourse Attitude (29) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) ---- ---- -.l69 ---- ----
Learning Set (31)“ .209 .192 .249 .333 ----
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) -.421 -.360 -.391 -.383 -.209.
Test Anxiety ~~ Pre—Test (33) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term (34) -.179 -.109 ---- -.185 -.l60
Test.Anxiety ~~ Final (35* -.230 -.202 -.159 -.156 -.l38
_hTV 77‘ ‘ (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)

 

 

361

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-Z: (continued)

Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36)I ---- ---- I-.183 -.182 -.I14
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37)I -.120 ---- I ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Lie Scale w(3'8; ---- ---- ---- -.122 ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. 1 (39) ---- ---- .116 ---- .148
Commitment to Enter Prof;' 2 (40) ---- ---- ---- ---- .110
Commitment to Enter Prof. 3 ‘A(4l;‘ ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ‘
Suitability for Teaching 1 (42) ---- ---- ---- ---- A:146-u
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43) ---- fifi;--- .171- .131 .142
Suitability for Teaching 3 A(44) ---- ---- .127 ---- .105
Importance of Theory 1 (45) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----r_
Importance of Theory 2 (46) ---- -.112 ---- ---- ""
Importance of Theory 3 (47) ---- ---- ---- ---- ...:S
Course as Preparation 1 (48) ---- ---- ---- ‘—::::*~ ----
Course as Pfeparation 2 (495‘ ---- -.102 ---:fi ---- ----
Course as Preparation 3 (50) ---- ---- .113 ---- ----

h— (21) (22) (23) (24) (253$
Qualifying Test -- Total (26)
Reason for Enrolling (27) ----
Pre-Course Attitude (28) -.138 .329
Post-Course Attitude (29) ---- .176 .592
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) ---- --9- .160; .149 .

(26) (27) (28) (29) (30) _

362

Appendix E -2: (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Learning Set (31) .292 ---- ---- .140 ----
LA~H Test Anxiety Scale . (32) -.432 -.104 ---- ---- ----
ATESt Anxiety -- Pre~Test (33) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Test Anxiety -- Mid—Term (34) 3-.246 ---- ---- .101 ----
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) ...237 ---- ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) -.190 ---- ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) -.119 -.178 ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) .130 .114 -.122 ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- .129 -.104 ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41), ---- -.178 -.202 -.228 ----
Suitability for Teaching (42% .117 ---- -.162 ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (43) .176 ---- -.224 -.171 ----
Suitability for Teaching (44) .102 .152 -.121 -.l42 ----
Importance of Theory (45) ---- -.231 -.370 -.l92 -.128
Importance of Theory (46) ---- -.127 -.270 -.221 ----
Importance of Theory (47) ---- ---- -.260 -.252 -.181
Course as Preparation (48) ---- -.116 -.427 -.152 ----
Course as Preparation (49) ---- ---- -.280 -.214 -.184
Course as Preparation (50) .110 ---- -.138 -.190 ----

‘7 (26) (27) (28) (29) (30)

 

Appendix E-Z:

363

 

Learning' Set

(31) I

 

1.71:7]

(continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32)
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) ---- I ----
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term (34) -154 .358 ---- I
‘Test Anxiety -- Final (35) :5117 .369 _ ---- I .535
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36)I ---- ---- ---- I ---- I ----
Eysenck NeuroticiSm Scale (37) 3-.101 .266 ---- I .257 .212
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) «-.136 --2- ---- ---- .110
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- -.105 ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (42)' ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (43) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (44)I ---- ---- ~--- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (45)I ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (46) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (47) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation (48) .142 ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation (49) ---- ---- .108 ---- ---—
Course as Preparation (50) h_;--- ---- ---- ---- ----
(31) (32) (33) (34) (35)

 

364

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-Z: (continued)
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36)
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37; -.183
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) -.103 -.l35
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- ---- -.131
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) -.105 ---- -.108 .747
Commitment t6 Enter Prof. (41) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (42) -.148 ---- -.166 .695 .602
Suitability for Teaching (43% -.164 ---- -.123 .647 .784
Suitability for Teaching (44) -.107 ---- ---- .722 .758
Importance of Theory (45) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (46) ____ ____ ____ ____ __-_
Importance of Theory (47) l--- ---- ---- .111 .182
Course as Preparation (48) ---- ---- ---- .132 .155
Course as Preparation (49) ---- ---- ---- ---- .119
Course as Preparation (50) '-.140 ---- ---- .630 .683

(36) (37) (38) (39) (40) 7
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41)
Suitability for Teaching (42) ----
Suitability for Teaching (43) ---- .707
Suitability for Teaching (44) ---- .583 .695
Importance of Theory (45) .408 ---- ---- ----
(41) (42) (43) (44) (45) I

 

365

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

prpendix E-Z: (continued)

Importance of Theory 2 (46)I .470 ---- I ---- ---- .386
Importance of Theory 3 (47)I .421 ---- ‘—:240 .196 .164-
Course as Preparation 1 (48) .252 .193 .191 .129 .304
Course as Preparation 2 (49)) .326 --::—— .177 _---- .173
Course as Preparation 3 (50)I ~--- .593 .709 .811 r;--;~

M (41) (42) (43) (44) (45)
Importance of Theory 2* (46)
Importance of Theory 3 (47) .373
Course as Preparation 1 (48) .324—fl .287
Course as Preparation 2 (49) .383 .470 .308 _
Course as Preparation 3_fi (50) ---- .190 .152 ---- I

(46) (47) (48) (49) A (50)

 

Appendix E— 3:

 

 

366

 

 

 

 

 

Intercorrelation Matrix for all Student Variables by Total
Students by PM Section

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Course Grade (1)I
Mid-Term Grade (2) h .697 A
Final Exam Grade (3) .778 .522.
Instructor Grade (4) .668 .427 .304
Course Project Rank (5) .385 .219 .186 .545
Pre-Test (6) .263 .177 .276 i .108 .107
hEid-Term Exam (7) .687 .914 .518 .412 .288
. Final Exan -- Recall Items (8) .753 .501 .818 .331 .175
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) .552 .368 .721 .204 .117
Final Exam -- Total (10) .737 .513 .858 .307 .160
High Expectation l (11) .229 .203 .231 .152 .146
High Expectation 2 (12) .604 .711 .487 .381 .253
High Expectation 3 (13) .494 .542 .396 .332 .280
Actual Expectation 1 (14) .244 .204 .247 .177 .168
Actual Expectation 2 (15) .606 .736 .473 .402 .264
Actual Expectation 3 (16) .353 .335 .318 .240 ----
Low Expectation 1 (17) .271 .220 .236 .207 .179
Low'Expectation 2 (18) .523 .627 .406 .356 .245
Low'Expectation 3 (19) .226 .252fl1 .117 .188 ----
A5piration-Expectation 1 (20) .243 .249 .247 .194 .185
ASpiration-Expectation 2 (21) .637 .722 .511 .436 .288
A3piration-Expectation 3 (22) .637 .692 .444 .545 .268
Univ. Grade-Point.Average (23) .475 .430 .407 .382 .223
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) .341 .325, .335 .198 ----
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) .288 .295 .340 .154 ----
__ (1) <2) (3) (4) <5)

 

367

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-3: (continued)

Qualifying Test -~ Total ‘“““‘ .226: .387 *‘j;;;“”““24i3 .215 ----
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- ---- ---- -—g- .127
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- ---- ---- ---- .102
Post-Course Attitude (29) ---- ---- ---- .135 .158
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) -.121 ---- -.115 ---- .115.
Learning Set (31) .247 .243 .249 .112 .127
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) -.220 -.295 -.235 -.145 --.153
TeSt Anxiety -- PrenTest (33) _---- ---- ---- ---- ----
.Test.Anxiety -- Mid-Term' (34) -.154 -.148 -.148 -.118 ----
Test Anxiety ~- Final (35) -.155 -.227 -.153 ---- ----
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) --- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. 1 (39) ‘---- .106 ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. 2 (40) .123 .181 .141 ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. ‘3 (41) ‘-.105 ---- ~--- -.122 -.121
Suitability for Teaching 1 (42) .148 .165 .169 ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43) ---- .150 .132 ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching 3 (44) ---- .134 .109 ---- ----
Importance of Theory 1 (45) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory 2 (46) -.109 ---- ---- -.143 -.122
Importance of Theory 3 (47) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation 1 (48) --;: ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation 2 (49) "7;--- ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation 3‘ (50) ---- .130 .121 ' ---- ----

- <1) <2) ('3) <4) <5)

 

368

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-3: (continued)

IPre-Test' (67——
Mid-Term.Exam (7) .217 I
Final Exam ~- Recall Items (8) .247 I .509 I
Final Exam --.Applied Items (9) .208 .364 .465 I
Final Exam -- Total AA (10) .241 .523 .818 I .645
High Expectation - 1 (11) .141 .140 .204 .147 .212
High Expectation 2 (12) .247 .657 .455 .368 .502
High Expectation 3 ‘& (13)I .328 .538 .441, .178 .402
Actual Expectation 1 (l4)I .157 .157 .218 .161 .227
_Actual Expectation 2 (15) .213 .689 .426 .342 .451
Actual Expectation 3 (16) .105 .319 .255 .161 .300
Low Expectation 1 (17) ---- .160 .221 .167 .217““
Low Expectation 2 (18) .212 .626 .368 .255 .385
LOW'Expectation 3 (19). ---- .206 .140 ---- .117
A3piration-Expectation 1 (20) .145 .162 .198 .171 .197
A3piration-Expectation 2 (21) .200 .702 .438 .351 .482
A3piration-Expectation 3 (22) .237 .669 .426“- .221 .441
Univ. Grade-Point.Average (23) .143 .392 .331 .274 .429
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) .350 .354 .270 .334 .377
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) .162 .221 .262 .297 .344
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) .320 .332 .341 .385 .446
Reason for Enrolling (27) -.101 ---- ---- ---- ----
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Post-Course Attitude (29) .123 .108 .---- ---- ----A
Attitude Toward Instructor (303 ---- ---- ---- ---- -.104‘

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

‘1’!" 1 Vvv.__.3
r’

 

'W

369

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-3: (continued)
Learning Set (31) .162 .229 .262 .183 .294
A-H Test Anxiety Scale, (32) -.169 -.267 -.212 -.210 -.258
Test Anxiety -- PreuTest (33) ---:— ---- ---- ---- ----
Test Anxiety -- Mid—Term (34) -.179 -.134 -.173 I ---- -.178
Test Anxiety --.Final (35) ---- -.191 -_177 I ---- -.173
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ---- ---- -.116 -.137 -.115 .
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
(kmrnitment to Enter Prof. (39) .139 ---- .115 --e- ----
Comafltment to Enter Prof. (40) .124 .161 ‘fli3E;r~ ----- .121
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) -.102 --::“‘ ---- I ---- ---’
Suitability for Teaching (42) .164 .133 .161 I .156 .121
Suitability for Teaching (43) ---- .155 .134 .127 .110
Suitability for Teaching (44) .239 .101 .138 .105 .128
Importance of Theory ‘ (45) -.107 ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory “‘ '(46) -.187 -.107 -.103 ---- ----
Importance of Theory (47) ---- -.103 ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation (48) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation (49) -..- ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation (50) .257 .132 .125 .140 .131
w <6) <7) <8) <9) (10)

370

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-3: (continued)

[High Expectation l (11)I
IHigh.Expectation 2 (12)I .493

High Expectation 3 (13) I .427 .674 I

Actual Expectation l (14)I .695 .479 .428 L

Actual Expectation ~2 (15)I .446 .820 .634 .564

Actual Expectation ' 3 (16)I .298 .403 .720 .296 .442
Low Expectation l (17)I .377 .341 .357 .597 .488
LOW'Expectation 2 (18)I .287 .633 .504. .421 .769
Low Expectation 3 (19) ---- .434 .156 .172 .571
Aspiration-Expectation 1 (20) .599 .395 .406 .802 .532
ASpixation—Expectation 2 (21) .423 .795 .624 .551 .866
ASPiration-Expectation 3 (22)I .343 .704 .686 .428 .774
Univ. GradeePoint Average (23)I .344 .345 .348 .395 .398
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24)I .363 .338 .182 .336 .350
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25)I .251 .364 .312 .110 .273
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) .420 .435 .322 .308 .396
Reason for Enrolling (27) .104 , .148 .102 ---- .101
Pre-Course Attitude (28) -.108 ---- ---- ---- ----
Post-Course Attitude (29) -.104 --;- ---- ---- ----
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) -....- -....- --.... ---- -.113
Learning Set (31) .163 .227 .116 ---- .190
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) -.331 -.329 -.242 -.252 -.350
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) ---- ---- ---- ---- l ----
Test Anxiety ~- Mid-Term (34) -.192 -.176 -.159 -.143 -.197 ”
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) -.155 -.214 -.l68 -.157 -.244

(11). (12) (13) (14) (15) "_

 

 

 

 

 

371

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-3: (continued)

Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) -.133 ---- ---- -.l76 ----
Eysenck.Neuroticism Scale (37) -5103 ---- -.102 ---- -.121
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- -.116 ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- .121 ---- ---- -..--
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- .165 ---- ---- .117 .
Commitment to Enter“ Prof. (41): ---- -.126 -.10; ---- -.179
Suitability for Teaching (42)I ---- .147 ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (43)I ---- .140 ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (44) .113 .141 ---- ---- -..--
Importance of Theory (45)! ---- ---- ---- ---- -..--
Importance of Theory (46)1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (47)‘ ---- ---- ---- ---- -.110
Course as Preparation (48)‘i ---- ---- .143 ---- ----
Course as Preparation (49). ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
:ourse as Preparation (50) ---- .114 ---- ---- ----

(11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
Actual Expectation 3 (16)
Low Expectation 1 (17) .234
Low Expectation 2 ’(18) .331 .526
Low Expectation 3 (19) .430 .192 .605 I ‘
ASPirationnExpectation 1 (20) .311 .637 .450 I .179 I

<16) <17) <18) ' <19) _ <20)

 

372

Appendix E- 3: (continued)

L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A3piration-Expectation 2 (21). .449 ‘ .527 A .798 .553 .533
Aspiration—Expectation 3 (22) .766 .440 .671 .418 .455
Univ. GradeuPoint Average (23) .254 .425 .366 ---- .403
Qualifying Test -~ Verbal (24) .206 .243 .302 -.149 .274
Qualifying Test -~ Quantitative (25) ---- ---- .207 -.105 .114
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) .174 .213 ’ .314 -.170 .273
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- ---- ---- .170 .____
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- ---- ---- .116 ~---
Post-Course Attitude (29) ---- -.109 .113 .149 ----
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) ---- -.118 -.141 ---- ---eflA
Learning Set (31) ---- ---- .140 -.102 .109
A~H Test Anxiety Scale (32) -.242 -.230 -.295 --.... ...251
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term (34) ..--- -.106 -.207 -.153 -.137
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) --~- -.133 -.232 -.149 -.186
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ---- -.149 ---- ---- ’ -.153
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) -.108 ---- -.117 ---- ----
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- ---- ---- -.121 ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- ---- -.123 ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (42) ---- ---- ---- -.101 ----
Suitability for Teaching (43) ---- ---- ---- -.104 ----
Suitability for Teaching (44) ---- .110 -~-- ~--- .119
Importance of Theory (45) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
- (16) (17) (18) . (19) (20)'fl

 

 

373

Appendix E - 3: (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Importance of Theory. 2 (46) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory 3 (47) ---- ---- ---- -.123 ----
Course as Preparation 1 (48) <---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation I 2 (49) ---- ---- I ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation 3 (50) ---- ---- I ---- ---- ----
f (16) (17) 9 (18): (19) (20)
Aspiration-Expectation 2 (21)
A5piration~Expectation 3 (22) .779
Univ. Grade~Point Average (23% .468 .412 I
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24); .339 .236 I .423
Qualifying Test -~ Quantitative (25) .253 .239 .324 .253
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) .371 .299 .465 .792 .714
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- ---- ---- -.102 ----
Pre-Course Attitude (28) x111 ---- ---- -.158 ----
POSt~Course Attitude (29) .103 ---- ---- ---- -.135
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) -.145 ---- -.128 -.236 ----
Learning Set (31) .197 ---- .208 .287 .261
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) -.355 -.296 -.345 -.476 -.297.
Test Anxiety ~~ Pre-Test (33) ---- ---- -.100 ---- ----
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term (34) -.197 -.264 -.134 ' -.216 -.144
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) -.227 -.261 -.191 -.l7l -.100
A (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)

Appendix E- 3:

374

(continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ---- I -.132 I -.208 -.231 I-.I11
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- I -.103 I ---- ---- I ----
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- ---- -.101 ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. 1 (39) ---- ---- ---- .123 .113
Commitment to Enter Prof. 2 (40) ---- ---- .121 ---- .138
Commitment to Enter Prof. 3 (41) -.189 -.165 ---- ---- -.104 I
Suitability for Teaching 1 (42) ---- ---- ---- .163 .175 9
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43) ---- ---- ----- ---- .172
Suitability for Teaching 3 (44) ---- ---- .127 .144 .127
Importance of Theory 1 (45) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory 2 (46) -.137 ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory 3 (47) ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- A
Course as Preparation 1 (48) ---- ---- ---- .126 .108
Course as Preparation _2_ (49)I ---- ---- ---:WI .148 .117
Course as Preparation 3 (50)I ---- ---- ---- I .172 .1107;

I ' (21) (22) (23) ' (24) (25)m
Qualifying Test -- Total (26)
Reason for Enrolling (27) ----
Pre-Course Attitude (28) -.188 .413
Post-Course Attitude (29) -.109 .310 .684
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) -.210 .204 .229; .163

(26) (27) (28) (29) (30) '

 

 

375

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-3: (continued)
Learning Set . (31) .338 ‘_---- I ---- [ ---- -.l96
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) -.511 ---- ---- ---- .151
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test “——- (33) ---- ---- l-::::-l ---- ----
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Termfbw*flnm (34) -.245W. ---- ‘"'::::"‘—'---- ----
TeSt Anxiety -~ Final (35) -.227 ---- ---- ---- ----
LEySenck Extraversion Scale (36) -.225 ---- ---- ---- ---:“
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- -.156 -.112 ---- ----
Eysenck Lie Scale ‘ (38) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. 1 (39) .175 .103 -.179 ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. 2 (40) .196 .109 “ -.192 ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. 3 (41) ---- “::145'“'-.230 -.337 I ----
Suitability for Teachingh# l (42) .238 ---- __-.246 ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43) .215 ---- -.177 ---- .105
Suitability for Teaching 3 (44) .194 ---- -.212 ---- ----
Importance of Theory 1 (45) ---- ---- -.248 -.175 ----
Importance of Theory 2 (46) ---- -.158 -.331 -.378 ----
Importance of Theory 3 (47) ---- -.159I -.213 -.324 I -.2539
Course as Preparation 1 (48) .152 ---- I -.365 -.277 ----
Course as Preparation 2 (49) .209 -.196 I -.367 -.515 -.226
Course as Preparation 3 (50) .219 ---- I -.242 ---- ----
<26) <27) * <28) <29) <30)

 

 

376

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-3: (continued)
Learning Set - (31)I
A-H.Test Anxiety Scale (32)I-.212
Test Anxiety -- Pro-Test (33) -;-- .105
Test Anxiety ~~ Mid:Term (34) -.181 .364 .224 9' f
Test Anxiety -— Final _— (35) -5117 .314 .193 I .589 I
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ---- .111 ---- I ---- .112
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) r ---- .261 .108 I .184 .184
Eysenck Lie Scale —- (38) ---- --:- ---- ---:i ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- -.108 ‘m::::f- -.117 ----
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- ---;"— ---- ---- ----
Suitability for Teaching (42) ---- ---- ---- -.114 ----
Suitability for Teaching (43) ---- “" "" -.114 -.104
Suitability for Teaching (44) ---- ---- ---- -.100 ----
Importance of Theory (45) ---;' o«-- ---- ---- ----,
Importance of Theory (46) ---- .114 ~--- ---- ----
Importance of Theory (47) ---- ---- ---- -.153 -.156
Course as Preparationw "v (48) ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Course as Preparation (49) ---- ---- ---- -.141 -.202
Course as Preparation (50) ---- -.119 ---- ---- ----

; (31) (3 2) (33) (34) (3 5) *

 

 

377

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E-3: (continued)
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36)
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37; ---- ’
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) -.218 -.210
Commitment to Enter Prof. l"= (39)I ---- ---- -.122
Commitment to Enter Prof:‘u‘2 (40)I -.114 ---- -.129 .720
Commitment to Enter 9366:“8 3 (41) ~*---- ---- -.125 ---- .114
Suitability for Teaching 1 (42) -.111 ---- -.150 .736 .637
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43) -.151 ---- -.179 .592 .780
Suitability for Teaching 3 (44) -.114 ---- ---- .685 .796
Importance of Theory 1 (45% ---- .100 -.106 .144 .136
Importance of Theory 2 (46% ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Importance of Theory 3 (47) ---- ---- -.146 ---- ----
Course as Preparation 1 (48) -.110 ---- ---- .148 .163
Course as Preparation 2 (49) ---- ---- ---- ---- .120
Course as Preparation 3 (50) -.149 .105 -.138 .575 .712
(36) (37) (38) (39) (40) '

Commitment to Enter Prof. 3 (41)
Suitability for Teaching 1 (42) ----
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43) .157 .716
Suitability-for Teaching 3 (44% -:e- .612 .713 I -
Importance of Theory 1 (459 .357 .175 .204 I .160 I

" T 7‘ (41) (42) (43) (44) ‘ (45)

 

 

378

Appendix E-3: (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Importance of Theory V 2 (46) .451 ' ---- ---- ---- .380
Importance Of Theory 3 (47) .423 i .108 .142 .175 .14“;
Course as Preparation 1 (48) .197 ' .168 .160 .181 .331
Course as Preparation “2 (49)' .366 [F .120 .189 .198 .232
Course as Preparation 3 (50)! .201 | .627 .776 .790 .202

 

(41) (42) (43) (44) (45)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Importance of Theory 2 (46)

Importance of Theory 3 (47) .273 A

Course as Preparation 1 (48) .377 .241 .L

Course as Preparation 2 (49) .403 .535 .292 I A
Course as Preparation 3 (50) .118 .238 .173 l .198 l

 

 

 

(46) (47) (48) , (49) i (50)

 

 

A PPE NDIX F

Correlations of all Student Variables with
Instructor Grade by Discussion Section

379

Appendix F-l: Correlations of all Student Variables with Instructor Grade
for Instructor 1 '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total .

AM PM AM PM Total
Course Grade (1) .680 .748 .628 .668 .644
Mid-Term Grade (2) .581 .442 .332 .427 .371
Final Exam Grade (3) .362 .362 .273 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) .609 .483 .610 .545 .585 E?
Pre-Test (6) .423 \ ---- .137 .108 .124 i i.
Mid—Term Exam (7) .605 .443 .351 .412 .374
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) .331 .237 .288 .331 .305 iF‘
Final Exam.-- Applied Items (9) .240 .267 .268 .204 .239
Final Exam -- Total (10) .342 .302. .317 .307 .313
High Expectation '1 (11) ---- --..-. .174 .152 .165
High Expectation 2 (12) .512 .227 .312 .382 .339
High Expectation 3 (13) .300 ---- .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation 1 (14) ---- ---- .213 .177 .199
Actual Expectation 2 (15) .337 .243 1306 .402 .342
Actual Expectation 3 ’ (16) .479 ---- .323 .240 ..279
Low Expectation 1 (17) ---- .205 .154 .207 .174
Low‘Expectation 2 (18) .547 .459 .276 .356 .308
Low Expectation 3 (19) .301 ---- .274 .188 .235
ASpiration-Expectation 1 (20) .219 .228 .161 ~.194 .174
Aspiration-Expectation 2 (21) .499 .576 .337 .436 .308
ASpiration-Expectation 3 (22) .643 ---- .431 .545 .235
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) .523 .359 .355 .337 .332
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) ---- ---' .101 .039 .198 f‘
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) .218 "" .117, .092 .154

 

Appendix F- 1:

(continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total

_ AM PM AM PM “Total
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) --.... ..-..- .063 .154 .122
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- ---- .051 .069 .058
Pre-Course Attitude (28) .359 ---- .000 .021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) -.269 .241 «.078 .135 -.003
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) ---- ---- .082 -.038 .032
Learning Set (31) ---- ‘---- .045 .112 .072
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) ---- .296 -.067 -.145 '-.098
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) .294 ---- .004 -.025 -.014
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term ' (34) ---- ---- -.055 --.118 --.080
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) -.292 ---- -.090 -.061 -.078
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) -.428 nu -.022 -.049 -.031
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- ---- .022 -.097 ~.026
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) .222 -.349 -.004 ~.081 -.035
Commitment to Enter Prof. 1' (39) ---- .416 -.009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. 2 (40) -.254 ---- -,o47 .042 -.011
Commitment to Enter Prof. 3 (41) ---- ---- -.001 -.122 ‘ -.osz
Suitability for Teaching 1 (42) ---- .618 -.010 .094 .034
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43) ---- .265 -.028 “.043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching 3 (44) ---- ---- -.062 «145 -.057
Importance of Theory 1 (45) -.282 nu ' .015 ~.035 -.005
Importance of Theory 2 (46) -.421 ---- -.053 -.143 -.089
Importance of Theory 3 (47) ---- ---- -.072' -.079 «.074
Course as Preparation 1 (48) ---- ---- .041 .0427 .036
Course as Preparation 2 (49) ---- ""- .028 -.043 -.001
Course as Preparation a 3_ (50) ---- "" -.086 -.066 -.077

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F-Z:

381

Correlations of all Student Variables
with Instructor Grade for Instructor 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total .

AM PM AM PM Total
Course Grade (1) .702 .830 .628 .668 .644
Mid-Term Grade (2) .466 .637- .332 .427 .371
Final Exam Grade (3) .471 .559 .273 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) .756 .870 .610 .545 .585
Pre-Test (6) ---- .562 .137 .108 .124.
Mid-Term Exam (7) .469 .733 .351 .412 .374
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) .551 .714 .288 .331 .305
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) .456 ---- .268 .204 .239
Final Exam -- Total (10) .559 .678 .317 .307 .313
High Expectation (11) .300 .509 .174 .152 .165
High Expectation (12) .491 .411 .312 .382 .339
High Expectation (13) ---- .648 .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation (14) -.-- .526 .213 A .177 .199
Actual Expectation (15) .409 .316 .306 .402 .342
‘Actual Expectation (16) .289 .563 .323 .240 ' -.279‘
Low Expectation (17) .387 .269 .154 ' .207 .174
Law Expectation (18) .420 .287 .276 .356 .308
Low Expectation (19) ---- ---- .274 ..188 .235
ASpiration—Expectation (20) .3719 .451 .161 .194 .174
Aspiration-Expectation (21) .472 .597 .337 .436 .308 .
ASpiration-Expectation (22) ---- .563 .431 ..Sfigii .23éi‘
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) .442 .553 .355 .337 .382
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) ---- .664 .101 .039 .198
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) ---- ---- .117 .092 ..154

 

 

 

JOB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F-Z: (continued)
Instructor Total Total
_ AM PM vmflmwm-P‘l‘lm Total .
Qualifying Test -- Total (26)—“----- .569 .063 .154 .122
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- "" .051 9069 .0583
Pre~Course Attitude (28) ---- -.258 .000 .021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) ---- -.23_2 ..,678 .135 -.003
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) .214 .323 .082 -.038 .032
Learning Set (31) ---- -.323 .045 .112 .072
AgH Test Anxiety Scale (32) ---- -.425 -.067 -.145 ‘-.098
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) ::-- "" .004 -.025 -.014
Test Anxiety -.. Mid-Term“ (34) .206 -.549 ..055 -.118 9.080
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) ---- -.299 -.090 -.061 -.078
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) .328 ---- -.022 -.049 -.031
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) -.222 .220 .022 -.097 ~.026
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) mm ---- -.004 -.081 ‘-.o3s
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) -,223 ---- -.009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- .594 -.047 .042 -.011
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- ---- -,001' ~.122 -.052
Suitability for Teaching (42) ---- .233 -.010 .094 .034
Suitability for Teaching (43) ---- .254 -,028 «043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching (44) -.200 .391 —:;062 “3145 -.057
Importance of Theory (45) ---- ---- .015 :.035 -.005
Importance of Theory (46) "" -.274 -.053 a-.143 -.089
Importance of Theory (47) "" .246 -.072 -.oyglfl -.074
Course as Preparation (48) ---- ---- .041 .027 .036
Course as Preparation (49) ---- ---- ..028 -.043 ~.001
Course as Preparation (50) -.233 ---- -.086 -.066 4.077

 

 

 

m: an]
1

 

383

Appendix F-3: Correlations of all Student Variables
with Instructor Grade for Instructor 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total .
AM PM AM PM Total
Course Grade (1) .766 .632 .628 .668 .644
Mid-Term Grade (2) .460 .505' .332 .427 .371
Final Exam Grade (3) .450 .496 .278 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) .432 .385 ~610 .545 .585
Pre-Test (6) ---- 1493 .137 .108 .124
‘ Mid-Term Exam (7) .485 .592 .351 .412 .374
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) .443 .357 .288 .331 .305
Final Exam ~- Applied Items (9) .358 .637 .268 .204 .239
Final Exam -- Total (10) .468 .555 .317 .307 .313
High Expectation 1 (11) .395 ---- .174 .152 .165
High Expectation 2 (12) .474 .401 .312 .382 .339
High Expectation 3 (13) --~- .929 .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation 1 (14) ---- ---- .213 .177 .199
Actual Expectation . 2 (15) .438 .380 .306 .402 .342
Actual Expectation 3 (16) .710 .588 .323 .240 .279
Low Expectation 1 (17) ---- ---- .154 .207 .174
Low Expectation 2 (18) .441 ---- .276 .356 .308
Low Expectation 3 (19) .388 .529 .274 .188 .235
Aspiration-Expectation 1 (20) .315 ---- ' .161 .194 .174
ASPirationeExpectation 2 (21) .466 .391 .337 .435 .308
A5piration~Expectation 3 (22) .416 .750 .431‘ .545 .235
Univ. Grade:Point Average (23) .350 .309 .355 .337 .382
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) -u278 .245 _,101 .039 .198
Qualifying Test -- Quantttatiye (25) -.202 ---- .117 .092 .154

 

\

Appendix F-3: (continued)

384

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I III-.— nun!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total

AM an“. AM .... 331.....- Total
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) -.300 .303 .063 .154 l .122
Reason for Enrolling (27) nu .335 .051 .069 .058
Pre-Course Attitude (28) .180 ---- .000 .021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) -.211 .308 ...078 .135 -.003
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) -.176 -.636 .082 -.038 .032
Learning Set (31) -.204 .629 .045 .112 .072
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) 7 ---- ---- -.067 -.145 '-.098
Test Anxiety ~- Pro-Test ((33) -:-- -....- .004 ...025 -.014
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term ' (34) ---- ---- -.055 -.118 -.080
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) ---- ---- -.090 -.061 -.078
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ---- nu -.022 -.049 -.031
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) -.223 -.250 .022 -.097 -.026
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- ---- ~.004 ~.081 -.035
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- .205 ‘ -.009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) -.469 ---- -.047 .042 -.011
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- -.241 -.001' -.122 -.052
Suitability for Teaching (42) ---- ..--- ...010 .094 .034
Suitability for Teaching (43) -.386 ---- -.028 “.043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching (44) -.397 .273 -.062 {.145 ~.05_7
Importance of Theory (45) ..--- ---- .015 j.035 -.005
Importance of Theory (46) -.170 ---- -.053 ..-.143.' -.089
Importance of Theory (47) -.501 nu -.072 5.01793“ -.074
Course as Preparation (48) -.384 ---- .041 .027 .036
Course as Preparation (49) 3.276 ---- . .028 -.043 -.001
Course as Preparation (50) -.261 .215 -.086 -.066 4.077

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F-4:

385

Correlations of all Student Variables

with Instructor Grade by Instructor 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total .

AM PM AM PM Total
(‘ourse Grade (1) .677 .780 .628 .668 .644
Mid-Term Grade (2) .366 .563- .332 .427 .371
Final Exam Grade (3) .254 .458 .278 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) .698 .522 .610 .545 .585
Pre-Test (6) ---- ---- .137 .108 .124
Mid-Term Exam (7) .266 .339 .351 .412 .374
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) -....- .541 .288. .331 .305
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) .327 .434 .268 .204 .239

Final Exam -- Total (10) .290 .557 .317 .307 .313 8
High Expectation 1 (11) ---- "no .174 .152 .165
High Expectation 2 (12) -..-- .561 .312 .382 .339
High Expectation 3 (13) -.230 .--- .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation l (14) -.245 .294 .213 .177 .199
Actual Expectation . 2 (15) ---- .527 .306 .402 .342
. Actual Expectation 3 (16) ..--_- .631 .325; .240 ~ -279
Low Expectation 1 (17) -.246 ---- .154 .207 .174
Lou Expectation 2 (18) ..--- .609 .276 .356 .308
Low Expectation 3 (19) ---- .530 .274 - .188 .235
ASpiration-Expectation 1 ’ (20) -.426 .269 .161 .194 .174

ASpiration-Expectation 2 (21) ---- .551 .337 ' .936 .303 .
ASpiration-Expectation 3 (22) ....-- .708 .431 .. .345’ -. .235
Univ. Grade-Point Average #(23) ..-..- .536 .355 .337 .382
Ealifying Test -- Verbal (24) .339 .542 .101 .039 .198
LElalifying Test -- Quantitative (25) ---- .445 .117 .092 A .154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

386
Appendix F-4: (continued)
Instructor Total Total
AM PM AM w PM Total.”
Qualifying Test -- Total -.....226) ....“- .547 _ .063 .154 .122
Reason for Enrolling (27) -.223 ---- .051 .069 .058
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- ---- .000 .021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) -.331 .656 -.078 .135 —.003
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) .283 -.389 .032 -.038 .032
Learning Set (31) ---- .464 .045 .112 .072
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) ---- -.260 -.067 -.145 '-.098
Test Anxiety -- Pie-Test (33) :1-- ---- .004 -.025 -.014
Test.Anxiety -- Mid-Term‘ LP (34) ---- -.263 -.055 -.118 -.080
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) .349 ---- -.090 -.061 -.078
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) -.210 -.230 -.022 -.049 -.031
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- .238 .022 -.097 -.026
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- ---- -.004 -.081 -.0_35'
Commitment to Enter Prof. 1 (39) ---- .208 ...009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. 2 (40) "" .206 -.047 .042 -.011
Commitment to Enter Prof. 3 (41) "" .219 -.001 -.122 ' -.052
Suitability for Teaching 1 (42) -.257 ---- ..010 .094 .034
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43) ---- "" -.028 “.043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching 3 (44) ---- "" -.062 -.145 ~.057
Importance of Theory 1 (4S) ---- ---- .015 ;.035 -.005‘
Importance of Theory 2 (46) ~--- ---- -.053 “.143 -.089
Importance of Theory 3 (47) "" ---- -.072 “.079 -.074
Course as Preparation 1 (48) -.367 ---- .041 .027 .036 ‘
Course as Preparation 2 (49) -.205 ---- .028 «.043 -.001
Course as Preparation 3. (50) ---- ---- -.086 -.066 -.077

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F- 5:

387

Correlations of all Student Variables with
Instructor Grade for Instructor 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total .
.AM PM AM.fiV PM Total
Course Grade (1) .416 .671 .628 .668 .644
meanness (2) ---- .403- .332 .427 .371
Final Exam Grade (3) ---- .428 .278 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) .518 .605 .610 .545 .585
Pre-Test (6) .297 .401 .137 .108 .124
Mid-Term Exam (7) ---- .458 .351 .412 ‘V.374
Final Exam -~ Recall Items (8) .322 .313 .2884— .331 .305w
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) ---- .485 .268 .204 .239
Final Exam -- Total (10) .280 .500 .317 .307 .313 -
High Expectation (11) .251 ~--- .174 .152 ..165
High Expectation (12) .293 ..359 .312 .382 .339 ~
High Expectation (13) ---- ---- .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation (14) .463 ---- .213 .177 .199
Actual Expectation (15) .342 .237 .306 .402 .342
Actual Expectation (16) ---, ---- ..323 .240 .279
Low Expectation (17) .385 ---- .154 .207 .174
LLow‘Expectation (18) .309 ~--- .276 .356 .303
Low Expectation (19) .200 ---- .274 .188 r“ 235
Aspiration-Expectation (20) .333 ---- .161 .194 .174
Aspiration-Expectation (21) .453 .244 .337 .436 .308
ASpiration-Expcctation (22) .362 .204 .431 .545 .235
Univ. Grade—Point Average (23) .572 .239 .355 .337 .382—7.
_Qpalifying Test ~- Verbal (24) ---- .228 .101 .039 .198
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) ---- ---- .117! .092 .154

 

 

 

 

388

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F-S: (continued)
Instructor Total Total .
__ ._-- ‘ ~w AM PM All”...- PM ‘ Total
‘Qualifyinngest -~ Totaliv (26) ~--- .248 .063 .154 , .122
Reason for Enrolling (27) "" .388 .051 .069 .058
Pre-Course Attitude (28) "" .377 .000 .021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) «-.303 .347 -.078 .135 ~.003
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) ---- ---- .082 -.038 .032
Learning Set (31) ---- .203 .045 .112 .072
A—H Test Anxiety Scale (32) ---- ---- -.067 -.l45 -.098
(Test.Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) ---- ---- .004 -.025 -.014
Test.Anxiety -- Mid-Term' (34) ---- ---- -.055 -.118 -.080
Test.Anxiety -- Final (35) ---- ---' -.090 -.061 -.078
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) -.235 ---- -.022 -.049 -.031
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- ---- .022 -.097 -.026
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- "" -.004 “.031 ".035
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- "" -.009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- -.357 ~.047 .042 -.011
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- -.301 -.001 -.122 -.052
Suitability for Teaching (42) .332 -.274 -.010 .094 .034
suitability for Teaching (43) .287 -.447 -.028 -.043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching (44) .225 -.333 -.062 “.145 -.057.
Importance of Theory (45) ---- ---- .015 :.035 -.005
Importance of Theory (46) "" ---- -.053 -.143 -.089
Importance of Theory (47) .308 -.338 -.072 “.079 -.074
_Cpurse as Preparation (48) ---- -.236 .041 .027 .036 .‘
[COurse as Preparation (49) ---- ---- .028 -.043 —.001
LSpursc as Preparation (50) .229 -.357 -.086' -.066 -.077

 

 

 

 

Appendix F-6:

389

Correlations of all Student Variables

with Instructor Grade for Instructor 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total

AM PM AM PM Total
Course Grade (1) .505 .592 .628 .668 .644
Mid-Term Grade (2) -..-- .405. .332 .427 .371
Final Exam Grade (3) .251 ---- .278 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) .687 .731 .510 .545 .585
Pre-Test (6) .274 ~--- .137 .108 .124
Mid-Term Exam (7) ---- .387 .351 .412 .374
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) .211 ---- .288 .331 .305
Final Exam ~~ Applied Items (9) .375 ---- .268 .204 .239
Final Exam -- Total (10) .340 ---- .317 .307 .313 8
High Expectation l (11) ---- ---- .174 .152 .165
High Expectation 2 (12) ---- .483 .312' ..382 .339
High Expectation 3 (13) ---- .401 .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation l (14) ---- ---- .213 .177 .199
Actual Expectation _ 2 (15) .323 .425 .306 .402 .342
Actual Expectation 3 (16) .297 .714 .323 .240 ,.279
Low Expectation 1 (17) ---- .238 .154 .207 .174
Low Expectation 2 (18) ---- .453 .276 .356 .308
Low Expectation . 3 (19) .383 .612 .274 .188 .235.
Aspiration-Expectation 1 (20) ---- ---- .161 .194 '.174~h
AspirationéExpectation 2 (21) .289 .522 .337 .435 .308
Aspiration-Expectation 3 (22)_ ---- .830 .431 .545 .235
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) .356 .265 .355 .337 .382
Qualifying Test -- Verbal ‘F‘ (24) .281 -.269 _.101 .039 .198
Qualifying Test -- Quantitatile (25) ---- ---- .117 .092 .154

 

\

 

 

390

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F-6: (continued)
I.
Instructor Total Total

__AM PM -..... $31,... rum. “Total
Era—Titans Test -- Total w(26) ---- ---- .063 .154 .122
R ason‘ for Enrolling (27) .467 ---- .051 .069 .058
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- .451 .000 .021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) -..-.. .515 -.078 .135 -.003
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) ..--.. .596 .082 -.038 .032
LearningISet (31) ---- ---- . 045 . 112 . 072
A~H Test Anxiety Scale (32) A ---- ---- -.067 -.145 «.098
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test w(373“) ---- ---- .004 -.025 -.014
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term ‘ (34) ..--- ---- -.055 -.118 5080*—
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) ---- ---- -.090 -.061 -.078
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) --.-- .280 -.022 -.049 -.031
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- ---- .022 -.097 -.026
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) -.379 -.389 -.004 -.031 -.035
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- -.379 -.009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- -“' -.047 .042 -.011
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- -.379 «.001w “.122 ~.052
Suitability for Teaching (42) .244 -.257 -.010 .094 .034
suitability for Teaching (43) ---- -..-- -.028 -.043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching (44) ---- 1.287 “.1062 -.'145 -.057 7
Importance of Theory (45) -.410 -.255 .015 ;.035 -.005
Importance of Theory (46) ---- -.249 -.053 iii-.1453 -.089 .
Importance of Theory (47) ---- -.313 -.072 -.079 -.‘074
Course as Preparation (48) ..--- ..--- .041 .027 .036
'Course as Preparation (49) .305 -.579 . .028 -.043 -.001
Course 'as Preparation (50) ---- ...265 -.086 -.066 -.077

 

 

Appendix F- 7:

391

Correlations of all Student Variables

with Instructor Grade for Instructor 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total .

AM PM AM PM Total
Course Grade (1) .773 .830 .628 .668 .644
Mid-Term Grade (2) .595 .729- .332 .427 .371
Final Exam Grade (3) .617 .599 .273 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) .620 .668 .610 .545 .585
Pre-Test (6) ---- .575 .137 .108 .124
Mid-Term Exam (7) .547 .752 .351 .412 .374
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) .607 .404 .288 .331 .305
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) .531 .498 .268 .204 .239
Final Exam -- Total (10) .679 .211 .317 .307 .313 8
“High Expectation 1 (11) .279 .420 .174 .152 .165
High Expectation 2 (12) s .341 .582 .312 .382 .33;-
High Expectation - 3 (13) .534 .406 .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation l (14) .523 .516 .213 .177 .199
Actual Expectation . 2 (15) .447 .554- .306 .402 .342
actual Expectation 3 (16) .570 .216 .323 .240 .279
Low Expectation 1 (17) .350 .330 .154 .207 .174
Low Expectation 2 (18) .441 .424 .276 .356 .308
IprExpectation 3 (19) .609 ---- .274 .188 .235
AspirationmExpectation l (20) .269 .505 .161 .194 .174
ASpiration-Expectation 2 (21) .553 .526 .337 .436 ..308
ASpiration-Expectation 3 (22) .780 .443 .431 .545 .235
Univ. Grade-Point Average ##(23) .355 .552 .355 .337 .382 ’~
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) ---- .596 .101 .039 .198
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) ---- .738 .117 .092 .154

 

 

 

392

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F-7: (continued)
Instructor Total Total

_‘ .. Aim PEI...» AM w PMw _ Total
Qualifying Test -- Total —‘—(26) ---- .722 .063 y .154 ' .122
Reason for Enrolling (27) man ---- .051 .069 .058
Pre-Course Attitude (28) .322 “'- .000 .021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) -..-- ---- -.078 .135 -.003
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) .241 -.253 .082 ~.038 .032
Learning Set (31) ---- i'“ .045 .112 .072
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) ---- -.200 -.067 -.145 '-.098
Test Anxiety -- P're-Test (33) ---- ---- .004 -.025 -.014
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term' (34) ---- ---- -.055 --.118 -.080
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) ---- -.217 -.090 -.061 -.078
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ---- ---- -.022 -.049 -.031
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- -.255 .022 -.097 ~.026
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) -.225 -.384 ~.004 -.081 -.035
Commitment to Enter Prof. 1 (39) ---- ---- -.009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. 2 (40) ..--.. ---- -.047 .042 -.011
Commitment to Enter Prof. 3 (41) -.217 -.421 -.001 -.122 ' «.052
Suitability for Teaching 1 (42) ---- .391 -.010 .094 .034
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43) ---- .214 -.028 -.043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching 3 (44; ~--- ---' :.062 ”.145~ -.057
Importance of Theory 1 (45) -.331 ---- .015 . :.035 500;
Importance‘of Theory 2 (46) ---- ---- -.053 -.143 -.089
Importance of Theory 3 (47) mum "" -.072 “.079 -.074
Course as Preparation 1 (48) ---- ---- .041 .027 .036
Course as Preparation 2 (49) ---- ---- .028 -.043 -.001
Course as Preparation _. 4 3T (50) ---- ---- -.086 -.066 ' -.077

 

L".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.I‘II _.okv

. ..l a
. a . _
r .
V J
.
u 0

_ .

.

. ,

a .

h

.

~
1 i \ lii-‘l l -qulu‘ on...
.n
I '.I
a - i 1 a 1! s. .
1 - .z . . . , -.....
.. ... - z - .i1.1.. .....r
I .. .. .

. pill 11 A [fit

 

 

Appendix F- 8:

393

Correlations of all Student Variables

with Instructor Grade for Instructor 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total .

AM PM AM PM Total
C urse Grade (1) ---- .412 .628 .668 .644
Mid-Term Grade (2) -.241 .550- .332 .427 .371
Final Exam Grade (3) ---- .287 .278 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) **** **** .610 .545 .585
Pre-Test (6) ---- -.285 .137 .108 .124
Mid-Term Exam (7) ~--- .631 .351 .412 .374
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) ---- .393 .288 .331 .305
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) ---- .252 .268 .204 .239
Final Exam -- Total (10) ---- .344 .317 .307 .313
High Expectation ‘ 1 (11) ---- ---- .174 .152 .165
High Expectation 2 (12) ---- .304. .312 .382 .339
High Expectation 3 (13) .689 .692 .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation 1 (14) ~--- ---- .213 .177 .199
Actual Expectation , 2 (15) ---- .409 .306 .402 .342
Actual Expectation 3 ' (16) .659 .710 .323A .240 .279
Low‘Expectation 1 (l7) ---- ---- .154 .207 .174
Low Expectation 2 (18) ---- .381 .276 .356 .308
Low Expectation , 3 (19) .454. .535 .274 .188 .235
Aspiration-Expectation 1 (20) ---- ---- .161 . .194 .174
ASpiration-Expectation 2 (21) -~-- .367 .337 ...435): .308
ASpiration-Expectation 3 (22) .748 .538 .431 .543 .235
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) ---- ---- .355 .337. .382
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) ---- "" .101_ .039 .193
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) "" “" .117! .092 .154

 

**** Course Project Rankings unavailable.

 

' 394'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F-8: (continued)
Instructor Total Total

_ AM Prim . AM T M331“ .. Total
‘Qualifying Test -- Total (26) ---- "" .063 .154 .122 '
Reason for Enrolling (27) .222 ---- ‘.051 .069 .058
Pre-Course Attitude (28) .435 -.328 .000 .021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) .453 .615 -.078 .135 -.003
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) .473 ---- .082 -.038 .032
Learning Set (31) ---- ---- .045 .112 .072
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) A ---- -.311 -.067 -.l45 ‘-.098
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test 8 (33) ---- ---- .004 -.025 -.014
Test Anxiety ~-‘Mid-Term' (34) ---- ---- -.055 -.118 -.080
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) ---- -.322 I -.090 -.061 ‘ -.078
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ---- ---- -.022 -.049 -.031
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- -.208 .022 -.097 -.026
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- "“;--- ~.004 ~.081 ~.035
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) .323 ---- -.009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- .203 -.047 .042 -.011
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) -.205 ---- -.001 ~.122 -.052
'Suitability for Teaching (42) .222 ---- -.010 .094 7:034
.Suitability for Teaching (43) ---- .243 -.028 ~.043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching (44) ---- ---- 7:1062 -.145 -.057.
Importance of Theory (45) -.272 ---- .015 :.035 -.005
Importance of Theory (46) -.325 "" -.053 -.143 ~.089
Importance of Theory (47) -.248 "" -.072 “.079' -.074
Course as Preparation (48) ---- .376 .041 .027 .036
Course as Preparation A (49) -.429 ---- .028 . -.043 -.001
Course as Preparation (50) ---- ---' -.086i -.066 -.077

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F- 9:

396

Correlations of all Student Variables

with Instructor Grade for Instructor 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total .

AM PM AM PM Total
Course Grade (1) .580 .685 .628 .668 .644
Mid-Term Grade (2) ---- .210 .332 .427 .371
Final Exam Grade (3) ---- ---- .278 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) .717 .412 -610 ..545 .585
Pre-Test (6) ---- ‘---- .137 .108 .124
Mid-Term'Exam (7) ---- .213 .351 .412 .374
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) .206 .358 .288 .331 .305
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) ---- .232 .268 .204 .239
Final Exam -- Total (10) --- .313 .317 .307 .313 8
High Expectation 1 (11) .297 ---- .174 .152 .165
High Expectation 2 (12) .345 .422 .312 .382 .339
High Expectation 3 (13) .323 ---- .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation l (14) .384 .244 .213 .177 .199
Actual Expectation . 2 (15) .440 .547 .306 .402 .342.
Actual Expectation 3 (16) .465 i .297 .323 .240 ' .279
Low Expectation 1 (17) ---- ---- .154. .207 .174
Low Expectation 2 (18) .484 ---- .276 .356 .308
Low Expectation 3 (19) .399 ---- . .274 .188 .235
ASpiration-Expectation l (20) .255 ---- .161 V .194 .174
Aspirationstxpectation 2 (21)J .425 .365 .337. .436 .308 .
ASpiration-Expectation 3 (22) .634 .709 :431 .545 .235
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) .281 ---- .355 .337 .382
Qualifying Test -- Verbal w (24) ---- '374 .101 .039 .198
Qualifying Test -- Quantitatile (25) ---- .460 .117 .092 .154

 

1

 

' 396

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F-9: (continued)

Instructor Total Total

AM PM ...... AM PM ... Total .
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) ~:--- .592 .063 .154 .122
Fiason for Enrolling (27) ---- -.286 .051 .069 .058
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- -.226 .000 .021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) -.233 um -.078 .135 -.003#'
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) -.314 .400 .082 -.038 .032
Learning Set (31) ---- ---- .045 .112 .072 '
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) A an nu . -.067 -.145 -.098
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) -;-- ---- .004 -.025 -.014
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term ' (34) ---- -.206 -.055 -.118 -.08(;—
Test Anxiety -- Final w (35) -.264 ---- -.090 -.061 -.078
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ---- -.231 -.022 -.049 -.031
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- -.282 .022 -.097 -.026
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) .311 .377 -.004 ~.081 -.035
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- -.267 -.009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- ---- ...047 .042 -.011
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- .247 -.0017 -.122 -.052
Suitability for Teaching (42) ---- ---- -.010 .094 .034
Suitability for Teaching (43) ---- -.251 ...028 -.043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching (44) ---- :.215 -.062 -'.145 «.057 .
Importance of Theory (45) ---- ---- .015 :035 -.005
Importance of Theory (46) ---- -.301 -.053 “”143... -.089
Importance of Theory (47) -.204 ---- -.072 «079‘ -.074
Course as Preparation (48) ---- ---- .041 .0277 .036
Course as Preparation (49) .212 ---- . .028 ~.043 -.001
Course as Preparation (50) -.250 -.219 -.086 -.066 -.077

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

397

Appendix F-10: Correlations of all Student Variables
' with Instructor Grade for Instructor 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total .
AM PM AM PM Total
Course Grade (1) .597 .750 .628 .668 .644
Mid-Term Grade (2) .521 .202- .332 .427 .371
Final Exam Grade (3) .323 .468 .278 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) .710 .464 .610 .545 .585
Pre-Test (6) .515 ---- .137 .108 .124
Mid-Term Exam (7) .402 .295 .351 .412 .374
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) .309 .612 .288 .331 .305
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) ---- ---- .268 .204 .239
Final Exam -- Total N (10) .282 .469 .317 .307 .313
High Expectation 1 (11) ---- .332 .174 .152 .165
High Expectation 2 (12) .477 .237 .312 .382 .339
High Expectation 3 (13) e--- .218 .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation 1 (14) ---- .406 ‘ .213 .177 .199
Actual Expectation . 2 (15) .561 .483 .306 .402 '.342
Actual Expectation 3 (16) .475 ---- .323 .240 .279
Low Expectation ' 1 (17) ---- .448 .154 .207 .174
Low Expectation 2 (18) ---- .389 .276 .356 .308
Low Expectation 3 (19) .375 ---- .274 . 188 .235
.' ASpiration-Expectation 1 (20) ---- .568 .161 .194 .174
Aspiration-Expectation 2 (21) .303 .576 .337 .435 .308
ASpiration-Expectation 3 (22) .571 .513 .431 .545 .235
Univ. Grade-Point Average _fi(23) ---- .663 .355 .337 .332 i‘
_Qfalifying Test -- Verbal (24) -.396 .219 _ .101 .039 .198
LBEaIIfying Test -~ Quantitative (25) ---- -.208 .117 .092 .154

 

.595

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F- 10: (continued)
Instructor Total Total
AM F PM AM _ PM __T°Ef-‘1.-
‘Qualifying Test -- Total (263”:i203 ---- .063 .154 .122
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- a--- .051 .069 .058
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- .210 .000 .021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) ---- .270 -.078 .135 ~.003 ..
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) ---- ---- .082 -.038 .032
Learning Set (31) ~--- ---- .045 .112 .072
AeH Test Anxiety Scale (32) ---- -.292 -.067 -.l45 '-.098
Test.Anxiety ~- Pre—Test ((33) -:1- ---- .004 -.025 -.014
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term' (34) ---- -.241 ~.055 -.118 -.080
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) -.227 ---- -.090 -.061 -.078
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ---- "" -.022 “'049 '°°3{_
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ---- .256 .022 -.097 -.026
Eysenck Lie Scale (38)P;--- ---- -.004 -.081 -.035
Commitment to Enter Prof. 1 (39) ---- ---- -.009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. 2 (40) ---- ---- -.047 .042 -.Oll
Commitment to Enter Prof. 3 (41) ---- ---- -.001 -.122 «.052mfl
Suitability for Teaching 1 (42) ---- ---- -.010 .094 7.034
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43) ---- ---- -.028 -.043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching 3. (44) ---- ---- 4:062 -.145 ~.0573
Importance of Theory 1 (45) .270 ---- I .015 ~.035 -.005
Importance of Theory 2 (46) -.431 ---- -.053. -.143 -.089
Importance of Theory 3 (47) ---- ---- -.072 -.079 -.074
Course as Preparation 1 (48) ---- ---- .041 .027 .036
Course as Preparation 2 (49) -.368 -.270 .028 -.043 -.001
LCourse as Preparation ,. 4. 3% (50) ---- -.246 -.086 -.066 -.077

 

 

399

Appendix F-ll: Correlations of all Student Variables
with Instructor Grade for Instructor ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total
AM PM AM PM To t a l
C >urse Grade (1) .767 .605 .628 .668 .644
Mid-Term Grade (2) .563 .706 .332 .427 .371
Final Exam Grade (3) .500 .254 .278 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) .645 .363 -610 .545 .585
Pre-Test (6) ---- -.366 .137 .108 .124
Mid-Term Exam (7) .559 .601 .351 .412 .374
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) .453 .349 .288 .331 .305
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) .526 ..--- .268 .204 .239
Final Exam -- Total (10) .537 .283 .317 .307 .313
High Expectation l (11) .406 -.262 .174 .152 .165
High Expectation 2 (12) .406 .693 .312 .382 .339
High Expectation 3 (13) ---- ---- .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation 1 (14) .223 ---- .213 .177 .199
Actual Expectation . 2 (15) .519 .693 .306 .402 .342
Actual Expectation 3 ' (16) -.438 ---- .323 .240 ..279
Low Expectation 1 (17) ---- ---- .154 .207 .174
Low Expectation 2 (18) .489 .714 .276 .356 .308
Low Expectation 3 (19; ---- .674 .274 .188 .235
Aspiration-Expectation 1 (20) .367 .222 .161 .194 .174H
ASpiration-Expectation 2 (21) .499 .637 .337 .436“... .308
.ASpiration-Expec ta tion 3 (22) ---- '. 736 i431 .545 . 235
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) .403 .528 .355 .337 .382
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) ---- ---- .101 . .039 .198
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) ~--- -.237 .117: .092 .154

 

 

 

3

400

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Fr-‘ll: (continued)
Instructor Total Total
_ AM PM____ AM _ PM" _ wTotaL
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) ---- -.383 1.063 V .154 .122
Reason for Enrolling (27) ..--- ---- .051 .069 .058
Pre-Course Attitude (28) -..-- .301 .000 .021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) ---- ---- -.O78 .135 -.003w'
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) -.282 ---- .082 -.038 .032
Learning Set (31) ---- ---- .045 .112 .072
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) ---- ---- -.067 -.145 ‘:.098
Test Anxiety -- Pro-Test (33) -:-- ---- .004 -.025 -.014
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term ' (34) -.501 ---- ...055 -.113 -.030
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) ---- ""- -.090 -.061 -.078
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) .285 ---- -.022 -.049 -.031
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) .228 ---- .022 -.097 -.026
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- ---- -.004 -.081 -.035
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- -.255 -.009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) .221 -.209 ...047 .042 ...011
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- ---- -.001 -.122 -.052
Suitability for Teaching (42) .317 ---- -.010 .094 .034
Suitability for Teaching (43) .228 ---- -.028 -.043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching (4—43 ---- ---- -.062 -.145 ~.057
Importance of Theory (45) ---- -.417 .015 :035 -.005
Importance of Theory (46) -.208 -.485 -.053 -.143 -.089
Importance of Theory (47) -.303 -.201 -.072 -.079 ...072.
Course as Preparation (48) ---- ---- .041 .027 .036
Course as Preparation (49) -.240 -.420 .028 -.043 -.001
Course as Preparation (50) ---- -.203 -.O86 ' -.066 -.077

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

401

Appendix F-12: Correlations of all Student Variables
with Instructor Grade for Instructor 12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total .
AM PM AM PM Total
Course Grade (1) .629 ---- .628 .668 .644
Mid-Term Grade (2) ---- ----- .332 .427 .371
Final Exam Grade (3) .258 ---- .278 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) .668 .427 .610 .545 .535
Pre-Test (6) ~--- .370 .137 .108 _ .124
Mid-Term Exam (7) ---- ---- .351 .412 .374
Final Exam -- Recall Itemar (8) .413 ---- .288 .331 .305
Final Exam ~~ Applied Items (9) ---- ---- .268 .204 .239
Final Exam -- Total (10) .238 ---- .317 .307 .313
High Expectation 1 (11) .312 .354 .174 .152 .165
‘High Expectation 2 (12) ---- ---- .312 .382 .339
High Expectation 3 (13) .318 .699 - .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation l (14) .235 .389 .213 .177 .199
Actual Expectation . 2 (15) ---- .236 .306 .402 .342
Aetual Expectation 3 (16) .273 ---- .323 .240 .279
Low Expectation l (17) ---- .274. .154 .207 .174
Low Expectation 2 (18) ---- .228 .276 .355 .308
Low Expectation 3 (19) .522 .619 .274 .188 .235
Aspiration-Expectation l (20) ---- .408 .l6l—. .194 ‘ .174
AspirationsExpectation 2 (21M ....-- .229 .337 .436 .308
Aspiration-Expectation 3 (22) .326 .818 .431 .545 .235
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) .340 .248 .355 .337. .382
Qualifying Test -~ Verbal u (24) ---- .288 ..101 .039 .198
Qualifying Test -- Quantitatihe (25) ---- .250 .117 .092 .154

 

 

 

 

 

 

'v

\

 

 

402

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F-lZ: (continued)
Instructor Total Total

_ - AM A PM AM PM “Total
Qualifying Test :- Total (26) “Z--- .220 .063 .154 .122
F iason for Enrolling (27) .249 ---- .051 .069 .058
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- ---- .000 .021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) nu .236 -.078 .135 -.003
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) .267 ..--- .082 -.038 .032
Learning Set (31) .299 ---- .045 .112 .072 I
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) ---- -.307 -.067 -.145 '-.098
Test Anxiety -- Pie-Test (33) --.... ..--- .004 -.025 -.014
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term ' (34) -..-- .272 -.055 -.118 -.080
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) ---- .362 -.090 -.061 -.078
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) -.256 .391 -.022 -.049 -.031
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) -..-- ---- .022 -.097 -.026
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) .221 -.543 ~.004 -.081 -.035
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) an ---- -.009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- -.229 -.047 .042 -.011
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- ---- -.001‘ -.122 -.052
Suitability for Teaching (42) -.210 -.219 -.010 .094 .034-
Suitability for Teaching (43) ---- -.237 -.028 -.043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching (44) -.304. -.484 -.O62 «145 -.os7 .
Importance of Theory (45) ---- ....-- .015 ;.035 -.005
Importance of Theory (46) -.341 -.220 -.053 “‘51336. -.089
Importance of Theory (47) ---- ---- -.072 ....037‘9' -.074
Course as Preparation (48) .228 ---- .041 .027 .036
Course as Preparation (49) man .432 . .028 -.043 -.001
Course as Preparation (50) -.236 -.467 -.086 -.O66 -.077 If

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ ”A

,1 - ’, ' ._.

403
Correlations of all Student Variables
with Instructor Gradc for Instructor 13

Appendix F- 1 3:

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total
A w_ _.AM PM AM PM Total
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) --.... ....-- .063 .154 .122
Reason for Enrolling (27) .219 ---- .051 .069 .058
Pre-Course Attitude (28) ---- ---- .000 .021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) .202 ---- '-.078 .135 «.003
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) .407 -.318 .082 -.038 .032
Learning Set (31) ---- .310 .045 .112 .072
AeH.Test Anxiety Scale (32) ---- ---- -.067 -.145 '-.098
Test Anxiety -- PreuTest (33) ..--.. -..-.. .004 ...025 -.014
Test Anxiety ~- Mid-Term' (34) ---- -.357 -.055 -.118 -.080fi—
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) -....- -.363 ‘ -.090 -.061 -.O78
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) -.417 -.228 -.022 -.049 -.031
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) .289 ---- .022 -.097 ".026
Eysenck Lie scale (38) ---- ---- -.004 '-.081 -.035
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- ---- -.009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- ---- -.047 .042 -.011
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) .235 '“"' -.001 “.122 4 -.052
Suitability for Teaching (42) ---- ---- -.010 .094 .034
Suitability for Teaching (43) ---- ---- —.028 “.043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching (44) ---- ---- -.062 “.145 ~.057
Importance of Theory (45) .216 ---- .015 :.035 -.005
Importance of Theory (46) ---- -.387 -.053 -.143 -.089
Importance of Theory (47) ---- ---- -.072 -.079 ~.074
Course as Preparation (48) ---- .325 .041 .027 .036
Course as Preparation (49) -.201 ~--- .028 -.043 -.001
Course as Preparation (50) ---- ---- -.086 -.O66 -.077

 

 

 

404

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F-13: (continued)
Instructor Total Total .
AM PM AM PM Total
Course Grade (1) .579 ‘.805 .628 .668 .644
Mid-Term Grade (2) ---- .521- .332 .427 .371
Final Exam Grade (3) .289 .430 .278 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) .727 .790 .610 .545 .585
Pro-Test (6) ---- .220 .137 .108 p .124
Mid~Term Exam (7) .309 .433 .351 .412 .374
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) .265 .405 .288”‘ .331 .305 9
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) .330 .299 .268 .204 .239
Final Exam -- Total N (10) .335 .386 .317 .307 .313
High Expectation l (11) ---- ---- .174 .152 .165
High Expectation 2 (12) ---- .238 .312 .382 .339
High Expectation 3 . (13) ---- .253 .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation l (14) ---- .202 .213 .177 .199
Actual Expectation 2 (15) ---- .303 .306 .402 .342
Actual Expectation 3 (16) ---e ---- .323 .240 ' .279
Low Expectation 1 (l7) ---- ---- .154 .207 .174
Low Expectation 2 (18) ---- ---- .276 .356 .308
Low Expectation 3 (19) .237 .321 .274 .188 -.235
E ASpiration-Expectation l (20) ---- ---- .161. .194 .174
A3piration—Expectation 2 (21) ---- .313 .337 .436 .308
A6pirationnExpectation 3 (22) .260 .562 .431 .545 .235
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) .393 .356 .355 .337 .382
_QpalifyingTest -- Verbal A (24) ---- "" .101 .039 .193
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) .254 "“ .117 .092 .154

 

VI

 

 

 

 

405

Appendix F-14: Correlations of all Student Variables
with Instructor Grade for Instructor l4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total

AM PM AM PM Total
Course Grade (1) .655 .670 .628 .668 .644

Mid-Term Grade (2) ---- .481- .332 .427 .371 .
Final Exam Grade (3) ---- .200 .278 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) .605 .737 .610 .545 .585
Pro-Test (6) ---- -.395 .137 .108 .124
Mid-Term Exam (7) .274 .471 .351 .412 .374
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) ---- ....-- .288 .331 .305
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) ---- .291 .268 .204 .239

Final Exam -- Total P (10) ---- .224 .317 .307 .313 3
High Expectation 1 (11) .358 .461 .174 .152 .165
High Expectation 2 (12) .569 .547 .312 .382 .339
High Expectation 3 (13) .668 .611 .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation l (14) .526 .485 .213 .177 .199
Actual Expectation . 2 (15) .645 .483 .306 .402 .342
Actual Expectation 3 ' (16) .625 .461 .3231 .240 .279
Low Expectation l (17) .408 .382 .154 .207 .174
_ Low Expectation 2 (18) .423 .431 .276 .356 .308
Low Expectation 3 (19) .661 . .424 .274 ‘ .188 .235
ASpiration-Expectation 1 ((20) .363 .571 .161 .194 .174
ASpiration-Expectation 2' ' (21) .532 .595 .337 “ .436‘.‘ .308
ASpirationuExpectation 3 (22) .734 .449 .431 .545 i .235
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) .335 .371 .355 .337 .382
Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) man .220 .101 . .039 ~.198
Qualifying Test .— .Quantitative (25) ---- -.275 .117" .092 .154

 

 

 

 

..yl|.l.,‘i‘“l- ‘iil‘il i‘llu 0‘ .9 o.“

‘ -|’ ..l. i r, .VI-7|'01|'ll ‘1‘ " i’ll

 

Appendix F- 14: (continued)

406

 

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total
-..- AM _ PM _ AMT: PM Total_
Qualifying Test -- Total (265' ¥--- ---- .063 .154 .122
Reason for Enrolling (27) AA---- .243 .051 .069 .058
Pre~Course Attitude (28) -5345 .296 .000 .021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) ---- .248 -.078' .135 -.003
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) .464 ---- .082 -.038 .032
Learning Set (31) ..--- ---- .045 .112 .072
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) ---- -.252 -.067 -.145 -.098
Test.Anxiety -- Pre-Test (333 ---- ---- .004 -.025 -.014
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term' (34) ---- -..-- -.055 -.118 «.086w
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) ---- ---- -.090 -.061 -.078
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) .336 .206 -.022 -.049 -.031
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) ~--- -.516 .022 -.097 -.026
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- ---- -.004 -.081 -.035
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- ---- -.009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) ---- ---- -.047 .042 -.011
Agommitment to Enter Prof. (41) ---- -.330 -.001 -.122 '-.052
Suitability for Teaching (42) ---- _.240 -.o1Q .094 .034
Suitability for Teaching (43) ---- -.518 -.028 “.043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching (44) -.314 ---- ::062 “.145 -.057
Importance of Theory (45) ---- ---- .015 —:.035 «.005
Importance of Theory (46) "" ---- -.053 -.143 -.089
Importance of Theory (47) "" -‘-- -.072 -.079 -.074
Course as Preparation (48) .343 -.270 .041 .027 .036
Course as Preparation (49) .252 -.359 .028 -.043 -.001
Course as Preparation (50) -.423* -.321 -.086' -.066 -.077

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

407

Appendix F-15: Correlations of all Student Variables
' with Instructor Grade for Instructor 15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total r
AM PM AM PM Total
Course Grade (1) .604 .287 .628 .668 .644
Mid-Term Grade (2) .429 ----- .332 .427 .371
Final Exam Grade (3) ---- ---- .278 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) .494 .381 .610 .545 .585
Pre-Test (6) ---- .216 .137 .108 .124
Mid-Term Exam (7) .432 ~--- .351 .412 .374
Final Exam+-- Recall Items (8) ---- ---- .288 .331 .305
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) .346 ---- .268 .204 .239
Final Exam -- Total (10) .221 ---- .317 .307 .313
High Expectation 1 (11) ---- ---- .174 .152 .165
High Expectation 2 (12) .274 ---- .312 .382 .339
High Expectation 3 (13) .401 ---- .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation 1 (14) .312 ---- .213 .177 .199
Actual Expectation . 2 (15) .251 ---- .305 .402 .342
Actual Expectation 3 (l6) ---9 -.308 .323 .240 ..279
LowiExpectation 1 (17) .247 .491 .154 .207 .174
Low Expectation 2 (18) ---- .278 .276 .356 .308
Low Expectation 3 (19) .374 -.403 .274 .188 .235
Aspiratioanxpectation 1 (20) .303 ---- .161 .194 .174
ASpirationaExpectation 2 (21) » .223 .216 .337 .436 .308
ASpiration-Expectation 3 (22) .330 -.299 .431 .545 .235
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) .353 ---- .355 .337 .382
Qualifying Test -- Verbal M (24) .324 -.214 _ .101 .039 .1198
Qualifying Test -- Quantifatide (25) .214 ---- .117 .092 .154

 

\

1,

 

 

408

Appendix F- l 5: (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total

‘ AM .. PMA—W__A_M___ PM" Total
Qualifying Test -- Total (265 .331 ---- .063 .154 .122
R-ason for Enrolling (27) ---- -.218 .051 ,069 .058
Pre-Course Attitude (28) -.217 ---- .000 .021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) ---- ---- -.078 .135 -.093
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) -.590 .208 .082 -.038 .032
Learning Set (31) .251 ---- .045 .112 .072
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) -.294 -.292 -.067 -.145 ‘-.098
Test Anxiety -- Pie-Test (33) o:-- ---- .004 -.025 -.014
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term' (34) ---- -.323 -.055 -.118 -.080
Test Anxiety -~ Final (35) .-.244 ---- -.090 -.061 -.078
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ---- -.215 -.022 -.049 -.031
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) -.202 *---- .022 ~.097 ~.026
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- .239 -.004 -.081 -.035
Commitment to Enter Prof. (39) ---- .263 ' -.009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. (40) -.278 .500 -.047 .042 ...011
Commitment to Enter Prof. (41) .280 ..--- ”001* -.122 -,052
Suitability for Teaching (42) -.354 ---- -.010 .094 V.o34
Suitability for Teaching (43) -.386 .201 -.028 -.043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching (44) -.305 ---- -.062 «145 -.057
Importance of Theory (45) ---- ---- .015 -.035 -.005
Importance of Theory (46) .442 "" “.053 '4.143?. -.089
Importance of Theory (47) .251 "" -.072 -;079 . -.074
Course as Preparation (48) ---- ---- .041 .027' .036
Course as Preparation AA (49) .560 ---- ..028 -.043 -.001
Course as Preparation” (50) -.529 .213 -.086 -.066 -.077

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

409

Appendix F- 16: Correlations of all Student Variables
with Instructor Grade for Instructor 16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instructor Total Total c
AM PM AM PM Total
Course Grade (1) .540 .745 .628 .668 .644
Mid-Term Grade (2) .507 .503- .332 .427 .371
Final Exam Grade (3) .378 .413 .278 .304 .289
Course Project Rank (5) .496 .859 ~610 .545 .585
Pre-Test (6) ---- .252 .137 .108 '.124
Mid-Term Exam (7) .523 .520 .351 .412 .374
Final Exam -- Recall Items (8) .255 .516 .288 .331 .305
Final Exam -- Applied Items (9) .292 .366 .268 .204 .239
Final Exam -- Total (10) .333 .469 ' .317 .307 .313
High Expectation 1 (11) .364 ---- .174 .152 .165
High Expectation 2 (12) .398 ---- .312 .382 .339
High Expectation 3 g (13) .557 .612 .259 .333 .285
Actual Expectation 1 (14) .324 ---- .213 .177 .199
Actual Expectation 2 (15) .509 .392 .306 .402 .342
Actual Expectation 3 (16) .511 .616 .323 .240 ' ..279
Low Expectation 1 (17) .323 ---- .154 .207 .174
Low Expectation 2 (18) .310 ---- .276 .356 .308
Low Expectation 3 (19) .539 .725 .274» .188 .235
Aspiration-Expectation l (20) .422 ---- .161 .194 .174
Aspiration-Expectation 2 (21) .484 .255 .337 .436 .308
ASpiration-Expectation 3 (22) .639 .489 .431 a545 .235
Univ. Grade-Point Average (23) .343 .504 .355 .337 .382
_Qualifying Test -- Verbal (24) ---- .442 .101 .039 .198
Qualifying Test -- Quantitative (25) ---- .497 .117 .092 .154

 

 

__._‘--_

 

 

410

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F-16: (continued)
Instructor Total Total
n .. AM . PM AM PM Total“
Qualifying Test -- Total (26) ~--- .387 .063 .154 .122
Reason for Enrolling (27) ---- ---- .051 .069 .058
Pre~Course Attitude (28) ---- -.573 .000 -.021 .009
Post-Course Attitude (29) ---- ---- -.078 .135 _.003
Attitude Toward Instructor (30) -.493 .413 .082 -'.038 .032
Learning Set (31) .263 .378 .045 .112 .072
A-H Test Anxiety Scale (32) -..-- -.598 -.067 -.l45 -.098
Test Anxiety -- Pre-Test (33) ---- ---- .004 -.025 -.014
Test Anxiety -- Mid-Term' (34) ---- -.434 ...055 ...118 -.080
Test Anxiety -- Final (35) -.239 ---- -.O90 -.061 -.078
Eysenck Extraversion Scale (36) ~--- -.385 -.022 -.049 -.031
Eysenck Neuroticism Scale (37) -.267 -.415 .022 -.097 4.026
Eysenck Lie Scale (38) ---- .209 -.004 -.081 -.035
Commitment to Enter Prof. 1 (39) ---- .335 ...009 .022 .004
Commitment to Enter Prof. 2 (40) ---- -.255 -.047 .042 -.011
Commitment to Enter Prof. '3 (41) ..--- -.281 -,001 -.122 ...052
Suitability for Teaching 1 (42) an .297 ...010 .094 .034
Suitability for Teaching 2 (43) ---- .296 -.023 -.043 -.009
Suitability for Teaching 3 (44) ---- -.326 -.062 -.145 -.057
Importance of Theory 1 (45) ---- .225 .015 :.035 -.005
Importance ‘of Theory 2 (46) ~ .252 """' -.053 -.143 -.089
Importance of Theory 3 (47) ---- -.452 -.072 -.079 -.074
Course as Preparation 1 (48) ---- .230 .041 .027 .036
Course as Preparation 2 (49) .276 ---- .028 -.043 -.001
Course as Preparation . T . 3% (50) ..--- ---- ~.086 " -.066 -.077

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r \

 

APPENDIX G

Cell, Factor, and Total Means and Complex Analysis of
Variance Summaries for Selected Student Variables

411

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hem HH~.mno Hence
“no. . 3m 8am: 3833 $5?
.w..= lulu... V «mm. Nme . coauowuouaw
80. ~36 SNJ 8me 3033qu
.o.: in: n8. m8. 05.3
a m 3m oulusom
0.33. mama—5m conga—S» «0 3932.5
News a can: 3.58 «8.x a :32 E aroma .. one: H2 238
Ema 8H6 Sag. cumin. 236 Ema 2: cu: Hmwmw
ma: 3: 025 Slim 89m ooo.». oama Scum E
Hana H85 HH~.m 8mm mafia coma mama .3: H2
2 2 3 2 NH HH 3 a and.
mnouosuumCH
at: «$5 Sam «3.x Ema mama coca NNN.« Hmwmw
89o awed N36 meta Hana Hana Noun «2.x E
Hahn 3: Ex. 2n." HSJ Hmm.». mac...” 3:” 2a.
m H o m a m N H 9.5
mHOUODHumG_

 

. n11,114'1.2.3n1.u..il u

n H

a trim-3.. 4 17..

1

unovsum newxwowafigw 0233.3, mo 39»

 

 

«can: me 3253

0130 09300
15‘ “33880 can

3.302 .3309 and .uOuonh ..300 u

 

 

 

. M2. .«uililn 1-1141l. ... .l...4.‘,ll !

To “avenger...

 

 

412 . --

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oR $3.23 ~33

wmm. . a8 3%?» 3003:» 55.3

.ué 1...:- onm. 3 30.3 .. :oauoauoufi
Ho. mnm.~ enmJ ma 98.2 nuouosuumcw.
:1: m2: noo.~ H Gog 2.3

a H ouusom
03w“. hug—85m 023:2, mo 36.3.8.5

3mg” u cmmz onusoo mmo.m n and: E omn.m I can: :4 _ 3308
39m Ema onm.m H36 oom.m N36 8: H26 Hmwmw

«and wom.m awed mNo.m , oww.m 00¢.m oom.m omn..m E

936 «mmfi bang” wmm.m new...” How.m owu.m ooo.m Z<
2 2 «H nwuonoononomH HH 3 m on:
Sea Rea 02.x Nana Sam H36 8cm 2: wamw

ooo..» www.mn 95..» cwn.m Sim coed . 0.5;.” #054” E

onfim wmm.m 09in «mud 6.36 5056. main +355 S<
m a a m a m a H can.

mucuosumacu.

 

 

. ovduO Each-32 3355 now momuufigm oonmwumkr
mo nwuxnflddax “335.30 pad 2.302.338 vac .uOuo

once: no 55853

 

.4 .

Ill, !

‘ .ufi

um .28 unto inane?

in!!!“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o; 93.53 H33
wwoé . mnm mnwéoa 30033 55.3
no. .mcx.H me.H mH ou~.x~ c aoHuoauoooH
. .8. . «mafia 304” m... cmmfiq wuouosnumaw
6.: null: «OH. H «cm. 055 .
ml and; 3.58
0.33. Augsm madman—EH mo 36.3”sz
MMN.M chZ UwHDOO — ONNcm (.602 E H¢Ncm Gum: S4 mHmuOH
oma.m axo.N aHH.m meo.m HHo.m mm~.m one.“ oco.m mmwmw
mmm.m max.~ omN.m mma.~ oao.m ooo.m ooH.m ooo.m 2m
cma.m mam.m eao.m aHH.m omc.m Nea.m oom.~ HHH.m z<
EH AH oH mH NH HH 0H a cane
mucousuumcH .
l
mam.m Noe.m om~.m moa.n mHo.m mx~.m mam.m oom.n HMMM%
«ca.n nae.m .mno.m nom.m ROH.m ooH.m nmm.n omm.m an
mHm.n xxa.n mnH.m Haa.m com.“ Hom.m Hmm.n Nca.n z<
w h 0 MHOUODHU ad _.q n N H 36H.

 

evmno Edam Hmfih 333m new coinage—8m 3533’
no awntfimfiw #03500 van. 2832 Hanan. can .u0uomh .200

.

I
.

 

 

2.502 mo mugnm

"To “monomer.

23: $131.41.}; 1!. ll

 

 

414

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8m «morn: . H33
Hmn. . one cem.mno .ouoofinan oHnuHs
. a .o ---: 3m. 3 8H .H ... ooHuoououaH.
Hoo. ~0H.HH man.m aH eon.NHH nnouosuunnH
.o.: 3...: 03.. H SN. 955
a ml nous: m u wanna m we 35m Nola-mom
3an ..nuwaasm 023.33, no 33395.
nmm.m u can: oonooo aom.m a coma 2m amm.m - too: :4 nHmnoH
Hae.m Haa.a omH.m moa.m aHH.m HmH.a omN.m moH.m mmwmw
omo.m omx.~ oaH.m omx.m , mNH.m oo~.a omH.m owarm 2m
«HH.m Hmo.m moH.m moH.e oHH.m mxo.a mam.m amo.m Ea
cH mH oH mwuouoonnnomH HH oH a osHa
uouonuumaw 13 wouuomoucs $3.83 :33ng x.
a----- moc.m Hex.m Nmm.m mxm.m ooH.m mmo.m moe.~ meM%
a----- on.m exw.m «Ne.m onc.m ooo.m aHx.m mom.~ an
a----- ace.m mom.m HNo.m Hom.m new.m -o.m New.~ 2a
m n o mucuosuumch m N H 08.3.

 

 

 

xnmm Hoowonm 09300 gunman new mofiumgm oocdHum>
mo 393.23. «33800 van 3302 H.308 vac .uOuomh .200

name: we Augusm

"To fiance:

 

 

415

 

 

 

 

 

can ooH.xHa.oH Hanou
mom.~.H _ man oudnwa 30035 €333
. .n.a oco.H H. Hem.HH nH . Nex.oc~ ,_ ooHuoanouoH
. 6.: mos?" 93.3 n.— . 9‘ng muouosuumcw
Hoo. nn~.a .. amaaaHH H , ona.aHH oaHo

a w noun v nous: m we saw oousom

  

 

033. inseam cocoa“; mo 38.322

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grimm n com: 03:00 _ nqum a can: 5 03.: I gang 2.... 330m.
oxm.mm ama.H~ ooH.~N Ham.HN mHH.HN mxo.ma aHo.~N Noa.om «Mwm%
exa.eN on.N~ oom.- ooe.o~ , MHm.~N _NNH.NN omc.NN mmm.- an
oHH.N~ Hmm.om ooe.HN mHe.NN aoa.H~ oom.m~ omc.H~ moo.ON za
cH mH oH mH NH HH 0H m oaHH
mucuusuumaH . .

_

I,-.mHm.- o-.- Nao.H~ mmm.- axo.- muo.- aox.- cmo.N~ wwwmw
noH.n~ xHx.- man.- m¢n.- maH.- me.NN onu.- mne.n~ 2a
naH.H~ ncx.H~ mHH.H~ . wa.a~ cmo.- mHm.- ano.mu Hoo.H~ za

m H o m a n N H oaHa
,. . mucuosuumcH

 

 

 

 

. name: we humEEHHm

l . . umoH ounm Hanna—um new moHnmgm ooquHm>
mo 393.23. “33980 was 3302 H.308 was Jon—0mm ..fioD "muU “£5254

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

593m Euofitwflz «condom .Hom 00Hu0§m 00§Hum>
mo 303.05.‘ ”03500 Hon.» 0502 $309 can ..Nopomh .200

can Han.ooo.aH Hnoou
ch.aH . new xnw.onc.NH anouhoan aHruHs
Hoo. mma.m .xam.on nH Hxa.oox ooauoauouoH
. Ho.. cam.N mne.xn mH can.aon nuoooouoooH
.a.o Nno.H xenHmH H xem.mH oaHu
a w oounom
030m. human—Em 00:03.3 mo 0.3.334
th.om fl Cwmz mmHSOU — Omo.om fl £5.02 E Nm.—Noon l Cwmz S< _ MHmuOH
omo.om HHo.aN amm.aN mam.om Haa.Hm mam.om mmo.om omm.wN mmwmw
ooa.aN HHN.mN ooa.om omH.om , nee.Hm mma.aN woe.om mom.om 2m
Hmo.Hm amx.aN oom.mN mem.om mom.Hm oxe.Hm mam.mN NHm.HN 2a
oH AH aH mH NH HH OH m oeHH
MHOuUEHumCH
H
«No.Nn mnN.Hm ooe.on Nao.om ooa.on mHo.Hm amn.om cHo.Hn mmwmw
.oHH.Nn aeH.Nn on.Nn «Ne.mN amH.Hm NeN.om oaH.Hm cam.om 2H
ooH.Hn aao.om omN.on axn.om amo.om xxx.Hm NcH.om NMH.Hm. 2a
m x o m . a m N H maHH
mHOuUDHun _

 

 

0:002 mo huge—Ham

5-0 antenna.

 

 

417

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

com NnH.oHH.oH Hauou
cum 0H _ mma ~05.Nmo.nH auoannsm :HHHH3
5.: mg. «on 3 n." mu¢.n¢~ 1 coauuwumudfi
80. ~36 one um a 93.03 uuouunuumafl
oH. oHH.m mac an H nmo.~n maHu
a m wmuws m 53 v mung: m mo Bum mounom
0."an huwaaHHm 02.832, no 39334
m¢m.w~ camz wuusoo «om.m~ a cum: 2m Hmo.aN I saw: 24 mHmuoa
HHH.HN «Hm.oN Ho¢.m~ Nm¢.w~ Hom.m~ mHmHmN new.HN wom.m~ mmwmw
amq.w~ mmm.HN «Nm.w~ mmm.HN . ooo.m~ o¢N.w~ omm.w~ oww.- 2m
www.mu on.m~ qu.mm mmH.aN qu.om HHo.m~ mqm.HN qqa.w~ z¢
0H «H ¢H mwuouusuumcwH HH 0H m msHH
«NH.mN “Ho.om .Ho¢.m~ mo~.¢~ mom.~u www.mu mum.w~ mnm.m~ mmwmw
mon.m~ omw.m~ Hom.m~ Hmm.w~ eno.H~ HHm.H~ ooo.m~ HHH.om 2m
wmo.m~ moH.om hmn.mu mnm.m~ n~m.- Ho~.om m¢0.wm HNw.m~ z<
w n e mucuosuumaHe m N H 95M.

 

 

 

canon—H 2.30m ..- 583m Hwth 33.3w new muwuafigm ouaaimxr
mo mwubmfiw onmEoU can 23on H.308 van ..HOuuah .300

2:32 mo zugnm

”To 530%?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 08 «3.02.3 H33
, $22 _ n8 HNN.:QmH uuansa.‘aHfiHs
.2. N2; ‘ 23.3 2 ”2&3 . 830335
. 3o. “23 «3.3 3 . $8.3m 330335
.u.: lulu: . owoJm a owo.n mafia
a m mousom
. n manna %nwaa=m ooawauw> mo namhaau<
Noq.q~ u cum: mausoo Hmm.¢u n cam: Sm oH¢.¢N I :mmZ z< mamuoa
“8.2 83H Sfimu $0.5 H25” 393 «.32 quaN Hmwmw
. $0.2 852 20.3 Sim ., «2.2 80.2 892 83m E
8
...... 93.2 imam 2N5 «3.3 Hmm.: mafia 08.2 Siam 5.
0H 2 3 2 NH HH 2 m 95H .
mucuosuumcH .
. H
I .893 $23 83% 08.3 SNJN Roém 80.3 nmméu meM%
«8.3 892 M55 oSJN 03.3 RNJN 8a.: «NNH.N E.
08.3 . EHKN 2H5 . 25.3 «2.2 93.2 08.3 :93 5.
m H o m. .H n N H 85
. mucuusuumsH .

 

 

 

 

 

2qu mo mugsm

armofi @33me I: 593m Hugh unovgm you muHumgm ooaflum>
no 3932:» onmfioU and 2302 H.308 can .uofimh 2:00 £10 52$.“me

.1 1 11‘ 1. H ‘ ‘ ..J J “3‘ , ,1. ,1...
...... H .w. 4: . _ ... a . d: A .H . ,. H H . J. V :J‘ 1‘ ,

H 1 _. .
. . .

 

1.111.141. . L 1.11...

« :.\A... . H 1.35;)».‘1.

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

com nno.nmw.m¢ Hauou
o¢¢.m¢ _ nmm NH«.NNN.0H augufipsu aHnuHs
.u .5 n3 . H man .2 ma ooodmg :oauowuuuaa
Hoo. «NN.N nom.NNH nH NN«.NNNN muouosuumaH
.m.c NNH.H NNNJNN H NNN.NN aaHu
a H 33.8 m saw u may? m we aim ouusom
033. knumfiasm 025.32, mo 393»qu
HNN.NN n ammz mmusoo m¢o.mm u cams 2N NHN.NN . cmmz z< _ mH38
O Q C 0 O O O I HmuOH
oqq «m NHN NH mmH Nn Nqn Nm mwo mm QNN mm ooq Hm one Hm .umaH
0N¢.mm Nqo.Hm oaH.mm mmm.on , NNN.Nm omo.Hm oqN.Nm o¢o.om 2N
aNo.mn HNo.m¢ mNm.Hn Nmo.mn Nmo.om onN.¢m oom.om Hom.Nm z<
0H mH HH mH NH HH oH a maHN
WHOUODHumCH .
H
NHn.¢n omH.om NHo.mm mNo.¢n moN.Hm NnN.mn NNN.Nn «NN.Nm mmwmw
NNN.Nn on.Nn NNN.Hn www.mm omN.Hn woN.Nn mmo.mn NNN.NN 2m
NNH.Nn NNN.mn NNN.Nn N«N.Nm NnN.Hn ooH.¢n NmN.mm Hco.¢n :4
m N o n H n N H usHa
muouusuumawr .

 

31:31.4: .4 I. >31v1‘
. H V. V

kuoH ..u Edam Hugh ”Boca—um newH muwuwgm uofl~€a>
mo owngfimu’w “33500 wad 3332 “.308 wad .nOuodh .floo

 

 

 

3.32 we hquHHm

 

no -0 530m?

 

 

 

420

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an» mo~.~ana Huuou
who.N . mum qom.wans nuoufinna awnuwz
.m.c Hwo.H NcN.~ ma muo.nn . coauoauouaw
.u.a H¢H.H nom.u ma won.nn nuouosnumad
no. men.¢ oEwu
a w condom
wanna «museum ooawfiuw> mo namhamn<
mHNd u 50: $38 _ 3nd n :32 Ha 8H5 .. :32 H2 238
NNN.N Sod NNH.N H25 News NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N Hmwmw
mend ooH.m NHN.N m9; 305 3mg NNN.N NON; E
NHN.N flag HHH.HN nHNN.N NNN.N nod 08; NHN.N H2
0H 2 .HH NH NH HH 2 m 25
mnouuzuumcH
NH«.N nmmd 8H6 H26 fied 8N.» Sm.” 8m; wamw.
n2.» 2:.» 8N6 8nd Sod HNN.N 3nd o2; 2m
90.x NNH.N coca N«N.N N8; 89w NNH.N NHH.N H2
w h o MHOU Ufluumfi _.V M N H ”Bah—u

 

H doflduuomeuGOSMHEm< uuuvsum no“ wwwnugfism oofldmud>

 

 

 

3qu mo human—m

mo nmnzddxw “33500 van 3302 2309 van {Bonk .300 57.0 fivaomm<

421

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

q

nwo «CHAN: kuou
HNH.H.“ _ «no noo.anH wuuonnsa VH5?
.m .: emu. H .qmmJ .3 35:3 :OHuownuucH
no. man «HHH.HN 3 53:3 uuouosuumaH
6.: 3...: mmp. H 30. 95”.
w noun v mung: m we saw ouusom
v.33. human—5m 033.5; mo 39$me
moud u cum: amusoo _ Quad n 532 E Noud I cams S4 MHmuOH
omn.w omw.N oom.N mmq.m NNN.N om¢.w HHN.N mom.N Hmwmw
oom.w N00.N mHo.N mmm.w / cmN.w No¢.N mom.N cmNLN 2N
oqo.m ooo.N Nmo.w NNH.N ooN.N NNN.N ON¢.N NHH.N z<
0H mH «H mwuouosuumcwH HH oH a oeHa
H
mNm.N oN¢.w noN.m wmn.w woN.m NoH.w Hmm.w oNN.N Hw“mw
ooN.w N«N.N can.» NNN.N on.m muo.w NHo.» oom.N 2m
NN«.N Nwo.w omo.m Nom.m ooo.m moN.w ooN.w Noo.m 24
on ‘ N o ”you usuu mqu n N H 08.3..

 

 

name: no 595:6

. .N loHuduuomxHuquamuHmme «novaum new moHumEEsm ouadmumxr

mo nHPHHdHHHN onmEoU van 2332 H309 Hun.» ..HOuOdnH .HHoU "HHIU 59:3me

 

 

422

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m~¢ moo.h~oH Hauou
~94 . man mnu.mom 383:» 5:33
.u.: wnm.H mm~.m 2 N36.» ~ sauna—“noun.“
. can. mmn.~ Nah.m ma nuw.om uuouosuumafl
.a.c mqo.fl Noo.¢ H . noo.¢ mafia
a w‘ meadow
oHnuH hum—55m 00:35; no 39334
moq.w u ammz amusoo NNm.w a cam: 2m Hmm.w . cam: z< mHmuoa
¢¢¢.w oom.~ mmm.fi oow.w omm.w ooo.w mom.m ooo.“ «mew
NNH.w ooh.“ own.“ mma.w , om~.w oom.n com.“ mm¢.w xm
cmN.m oco.H ooo.w oofi.m “Hm.w mHo.¢ ooo.w wmq.fi 2<
0H mH «H mmuOuosuumaMH HH oH a mafia
‘
nw5.m oHN.w 00¢.» ana.w on.m omn.m ooo.m «on.» wwwm%
ooo.a Hmm.m .whm.w Nfiq.m omN.w Hoo.w Hm~.m mmn.m 2m
nqo.w oHH.w me.w ooo.w mam.w oo¢.w «Nw.w NNN.w z<
Q h 0 ”H00 05 Ha man—HQ M N H SH“.

 

 

m doHumuoomanaoHu—auam4 uqowgm new mvHumgm voquum>

 

 

 

9:32 we Kan—wanna

.Ho anSHdc< onmEoU van 2302 H.309 HEM dopamh .HHuU "NHIO 2%.qume

 

 

4Z3

 

 

 

  

kuou

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omw www.mmH
RN. . m2 H363 Boone; 35H;
.m.: 39H 8H. 2 83” aoHuowuuuaH.
6.: m2; Ham. 3 39¢ 330385
8. 86 23. H 23. as:
a m roan m a «v noun: m mo 85m muusom .
oHnuH hugsm 00:35; no mHmszfiw
Sm.“ u c3: 8.58 Sm.~ a 532 E H9: .. :8: H2 mHSoH
8mg Hang on} on.~ «SH mm: HQ: {HRH wamw
3mg Hang we; «wag / HEN Maia 3m.~ Had E
Egg 8mg 2+; «:3 39H mmm.~ 8mg mam EH
0H 2 «H 2 NH HH 3 m 95H
mHOuUDHumGH
«SH «SH m3.“ oR.~ SnJ HSJ 8nd HSJ Hmwmw
SHJ «HH.N oomé “SJ o$.N man.“ go.“ qomJ E
«SJ 3} 3.2 8.2 NH«.N .13." “SJ 8mg 5.
w n o mucuosuumqu m N H 08:.

 

uwuuo><nuaHonHuoH§uU 233—um new moHnchBw 0233.3»
no wHuhHugw onmEoU van 2.802 HmuoH Hun.» facuomh .HHoU

 

 

 

name: no .HHEESm

"2-0 58mg

 

 

424

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mHH mm~.HnH.m¢H Hnuou
nnmdou . So HooKmquH «you—Ham 525.3
.m.: ----- nnm.H¢H nH «HH.n~H~ _ aOHuumuouaH_
oH. wnn.H mo~.-n nH mnm.nmmq 330533.."
.a.a ----- oHHJHH H oHH.HH aaHu
a w menu: m saw v noun: m we aim wousom
033. $3556 023.3; «0 39$»an
mmm.m~ 532 $560 wom.m~ u :wmz E 53.2 I cams Z< mHmuoa
mom.¢N cum.m~ mmo.o~ oom.mH wHw.m~ «Ho.m~ ohm.mN Hom.NN mmwmw
me.¢N mqo.mm HH¢.oH oco.HH , Nm0.mN “Ho.o~ ooo.m~ ooo.¢~ 2H
mom.¢~ oww.H~ om~.- oHH.ou oom.H~ moH.m~ Hoo.mN emN.HN z<
0H mH HH mH NH HH 0H m msHH .
MHOUUDHumCH
.0em.- om~.o~ HoH.m~ mmH.wH wao.H~ “Ho.w~ “mm.¢~ «No.H~ Hmwm%
mo~.H~ HHH.HN wHH.m~ Nm¢.HH ocm.¢~ nHm.om mon.q~ qu.om 2m
omn.¢~ unn.m~ qo¢.- om<.mH nmw.wH whq.o~ anm.¢~ nnm.¢~ z<.
m H o m c m N H . aaHa
OHOWOSHUQHZ

 

 

 

2502 no khan—55m

Hanuo> ..u. ”.an MHHTGHHSHO «dogs—w «cu moHudgm voHHuHuds.

Ho 3232:. onmEoU was 2302 H.308 H33 ..Hgomh .HHoU 23:0 “£5234

:711...‘ i ..Ii.

425 '

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NHN HNo.o¢N.nnH Hmuou
owo.mHN Nae NHN.HNN.NHH uuoofin=NLGHnuHs
.m.: 11!... NOH.~mH mH waanmu cowuumumuaw
.ué nun: Ruéou nH Hoqémom auouosuumca
.m.a ----- «NNHNNH H HNN.NHH 05H»
m was m Sam wt «9.3: m mo Bum gem
mHnuu. .«N—995m 023:3, mo 39$me
ommHN u Emu: $23 «8.: m :3: 2m Nmo.HN .. 58H 5. 338.
HNH.mN omH.oH omH.oH owo.oN NoN.mN NNH.NN HON.oN mmm.NH wamw
NmN.NN 0N¢.NH NHH.NH ooo.wH , Nmo.mN HN«.NN NoH.oN mom.nH 2m
ooo.NN owo.mH HNN.mH NNN.NN ooN.mN NHN.HN NNH.HN mom.ON z<
0H NH «H NH NH HH oH N maHH
MHOUODHumGH
NNN.NN ooo.NN NNN.HN mno.HN nnq.0N Neq.oN NHH.NN qu.NN HMwmw
mmw.oN N¢0.NN HHH.HN Noo.mN ooH.HN moo.qN oHN.ON NNN.NH 2m
onw.NH QNN.ON ewN.NN oo¢.aH HNN.HH NnN.NH NNH.HN NNH.NN z<
m. N o n q n N H oaHa
wHOUODHumH:

 

 

 

 

033.3%?50 u... anon. wGTGHHMdG unovsum new mumumfigw ”2833’

3:32 mo mugsm

Ho $93.23. “33880 van 3802 H308 H28 {Scum .HHoU umHuU “£3234

 

 

 

 

426

 

NHN NN.NNN.onH Hauou

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HNN.NoN _ Nmo NN.nmo.N¢H auuufinau aHnqu
.a.: nun-- omm.mHH mH QEJRH . :oflomuoudH
nNc. .NNN.H NN«.NNN nH . mNN.Homm auouoauumaH
.m.= ----- «Hm.moH H m¢o.noH msHu
a w mmuw: m saw v nova: m mo 33m A oouaom
033. haw—55m «25.32, mo 32325
meJHN fl Cum: 0mHSOU mum.HN fl dam: Em me.HN I fime 24 mHmuOH.

. c c o o a o o HWUOH.
mNH mN HNN ON ooo 0H ooo NH mNN MN «on qN HoN HN omN NH .umaH
owN.NN ooo.NN NNN.HH mNm.mH , HNN.NN HNN.NN «HN.NH NNN.NH 2N
HHH.HN owo.NH oHN.NH mom.NH Nom.¢N oco.HN NNN.NN «No.0N z<

OH NH NH NH NH HH 0H m meHH
mucuosuumcH
NHN.NN Nmm.NN HHH.HN omo.NH mmo.mH mHo.mN «No.NN moo.nN HMMMW
moH.mN eon.oN HHH.NN ooo.ON oNN.HN NNN.NN NoH.ON mon.oN 2m
ono.HN NNH.NN HNm.oN ow¢.NH ¢o¢.oH qom.mN HNN.NN NNH.HN z<

m N o m H m N H uaHa

mHOUUSHumGH

 

 

 

 

 

 

was: no hum—53m

Hduou. ..u anon. quhuHHmHHO unovgw now umHumEcnnm 02833,
HO 393.23 #03800 can 33sz Han—0H wad Jon—cam 7:00 $70 fivaomfiw

, 427

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmw HH¢.NNOH Hauou

NHN.H . cum H863 3003.5 35.3

.ué moo.H mHN.H mH Hw~.mH :OHuuwuauaH
..n .c .iunu mH wmm.HH nuouosuumaa.
.m.a nun-u H HHo. mEHu

a m menu: m saw v mun»: m we 85m wousom
oHnuH. hugsm 3:355 no 39325.

2N.m u cum: 03:8 _ iNd n :32 EH SN.m .. cams z< _ 338.
End NNH.N NNN.N HNN.N 3N.m 9%.». NNN.N mmoa Hmwmw
amm.m mdo.m omN.m oom.m , oN¢.m qwofi mmo.m mme Sm .

Mung“ NwH..m mm+~.m NHN.m moH.m mm¢.m «0HH.HH NmH.m E<

cH mH «H 9.. NH HH 0H m 95.8 .
mHOUUH—HUMCH

mmm.m n¢H.n «and numfi H¢N.m cam.m oH~.n mo~.m ..wam%

nmm.m wom.m NwH.m wom.m omo.n domé snug.” N¢N.M Em

nnm.n mOH.m main mH¢.m nmm.m oa~.m aomJ n¢H.n 24
Q h 0 MHOUOSHqu _ Q m N H NEH-H.

wnHHHoucmH .HoH acmdom udvvsum new moHumagam vunaHnm>

 

 

 

mama: mo hug—EH5

no 39335. “33500 H5.» 28on Hagen. vac .u0uodh .HHvU "2:0 fivuvmmaw

428

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NHN NnH.oom.ON Huuou
amn.¢N NHN HNN.NHH.NH .uoofinsu anuHs
...: nun-.. Hoo.? 3 393m 530335
.a.= NHN.H wom.Nn mH «Ho.qmq auouosuumaH
6.: Hn.~ «8.3
a m wousom
anwH. .395—am 00:35; no 3932.2
NHH.NN n cam: Unusoo _ me.oN n cum: 2m NNN.NN - :muz z< mHmuoa
Nmm.NN oNH.nN ooo.mN NHN.NN NNH.NN qu.wN NNN.NN NHo.oN HMwmw
oHN.NN QNN.NN «HN.NN mo¢.NN , HHN.NN NNN.NN ooN.oN NHN.nN zm
HN«.HN Hao.0N HHH.NN Hwo.HN ooN.NN me.NN HNN.NN Hmo.oN 2<
0H mH «H NH NH HH 0H m msHH
mucuosuumCH .
oom.oN ooo.NN NNN.NN HN«.HN Hoo.oN How.oN mHo.NN NNN.NN Hmwmw
NNn.nN NHN.NN NNN.NN Nwo.NN NNN.nN Noo.oN om¢.NN ooo.NN 2m
nNH.NN Hco.oN NHH.NN Noo.NN «Hn.NN nqo.NN anN.0N nn¢.NN z<
w n o ”nouoauuaaH¢ n N H QEHH

 

 

 

 

2.3: no 583.3

uvsfiuflw causoouounH «novsum now nanmgm ooaaHnm>
mo nHu>Had< “33500 65 33on Hduoh v.5 .uofiih .HHuv

“2.0 “£5234

 

 

429

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3333‘ omudouuuuom «duvnum new 3:.»ng ooquum>
mo 39$.»an onmEoD HE.» 23on H.308 HEN ..HoHHumnH .HHoU

 

NHN N«N.NHN.NN Hugo»
oqN.NN NNN oNH.HNN.NN Nuooanu NHNHHs
.N.: ----- NNN.NN NH NNN.NNN aoHuuwuouaH
.m.c owN.H m¢~.¢o mH no.wm0H . wuouonuumsH
oH. N«N.N NNN.NNH H NNN.NNH maHu
m condom
«Home huwassm ooanuu> mo «Hthm:<
NNN.HN u can: mausoo Noo.NN amuz 2N NNH.NN - cam: z< NHmuoa
oHN.NN NNo.NN NHN.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN NNNHON NNN.NN NNN.NN Hmwmw
NNN.NN «HN.NN ooN.NN NNH.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN ooo.NN HNN.NN 2N
NNNN.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN HNN.NN NNH.NN HNN.NN NoH.oN NNN.NN 2N
NH NH NH NH NH HH 0H N meHH
MHOUUDHUWGH
NNH.NN ooN.NN oNN.NN NNH.NN NNN.NN NHN.NN NHN.NN Nn¢.NN wamw
NNN.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN ooo.¢N NNN.NN HNo.NN 2m
NNN.NN NNN.NN HNN.NN HNN.NN NNN.NN NHN.NN HNN.NN HNN.NN z<
w n c ”nouusuunaH¢ m N H mEHH

 

 

3.3: we 5853

"N70 585mg

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

430

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oNN NNH.NNq.NH Hauou
NN.NN _ NHN NNH.NNN.NH auoonnsu NHHHHz
No. NNN.H NNN.NN NH ONN.N¢N aOHuumuouaH
.Hoo. nwufi 8H6? nH mmméqmu muouoauumcq.
.N.: ----- NNNHNN H NNN.NN maHu
m u noun m mm v manna m we Sam wounom
. oHan humassm uoauHum> we «Hthaa<
HNN.HH n cmmz amusoo Nqo.NH a cam: 2H NNN.NH I saw: z< NHNuoN
HNN.NH NNN.NH HNN.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH NNH.HH HMWM%
NNN.NH ooN.NH NNN.NH NNN.NN NNN.NN .ooo.NH NNN.NH NNH.oH 2N
NNN.NH HNo.ON NNo.NH NNN.NH oNN.NH NNN.NH NHN.ON NNH.NH z<
NH NH NH NH NH HH oH N maHN .
mucuusuumcH
H
N.NNo.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH ooo.NH oHN.oN NNN.NH wamw
ooo.oH ooo.NH NNN.0N NNH.NH NHN.oN NNN.NH ooN.ON ooN.NH 2m
HNo.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH oNN.NH NNN.NH ooN.¢H NNN.ON NNN.NH SN
N N N N N N N H oaHN
mucuuauumaH

 

 

 

 

mama: mo humaavm
NeanduumaH HidBoH £9.33un unowgm .HoH moHHHNEEHHm monumnmxr

Ho umn>Hwn< onmEoD H33 33on HmuoH HEN“ ..HoHHomnH .HHoD HONLU xHHucomm<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. NHN NNH.NNo.NN H33
NNN.NN _ NNN H8.NNN.NN 3333 ,laHfiHs
no. «05H 30:3 nH andom doauomuouaH
. Ho. HNN.N NHN.NN NH NoN.NNNH 33252:
5.: ---: NHN..NH H NHN.NH 953
a m mousom
038.. «Magnum 02.3.32, mo 36.3.25
mN+N.ON Ewmz.0m.u300 HNN.ON fl Cam: Em 0mm.ON I saw: z< MHNUOH
. 0 O I O I I O HmUOH
HNN NN NNN NH NNN oN NNN NH NNN HN NNH HN NNN NH NoN NH .3:
NNN.NN NNN.NH NNHdN oHN.NH , NNN.NN NNN.NH NHN.NN HNN.N.H E
1
u NNN.NN NNo.NH NNo.HN NNo.oN NNN.HN NNN.NN NNH.NH NNN.NH 5.
NH NH NH NH NH HH 2 N 25 .
mHOUOHHHquH
H
I I. g u o n c o c o HNUOH. N
SN 8 NNN HN NHN HN HNN oN ONH 8 SN HN N8 NH N8 HN JEN ,
HNN.oN NHN.NN NNN.NN NNN.HN HNN.NN NNN.NN NNN.NH NNN.NN . E
oNN.oN NNNdN NNNdN NNH.NN NNH.ON 8N.NN NNN.NH NNN.HN E
N N N N N N N H 83
mucuusuumaH

 

 

 

 

 

 

2qu mo .NuwfiaHHm

. now maHaanH unuwsuw how moHumEEsm ooddHnw>
mo mHPHHdHH< xchEoU van 3802 H.309 wad ..HoNHowh .HHvU

90.1.1411“ \1 . , .t ‘
. A
, . a

HHN-NN “£32an

432

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HNN NNN.NNN.HN Hauou
NHN.NN _ com NNN.NNN.NN ouooNNsa angHs
.N.= NHH.H oNN.NN NH NNN.NNNH aoHuowuuuaH
.né cg; NNN.NH NH $183 330335
.N.: NNo.~ NN«.NNH H NN«.NNH oaHu
m mung m 5.6 wt mmuan m mo 85...... uousom
0.33. hugsm muggy; mo c.3324
NNN.NN u cam: unusoo _ HNN.NN u cNNz 2N NNN.NN - cam: z< NHNuoa
NNN.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN ONN.NN NONNNN NNN.NN HNo.oq Hmwmw
ONN.NN oHN.NN NNN.NN HNN.NN oo¢.oq NNH.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN 2m
NNN.NN ooo.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN NNH.NN NNN.NN HNN.HN ZN
NH NH NH NH NH HH NH N NEHN .
muouosuumaH .
NNN.NN ooo.NN NNN.NN NHN.NN HHN.NN oNN.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN Hmwmw
NNN.NN NHN.NN NNN.NN NNH.NN NNN.NN NNH.NN NNH.NN NNN.NN 2m
NNN.NN NHN.NN HNH.NN NNN.NN NHN.NN NNo.Hq NNH.NN NNN.NN z<
w n o Muouoanumam n N H 08.3...

 

 

 

was: we magnum

3.3m .3353. mu< «dovdum new mvmfimfigw uoannaNN
mo nmohHaNH‘uNonEoU was 2302 H.309 cad ..HOuomh .200

 

"£6 53%:

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNN NNN.NoN.NH Hauou
NHN.NH . «om NNN.NHN.HH auomNnnu NHNuN3
Ho. NNH.N NHN.NN” ma 036g coauomuouda
.Nd oHH.H 93.3 NH NNN.N.NN NuouosuuaaH
No. NNN.N NNo.NN H NNo.NN maNu
a m noun m HH 0 v man“: m we EHHm mounom
3..an hugsm $23.33, mo 32325
_ NoN.NH u cum: Nmusoo _ NNN.NH n cam: 2m NNN.NH . ammz EN NHmuoN
ooN.NH NNH.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH ONN.NH NNN.NH ooo.¢H NNN.NH NMMWW
ooN.NH NoH.NH ONN.¢H NNN.NH , oNH.NH ooo.NH HNN.NH NHN.NH 2N
ooo.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH «HN.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH NNH.NH EN
NH NH «H NH NH HH oH N NEHN
mHOuON—HumCH
NNN.NH NHN.NH NNN.NH NHo.NH NNN.NH NNH.NH oNN.NH NNN.NH wmwmw
NNN.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH Nmo.¢H HHN.HH NNH.N NHN.NH 2m
NNN.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH NNNJNH NNN.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH z<
N N N N N N N H oaHa
muouusuumaH

 

 

 

1411i“ ylyi N

. 1 TIA-121‘ ‘

010w donuobmufiNH #23th unuvgm new mkudfigm monmmum>

 

9:32 mo .N‘HSHEHHm

mo nmmhfiucdw “$3500 $5.. 2832 130B was Jauomh .200 ."mmuo 59.89me

 

4,931

 

 

.\'

434

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNN NHN.NNN.NH Huuou
NNo.HN . NNN NNN.NNN.NH ouooNNaN aHnNHz
.N.: NNN.H NON.NN NH ONN.NNN . :oHuoauouaN
mné ....li NNo.NH NH NNN.NNN 3335ch
.NE .3... NNN.. H NNN. 3.3
n w noun: m cam: HH mung m mo Ham mousom
0.33. .3355 00:35; no 39322
H¢W.OH H G002 QmHSOU _ QOM.OH I G602 Em mom-OH I came.“ S< mHmuOH.
NNN.oH HHH.oH NNN.oH NNN.oH NNN.N NNo.HH NNN.N NNo.HH Hmwmw
NNN.NH HNN.NH NNN.NH NNN.NH , NNN.N NNN.NH NHN.N NNN.NH 2N
NNN.oH NNN.N NNN.oH NHH.HH NNN.NH NNH.NH NNN.N HNN.oH 2N
NH NH NH quouozuuNNMH HH oH N NEHN
,,NNH.HH NNN.HH NNN.N NNN.NH NNN.NH NNH.HH NNN.N NNN.NH wamw
NNN.HH NNN.HH NNN.NH NNN.N HNN.oH NNN.NH NNN.N NNN.HH 2m
NNH.HH NNH.HH NNN.N NNN.NH HNH.oH NNN.HH NNN.HH NNN.NH zN
m N. o Mucuosnumch m N H 05.3.

 

H

 

 

2H3: no 55555

oHdum 53039302 xonomNNH uqovgm New moHHHNEFHdm 0282an
m0 umm>Hdc< onmEoU van 2302 H.308 HE.» ..HOuomh .HHoU Nwmno XHHuaoNHm<

Mea-

435

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2302 no .NHHNEEHHN

 

an NHH.NOHN Hquu
ONN.N . Now NNN.NNNH auomnasm pHnuH3
.m.c mmN.H How.n NH oom.wN :OHuuwuoudH
Ho. NNH.N wNN.N NH aow.wn muouusuumaH
.m.a aunt: NNN. H emu. uEHu
a m mmuws m saw a «mum: m mo Ham wousom
aHan anuaaam auauHuu> mo uHthua<
woN.~ n cum: mausoo — N«N.N u new: 2m mwN.N I saw: z< mHmuOH
NNN.N NNN.N HNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N HNN.N Hmwmw
mmw.H HHN.N omn.N oom.m , omH.m me.N mom.H #NMNN Em
HHH.m mum.H HoH.m mqm.N mo¢.N ¢NH.N mmm.m dm¢.~ 2<
NH NH NH NH NH HH 2 N 2:
aneuunuumcH ..H
NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNH.N NNN.N HNN.N wamw
HRJ o¢n.~ .nnua omoJ wow.~ HHH.N N¢w.N wHw.N Sm
mega wmm.N #NwJ Omué Hmo.m Hmm.“ www.mu awn; H2
N_ N N N N N N H 95
mucuuauumcH

 

 

uHHNom oHNH xonvmhm 333m new mvHumEEdm 628?me
.Ho 323234 “83500 Hand 23qu H.308 HEN ..HOuoanH .HHoD "mmnu NHHNHHcNHNHHN.

 

436

H u nonmomounH quuwuH Houdm 3 ”Evan—H5500 uGuHuHHH—m .HoH mvHudggm 005?me

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. NNN oow.¢ow Hmuou
NHo.H . NNN NHN.NN» 3333 55.?
.a.: nuns: wa. NH NNN.NH :OHuomuwuaH
.m.: Nmo.H wqo.H NH NHN.NH muouosuuuaH
5.: NNH.N NNH.N H NNH.N .33
a H‘ uwuws m :mm mu wanna m we saw ouusom
anwH Nunsasm ouaaHuu> mo mHthaa<
H
ooN.N u 23: NNN—sou NNN.N n :3: 2m HNH.N I :8: H2 NHSoN
NNN.N NNN.N NNN.H NNN.N NNN.N HNN.N NNH.N NNN.N $me
NNN.N NNN.N NNN.H NNH.N , HNN.N NNN.N NNH.N NNoNN HHNH
NHN.N NNN.N NHH.N HNN.N NNH.N HNN.N NNN.N HNH.N EN
NH NH NH NH NH HH 3 N 2:.
muouoruumcH
HNo.N NNN.N HNH.N NNN.N NNH.N NNN.N NHH.N NNN.N Hmwmw
NNN.N NNN.H HNo.N NNN.N ooN.N NNN.N HHN.N NNN.N HS
NNN.H NoH.N oou.u NNo.~ wwo.N NNN.N ooo.~ hNH.N S<
N N N N N N N H 25
mucuosuumcH

 

 

 

 

2:3: mo .NuuaaHH/m

mo mHPHHwHHNN “3.3500 H28 38on Han—0H Hun.» ..Hgodh .HHuU $qu fivfiim‘

 

,‘ N 110.11 Jail,
V .. . .

.

1,1,1!!! ..N 11 ‘

 

 

437

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nae NNH.NON Hauou
wa. . NNN Hom.HwN uuoumnsu HHH.HN—H:
. .Na -..--- NNN. NH NNN.NH 832335
‘.a.: nun-u mww. NH o¢~.mH uuouosuumaH
.m.: nun-a mum. H mum. . mEHu
wtw muuw v mans: m mo Bum wuusom
., 03am. Nausea 023:; «o 32:34
NNH.N u cwmz amusoo mNH.N a cum: 2m NON.N I cmmz z< NHmuOH
HNN.N NNN.N NNN.H NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N HMMMNHN
NNN.N NNN.N NNN.H NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.H HE
:o.m 000.N NNH.N NNN.N NNN.N NHN.N ooH.N mwo.N 24.
NH NH NH NMHBSENHHMH HH 2 N NEH
.H N
ONN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNH.N Hoo.N Sm; ONN.N Sad ..HMme
mNo.~ NNN.N NNH.N Hmo.~ 0Nm.H NNN.H oN~.N oon.~ Em
HNN.N NHN.N NNN.N oo~.m NNH.N 0No.H OONJ NNN.N H:
N N N ”SENNNNNHN N N H oaHH.

 

 

 

mama: mo .383—am

N I conmvmoan maHHHuon. .83H 0» «Human—H5500. unuvaum now mmHnmEFSm
oocwH..Hw> mo mHu>Huc< “33500 can 28qu H.308 can ..Hofivuh .HHvD NNN-O NHHHGomm<

 

N 11‘

..vnuli.

 

 

438

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m u nonnummunH deHHuaoH. .HoNHHHH o» unoEuHFHEoU unovdum no“ muHudEEHHm

V

 

on 3580 .233
NNN. . NNN NNN.NNN .uoNNNNN NHNNHN
.N.= ----- NNN. NH NNN.N aoHuomuouaH
.mé mmo.H NHN. NH NNN.H: uuouusuumcH
.u.c NHN.H . can. H NNN. 05.:
u noun v manna m we saw muusom
3an .anaasm «25.223 mo NHNNHuEH
NHN.N u CNNZ ownsoo HNo.N u :NNZ ZN HNN.H - :NNZ ZN NHmuoH
NNN.H NNN.N NNN.H NNN.N NNN.N NNN.H HNH.N NNH.N Hmwmw
NNN.H NNN.N NNN.N NHN.H , NHN.H NNH.N NNN.N NNNNN ZN
NNN.H NNN.N NNN.H NHH.N NHH.N NNN.H NNN.N NNN.N ZN
NH NH NH NMNNNNNNNNNMH HH NH N NEHN .
..NNo.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.H NHN.N NNN.H NNN.H NNH.N wam%
NNH.N HNN.N .NNo.N NNN.H HHH.N NNN.H NNN.H NNH.N ZN
NNN.N NNN.H ‘oNo.N NNN.N NNN.H NNN.H NNN.H NNN.N ZN
w H. . o MucuonuumaHNN m N H 08:.

 

 

 

233A mo .NuwesHHm

uoaanaNH .Ho nHuNNHmHHNN «33980 HEN unavE H.308 H38 .NOuomh .HHmU HmNuU xHHHHHuHHHH<

”a

 

_439

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m¢m mum.nm0 Hana»
mmo.H . 0H0 NHo.n00 nuomfinpm uHsuHs
.m.: nuns: «mm. 0H mHm.¢H nOHuowuouaH
.a.: nuns: m0n. nH 50¢.HH muouosuumcH
Ho. «3.0 03.0 H 0mm.0 95“—
m 0 ways: m cam 00 noun: 0 «0 65m muusom
oHan muwfifinm ooawHuw> mo mHthua<
quJ n :32 «2:8 H3.“ n :3: 2m HNN.N .. 532 E 338.
2nd 3; fied in; 9:3 2:3 SQN SNJ NEW
and mad m5; Sim , qme SQN Sim NS.N E
mm~.N NHN.N qu.~ 000.N mom.N mm¢.~ omN.~ N«N.N z<.
0H 0H 0H mmpOuusuumcmH HH 0H m mEHH .
NH¢.N wmmd Ode qo~.~ mmn.~ HN«.N m0~.~ ¢N¢.N ..Hmwmw
mafiu ~m~.~ mid NHN.N omNJ 89w fiqJ $0.~ E
00H.N NHN.N 000.N ¢oH.~ Nwm.~ mnu.~ «HHH.N nmN.N 02
w h o MHOuUDHumflHd m N H Swab

 

 

 

 

2302 no 38530

H n wGEUduH new .HuHHHQduHsm 30055 new moHudgm vugHum>

.Ho mHmkHau‘w vamEoU HE“ 33on HauoH Had .HOuuah .HHvU uw~IO NHHEomm<

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H00 on.Hm0 Huuou
aha. _ one «mm.0H0 uuoufinsa aHsuHs
.m.a ~0H.H 0HH.H 0H 005.0H :OHuowuouaH
.n.c qn~.H w-.H mH HH¢.mH auouosuumcH
.n.c In--- omu. H emu. uaHu
a w uuum v noun: 0 mo sum mousom
anaH mugsm 00:35; no 39325.
0mm.N n cmmz mausoo mHm.N n cam: 2m HwN.N I cmwz Z< mHmuOH
. . . . . . . . Hmuoe
mom N mom H ooo H «mm H moo H Hm¢ N OHN N ¢mH H .umaH
cmH.N wmq.~ mom.H 0HH.N , m~0.N m~¢.N mon.~ HHHrN 2m
HmH.~ mqo.~ «HH.N qu.m mmm.~ 0HH.N HHm.H 0¢H.~ z<
0H mH «H mH NH HH 0H m oaHH
muouozuumcH
8mg 8.: HHH.N 3H.H «HNH.N HNO.H man 32 wafl
oom.~ Nm0.N oco.H oco.H omo.N oco.H mn¢.~ nqo.u 2m
oom.~. .an.N Hnn.~ 0HN.N 05~.~ mmo.u om~.N mmm.~ z<
w H 0 m e n N H uaHa
mHOUUDHude

 

 

 

N u wnEumoH new rHHHnduHsm uqovgm .HoH muHHmEGBm uoquum>

 

23w: mo .aumaasm

mo mHn>Hac< “835°C 05 23on H308 HEM ..HofiuanH .HHoU "omuO 538.“me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L
In I-
I» 1t|l “J0“
v
.
I . II . " III III! \"..| 3| luv I 0|»! I .I ‘ rtf‘ v! ‘ I‘l ..-] nl‘ v 1"
w v t

442

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«mm 0am.Hwn H33
050. _ mum 93.000 3003:» aHnuws.
6.: :::.- mwm. 0H 0R6 cOHuowumuaH
.né Hon.H N00. 2 om~.nH wuouusuumaH
6.: mfié NHH.H H NHH.H 2.3
a 0 00500
oHan P5550 moawHuw> mo 36.322
mm0.H n :3: unusoo _ 03H n E32 Em 000.H I saw: z< MHmuoa
$m.H 3TH HQH Rm; oco.H SQH mNHH Sm; Hmwmw
mmw.H mom.H 0N0.H Mnm.H , N00.H mwm.H mum.H wmmmH Em
«0m.H ohm.H mqm.H NHa.H Nmm.H ¢mm.H 000.H wmm.H Z¢
0H 0H #H MMHOuozuuchH HH OH a mEHH
39H HooH 89H H$.H 80H 02; NHH.H mum; Hmmw
omn.H «on; N004 wen; 000.H 050.H 2K...” was...” 2m
mHn.H mum; mnn.H :0.H 500.H mam; 500.H NHm.H 24
Q h 0 MHOUUDHUMSH+~ M N H OEHH

 

 

H I .Huouzm. Ho ounduuomEH unovsum new moHumEEsm oundHnm>

 

mama: mo magnum

mo nmthdnHw “03500 23 23on H308 HEM ..HOuumh .HHuD H~mu0 “£509me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . coo mmw.H~q . Huuou
. qu. . nae nHm.oo¢ .uoafipsm nHHqu
. ...u ----- . aon. mH mne.< . __ aoHuomuouaH
. . . . ..u.:. owo.H ~00. 0H 20de . mucuuauuuaw
. . ...: ----- aoo. H aoo. maHu

- a u awn»: m 0 manna 0 mo Bum mousom

 

  

 

 

oHnuH hugs.» 00:39; no 39322

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmw.H u sum: mmusoo _ o¢w.H I cum: Sm wa.H I cmwz Z< mHmuoa
4 on.H HHO.H nHm.H mwo.~ oom.H HHm.H mmw.H mow.H wamw
HHm.H oco.H oqw.H mmo.N , «Hm.H mqo.H OmH.H HHm.H 2m
3
I...
a. moH.H omH.H me.H Hmo.H www.H HNH.H me.H Hmo.H z<
OH mH qH mH NH HH oH m maH
mucuosuumcH .H
.m H
an.H Hmw.H . HNH.H omo.H me.H Hmm.H mHH.H «Hm.H wamw
«Nw.H oco.H wwo.H HNH.H oom.H moo.N mwo.H mHn.H 2m
mHH.H mmH.H omH.H nmo.H Hmm.H ¢m0.H onH.H Hoo.~ :0
m H o m ¢ m N H oaHH
”HOUUSmeG_

 

 

 

 

uawuz mo huwaESm

N .. .3023. Ho eonmuuomEH unovgm .30 meuwagw mondHHm>
.Ho $33.35. umHmEoU was 2.802 H.308 HEM ..HoHHumh .HHoD “mm-O xHHEoman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 0H0 000.03 Huuou
, ~H0. . 30 000.000 3333 ,5":qu
. ...: ----.. Hon. 3 80H 830285
.mé HNH.H :0. 0H 0o0.m muouonuumaH
Ho. «00.0 05.3
. . a 0 3.500
0.33. H3350 3:933, no 39325
©m+V.N n waz wan—400 — mNmoN I EGO: Em. 00¢.N I CNQS z< mHmuOH
EmH momH SmH oHoH mSH womH «3H HomH Hmm.
4 03H EMH 08H mHoH , «3H 30H ogH mmmH E
M .HHmH mmHH «RH 08H HSH 93H mmmH qqu E
0H 2 .HH nwuouuHEmamH HH 2 m we:
_ _.
I . SmH QmH SmH 08H «SH H3H SHH 8¢H HMMMHHH
03H 03H HRH EMH 80H HHSH ooHH 80H E
03H 08H HqHH HRH $mH oomH HemH «SH E.
w \ h 0 Mfifluuded M N H GEflH.

 

 

jilg‘wx¢ira H .. 1. 41....4
H H .
v

,4 .

2302 we hugsm

.14. .. 5.1..‘4114l1llfiflill,

0. .u .Huoosh. mo oucduuomEH «nowgm .HoH moHumeFBm ooanuw>
mo mthHchw onmEoU was 38on H.308 Hand ..HBOmh .200

"3-0 5.65m:

 

 

‘un-l-l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 000 000.03 H33
500. . 50 02.000 300300 55.3 . .
. .u.: ununu H00. ma 0HH.n :oau0000u:«
.0.: RN.“ :0. ma 02.3 0.3003505"
. m .: nuns: 00.0 . H 000 . 0a.“...
m 0 0.0.3: 0 :00 0 woman 0 mo :50 00.300
033.. 0.008800 00:30.3 we 30.305»
000.N n :00: 09500 000.N n :002 E ¢N¢.N I :002 S4 wagon.
RqH 03H ENH mwNH 03H oSH 23H 50H Hmwmw
43 0mm.~ an.N 0H0.N OmH.N , 0m¢.~ 0HM.N oom.N NH«.N Sm
M” 000.N mm¢.~ mmN.N 000.N 000.N 000.N mmm.~ ¢N¢.N £4
0H ma «H mwuouosuum:WH HH OH 0 06MB .
SnH man 30H oQH 30H SNH an.“ mHmH Hmwmw
n00.~ woN.N 000.N oom.N oo~.~ HON.N HN¢.N 5.3.N Em
050.0 50¢.N 00¢.N “000 0n0.~ mmN.N MNNJ 000.N 2.0
m N O MHOUODHUQEH€ M N H NEH“...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:002 mo 5000550

I “A-“ I 1111!..1 ..l 1.11 .1‘0‘45‘1 ...; .X'vVifi} 1ifl\..~ . 1

H :ofldummonm 00 00.300 unovgm .30 000005830 00§wum>
mo nwm>H0G< “03850 0:0 2302 Each. 0:: .HOuodh .200

"3-0 50503.

.f‘ . ‘I14¢J:1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H00 oHH.—.03 H0000
N8. _ 8... 2853 3,0033 52:;
.u.: 000; 000. ma 000.N." :0303000.“
.08. 50°.“ 0NN.H ma 000.2 93000.52.“
.0.: us:- 03. H 0:. 05.0
a m 08500
0.309 humanim 00:0Hu0> 00 0.3.3050
000.N n :00: 00.500 — 03.0 n :002 E 000.N I :002 S4 .3003.
SNH oSH ommH 30H mmmH HRH HHqH «iH Hmm.
SQH HQH momH mmmH 02H RmH Hmm.... 33H 5
RoH HHmH 30H HSH mmmH HmmH 03H 30H 5
0H 2 .HH 2 NH HH 2 a 95:
mHOUU«.HuwGH .
\
HRH 35H 02H 02H 33.. 80H SH «SH Hmwmw
noH SSH 08H gnH 80H won mHnH 05H E .
QmH. SHH EHH SoH +NEH oHnH 03H SH :4
m H 0 m .0 m, N H 05:.
mHOUUDHuma—H

 

 

 

0:002 00 0.00550
N Gomuaummoum 00 00.300 0:00:00 :00 moHudfigm 00§Hum>

.«0 203423 x0Hm500 0:0 08002 13080:.» ..HOuomh .200 "00.0 5000.30.

. ,. 1.}.... 1.. .}.... I. ..-.AJfI»-,VI.}|}1sll..I_.fl“l. .} . .

 

. .u a.» ...—0.0

 

 

 

. ) 1...}!!4. .}

 

~

...»...H w 3....” fl 5?... fl} 0:.“ . 0.3....» .. . n.3,.” . .. ,..
-1 --u . _ . r w a ,3... m H m.n
. :i . - -LI-:-....H-I_{|0 . Hugo -.

 

.It..‘.l \ .Iiit

;
.-.- 1 --.!SL
__ _ .

 

P 0. ‘l‘lll. ,‘tl..:‘ -."l
‘n .. ll. . v a 111?.1}. 0...¢.If ‘1’“ 0
v} iltll...‘l|l. a! l\ . .

447

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8... 03.503 H33
an.H . awn Hma.mNoH auooHnau.aHnuHs
. .a.: nun: ., 050. 2 000.0." :0fluuwu0u:«
. ...: ---.- mam. mH Hmw.qH mucuosuuaaH
oH. Hmm.~ H00." H H¢¢.m waHu
a 0 0000103 00 00400.30 0040 00.500
038.. 0.308500 00:0Hn0> «0 30.30.50
Hm~.H n cmmz 0.0500 wom.~ n cam: 20 HHH.N - cam: z< .HmuoH
ow~.H HmH.N ooH.H HMH.N mHm.N NHH.H omq.m omH.N «mew
Hoo.m oom.H oo~.~ oHH.H , m:~.~ mm¢.m omH.N HQH.H 20
Hmo.H .mHH.H Hmo.H HHH.N HHH.N «Hm.H NHH.H 00H.H z<
0H mH HH mwuouuauumCWH HH 0H m 05H:
w
I on.H HNH.N oNq.H qu.u mHH.~ Hom.H owu.~ mm¢.~ mmwmw
ccc.H mmq.H .mnm.~ oom.H HHo.N mHm.~ omq.~ 0HH.N zm
om~.H omH.~ mmq.u . HHH.N HmH.H Ho~.~ HHH.N wHH.N z<
.0. N. 0 mucuuzuum:H¢ m N H 03.3.

 

 

 

. 0:002 mo 500550

...m .HHoflaudm0unH 00 00.300 «:0030 00.... 00305930 00:0H.Hw>

mo fiubmfiw “83:80 000 2802 H309 0:0 38000.0 .200 "pm-O $000.25

.I I} Il‘if. .\1t}ll\¢.|l..}l. .1141. I. I vl
I:Il|l.\‘ltl¢lul\ .Iivl . ,
1.1.. .| 1. ‘

 

1.. 1.07,...1 I...Jl£- 1691.1!!! . 1
..J . ...: . . .. . .
. . . ..r . r
-,

 

 

 

t]- 'F

.LEEH

In