SOME EFFECTS OF EXPERIMENTAL
CLASSRQOM PROCEDURES ON THE
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND
ATTITUDES 0F COLLEGE-BOUND
TENTH GRADE STUDENTS

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY '
GEORGE K. KALLINGAL
1972

 

     
 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

“pi!"

   

  

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
Some Effects of Experimental Classroom Procedures on

the Academic Achievement and Attitudes of College-bound
Tenth Grade Students.

presented by

George K.Kallingal

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph .D . Jegree in Wurrieulum

1%0K-CL-L— \I quLva“

Major professor

Date W

0-7639

 
 
 

F amomc av 3’
. "DAG & SUNS'
i! RMK BINDERY INC.

‘* i eRAnv amoms
'. ".'.‘:f‘.°nflY Illfillmll

  
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

ABSTRACT

SOME EFFECTS OF EXPERIMENTAL CLASSROOM PROCEDURES
ON THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTITUDES
OF COLLEGE-BOUND TENTH GRADE STUDENTS

BY

George K. Kallingal

This study describes the method the researcher
followed in teaching his tenth grade American literature
students. It presents their overall reactions to his class-
room procedures and analyzes the changes brought about in
the students' academic and affective growth in the course
of this experiment.

The study examines these major questions: (1) How
did the students perceive what they learned in class, the
teaching method, and classroom management practices? Did
they feel that they learned something relavant and useful?
Did they feel that their teacher was particularly inter-
ested in their progress and was trying to help them in
their growth and development? (2) Did the students make
significant progress in the defined academic area? Will
students learn the course content materials if the teacher
is not demanding? If the consequences of failing or getting

a low grade or other external sources of motivation are

George K. Kallingal

removed, will the students still perform adequately?

(3) Did significant changes occur in the students' atti-
tudes? Is it possible for a teacher to stimulate changes
in attitude by working with the students in the classroom?
(4) As compared with the other students from the same popu-
lation who were not in the researcher's classes, how did
the students who were perform later on the same tests and
inventories?

The researcher employed a single-group design,
which involved the administration of a pre-test, measuring
the dependent variable, the application of the eXperimental
treatment to the subjects, and the administration of a
post-test, measuring again the dependent variable. In this
single-group design three groups were involved in order to
study the consistency of change across the three groups.
All these three groups were taught by the same teacher in
the same manner. The study was conducted for one semester,
that is, nineteen weeks.

The population for the study consisted of all the
college-bound tenth-grade students of Sexton High School,
Lansing, Michigan, during the 1970-1971 academic year.
There were 419 students enrolled in this program. From
these, a random sample of 87 students were assigned to the
researcher to teach. These students had been randomly
grouped by the computer into three classes taught by the

researcher at three different periods.

George K. Kallingal

These students were taught in a unique way. The
teacher's efforts in the classroom focused primarily upon
bringing about perceptual changes and only secondarily upon
academic matters. Greatest emphasis was given to those
activities which would encourage independence and self-
motivation and accustom students to take responsibility for
their own growth. Students were given much freedom to
organize their own work strategies to most effectively
attain their own individual objectives. External pressures
were reduced to a minimum. The students were encouraged to
mobilize their own internal resources of self-discipline to
guide them.

Several instruments were used for the collection of
data. In order to study their over-all reactions, a ques-
tionnaire was given to the students in which they were en-
couraged to record their reactions to any aspect of the
experiment. In order to analyze the changes brought about
in their academic growth, three tests from the TAP battery
were used--reading, composition, and literature. Changes
in the affective realm were studied by administering three
inventories dealing with (1) their academic self-concept,
(2) their attitudes toward school and learning, and
(3) their sense of purpose and determination in life.

The major statistical tools used in the study were
t tests and F tests. The criterion employed in the study

was the overall change that was brought about in the groups'

George K. Kallingal

mean performance. In order to study the significance of
this change, t tests were thought to be most appropriate.
Changes brought about in the variability of the groups were
also analyzed. For this F tests were used. The decision
rule was to reject the null hypothesis at p = .05 level of
type 1 error. A second decision rule employed was to reject
the null hypothesis if two out of three groups showed sig-
nificant change. The descriptive data were given subjective
interpretation based on the researcher's observation of the
students.

Results showed that the majority of the students
felt positively about what they learned in class. These
felt that they had been motivated to learn and enjoyed what
they actually learned. They felt that they learned some-
thing which they perceived as useful. There is also some
indication that the students were happy about the way the
teacher conducted his classes. Most of the students per—
ceived the teacher as one who was tryping to help them in
their growth and deve10pment.

Three hypotheses were generated to test the progress
the students made in the areas of reading, composition, and
literature. The t tests showed that the changes obtained
in these areas were significant at the .05 level of type 1
error. Consequently the null hypotheses were rejected and
it was concluded that the students made significant progress

in the defined academic areas. Slight changes were indicated

George K. Kallingal

in the groups' variability on these three tests, but the
changes were not significant enough to reject the null
hypotheses.

In the three areas of students' affective growth,
the changes obtained were not significant at the .05 level
of type 1 error. Consequently it was concluded that the
experimental procedure had not brought about significant
changes in these areas. The results of the follow-up showed
that the students in the experimental group performed sig-
nificantly better on four of the six tests than the students
who were not involved. No significant changes occurred in
the areas of self-concept and attitudes toward school and

learning.

SOME EFFECTS OF EXPERIMENTAL CLASSROOM PROCEDURES
ON THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTITUDES

OF COLLEGE-BOUND TENTH GRADE STUDENTS

BY

George K. Kallingal

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum

1972

AC KNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his gratitude to
the following people, who have followed him up in a very
dedicated manner during the years of his formation and
study, and who have given much of their precious time
and effort to make this study possible: Dr. Dale Alam
(Chairman of the Committee), of the Department of Secon-
dary Education and Curriculum; Dr. Louise Sause, of the
Department of Educational Psychology; Dr. Clarence Nelson
(Thesis Director), of the Office of Evaluation Services;
and, Dr. Osmond Palmer, of the Office of Evaluation
Services; all of Michigan State University.

The author also wishes to express his appreciation
for the assistance and considerations given by the follow-
ing: Dr. Willard Warrington, Director of Evaluation
Services; Dr. Lee Olson, of the Office of Evaluation
Services; Mr. Joseph Rousseau, former Principal of Sexton
High School; Mr. Dale Metts, present Principal of Sexton
High School; Miss Elizabeth Lawry, Assistant Principal of
Sexton High School; Dr. David Angus, Chairman of the
English Department of Sexton High School; the Staff of the

English Department and students of Sexton High School.

ii

The author is particularly indebted to the
members of his dear family: Dr. Matilda Kallingal, his
wife, for her patience and forbearance; Dr. Anthony
Kallingal, his brother, for his support and encourage-
ment; Misses Katie and Rosie Kaliangara, his nieces, for
their assistance and help.

GOKOK.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . 1
Need for the Study . . . . . . 6
Historical Approach to the Solution of
the Problem . . . . . . . . . 8
Lack of Conceptual Framework for These
Theories . . . . . . . . . . 10
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . 16
Rationale for the Approach . . . . . 18
Hypotheses in the Study . . . . . . 27
Operational Definitions of the Terms . . 29
Scope and Limitations of the Study . . . 31
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . 35
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 35
Systems and Theories . . . . . . . 35
A Short Overview . . . . . . . . 38
Review of Reactions and Comments . . . 43
Complexity of the Problem . . . . . . 56
III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . 58
The Research Design . . . . . . . . 59
Population and the Samples . . . . . 61
Statistical Hypotheses . . . . . . . 63
Instruments . . . . . . . . . . 64
Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Pre-Test . . . . . . . . . . . 66
The Treatment . . . . . . . . . . 68
Post-Test . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Follow-Up . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . 76
Experimenter Analysis . . . . . . . 77

iv

Page

IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . 78
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 78
Descriptive Data . . . . . . . . . 79
Analysis of the Descriptive Data . . . 93
Quantitative Data . . . . . . . 96
Analysis of the Quantitative Data . . . 107
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . 116
Review . . . . . . . 116
Discussion of the Results . . . . . . 132
Suggestions for Further Study . . . . 150

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
APPENDICES
Appendix

A. The City of Lansing . . . . . . . . . 158

B. Sexton Community . . . . . . . . . . 163

C. Sexton High School . . . . . . . . . 166

D. Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Table
4-1.
4-2.
4-3.
4-4.

LIST OF TABLES

Reading Test Statistics . . . . . . .
The Reading Test: Analysis of Variance .
Composition Test Statistics; . . . .

The Composition Test; Analysis of Variance
Literature Test Statistics . . . . . .
The Literature Test; Analysis of Variance
The Inventory of Self-Concept: Statistics

The Inventory on Attitudes toward School
and Learning: Statistics . . . . .

The Inventory on Sense of Purpose and
Determination in Life: Statistics . .

The Follow-Up: Statistics . . . . . .
Test of Hypothesis la . . . . . . .
Test of Hypothesis lb . . . . . .

Test of Hypothesis 2a . . . . . . .
Test of Hypothesis 2b . . . . . . .
Test of Hypothesis 3a . . . . . . .
Test of Hypothesis 3b . . . . . . .
Test of Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . .

Test of Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . .

Test of Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . .

vi

Page
97
98
99

100
101
102
103

104

105
106
107
108
109
110
110
111
112
112

113

Table Page
4-20. Test of Hypothesis 7 . . . . . . . . 114
D-1. Standard Deviations, Standard Error of
Measurement, and Reliability Coefficients

of TAP . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

D-2. The Scholastic Inventory. Table of
Specifications . . . . . . . . . 177

vii

LIST OF MAPS

Map Page

1. Composition of Sexton High School District. . 165

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

 

Differences of beliefs about educational practices
have given rise to different approaches to teaching in the
schools. Some emphasize the academic growth of the educand;
others are more concerned with the affective development of
the children; still others think that schools are meant to
instill the traditional norms and values into the minds of
the growing generation. Nor are these positions altogether
free from criticisms. These criticisms take several forms.
Some critics, for example Patricia Sexton, are deeply con-
cerned about the school's failure to discharge its commit-
ment to opportunity and equality.1 Culturally deprived
children are unprepared to compete in schools which pursue
middle-class goals and reward middle-class values. Frus-
tration, maladjustment, and early dropouts are the inevit-
able outcomes. As a result, for these children none of the

above-mentioned goals are met. On the other hand, Koerner

 

1Patricia Sexton, Education and Income (New York:
Viking Press, 1961).

 

laments that the schools fail all intellectually capable
students.2

Others like Jules Henry, Paul Goodman, and Edgar
Friedenburg are disturbed about the damage schools do to
apparently successful students. Henry claims that schools
are highly efficient in destroying youth's individuality
and creative potential. According to him, the real offender
is the society, which designs schools in the interests of
its own perpetuation. Schools have considered industry's
needs and not the child's.3 ". . . I am not convinced that
what is good for General Motors is good for our children.
Even less am I convinced that what is good for Missile
Dynamics is good for our children, or what is good for the
Pentagon is good for them."4

Undergirding much controversy is a persistent issue:
what exactly should the schools do? Should the schools
attempt to produce the cultivated man or the specialist?
Should students attend a liberal arts college or a pro-
fessional school? Within hybrid-types of institutions, what

should be the balance of academic to professional courses?

Some colleges dedicate themselves to the former and others

 

2James Koerner, The Miseducation of American

Teachers (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1963).

 

 

3Jules Henry, Culture Against Man (New York: Random
House, 1963).

 

4Jules Henry, "Vulnerability in Education," Teachers
College Record, XLVIII, No. 2 (November, 1966), 138.

 

to the latter. One is tough, selective, and demanding, pro-
ducing professionalized specialists; another is tender with
a concern for liberal arts. A related concern and contro-
versy is whether schools should be "Rickover-like" in rigor
modeled after the British public schools, or latter day off—
shoots of Dewey progressivism and permissivism. Also, should
the schools simply mirror the society they serve or should
they attempt to effectuate social changes? Practically
speaking, local school boards insist that the schools must
bring about individual and personal changes by helping stu-
dents imbibe society's standards and values, while most
philosophers and critics insist that schools must become the
pivotal agent for social amelioration and change. Thus, a
lack of clear-cut philosophy of education and the impossi-
bility of arriving at unanimity of opinion has made the
problem all the more difficult to solve.

With the problem of philosophies unresolved, the
issue of practices in the school as well as in the classroom
still remains crucial. Just as the question "Which philoso-
phy is the best?" the question "Which particular practices
are the best for a classroom teacher?" is difficult to
answer. "Best" has no significance when there are no cri-
teria for comparison. What may be the "best" for one stu—
dent might well be the "worst" for another; the "worst" for
one teacher might well present the "best" for another. We

are all familiar with the unquestionable fact of individual

differences: teachers differ; students differ; one class

is not like another; facilities are not the same everywhere.
Since we are dealing with the complex process of teaching
and learning, in which individuality and personality are
key factors, it is impossible to arrive at universal cri-
teria.

However, this is no excuse for going on with out-
dated practices in the classroom. The tendency of teachers
to resist changes in the classroom practices--if there is
such a tendency--is by no means to be condoned. Practices,
which are used merely because other teachers in the past
have used them, should be questioned and their effectiveness
should be subject to experimentation and they should be
changed if necessary.

Criticisms leveled against teachers in this regard
do manifest the need for change and updating. Friedenburg
considers the school's success in helping adolescents to
clarify values poor. According to him, administrative
factors outweigh human considerations. Confidentiality of
students' records is violated making it dangerous for
students to deal honestly with counselors. The schools
also act as if America were still a melting pot, encouraging
uniformity more than individuality. Standards are fragmen-
tary and incoherent. The lack of philosophical structure
obstructs developing curricula which utilize the best

cultural resources to help youth make sense out of their

lives.5 Charles Silberman attacks school practices for
similar reasons. He feels that the teachers are subservient
employees whose job is to take orders and push the time
clock every day. They are judged not by what and how their
students learn, but by how well they control their class-
room. Teachers, according to him, fail to think seriously
about the purposes and consequences of what they do--about
the relationship of educational means to ends--and they
seldom question established practices. There is a tendency
for teachers to do what teachers before them have done.
Schools operate on the assumption of distrust. Teachers
assume that children cannot be trusted to act in their own
best interest. Administrators make the same assumption
about teachers. This lack of trust produces a kind of
school in which every aspect of behavior is governed by
minute and petty rules. Teachers are encouraged to become
disciplinarians and discipline is defined as the absence of
noise and movement. The unreasonable eXpectation that all
children will be interested in the same thing at the same
time produces classroom discipline problems in the form of
misbehavior and teacher baiting. It is not the children,
says Silberman, that are disruptive, it is the formal setting

that is disruptive of childhood itself.6 In the context of

 

5Edgar Z. Friedenburg, The Vanishing Adolescent
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1959).

 

6Charles Silberman, Crisis in the Classroom: the
Remaking of American Education (New York: Random House,

1970).

 

 

these existing problems, what can the teacher do to bring
about necessary change and improvement?

Assuming that the goals and objectives of a particu-
lar course are defined by the system, teachers can still
scrutinize and study, through experimental procedures, the
effectiveness of particular classroom practices on particu-
lar students. Since teachers are operating with groups
which are characterized by great differences, one of the
questions which the teacher ought to ask constantly is this:
what should I do with this particular group of students?
Should I behave the same way as I did last year? What be-
haviors are most desirable in this situation? What should
be the effects of these behaviors on the students' academic
as well as on their affective growth? These are questions
of vital importance for a teacher to consider. What he will
be able to accomplish will depend also on how he behaves in
the classroom, for, indeed, learning is an interactive pro-

cess with the teacher.

Need for the Studyg

 

The teacher who wishes to follow a scientific ap-
proach to teaching must constantly gather data about his
teaching practices and interpret them in order to make his
teaching more effective and in order to keep pace with
changing demands. In their approach to teaching and learn-
ing, teachers are often conditioned by attitudes and beliefs

about education they have picked up as laymen or from

laymen--that is, from the non-professional and the non-
teaching public. The layman's concept of education is
likely to be a mixture of pseudoscientific information and
misinformation about desirable practices in teaching and
learning. Nor have many teachers developed a scientific
approach to their teaching because they have not kept up
with the literature available, or because they have not
tried to update their methods through experimental pro-
cedures. The fact that teachers tend to have less experi—
mental consciousness than people in other professions is
demonstrated by a survey conducted by Solomon Rettig and
Benjamin Passamanick7 who found that teachers tend to be
more concerned with the recognition and appreciation they
might receive from other persons outside their professions,
whereas people in other professions were more concerned
with recognition by their colleagues and other members of
their profession. The teacher who is continually looking
to laymen for appreciation is the teacher who will be guided
by lay conceptions of teaching and learning. The teacher,
who, instead, wishes to change his methods, must have re-
course to research and study.

Besides, as pointed out earlier, teachers are deal-
ing with a complex process of human behavior: teaching and

learning. Many problems confront one who ventures out on

 

7Solomon Rettig and Benjamin Passamanick, "Status
and Job Satisfaction of Public School Teachers," School and
Society, LXXXVII (1959), 113-16.

 

this noble profession. Probably every one who has become
a teacher has at times asked himself questions like these:
"How can I get Frank to try harder in arithmetic?" "What
did I do that made the class so interested in their work
today?" "How can I get my kindergarteners to clean up after
they are through with water play?" "How will students react
when they get their grades on this test?" "Is there not a
better method to teach spelling than the one I use?" "Why
did Jim behave that way today?"

These questions can be answered, but the answers
are not simple and obvious because human behavior is not
simple and obvious. The answers will vary with different
teachers, subjects, classes, and schools. "The usefulness
or validity of the answers will depend on whether they are
based on principles that are consistent with the way in
which people can be expected to behave under certain circum-
stances."8 Through experimental procedures, this consistency
can be found not with absolute but with hypothetical cer-
tainty. Given the situations, we can always find out the

way students react to particular teacher behaviors.

Historical Approach to the Solution of the Problem

 

In the past, the problem was not recognized. Learn—
ing was considered primarily as a process of accumulating

information. This concept was reflected in the idea that

 

8Henry C. Lindgren, Educational Psychology inthe
Classroom (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967), p. 3.

 

 

the "mind is a storehouse for facts." Teaching was a process
of filling the "storehouse" with facts and learning was the
process of acquiring or absorbing facts. The more facts,
the more learning. Great stress was laid on memorization
because the best way to learn facts, presumably, was to
memorize them. Learning was thus seen largely as a passive
process--it was the learner's task to be receptive, and the
teacher's task was to see that the learner got filled with
learning. The teacher's role was thus definitely spelled
out and since there was no alternative, the question as to
what teacher behaviors are desirable was not raised.

Another traditional belief was that things "properly"
taught are retained indefinitely. If the mind is a "store-
house," all that has been stored is supposed to be retained
indefinitely. What the teacher had really to see to was
that he taught everything "properly" and "properly" meant
that every one memorized the facts and information the
teacher had disseminated in class. It did not matter whether
what was given in class served the student's needs or not.
The question was not to be raised at all. Learning is sup-
posed to be a kind of mental toughening process that has a
value in and of itself. The assumption is that the mind is
a kind of muscle that can be strengthened by vigorous exer-
cise. They seemed to believe that the more difficult, frus-
trating, and unpleasant the subject is the greater is its

value to the student.

10

A third popular traditional belief was that learning
results from being told; students learn because they are
told. It assumes that learning must start somewhere outside
the learner, that someone else must set the wheels that
finally result in learning in motion. It also assumes that
"what is learned" is the thing that is told, that this thing
is somehow added to the store of knowledge already in the
learner's head, just as we would add a brick to a pile of
bricks already in a storeroom. This theory is basic to such
educational practices as giving lectures and having students
read textbooks. The idea is that learning is outside the
student--in the lecture or in the textbook-—and somehow he
has to get it inside him. To accomplish this was the true
task of the teacher.

Lack of Conceptual Framework
for These Theories

 

 

Educational psychologists today view teaching and
learning from three standpoints: from that of the learner,
that of the learning process, and that of the learning
situation. All of these are very important elements in
learning. Of course, when learning takes place, these do
not Operate as disintegrated parts; all human behavior,
including learning, occurs as an integrated whole. However,
traditionally, the learning process was emphasized almost
to the exclusion of the other two.

Although the "additive theory of learning" has deep

cultural roots and is popular with traditionalists in

ll

civilized and primitive cultures throughout the world, it
is a fallacious theory. It is true that people learn facts
and information, but they do so by fitting them into their
previous experience. They are useful only in as much as
they serve the student's need. In other words, facts and
information are learned in relation to something--other
facts, skills, needs, concepts, etc.--something that is
already a part of the life and experience of the learner.
Unless what we learn becomes a necessary or useful part of
our functioning as individuals, we quickly forget it. We
may remember an isolated bit of information for a short
time in order to pass a test and thus escape the punishment
of a failing grade or avoid disappointing a teacher we like
and respect; but once the grade has been assigned and the
teacher pleased, the useless material passes into the limbo
of forgetfulness.

Today we are less likely to put faith in the theory
that learning is a sort of mental toughening process. But
sometimes we are uneasy when it appears that children are
having too much fun in the classroom. Joseph Meyer Rice
encountered much opposition at the end of the nineteenth
century when he conducted research into the relationship
between the amount of time Spent in spelling drill and the
competence in Spelling. When he reported that children who
spent half an hour a day in Spelling drill could Spell no

better than those who spent ten minutes a day at this task,

12

the educators and laymen of the day felt he had missed the
point: the chief purpose of spelling drill was to disci-
pline the mind, not to teach spelling.9

Although most teachers no longer believe that
children Should study solely for the purpose of mental
discipline, they still tend to associate success in learning
with the amount of time spent in studying a subject, even
though researchers following in Rice's footsteps have been
unable to find any substantial evidence to support the
idea. For instance, a study of academic achievement among
freshmen at the University of Wisconsin found no relation-
ship between academic grades and the number of hours spent
in study.10

Sometimes we do find evidence that students have
gained much from hearing a lecture or reading a book, and
this discovery appears to confirm the theory that learning
results from being told. However, such successes do not
come about because of what was said in the lecture or printed
in the book. Any learning that occurs will depend on a
variety of factors: the interest of the student, the extent
to which he sees himself involved in the subject at hand,

the way in which the material is presented, and so forth.

 

9Joseph Meyer Rice, "The Futility of the Spelling
Grind," Forum, XXIII (1897), 163—72.

10J. P. McQuary, "Some Relationships Between Non—
intellectual Characteristics and Academic Achievement,"
Journal of Educational Psychology, XLIV (1953), 215-18.

13

We know that there is very little change in behavior when

11

people are merely told something. Actually telling is

one of the more difficult means of conveying information
that is to be remembered. Clifford Froehlich and W. Moser12
were interested in finding out whether persons who had been
counseled remembered the test scores that had been discussed
with them. They found that the counselees could remember
the highest score but not the others. If students cannot
remember anything as important to them personally as the
scores they make on tests, how can we eXpect that they will
remember information in which they are less involved?

Earl Kelley, an educational philosopher who has been
outspoken in his criticism of misconceptions in every day
educational practices has this to say about the belief that
education consists in amassing facts:

Teachers and parents generally consider knowledge to be
something which has existed in its own right for a long
time, and that the learner needs only to reach out and
acquire it. If all of a certain class reach out and
acquire the same knowledge then they will all know the
same things. This notion has of course governed our
ways of operation, our school buildings, our textbooks
and more important our attitudes toward our children.
Since knowledge is assumed to exist in its own right
before learning begins anybody who is willing can

reach and acquire it. Those who do not do so are
therefore perverse. Since perverseness of the learner

 

11Kurt K. Lewin, "Group Decision and Social Change,"
in Readings in Social Psychology, ed. by E. E. Maccoly et a1.
(3rd ed.; New York: Holt, 1958).

 

12Clifford P. Froelich and W. E. Moser, "Do
Counselees Remember Test Scores?" Journal of Counseling
Psychology, I (1954), 149-52.

 

14

is all that stands between us and success, we seek to
coerce the learner. A whole pattern of authoritarian
coercion is set up by this line of reasoning. Since

we now know that children cannot learn that for which
they lack eXperience and purpose (or if you like readi-
ness) some of them simply cannot learn the things we
set out for them. Perverseness has nothing to do with
it, although the child, when put in a position of being
required to do that whichlhe cannot, may look and act
as though he is perverse.

The theory that things once learned are retained in-
definitely is altogether baseless. There is nothing unusual
or abnormal about forgetting that takes place after classroom
learning. A number of studies show that the amount of infor-
mation retained by students several months after the end of
the course is disappointingly small. For example, a study
of the retention of the American history revealed that after
a lapse of eighteen months, junior high students had forgot-

l
ten one-third of the facts they had learned. 4 A study by
Glenn Durflinger15 of sophomores and juniors at the University
of California at Santa Barbara showed that although students

retained reading skills very well, most of them were unable

to function adequately in mathematics, and a large percentage

 

—... .-———. -——-¢ ._

l3Earl Kelley, "What are Children Learning?"
Childhood Education, XXXI (1954), 10.

14F. D. Brooks and S. J. Basset, "The Retention of
American History in the Junior High School," Journal of
Educational Research, XVIII (1928), 44-51.

 

 

15Glenn Durflinger, "The Fundamentals Forgotten by
College Students," Journal of Educational Research, XLIX
(1956), 571-79.

 

15

were unable to recognize parts of Speech. Albert Kitzhaberl6
conducted a survey of compositions and other papers written
by Dartmouth College students and found that the number of
errors in their writing declined during the freshman year,
when they were taking courses in English composition, but
increased during the subsequent years. What is involved
here is not merely ignorance of the rules of grammar, but an
absence of supporting reinforcement from English teachers
during the last three years of college. Because instructors
in other fields did not apparently care whether students'
papers were in good grammatical form, students naturally
paid less and less attention to the formal aspects of their
writing. What is needed to maintain an attained level of
adequacy is not therefore merely practice, but some kind of
assurance that what is learned has functional value.

Perhaps this is the basis for learning that endures:
it is perceived by the individual as somehow important to
him. This may, in some instances, be more important than
whether a Skill is practiced or not. We all have had the
experience of remembering information, concepts, and even
skills that we acquired long ago and have not had practical
reason to remember. But we do remember them because somehow
they seem important to us. Thus there does seem to be some

validity in the theory that things "properly" learned are

 

16Albert Kitzhaber, Themes, Theories and Therapy:
The Teaching of Writing in College (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1963).

 

l6

remembered, although this holds true only if "properly"
learned means that they have acquired some personal meaning
for us. If this personal meaning is not acquired, they are

forgotten rapidly.

Pugpose of the Study

 

The purpose of the study is to investigate the
overall reactions of the college-bound tenth grade students
of Sexton High School, Lansing, of the year 1970-71, toward
changes in the classroom teacher behaviors and to analyze
the possible impact thereby brought about on the students
in their academic and affective growth effected during the
time period of this research. The Specific aims are to con-
sider if it made any significant difference at all as to
what method the teacher followed in class. Did the changes
motivate the students to perform better, or were they alto-
gether indifferent about them? Did they manifest any change
in their perception and in their behavior? These points can
be investigated scientifically only if there is a criterion
for comparison. This would necessitate the need for a strict
statistical design, employing a control and experimental
group procedure. The experimenter was not able to execute
such a design due to the fact that many unavoidable limita—
tions were imposed upon him. However, the study does look
into the changes manifested during the time period of the
research and analyze them in the best possible way. For

this, a single group design, employing a pre-test and a

17

post-test procedure, is made use of, and limited generali—
zations are made based on the evidence of the data.

Some qualitative data were collected during this
time period. A questionnaire was given to the students,
asking them to record their feelings about their overall
experience in the class. These data are carefully analyzed
and some subjective interpretations are made based on the
data and the experimenter's observation of the students when
the study was conducted.

The study also looks into these students' performance
during the semester that followed, when these students were
redistributed into other different classrooms. An attempt
was made to identify these students in each class and from
each of these classes an equal number of other students was
randomly selected and their performance on the same tests
was compared. In order to avoid the possibility of any
error variance, the tests were given to all the students
and the random selection was made after all the tests had
been taken by all the students. This comparison is made
to see if the treatment given to the students made any
difference in their later performance.

In short, the study attempts to answer the following

questions:

1. How did the students perform in reading during the

semester?

2. What kind of progress did they make in composition?

18

3. Did they do well in literature?
4. Was there any change in their academic self-concept?

5. What changes were reflected in their attitudes toward

school and learning?

6. Did they manifest a more determined sense of purpose

and direction in their lives?

7. How did their overall performance change during the

semester that followed?

It Should be pointed out that it is not the intent
of the researcher to establish any causal relationships
based on the evidence of this study. An attempt is made
merely to analyze the changes which occurred in these areas
during the time period of the research. However, the study
is useful in so far as it will benefit those teachers who
wish to make similar changes in their classroom behaviors
under comparable circumstances. The results may be used for
in-service programs for the training of teachers. These

results can forewarn and forearm them against eventualities.

Rationale for the Approach
Learning, as pointed out earlier, involves three
focal elements: the learner, the learning process, and the
learning situation. By the word "learner" we mean the pupils
or students who individually or collectively comprise the
classroom group-~the persons on whose behalf the educational

program exists and Operates. A great deal of what happens

19

in the classroom can be explained in terms of personalities,
developmental stages, and psychosocial problems of students
who comprise the class. By the "learning process" we mean
whatever goes on when people learn. People learn always;

it is a process that goes on from the time we are born and
continues in some form or other throughout our lives. But
here we apply the term to whatever goes on in the "teaching-
learning" Situation. The term "learning Situation" refers
to the environment in which the learner finds himself and

in which the learning process takes place. It refers to any
factor or condition that affects the learner or the learning
process. The teacher, the classroom setting, the effective-
ness of the ventilation system, the arrangement of the seats
in the c1assroom--all these affect the learner and the learn-
ing process.

Traditionally, as was shown above, emphasis was given
to the second element, almost to the exclusion of the other
two. We have already pointed out that such approaches were
not backed by any conceptual or theoretical framework. Even
today, there are those who believe that more emphasis should
be given to the learning process and learning situation than
to the learner. Whether the one is more important than the
other is not the point of investigation in my study. But I
do believe that of the three elements, the first is certainly
the most important one, not only because people are more im-
portant than processes or Situations, but when the learner

is ignored it is almost comparable to teaching in a vacuum.

20

My belief about education is that the true goal of
all education is the production of adequate personalities,
people who can be counted upon to behave effectively and
efficiently and to contribute freely to the welfare of all.
Advocates of all systems and goals of education agree on one
thing: that, to be effective, education must result in a
change in the individual's behavior. If no change results,
education has been unsuccessful.

Behavior is completely determined by the perceptual
field at the moment of action. Therefore, the process of
education is fundamentally a process of change in the per—
ceptual field. Since behavior is determined by this field,
the way to change behavior is to change perceptions. But
changes in the perceptual field of any individual are
directed toward the satisfaction of his needs. This reveals
much to a teacher who intends to bring about changes in the
behavior of particular students. By manipulating the learn-
ing process or the learning situation, the teacher may not
bring about a desired change, because the learner does not
see the need for it. Instead, by making the learner see
the need for the change, there is greater likelihood that
the teacher can help him bring about the change desired.

"As long as our schools persist in attempting to direct
the child into activities which do not provide him with

opportunities for self-enhancement, children will show great

21

ingenuity in avoiding these activities."17 The traditional

school has encountered this refusal to deal with material
which has no personal value by inventing the conventional
system of marking and promotion. This gives the non-enhanc-
ing material an artificial self-reference through requiring
its mastery as a condition for avoiding censure, or for se-
curing a satisfactory mark. This makes the material a mat-
ter of concern to the pupils who have learned that success
in school is a means of self-enhancement. However, the vic—
tim of this trickery does not allow himself to be put upon.
He maintains his integrity by dropping the material from
his field at the earliest moment, usually as soon as the
mark has been assured. This state of affairs often results
in the pupil's disregard of the subject matter entirely ex-
cept as a vehicle for gaining approval or avoiding dis-
approval.

Some teachers have attempted to resolve the problem
by designing educational practices entirely in terms of the
immediate needs of the child; others have sought to solve
the problem by ignoring the needs of the child and concen-
trating solely on "training the child for the future."
Clearly, these are extremes and neither of these is likely
to result in an effective and efficient educational system.
Effective education is not content with the fulfillment of

immediate goals alone. It should be concerned with the

 

17Arthur Combs and Donald Syngg, Individual Behavior
(rev. ed.; New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1959),
p. 370.

 

22

creation of goals. The truly great teacher Should do more
than tell the students what they want to know; he should
inspire them to want to know what they have never dreamed of.
To achieve such goals in modern education, teachers must be
deeply concerned with the meanings acquired by the students.
The important thing in the determination of behavior
is not the objective description of facts and objects in the
phenomenal field, but the meaning that those objects and
facts convey to the individual. This meaning is found in the
relationship of the object to the phenomenal self, in the
role which the object or fact is felt to have in the satis-

18 asked his

faction of need. In an experiment, Norman Maier
subjects to solve a problem involving the principle of the
pendulum and gave them a piece of string and a pair of pliers.
Many of his subjects were so used to pliers as pliers that
it never occurred to them that they could be used as pendulum
weights. They were unable to see the new meaning pliers
could have because they were so fixed on the old one. It is,
therefore, very important that the fact or object emerge with
a meaning which will make it useful for the future satisfac-
tion of the need.

The meaning of any object or event is the relation

which it has to the self of the perceiver. It is his per-

ception of its effect upon himself and his efforts at

 

18Norman Maier, "Reasoning in Children," Journal of
Comparative Psychology, XXI (1936), 357-66.

 

23

self-enhancement and self-maintenance. Many meanings exist
at such low levels of awareness as to be unreportable. The
result is that we are rarely able to communicate meanings
fully and accurately. Students who are taught by verbal
means alone are sure to behave as if most of the material
they study is without relation to themselves, as indeed it
is, until they actually experience the Situations the books
and teachers are talking about. In general, the problem of
communicating is so difficult that it is often much more
practical to help students discover the meaning of objects
and events by actual experience than to try to convey them
verbally. Furthermore, the meanings will have different
potentialities for different peOple.

It seems obvious, therefore, that any system of edu-
cation which concerns itself only with the formal presenta-
tion of subject matter without considering the individual
student's point of view will affect different persons very
differently. Subject matter and methods which have a de-
sirable effect on the development and behavior of one student
may have a very undesirable effect on the development and
behavior of another. As a result, any formalized system of
education whether method-centered or subject-matter-centered
is too unpredictable and erratic in outcome to be safely
used by a highly integrated democratic society. To be really
effective, education will have to accept the task of dealing

with the whole phenomenal field of the individual, of

24

producing changes in his perception of himself as well as
in his perception of his environment. This is necessary
not only because of the dominant role which the phenomenal
self plays in the determination of behavior, but because of
the organized and unified nature of the phenomenal field.
Changes in the phenomenal field of the self are

19 has

invariably followed by changes in behavior. Lecky
reported a number of pupils who, after undergoing changes
of the self-concept, have made startling improvement in
their level of achievement, often without tutoring. A high
school student who misspelled 55 words out of 100 and who
failed so many subjects that he lost credit for a full year
became one of the best spellers in the school during the
next year and made a general average of 91. . . . A girl
who had failed four times in Latin, with marks between 20
and 50, after three weeks with the school counselor made a
mark of 92 in the next test and finished with a mark of 84.
She is now taking advanced Latin with grades above 80.

The following case report, written by a teacher,
further illustrates the important role played by phenomenal
self in behavior:

Roger is twelve years old, almost three years older
than any other child in the class. He has failed three
different terms in school and was passed into the sixth
grade only because of his age. Achievement and other

tests showed little improvement over what he accom-
plished on the tests given in September. He has had

 

19P. Lecky, Self-consistency: A Theory of Person-
ality (New York: Island Press, 1945).

 

25

psychological tests three times: once when he was
seven, again when he was nine, and once more this
spring. Test results Showed that he was normal in
intelligence and is abnormal in no way. He has never
learned to read although there is no physical or mental
obstruction to his ability to learn. He is far beyond
the average child in his ability to converse and Shows
a remarkable sense of judgment for a child of his age.
He surpasses most of his class in reasoning out class-
room prOblems not connected with school work. He has

a wonderful personality and is well liked by all the
other children although the boys call him a sissy.
Roger firmly believes that he was born without a brain
and that it is impossible for him to learn. He will
not attempt to do any kind of school work which involves
independent thinking and constantly attempts to foresee
any challenge which might confront him before the school
day even begins. Upon arriving at school he might say:
"If we do examples at the board I'm not going up. I'll
sit in my seat because I can't do them and only take up
Space at the board." When Roger started to read in the
first grade, the children laughed when he made a mistake
and continued to laugh at his mistakes when none of his
teachers corrected the other children. This occurred
in more than the first grade. Roger at first laughed
with them until he suddenly refused to read aloud any
more. Since then he cannot even read silently. He
dislikes school and has to be practically forced to
school every day. His belief that "he was born without
brains" excuses him from any thinking processes and so
protects him from humiliation. He is no behavior prob-
lem as far as obeying rules, etc., and he is a very
cheerful boy for, naturally, having no brain excuses
one from the difficult things.

Roger was an only child until he was 7 and his
mother did all the difficult things for him. When his
brother was born, Roger demanded even more attention
from his parents, and, fearing he was jealous of the
baby, the parents overworked themselves in showing their
devotion. His mother tied his Shoes until he was ten.
I believe this dependence on someone to do all the hard
things is one of Roger's problems now. Everything was
made easy for him with all the difficult tasks taken
over by his mother or father and now he is unable to do
for himself.

He is at the reading clinic on the Hill this year
and there has been a decided improvement in his reading
accomplishment. . . . The psychological tests had been
bad for Roger, I think. These have naturally given him
the idea that he is different and that there must be
something wrong with him, especially Since he has had
three. After his tests this Spring he came to school

26

and said: "Well, they gave me some more tests to see
how dumb I was." His parenEa have never told him the
results of the tests. . . .

The case of Roger illustrates quite well how the
phenomenal self develops and how it affects behavior. This
boy was treated as an incompetent by his parents, his class-
mates, and his teachers. He was placed in a situation where
it was easier to accept this concept of himself than to re-
ject it. At home, as an incompetent, he was waited upon and
protected. In school, he found that the concept of himself
as an incompetent was one which he could maintain because it
was consistent with the way he was treated.

This Sketchy description of the theory of behavior
gives the rationale for the approach followed by the investi-
gator in the classroom. Its main objective was to bring
about perceptual changes in the student and thereby cause
changes in his behavior. The behaviors the teacher exhibited
in the classroom were to help students to satisfy their needs.
In the classroom he was informal with them; he reasoned with
them and gave them guidance and help whenever asked for; all
his attention was given to the growth and development of the
individual learner; he capitalized on their interests rather
than approaching them with defined programs. When the pres-
sure of grades and fear of tests were taken away, the stu-

dents were motivated to look into the mirror of self and

 

20Arthur Combs and Donald Snygg, Individuaerehavior
(rev. ed.; New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1959),
pp. 375-77.

 

27

work on things which helped them to be adequate personali-

ties.

Hypotheses in the Study

The study was not intended to prove a point through
a rigorously conducted experimental research design; it did
not have for its objective the establishment of any causal
relationships. Practical and theoretical problems made it
difficult for the researcher to execute an experimental—
control type of design. However, the researcher did look
into some of the changes that had been brought about in the
students during the time period that the research was con-
ducted. The researcher's main areas of interest were two:
(1) changes in the students' academic growth and (2) possible
changes in their affective development. In the academic
field, the particular content areas the researcher planned
to look into were: reading, writing, and literature. It
should be pointed out that the teacher did not do anything
special in the way of giving new programs in order to bring
about changes in these areas. He did not even assign any
specific tasks for the students to perform in class; he did
not provide the traditional aids-—lectures, assignments,
tests, etc.--usually given in every classroom. However,
students were told that it was important for them to work
in these content areas at their own pace and in the manner
that they considered most useful for them. The teacher did

give help, individually and collectively, whenever asked for.

28

But for the most part, they were left to work alone or in a
small group they chose to work in. Instead of limiting the
tasks that could be performed in class, they were encouraged
to indulge in a wide variety of activities, based on interest
and talents. Other areas of interest for the investigator
were mostly in the affective realm. To be specific, they
were: student's self-concept of academic ability and
achievement, student's attitude toward school and learning,
and student's sense of purpose and determination in life.

It was hoped that the teacher's stress on responsible indi-
vidual work rather than on pressured servile work, teacher's
friendly and informal attitude manifested through a personal
dialogue with individual students during the contact time in
class, and the teacher's flexible rather than fixed and stern
approach to teaching would bring about some definite changes
in the student's overall attitudes. In short, the researcher

tested the following hypotheses:

1. These students improved significantly in reading

skills.

2. These students improved significantly in writing

and composition.

3. These students improved significantly in their

ability to read literature.

4. These students made significant changes in their

academic self-concept.

29
5. These students made Significant changes in their
attitudes toward school and learning.

6. These students made Significant changes in their

sense of purpose and determination in life.

7. These students performed significantly better than
those students who were not exposed to the treat-

ment.

Operational Definitions of the Terms

Some effects: The word "some" is used to convey the

 

idea that the researcher was not looking for any predicted
or preplanned changes; any change in the defined areas that
was brought about during the time period of the research
was considered. The term "effects" does not imply causal
or mathematical changes; that is, the researcher was not
concerned whether these changes took place essentially and
entirely as a result of the treatment given. It was the
assumption of the investigator that teacher behaviors in
the classroom had some impact on the students' performance;
along with this factor, there were other variables oper-
ating in the environment of the student, all contributing
to bringing about changes in the students. The researcher
looked at these effects, without necessarily identifying
their causes. Perhaps, a better term than "effects" was

"concomitants."

30

Experimental classroom procedures: This refers to
the behaviors the teacher employed in the classroom, which
were to some extent unique because these were not generally
exhibited by most other teachers in the ordinary classroom.
These behaviors are assumed to be unique. The researcher
has not made a philosophical issue of the point whether

these were unique or not.

Academic achievement: This refers to the perform-

 

ance of the students in three content areas: reading,
writing, and literature. Achievement is defined in terms

of progress as measured by the TAP, Tests of Academic ‘

 

Progress.

Attitudes: The researcher was interested in three

 

areas of the student's attitude formation, which were assumed
to be closely tied in with the objectives and goals of a

particular school program. These three variables are:

l. Self-concept of academic ability and achievement:
This refers to the picture or the image which the
student has of himself to meet the academic require-
ments of the school and to perform adequately, that
is, sufficient to meet the requirements of the pass-
ing level and possibly even better, in comparison

with the rest of the students of his class or level.

2. Attitudes toward school and learning: Does the stu-

dent see school as a place which can help prepare

31

him to meet the challenges the society offers him?
Does he consider learning as a profitable activity
that can benefit him as an individual and that can
benefit the society? Does his overall behavior in

school reflect these convictions?

3. Sense of purpose and determination in life: Does
the student perceive his capability to achieve some-
thing in his life which can be of service to himself
and to society? Does he manifest a sense of deter-

mination to achieve this objective or goal?

College-bound tenth grade students: The study was
conducted with students in the first year of college-oriented
program in the high school. No effort has been made to find
out if these students remained in the program and actually

went to college or not.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

The study was intended to describe the overall re-
actions of the students when the teacher had recourse to a
new approach in teaching them. The results of the study did
reveal something about student reactions to teacher behaviors
in the classroom. By analyzing individual reactions to the
changes in approach in classroom management, a general pic-
ture of students' expectations of teaCher behaviors was ob-
tained. This will benefit other teachers who are intending

to make similar changes in comparable situations. The

32

results of the study may also be of value to in-service
programs for new teachers.

However, the study has several limitations. The
major limitation of a single-group design is that, as no
control group is used, the researcher must assume that
changes between the pre-test and post-test were brought
about by the experimental treatment. There is always some
chance, however, that one or more extraneous variables
brought about all or part of the change noted between the
pre-test and post-test scores. F. T. Smith21 conducted a
study with a single-group design of changes in college atti-
tudes toward the Negro. He administered a pre-test, an
attitudinal scale measuring attitudes toward the Negro, to
a sample of 354 college students at Columbia University.

Of this sample, he selected forty-six who were representa-
tive of the larger group tested. These students were then
exposed to the experimental treatment which was a series of
favorable contacts with Negroes such as having dinner with

a Negro family, visiting a Negro church, and meeting leaders
of the Negro community in Harlem. These contacts extended
over a four—day period. Smith's hypothesis was that these
contacts with Negroes would change the attitudes of his
research subjects in a favorable direction. Ten days after

the planned contact with Negroes, Smith post-tested his

 

21F. T. Smith, "An Experiment in Modifying the
Attitudes Toward the Negro," Teachers' College Contri-
butions, DCCCVII (1943).

 

33

group using the same attitude measure and found that the
mean attitude had changed significantly in favor of Negroes.
Then after waiting ten months, Smith administered still
another post-test to determine how much of the favorable
attitudes change had persisted. Here, it is impossible to
determine how exactly the change was brought about. The
variables Operating are too many and therefore it is hazard-
ous to identify particular cuaseS. Similarly, this study,
too, is packed with many confounding variables.

The study assumes much. It is difficult to find
Situations where all these assumptions can be held valid.
Thus, the study has only a very limited hypothetical value.
What a teacher can do for the students in one hour a day is
negligible compared to the multitude of other stimuli that
influence them. Anything that goes on in the environment
can contribute to the changes that are obtained. What other
teachers do in their classrooms can have either positive or
negative or neutralizing effects. This being the case, the
analysis of the data does not necessarily reveal anything
at all from a statistical point of view. However, consider-
ing the fact that the study is purely a description of what
happened during the time when the teacher taught them in a
special way, some of these criticisms of statistical pro-

cedures can perhaps be held in abeyance.

34

Summary

The researcher followed a flexible approach in
teaching his students in the classroom. He was interested
in analyzing and studying possible changes that were brought
about in the students and in their overall performance
during this time period. He was also interested in com-
paring the subsequent performance Of these students with
other students who did not get the treatment. The method
is discussed and the results are analyzed, so that any one
interested in using the approach in similar situations can
be aware in advance what kinds of results to expect, or

what reactions to encounter.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

 

The present study, while not a replication of any
previous research, has nevertheless evolved from the ex-
periences of earlier researchers concerned with the problem
of teaching and learning in general, and specifically from
the experiences of those concerned with the classroom
teacher behaviors.

This review of past research experiences relating
to methods of approach to teaching and learning has four
parts. The first provides a sketch of some of the systems
and theories that have motivated people to take up these
researches. The second part is a short overview of the
different positions on the issue. The third is a review
of reactions to these various positions, and the fourth
focuses on the complexity of the problem and therefore the

need to keep on researching into this area.

Systems and Theories

 

Philosophers, educational theorists, and educational

psychologists have had their impact on teacher behaviors in

35

36

the classroom in that they have led teachers and others
concerned about education to re-examine both purposes and
methods and to experiment with new techniques. Some of
the questions raised by philoSOphers, such as John Dewey
and Alfred North Whitehead, some of the new theories ex-
pounded by educational psychologists such as Skinner,
Bruner, Combs, Snygg, and others have led to the intro-
duction of new methods and changes in curriculum, which
have in turn kept teachers and educational psychologists
busy comparing the new with the old.

Probably, the greatest contribution to the formu-
lation of theories about teaching and learning has been
made by teachers themselves, for it is they who provide
the impetus and stimulus that are the beginning of many a
research project. Teachers question methodology, they
improvise and innovate, they experiment with new methods
and new curricular materials, they start chains of question-
ing which motivate themselves or others to study, survey,
speculate, and experiment. For instance, the demand for
smaller classes has resulted in much research on the re-
lationship of class size to effectiveness of education, but

22

Newell's as well as Spitzer's23 findings so far fail to

 

22C. A. Newell, "Class Size and Adaptability,"
Teachers College Record, XLIV (1944). 556-57.

 

23H. F. Spitzer, "Class Size and Pupil Achievement
in Elementary Schools," Elementary School Journal, LV (1954)
82—86.

 

37

give evidence that smaller classes are more efficient.
Nevertheless research continues on this and other problems
raised by teachers and administrators with the result that
our understanding of teaching and learning continues to be
increased and enhanced.

The expansion of the behavioral sciences and the
increasing momentum of the mental hygiene movement during
the last generation have produced a wealth of ideas, con-
cepts, and research that have helped broaden the SCOpe of

teaching. Lee Cronbach24

has this to say about the teach-
ing emphasis in educational psychology. Traditionally
educational psychology was oriented toward increasing the
efficiency of formal education. But Since learning takes
place everywhere, all the social influences impinging on
the child are educational forces. In view of this, the
task of guiding development is seen to be exceedingly com—
plex, and efficiency becomes almost indefinable.
Educational psychologists who regard themselves as
laboratory-oriented scientists have made their contribution
by working in collaboration with teachers not only on prob-
lems relating to educational measurement and learning
efficiency, but also on problems in such fields as mental

health, group relations, classroom communication and

parent-teacher relations. Although the broader sc0pe of

 

24L. J. Cronbach, Educational Psychology, Vol. I,
Annual Review of Psychology, ed. by C. P. Stone and
D. W. Taylor (Stanford: Annual Reviews, 1950).

 

 

38

teaching today has made it far more complex, the develOp-
ment of possibilities and resources as a result of study

and research have afforded great potential to the teacher.

A Short Overview

Skinner maintains that all learning takes place
through the reinforcement of responses. He bases his con-
clusion on evidence obtained from researches conducted in
the area of Operant conditioning. Research with Operant
conditioning makes use of the simple Observation that living
organisms tend to repeat behavior that is satisfying and to
avoid behavior that is not. The experimenter can thus
manipulate and shape the behavior of experimental subjects
by presenting stimuli that have satisfying effects whenever
the subjects Show any behavior that is of the type he is
seeking. The presentation of such stimuli is said to re-
inforce the behavior in question. Skinner has, for example,
taught pigeons to play table tennis and to serve as the
directional systems for guided missiles. According to
Skinner, Operant conditioning is also of interest to the
teacher because it provides some clues to the reasons for
success or failure in the classroom. Teaching success
occurs when desired behavior has been adequately reinforced.
Teaching failure occurs when undesirable behaviors have been
reinforced. Teachers apparently can control learning by
providing reinforcement when the student makes a move in

the desired direction. Teachers can sabotage their own

39

efforts by inadvertently reinforcing when the student
engages in behavior that leads away from the teacher's
goals.

There are some who believe that learning should
proceed deductively. Basically, this is the idea that
students Should understand the theory of what they are
about to do before they actually try it. The idea that
learning Should take place deductively from the general to
the particular is one that is part of the European cultural
heritage. In the older European tradition, scholars are
men of ideas, not of action, and their particular contri-
bution is that of providing the theories or generalizations
that explain experiences.

The idea that learning should be fun is in part
related to the assumption that educational experiences are
good experiences. The idea that learning can be fun is one
that gets much support from teachers who like to see child—
ren happy or who themselves enjoy learning and therefore
want to share their pleasure with others. No modern edu-
cator would have any quarrel with this point of view;
indeed, it is desirable that all teachers enjoy seeing
children happy and enthusiastic about learning. The idea
that learning Should be enjoyable has considerable support
in research.

The field theorists stress the concept of social

climate as seen or perceived by the individual. The theory

40

holds that changes in the psychological field will produce
changes in behavior. It eXplains human behavior in terms
of the way in which an individual responds to the forces in
his environment, particularly his social environment. The
attitudes, expectations, feelings, and needs of the indi-
vidual determine to a large degree the power of the forces
present in his psychological field.

Dewey was much concerned with what went on in the
classroom. He produced no formal researches; instead, he
analyzed, probed, and theorized. He did not try out his
theories in the laboratory, although he did test them out
in the classroom in a practical way. According to Louis

Thorpe and Allen Schmuller,25

Dewey's great theoretical
contribution was his view of learning as problem solving--

a refinement of the processes whereby the individuals

adjust to their environment. Dewey's26 statement regarding
the development of the power of judgment in children reveals
his point of view on the matter. The child cannot get
power of judgment excepting as he is continually exercised
in forming and testing judgment. He must have an opportu-
nity to select for himself and then to attempt to put his

own selections into execution that he may submit them to

the only final test, that of action. Only thus can he

 

25Louis P. Thorpe and Allen M. Schmuller, Contem-
pgrary Theories of Learning (New York: Ronald, 1954).

26John Dewey, Ethical Principles Underlying Education

 

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1903).

41

learn to discriminate that which promises success from that
which promises failure; only thus can he form the habit of
relating his otherwise isolated ideas to the conditions
which determine their value.

A more recent exponent of the problem solving
approach in education is Jerome Bruner,27 an experimental
psychologist, who has been interested in practical problems
involving mathematical Skills. Discovery is an important
aspect of effective problem solving, according to Bruner.
He says that knowledge of results should come at the point
in a problem solving episode when the person is comparing
the results of his tryout with some criterion of what he
seeks to achieve. Knowledge of results given before this
point either cannot be understood or must be carried as
extra freight in immediate memory. If information is to be
used selectively, it must be translated into the learner's
way of attempting to solve the problem. If such translat-
ability is not present, then information is simply useless.
Telling a neophyte Skier to shift to his uphill edges when
he cannot distinguish on which edges he is traveling pro-
vides no help; simply telling him to lean into the hill may
succeed. Instruction is a provisional state that has as

its object to make the learner or problem solver

 

27Jerome S. Bruner, "Some Theorems on Instruction
Illustrated in Reference to Mathematics," Theories of
Learning and Instruction, Sixty-third Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part I
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964).

42

self-sufficient. Any regimen of correction carries the
danger that the learner may become permanently dependent
upon the tutor's correction. The tutor must correct the
learner in a fashion that eventually makes it possible for
the learner to take over the corrective function himself.
Otherwise the result of instruction is to create a form of
mastery that is contingent upon the perpetual presence of
a teacher.

The phenomenologists who have the most to say about
education are Arthur Combs and Donald Snygg. According to
Combs and Snygg,28 learning is a natural and normal process
for children: it is an important dimension of normal growth
and development. The task of schools is not to make people
grow. By their very nature, they are bound to grow and the
task of schools is only to help them grow in socially de-
sirable directions. Many of the difficulties teachers en-
counter stem from their continued attempt to feed students
with facts and information that have no meaning or relation
to the latter's life. One of the primary reasons for in-
effectiveness of our formal methods of teaching is that
facts exist in the phenomenal field of an individual only
if they have personal meaning for him. Facts that have no
relation to him or his life task do not emerge into aware-
ness, or cease to exist in the field as their irrelevance

has been discovered.

 

28Combs and Snygg, Individual Behavior, pp. 365-80.

 

43

Review of Reactions and Comments

 

In the theory that all learning takes place through
the reinforcement of responses, there is both fallacy and
truth, just as there is in most traditional and popular
beliefs about learning. It is true that people will nor-
mally try to behave in ways that are rewarding and satis-
fying, but rewards often do not reinforce learning at all,
as when there is a long delay between the appearance of the
behavior that is to be learned and the presentation of the
reward. There is no doubt that the coupling of reward and
punishment Often "get results" with the students, but all
too Often the results are not in the direction of positive
learning--that is, intellectual growth. What Often results
is a kind of blind obedience, an obedience that is condi-
tioned by the presence of the authority of the teacher.

Personality patterns complicate the value of re-
wards and punishments. In exploring the responses of sixth

29 found

graders to various learning Situations, Gloria Grace
that some children Showed greater gains in learning when
they were praised, others learned better when they were
criticized, and still others learned better when only

neutral statements were uttered. Children who responded

best to negative statements tended to be of two types: one,

 

29Gloria L. Grace, "The Relation of Personality
Characteristics and Response to Verbal Approval in a
Learning Task," Genetic Psychology Monogpapp, XXXVII
(1948), 73-103.

 

44

the well-adjusted but overly conscientious child who tries
to please persons in authority, and the other, the poorly
adjusted child with many emotional problems who has very
strong needs for social approval and acceptance. Children
who responded best to neutral statements also tended to be
poorly adjusted, but not as much as the type of child who
responded well to criticism. Hani van de Riet30 found that
praise resulted in slower learning among a group of very
slow learners and low achievers in grades five, Six, and
seven, but in faster learning with a group of normal
achievers from the same grades. The low achievers re-
sponded somewhat better to reproof than to praise. These
studies suggest that before teachers decide whether to use
praise or reproof, they must know about the student, about
his particular personality patterns.

Ellis Batten Page31 conducted an interesting piece
of research that provides some evidence about the principle
of reinforcement as advocated by Skinner. He asked seventy—
four school teachers to perform the following experiment.
After they had administered, scored, and graded whatever

Objective test they happened to be using at the moment in

 

30Hani van de Riet, "Effects of Praise and Reproof
on Paired-associate Learning in Educationally Retarded
Children," Journal of Educational Psychology, LV (1964),
139-43.

 

31Ellis B. Page, "Teacher Comments and Student
Performance: A Seventy-four Classroom Experiment in School
Motivation," Journal of Educational Psychology, XLIX (1958),
173-81.

 

45

their classes, they randomly divided the tests into three
piles. The "no comment" pile received no marks other than
those used for scoring and grading. On the test papers in
the "free comment" pile, they wrote whatever thoughts were
appropriate for the particular students and their perform-
ance on the tests. The "specified comment" pile received
certain uniform comments which Page had prepared beforehand
for all Similar letter grades and which were considered to
be generally encouraging. The effect of this treatment as
revealed in the very next tests the students took was con-
sistent with Operant learning theory. Students whose papers
had been in the "free comment" and the "Specified comment"
piles showed improvement in their scores with the "free
comment" group showing greater improvement. There was no
improvement on the part of the "no comment" group. Inci-
dentally, Page had asked the teachers to predict the effects
the comments would have on student performance and most of
them had said that the better students would be more re—
sponsive than the poorer ones. The results showed, however,
that good and poor students alike responded favorably to the
comments.

In order to give feedback in teaching, Skinner intro-
duced programmed learning, in the form of what was called
the "teaching machine." The first attempts to investigate
the results of the introduction of automated machines, in

which students were presented with a series of questions

46

one at a time, were conducted by Sidney Pressey.32 Each
question was followed by several possible answers and the
students pressed a button to indicate the choice that he
thought was correct. Such machines did not attract a great
deal of attention until Skinner developed models and pro-
grams that incorporated operant learning principles. Al-
though the past few years have seen the development of a
rich variety of programmed materials, research studies have
not been able to Show conclusively that Skinner's approach
to programmed learning has any advantage over Pressey's.
Shirley Curran Lublin,33 for example, tried various ways

to reinforce learning in a programmed course and found that
no reinforcement gave the best results. Students with
strong needs to indulge in indpependent thinking did very
poorly, which led the researcher to wonder whether error—
free programs, such as Skinner's, are actually too easy

to be interesting. Negative findings have also been re-

ported by other researchers, Roth,34 Roe, Case, and Roe,35

 

ZSidney L. Pressey, "A Simple Device for Teaching,
Testing and Research in Learning," School and Society,
XXIII (1938), 373-76.

 

33Shirley C. Lublin, "Reinforcement Schedules,
Scholastic Aptitude, Autonomy Need and Achievement in a
Programmed Course," Journal of Educational Psychology, LVI
(1965), 295—302.

 

34H. R. Roth, "Student Reactions to Programmed
Learning," Phi Delta Kappan, XLIV (1963), 278-81.

 

35K. V. Roe, H. W. Case, and Roe, "Scrambled Versus
Ordered Sequence in Autoinstructional Programs," Journal of
Educational Psychology, LIII (1962), 101-04.

 

47

Welsh, Antoinetti, and Thayer.36

In the middle 1950's, some of the leading people in
the field of learning, for example, Ernest Hilgard,37 were
quite dubious about the advisability of translating and
applying laboratory findings to classroom practice. In a
paper analyzing problems in the field Of educational psy-
chology, Ernest Haggard38 made this comment on the failure
Of laboratory psychologists to amke any major contributions
to our understanding of the teaching-learning process. Most
learning theorists still seem to think of their subjects as
physicalistic machines which Should display an invariant
relation between input (Stimulus) and output (Response)
variables. In such schemes, learning tends to be thought
Of as a function of what the experimenter does, rather than
what the subject already knows, or is interested in, or
thinks and feels about the learning experience or the mater-
ial to be learned. Consequently learning has usually been
defined as the modification of the relations between rather

discreet stimuli and responses, or as the modification of

 

36P. Welsh, J. A. Antoinetti, and P. W. Thayer, "An
Industrywide Study of Programmed Instruction," Journal of
Applied Psychology, XLIX (1965), 61-73.

 

 

37E. R. Hilgard, Theories of Learning and Instruc-

tion, Sixty-third Yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Learning, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1964).

 

 

38Ernest Haggard, "The PrOper Concern of Educational
Psychologists," American Psychologist, IX (1954), 539-43.

 

48

response systems resulting from after-the-fact events
(rewards or punishments), which usually determine such
modification.

In regard to the belief that learning should pro-
ceed deductively, a study was conducted by Bert Kersh39 who
gave a series of tasks involving arithmetical and geometri-
cal relationships to three groups of college students. One
group was given instructional aids to help them in solving
the problems, but was given no other direction; a second
group received no help in solving the problems; a third
group was given the rules that applied to the problems.
When the students were tested four to six weeks later, those
who had been given instructional aids made the best record,
followed by those who received no help, with those who had
been given the rules making the poorest record. Students
who had received no help had the highest motivation to con-
tinue learning on their Own. One of the "no-help" students
reported that he had become so intrigued by his success in
discovering the rules that he told his friends about his
experience and tried the problems out on them. Another
"no-help" student went so far as to look up the appropriate
algebraic rule in the library. On the other hand, one of
the students in the "rule-given" group complained that he

had forgotten the rules, because no one had told him to

 

39Bert Y. Kersh, "The Adequacy of 'Meaning' As an
Explanation for the Superiority of Learning by Independent
Discovery," Journal of Educational Psychology, XLIX (1958),

 

49

remember them. Kersh40 subsequently conducted another

experiment, the results of which tended to confirm the
findings of the earlier study in that students who had been
allowed to discover the principles applicable to a set of
problems did better than a group who had been instructed
in the use of the principles. One of the applications of
these studies is that the inductive method of proceeding
from experience to theory seems to be more efficient when
it comes to learning to solve problems. Colville,41 whose
results are consistent with those of Kersh's work, found
that the learning of simple physical skills such as rolling
a billiard ball or catching a ball on a tennis racket was
not aided by a study of the physical principles involved.
The idea that learning should be fun has consider-
able research backing. The study by Hurlock42 Showed that
generally better results were obtained by positive rather
than negative comment, and there is no question but the
results of learning must be satisfying. But it should be

pointed out that "learning must be fun" can be carried to

 

40Bert Y. Kersh, "The Motivating Effect of Learning
by Directed Discovery," Journal of Educational Psychology,
LIII (1962), 65-71.

41F. M. Colville, "The Learning of Motor Skills as
Influenced by Knowledge of Mechanical Principles," Journal
of Educational Psychology, XLVIII (1967), 321-27.

42Elizabeth Hurlock, "Evaluation of Certain
Incentives Used in School Work," Journal of Educational
Psychology, XVI (1925), 145-59.

 

50

'the point where it may actually interfere with intellectual
growth. Life for both children and adults contains count-
less incidents of failure and we must all learn how to cope
with them. As Alma Bingham43 says, we must allow children
failures. We quell many problem—solving opportunities and
give them limited experience by making sure that they won't
fail. After reviewing research in six areas of mental de-
velOpment, Ralph Tyler44 came to the conclusion that mental
development is actually facilitated by Situations containing
some element of conflict or frustration: "In order that
effective integration may take place in the child's mental
development, conflicting drives, impulses, external demands,
and ideas must be balanced, not eliminated."

The field theorists' position too has support in
research. One of the classic experiments in the area of
psychology was conducted by Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippit, and
Ralph White.45 Four small groups of eleven-year-olds were
organized for the ostensible purpose of engaging in activi-

ties of recreational nature. Each club was supervised by

 

43Alma Bingham, Improving Children's Facility in

Problem Solving (New York: Bureau of Publications,Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1958).

44Ralph W. Tyler, "Cooperation and Conflict in the

Mental Development of the Child," Mental Hygiene, XXXII
(1948), 255.

 

45Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippit, and Ralph White,
"Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created
'Social Climates,'" Journal of Educational Psychology,
X (1939), 271-99.

51

an adult leader for seven weeks, whereupon a different
leader took over. Over a period of twenty-one weeks, each
club was supervised by three different leaders. Leaders
had been coached by the experimenters to play a different
kind of role and thus create a different kind of social
climate with each club they supervised. With one club

they were supposed to be autocratic, with another they were
supposed to be democratic, and with the third they were to

be laissez faire. The experiment was organized in such a

 

way that each club had the experience of being directed by
each of the three kinds of leadership. The theory that
changes in the psychological field will produce changes in
behavior appears to have been borne out by the experiment,
inasmuch as the groups demonstrated a different kind of be-
havior with each of the three different kinds of leaders.
When the psychological field was influenced by leaders
playing democratic roles, the groups were characterized by
greater interest and personal involvement in club matters.
They took the responsibility for initiating and completing

tasks. When the leadership was of a laissez faire nature,

 

the behavior of the members was characterized by frustra-
tion, discontent, and poor morale. Under autocratic leaders
boys were either apathetic or even actively hostile.

John Dewey's task Of analyzing and understanding
learning from a problem-solving vieWpoint deserves special

mention. In Dewey's approach, the concern was with the kind

52

Of learning that goes on in classrooms, whereas the condi-
tioning and reinforcement psychologists were primarily
concerned with laboratory eXperimentation. Many educational
psychologists have ignored Dewey's work, even though he was
one of the first presidents of the American Psychological
Association. The audience for Dewey's writings consisted
Of the educational, rather than the psychological, profes—
sion because he communicated directly to the people who
taught in the classrooms and administered the schools. The
educational psychologists of Dewey's day were more likely
to take their cues from Thorndike, who not only developed
theories of learning along conditioning lines but also pro-
duced prodigious quantities of research data. However,
the theories of Dewey were constructed on a large scale.
They were concerned with the whole child in a total situa-
tion, rather than with the precise analysis of minute pro-
cesses of the learning process. His theories were there—
fore difficult to test, using the research methods that were
available to the psychologists of the day. However, in
recent years, research workers have developed methods to
put Dewey's theories to the test. Of particular interest
are the studies that attempt to test Dewey's theories con-
cerning democratic methods.

John Dewey is often portrayed by traditionalists
as a kind of impractical visionary, who led American educa-

tors astray. What such critics overlook, however, is that

53

[Dewey's criticism of traditional education was based on the
Inost practical kinds of considerations. He felt that edu-
cation which does not develop the thinking processes of
children and which does not improve their ability to solve
problems outside the classroom as well as in it is largely
a waste of time. He was skeptical regarding the unfounded
assumptions that traditionalists in education make all too
readily--the assumption, for instance, that students auto-
matically transfer the abstract concepts learned in the
traditional classroom to the problems of everyday life.
Hermann Ebbinghaus,46 a pioneer psychologist who
experimented with the learning of various kinds Of materials,
some of which had meaning and some of which did not, found
that the learning of non-sense material took approximately
ten times more effort and furthermore was forgotten more
rapidly. Another related point brought out by Combs and
Snygg is their observation that children are not able to
solve problems they do not have--that is, questions or
assignments they do not perceive or experience as problems—-
because such problems have no relation to their every-day
life or experience. These points of view find support in a

variety of studies of classroom learning. Haselrud and

 

46Hermann Ebbinhaus, Memopy: A Contribution to

Experimental Psychology, trans. by H. A. Ruger and

CT E. Bussenius (New’YOrk: Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1913).

54

Meyers47 had students work on two sets of problems. The
subjects were given principles which helped them solve the
problems in the first set, but had to derive the principles
themselves in order to work the second set. When they were
tested a week later, they were able to do better in solving
the kinds of problems for which they had to derive princi-
ples, than they were in solving problems for which princi-
ples had been given them. The point is that something we
have learned "on our own" has more meaning and usefulness
for us than something that is merely assigned or given to
us, because it is more personalized, has more meaning for
us, and is thus likely to be remembered. Miriam Howell48
conducted a six-month survey of Spelling activities in a
second grade classroom. She noted that children studying
Spelling tended to learn more effectively and to display
more favorable attitudes when they used vocabularies based
on their own experience, than when they used vocabularies
49

Of words that were assigned by the teacher. H. E. Moser

taught a group of second graders the use of fractions,

 

47G. M. Haselrud and Shirley Meyers, "The Transfer
Value of Given and Individually Derived Principles," Journal
of Educational Psychology, XLIX (1957), 293-98.

48Miriam Howell, "Spelling Through Written
Expression," Elementary School Journal, LII (1951), 207-14.

 

49H. E. Moser, "Concept of Arithmetic Readiness:
An Investigation of the Second Grade Level" (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1947).

55

basing his instruction on their own experience. They did
much better than another group of second graders who were
taught the same material by drill methods.

Snygg and Combs have three recommendations for
schools that want to facilitate learning by making use of
the experience children bring to school with them. First,
they say, schools must provide opportunities for students
to think of themselves as responsible and contributing
members of society. A student must be given broad oppor-
tunities to identify with and be accepted by the society,
desirable individuals, and groups he admires. The student
who identifies himself with society will not attack it as
delinquent. Snygg and Combs feel that such an approach
implies a democratic classroom, a classroom where students
are helped to develop a sense of personal worth, are encour-
aged to participate freely in group activities, and are
permitted to express opinions and feelings as freely and
Openly as any adult. Second, students must have opportu-
nities for success and appreciation based on productive
and positive achievement. Students should feel safe enough
from humiliation to face their deficiencies and inadequacies
and deal with them objectively. This freedom implies that
each student will have opportunities to develop his own
educational program and set his own pace. Snygg and Combs
say that in a democratic classroom, we do not have to worry

about children selecting tasks that are too easy for them,

56

because children do not choose such tasks unless they are
afraid of criticism and failure. If they have no reason
to fear humiliation they will deliberately try themselves
out on tasks of appropriate difficulty. Thirdly, schools
must take advantage of the drive that is universal in all
human beings, adults and children alike, to achieve their
best potentialities and to develop efficiently and ade-
quately. If schools could achieve the goals that are
natural objectives of this drive, they would not have to
rely on the artificial stimulation of competition and

traditional marking systems.

Complexity of the Problem

 

The vastness of the researches carried out in the
area of teaching and learning clearly indicates that this
problem is indeed complex and that there is no one absolute
method or approach which can be labeled as the "best."

Many of the evidences quoted earlier have only hypothetical
value; many of the researches were carried out in Situations
that were ideal for research purposes and therefore if we
translate them to other situations, we find that their
practicability is very limited. This is, therefore, an
indication that the evidence based on one research or
several researches is not sufficient to motivate us to make
drastic changes in educational policies and practices. As
administrators, as teachers, and as anyone concerned with

the task of educating children, we should keep in mind that

57

we are constantly dealing with situations that are differ-
ent; therefore, we cannot establish patterns that can
operate in all situations; we need to experiment, and we

need to innovate and change.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter consists of the descriptions of the
purpose Of the study, of the research design employed in
the study, of the population and the samples, statistical
hypotheses, instrumentation and criteria and statistical

procedures used in the analysis of the data.

Purpose of the Study

 

The researcher followed a non-traditional approach
in teaching his students. He will describe the particular
method he employed in teaching and in investigating the
overall reactions of these studens toward the more per-
missive classroom teacher behaviors. He will analyze the
possible impact thereof on the students in their academic
and affective growth during the period of the research.
The specific aims were to determine if the teacher's pro-
cedure made any significant difference. How did the stu-
dents feel about the total experience they had in the
classroom? Did the freer classroom atmosphere motivate

the students to perform better, or were they unaffected

59

by it? Did they manifest any change in their perception
and in their attitudes and aspirations?

No attempt is made to establish causes for any of
the changes that occurred. Yet learning is, probably at
least partially, the result of an interactive process with
the teacher. Consequently it was assumed that what the
teacher did in the classroom had some impact on the stu-
dents. The study only describes the method and the changes
brought about during the period of the study without attri—
buting the changes to any specific causes.

The study also looked into these students' perform-
ance during the semester that followed, when they were re-
distributed into other classrooms. These students were
identified in each class and from each of these classes an
equal number of other students was randomly selected and
their performance on the same six tests was compared. In
order to avoid the possibility of any error variance, the
tests were given to all the students and the random selec-
tion was made after all the tests had been taken by all
the students. This comparison was made to see if the
treatment given to the students made any difference in

their later performance.

The Research Design

 

In order to analyze the changes mentioned earlier,
the researcher employed a single-group design. A single—

group design involves three steps. The first step is the

60

administration of a pre-test, measuring the dependent
variable. The second step is the application of the experi-
mental treatment to the subjects. The final step is the
administration of the post-test measuring again the depend-
ent variable. Differences due to the application of the
treatment and due to other variables operating in the situa-
tion are then determined by the pre—test and post-test
scores using the t test for analysis. Differences in the
variability of the scores are also determined by the pre—
test and post-test scores, using the F test for analysis.

The single-group design made it possible to study
the consistency of change across all three groups. The
decision-rule followed was to reject the null hypothesis
at a = .05 level of type 1 error; a second decision-rule
was to reject the null hypothesis if two out of three groups
showed significant change. Similarly F tests were employed
to study the signigicance of change in the variability of
the scores in the different groups. The decision-rule was
to reject the null hypothesis at a = .05 level of type 1
error.

In the follow-up, the students in the experimental
and comparative group were post-tested in the same six vari-
ables and the group's mean scores were compared. Again t
tests were run to study the significance of the difference,
and the decision-rule employed was to reject the null hypo-

thesis at a = .05 level of type 1 error.

61

Population and the Samples

 

The study population consisted of all the college—
bound tenth—grade students who registered in Sexton High
School, Lansing, Michigan, in the fall of 1970. The Official)
list Showed that there were 789 tenth-graders registered in
the school, of whom 419 were enrolled in the college-bound
program. The school is racially mixed with approximately
seventy-six percent white, twenty-one percent black, and
three percent other. Essentially the same mix was found
in the pepulation of our study. Most of the college-bound
students in the study population came from families that
place a high value on a college education. Consequently,
with encouragement from their parents, these students tended
to be achievement oriented.

The random selection was made by the computer. In
the secondary schools in Lansing the procedure for grouping
is as follows: before the close of the academic year, stu—
dents graduating from the junior high schools report to
their counselors who help them work out tentative programs
Of study for their first year of high school. These pro-
grams are sent to the central data processing center where
they are fed into the computer. When the students for each
building and for each program are identified, they are
randomly assigned by the computer to the various teachers
teaching the same subject.

The study was conducted in an American Literature

course. Since the investigator was assigned to teach this

62

course, and since all the college-bound students were
required to take it, the American Literature course seemed
to be a judicious choice. Out of the total of fifteen
American Literature classes, the researcher was assigned
three. Of the 419 college-bound tenth-graders, he had
about ninety, grouped into three classes of about thirty
students each.

To supplement the quantitative data, an effort was
made to collect some descriptive data at the end of the
first semester. All the students in the three study groups
were given a questionnaire dealing with the practices of
teaching and learning and classroom management; they were
asked to report whatever feelings they had about their ex-
perience in the class. In order to insure that those who
returned questionnaires had responded conscientiously, re-
turning the questionnaire was made optional. Those who
volunteered were asked to be forthright in their statements.
About sixty percent of the students returned the completed
questionnaire. Since it was impossible to record all that
these students had to say about the class, a random sample
of thirteen was selected——five from group one and four each
from groups two and three. Their responses are recorded
in the next chapter.

The students who took part in the study were fol—
lowed up during the second semester when they were redis-
tributed into other classes. These classes were taught by

five American literature teachers who had different views

63

concerning the teacher's role in the classroom. The re-
searcher's purpose in this follow-up was to see how the
performance of students from the experimental classes com-
pared with that of other students. It must be pointed out
here that the researcher was not able to get all the stu-
dents who took part in the study for the follow-up. During
the second semester, other courses were offered, which, if
the student so wished, could be substituted in the required
college-bound program. Nearly forty of these students who
were in the study took these Optional courses instead of
American Literature; consequently it was not possible for
the researcher to get all the eighty—seven students for the

follow-up.

Statistical Hypotheses

 

For purposes of statistical tests of significance,

the following null hypotheses were formulated:

la. There is no difference between the two mean scores

obtained on the reading test.

 

lb. There is no difference between the two variance

scores obtained on the readingytest.

 

2a. There is no difference between the two mean scores

obtained on the compssition test.

 

2b. There is no difference between the two variance

scores obtained on the composition test.

 

64

3a. There is no difference between the two mean scores

Obtained on the literature test.

 

3b. There is no difference between the two variance

scores obtained on the literature test.

 

4. There is no difference between the two mean scores

Obtained on the self-concspt inventogy,

 

5. There is no difference between the two mean scores

Obtained on the attitude inventqsy.

 

6. There is no difference between the two mean scores

Obtained on the inventory on sense of purpose and

 

determination in life.

 

7. There is no difference between the two mean scores
obtained on the three tests and on the three inven-

tories.

Instruments

 

The Tests of Academic Progress, TAP, were used to

 

provide an efficient and comprehensive appraisal of student
progress in the areas of reading, composition, and litera-
ture. Each of these tests is designed to measure the extent
to which the objectives of a basic area of high school in-
struction have been achieved. The tests were constructed
according to Specifications reflecting currently accepted
curriculum practices and were then reviewed by subject
matter Specialists to assure a thorough and accurate trans-

lation of test plans into specific test exercises.

65

The Scholastic Inventory was used to measure changes
in the affective growth of the students. This inventory
was developed by the researcher to measure changes in three
areas Of students' affective realm, viz., student's self-
concept of academic ability and achievement, student's atti—
tudes toward school and learning, and student's sense of
purpose and determination in life. The response-pattern
is based on a five-point continuum, ranging from "strongly
agree" to "strongly disagree." The purpose of the inven-
tory is to discover the student's self-rating on each one
of the items, that is, how the student perceives himself on
this imaginary continuum. Depending on his perception, he
rates and places himself on a point on this continuum. If
the student's self-perception is in perfect agreement with
the item, he places himself at one end of the continuum by
responding "strongly agree"; if, on the contrary, the stu-
dent perceives his position as altogether disagreeing with
it, he places himself at the other end of the continuum by
responding "strongly disagree"; if the student is neutral
in his position, he places himself at the "don't know" point
on the continuum; if there is a slight swing either to the
left or right of this position, he responds "disagree" or

"agree."

Criteria
The criteria employed in the study are the overall

change in performance in the academic areas and change in

66

perception as manifested by the pre-test and post-test.

An attempt was made to analyze the change and study its
Significance statistically. The change looked for was not
necessarily one that was effected by the treatment, but any
change that had been brought about during the period of the
research was analyzed. Whether the change was positive or
negative, it might be attributed, at least in part, to the
teacher's behavior in the classroom, for the student's per-
formance in the classroom is likely to be influenced at
least to some extent by the behavior of the teacher.

The descriptive data were interpreted subjectively
by the researcher. Interpretation was based on a close
study of the student's responses and the teacher's obser-
vation. Available background information was also used
before drawing any conclusions about the particular variable
tested in the study, viz., the impact of teacher behaviors

in the classroom on the students.

Pre-Test
The pre-test, then, covered six areas; of these,
three were in the academic and three were in the affective
realm. In the academic field, the tests administered were
the one, taken from the TAP battery, on reading, composi-
tion, and literature. The Scholastic Inventory was used
to get preliminary measures on student's self-concept of

academic ability and achievement, student's attitudes

67

taoward school and learning, and student's sense of purpose
and determination in life.

These tests were administered during the first
week of school in the fall-of 1970 and again at the end of
the first semester in January, 1971. The students were
given a class period of fifty-five minutes for each test.
To conserve maximum working time for the test exercises
themselves, the students were asked to write only their
names on their answer sheets, then to go directly to the
questions; the rest of the preparation of each answer Sheet
for data processing was done by the teacher. Also for the
Scholastic Inventory they were given an entire class period.
To ensure that all the students would do a thorough job on
their tests, the teacher insisted that they utilize all the
time allotted. They were told that careless performance
may result in their being asked to do remedial work in the
areas of weakness. This admonition was felt necessary to
ensure that students would not take the tests lightly and
thus contribute to error variance. By insisting on the
importance of taking the tests seriously, it was hoped that
each student would be stimulated to do his best.

For their responses on the Scholastic Inventory, the
students were given specific directions. They were asked
to respond to each item considering their overall experience
up to that point of time. They were told that there were

no right or wrong answers to the questions put forth and

68

therefore they did not have to take an undue amount of time
to respond to each item. They were asked to reSpond ac-

cording to their first impressions.

The Treatment

 

The term "treatment" was applied to the particular
classroom procedure the teacher followed in teaching the
three groups. Unique in the treatment was that the teacher's
behaviors in the classroom were directed to bring about
perceptual rather than academic changes in the students.

In order to bring about these changes, the researcher had
recourse to the following:

Definition of Goals and Objectives
For the Course

 

 

The goals and objectives for this course were dif-
ferent from the traditional ones and therefore it was
necessary for the researcher to take the required time to
explain them. They were simply explained to the students,
collectively and individually. The students were told that
the main Objective of the course was to bring about percep-
tual changes in them, that is, change in their total out-
look. The rationale for this change from the ordinary
classroom objective was also explained to them. They were
told that it was the teacher's belief that bringing about
perceptual changes in them was real learning. It was
pointed out that when students learn only for the sake of

passing examinations or earning grades or to shine out in

69

competition, their learning does not actually satisfy their
‘personal needs, except perhaps their need to play this sort
Of game in the classroom. Learning should involve more
than this; it should contribute to the attainment of the
individual's immediate and long-range goals.

Programs to Accommodate
Individual Needs

 

 

In order to achieve the goals and objectives deline-
ated above, it was necessary to have recourse to various
programs that would satisfy individual needs rather than a
Single program. The individualized programs were not de-
signed by the teacher; each student was asked to draw up a
plan of the work he wished to do. The plans, they were
told, should reflect their interest in developing their own
personal talents and aptitudes. The teacher did give them
help in drawing up their plans, but the rationale for this
approach was explained to them. When the teacher works out
a single program, it may serve only the needs of some stu-
dents; others who feel that the program does not fit them
may not be highly motivated to work. They may work half-
heartedly to please the teacher or to earn at least a pass-
ing grade. If, instead, each student comes to class with
a program that he has designed and which is meaningful to
him, his motivation to work on it will likely be high and

he will make the best use of his class time.

70

Freedom and Responsibilipy

In order to encourage self-motivated work and study,
the students were given a lot of freedom in the class. They
were told that they could work on their particular inter-
ests. With this freedom they were also given the encourage-
ment and exhortation to think and find out their particular
interests and talents and were asked to develOp them as
they felt would be in their best interest. They were given

lectures occasionally on freedom and responsibility.

Elimination of all External Pressures

 

In order to give the students a sense of awareness
and responsibility, external pressures were minimized. The
students were encouraged to engage in a variety of activi-
ties in the classroom. There were no required assignments,
projects, papers, and so on. There were no exams given for
the sake of grading. Letters of threat and warning were
not sent out to parents. All the students were told that
they would be encouraged to do responsible work and that
they would be given the grade they felt they deserved.
Thus, the classroom atmosphere was marked, not by anxiety

and fear, but by freedom and responsibility.

Introduction of Self-Discipline
From time to time the teacher explained the need
for self-discipline in a system that operates on democratic

principles. He explained to them that while externally

71

imposed physical conditioning can discipline the body, the
mind does not readily respond to it. Manipulation of ex-
ternal stimuli may facilitate order and control but does
not necessarily discipline the mind. Since people are
rational beings, they can be reasoned with to act in their
own best interest, as well as for the interest of the group.
For instance, the need for controlling oneself for the sake
Of group Operation was Shown to them. They were encouraged
to modify or restrain their individual behavior for the
sake of the group whenever that was needed. They were en-
couraged to mobilize their internal resources rather than
to depend on an externally imposed regimen as a guide to

action.

Dialogue with the Students

 

In order to explain the goals and ideals and pro-
cedures more effectively to the students, the teacher con-
ducted a friendly and personal type of dialogue with every
student in the class. This was done in the classroom when
the students were working either on individual or group
projects. These conferences were generally conducted at
the teacher's desk. The conversation was generally informal
and words of praise and encouragement were frequently used.
Even when some aspects of a student's work did not merit
commendation, certain details that could be regarded as
praiseworthy were indicated to serve as a basis for re-

inforcement. The students were shown that the teacher was

72

interested in their progress. He asked them personal

questions and gave them whatever help he could.

Experiences for Enrichment

 

In order to achieve the many goals set by individual
students in the classroom, they were given a variety of
experiences. Speakers from different walks of life were
brought in to hold discussions with the students. The
students had an opportunity to interact with school admini-
strators, psychologists, sociologists, custodians, and other
students to learn about their ideals, goals, and aspirations
or career satisfactions. The rationale for providing this
type of experience was explained to the students. The pur-
pose was to help them look into themselves introspectively
so that they might possibly discover latent talents lying
dormant in the depths of their inner selves. The encourage-
ment given to them by such speakers did help them get a
better self-understanding by affording an opportunity for

reflection.

A Relaxed Classroom Atmosphere

The classroom atmosphere was very relaxed. Tables
and chairs were not arranged in rows and columns; no formal
seating chart was prepared. The students were told that
the classroom would be a kind of workshop where each one
could invest time on anything that he thought was useful

for him. Students who were interested in working with

73

groups sat together and worked on their projects. Others
astudied independently on things they found useful to them.
On days when they were not in a mood to study, they were
encouraged to take up light activities which did not re-
quire strain and concentration. When all these activities
were going on in the classroom, the teacher went from group
to group, giving whatever help he could. When, however,
certain students tended to waste time or to take up repeat-
edly useless activities, he reasoned with them and encour-

aged them to Spend their time more usefully.

Academic Objectives

Greater emphasis was given to affective than to
academic objectives. However, these latter were not ignored.
The goals and objectives of an American literature class
were explained to the students and their importance for them
as college-bound students was discussed. But the teacher
did not insist on tasks which had to be done by all in the
class. Suggestions were given to the students to work
individually or in groups or with the teacher in order to
achieve the academic objectives of the course. Materials
were given to the students who wanted them; help was given
whenever asked for; lectures and explanations were given to
those who were interested in them. The reason for not forc—
ing all the students to work on common academic goals was
explained to them. It was shown that a common program to

achieve particular academic goals would only alienate

74

students who cared less about it. They would not have the
motivation to work on it ; they would be bored and no learn-
ing would be achieved. If, instead, the students, by choice,
engaged in the different activities suggested, they would
work with more interest and thereby achieve the goals of the

course .

Self-Evaluation Techniques

For grading purposes it was necessary to have re-
course to some form of evaluation; but no single test would
be sensitive enough to search into areas where change was
expected to be brought about. Standardized tests or teacher-
made tests were thought to be inappropriate. Since the
sought-for changes were mostly in the student's perception,
a self-evaluation technique was considered to be most appro-
priate. However, other tests of more objective nature were
used to evaluate the progress. This type of evaluation was
explained to the students at the beginning of the semester.
In order to get them to work for their own self—development
and not for grades or for the sake of competition, they
were told that the teacher had no plans to give them exams
for grading purposes; instead, at the end of the semester,
they would be given the grade which they sincerely thought
they deserved. In order to help them in their self-
evaluation, they were given a questionnaire and they were
asked to suggest a grade for themselves. Each student was

given the grade he said he deserved. If the teacher had

75

some question about the grade an individual suggested, a
private conference was held to attempt to resolve the

difference.

Post-Test

 

At the close of the semester, the students were
given the same tests administered to them at the beginning.
The reason for giving the tests was explained to them.

They were told individually and collectively that the
teacher was interested in finding out the effects that may
have been brought about during the time—period in which the
teacher taught them. They were also told that the test
results would not be used for purposes of grading. However,
they were encouraged to do their best.

For these tests, they were given the same time as
on the pre-tests. For their responses to the items on the
Scholastic Inventory the students were told in a Special
way to mark each item considering their experience in this
class only. They were reminded that there were no right
or wrong answers, but that they Should look at their overall
experience in this classroom when they responded to each
item. They were asked to give priority to their first
impressions. On the TAP tests, the students were told to
answer the questions with whatever knowledge they had ob-
tained from the class as a result of the different projects

they did.

76

Follow-Up

 

The researcher followed up the students who were in
the study during the second semester. AS many of these
students as were available were identified in the different
American Literature classes and their performance taken as
a group was compared to an equal number of students randomly
selected from all the students who were not in the study,
but were in the same program. The random selection was
done after all the tests had been taken by all the students.
The tests were given at the end of the second semester.

From the data collected, group means were computed and
t tests were run to determine the significance of the dif-
ference. The decision—rule was to reject the null hypo-

thesis at .05 level of type 1 error.

Statistical Analysis

 

The main point of investigation in this study was
the change that was brought about in the group after the
pre-tests had been given. For analyzing this change,
group means were computed for each test in the pre-test
and post-test. The change brought about in each group on
each test was analyzed and t tests were conducted to study
the significance of the change.

Similarly, the change in the groups' variability
on the tests of academic progress was analyzed and tested

to see if a significant change had taken place.

77

Experimenter Analysis

Since all the data collected were not quantitative,
the researcher was forced to have recourse to an analysis
other than statistical. The descriptive data were scruti-
nized and studied in the light of a subjective analysis.
Based on the researcher's observation of the students and
using other available background information, each student's
responses were carefully analyzed and some interpretation

made.

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS

Introduction

 

The major purpose of this study is to describe the
particular method the teacher followed in teaching his
classes and to analyze the effects that were brought about
in the students during the time of this research. In
other words, the purpose is merely to describe the effects
and not to identify the causes of these effects.

The dependent variables tested in this study were
these: (1) student's performance in reading, composition,
and literature; (2) attitudinal change toward school and
learning; (3) change in the students' sense of purpose
and determination in life; and (4) change in their self-
concept of academic ability and achievement. The students
who took part in this study were pre-tested and post-
tested in these variables and the results were analyzed
statistically.

An attempt was made to follow up these students in
their performance during the subsequent semester. In each

class, these students were identified and an equal number

78

79

was randomly selected from among the other students who
did not take part in the study. All these students who
took part in the study were grouped together and the other
students randomly selected constituted another group for
purposes of comparison. The mean score on each test was
computed for each group and tests of significance were run
to study the differences. The data collected were of two
kinds: descriptive and quantitative. The descriptive
data were collected by giving the students a questionnaire
and asking them to respond to each question by making
subjective statements about the total experience they had
in the classroom. These questions dealt with the differ-
ent aspects of classroom learning and classroom management.
These data were carefully scrutinized and, based on the
teacher's Observation of these students, some generali—
zations were made. From the quantitative data, group
means were computed and t tests were run to study the
significance of the changes. Similarly, changes in the

group variability were analyzed and tested for significance.

Descriptive Data

 

In order to get an idea how the students felt
about what they got out of the class and about the over-all
experience they had in the class, the students were given
a questionnaire at the end of the semester. They were
asked to be candid and open in what they had to say about

the class. They were assured that there would be no

80

reprisal for anything they stated. For the purpose of

scrutinizing these responses, a random sample was selected

from each group.

Five students were selected from Group 1

and four students each from Groups 2 and 3. Following are

the responses given by these selected students:

What were your attitudes toward learning in this class?

Student A:

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Somedays I Should have been more alert,
but what I did learn I will remember and
know it was worth learning.

I wanted to learn unlike several other
students in class.

About the same as the rest of the majority
of the class.

I really tried to learn something in class.

I wanted to get out of it as much as I
could. Some days I really wanted to work,
but other days I should have stayed in bed.

I wanted to learn in this class. I like
English.

It was more of a "do it if you want to."
I don't think I tried hard enough to learn
something useful.

My attitudes toward learning in this class
were ones of wanting to learn because I
want to make something of myself.

Indifferent. But as the semester went on
I was a little more eager to learn.

Always positive. I came into the class to
learn and the teacher put interest into
the class.

Student

K:

 

Student

L:

 

Student M:

 

81

I wanted to learn because like they say,
"we understand the present in the light of
the past." SO if I am going to go into
some sort of writing, I should know
something about American Literature.

Very good I believe. I learned a lot and
enjoyed learning in this way. Its a lot

more fun teaching in this way than going

through the book.

If there was something worth learning I
learned it. If it was something that was
useful for me in the future, I learned it.

What would you say about what you have learned in this

class?

Student

 

Student

 

Student

C:

 

Student

D:

 

Student

 

Student

F:

 

Student

 

Creative writing, plays, art, skits,
pantomimes and literature.

I learned some things that will help me
later in life. Some of the things I have
learned are useful even now.

You will remember it a lot longer.

It will be very helpful to me during the
future years.

I learned that I had to take things into
my own hand, that I couldn't always depend
on the teacher to tell me now to work,
etc.

I feel I learned a lot. My grades were
good. So I must have learned something.

I feel I can use what I have learned just
almost every day. I like to teach English
one day and I like to use this method.

I don't think I learned as much as I could
have if I had been forced to do homework
and SO on.

Student H:

 

Student I:

 

Student J:

 

Student K:

 

Student L:

 

Student M:

 

Were you happy

Student A:

 

Student B:

 

Student C:

 

Student D:

 

Student E:

 

82

What I learned in this class was about the
different types of American authors and
poets and different ideas each one had on
America, etc.

I learned quite a bit. Some of it I
already knew before, but most of it was
new to me.

I learned quite a lot in the class and by
studying on my own I gained a lot.

I wish I could have stuck to the book more
and study the authors and their works.

But the class continuously voted it down
and so I was forced to learn it on my own.
I needed a teacher to teach it to me.

I learned a lot probably because it was
fun and I felt no pressure in learning
which helped me a great deal. I felt, by
working I was helping myself and no one
else.

If I get a chance to learn more about what
I learned, I will take it because it will
help me get a greater outlook on life.

to come to this class?

Yes. I even got a transfer to be in here.

I enjoyed coming to this class, even on
days I would have preferred staying home.

I didn't know really what to expect; it
was a change.

Not really, but I guess it has been fun
being in this class.

I like the class and the people in it.
If I didn't, I would have skipped classes.

83

Student F: I wanted to come to this class. I enjoyed
it. There are classes I hate going to,
this year.

 

Student G: I didn't mind it but it was more or less
like a study hall or a free period.

 

Student H: I felt happy to come to this class because
I figured there was something to learn
whether new or old.

 

Student I: Yes, I guess I was. I thought it would be
interesting and it was in many ways.

 

Student J: Yes, it was an enjoyable class.

 

Student K: I didn't mind coming when there was
something definitely scheduled to do, but
when we had free days, if I had nothing to
do, it get boring. Then people would
waste time and you would yell at us.

 

Student L: It was a lot of fun and I really liked
coming to this class. It was interesting.
The teacher was not some kind of monster.
It was nice to go to class and do what you
wanted to.

 

Student M: At first it seemed like it would be a
welcome change, Since the other teachers'
classes were boring. All I did in their
classes was to write about personal experi—
ences. Then it turned into a nightmare
with those long essay tests.

 

Were you able tO get a better self-understanding as a

result of taking this class?

Student A: Yes.

 

Student B: I feel I understand myself better now than
before.

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

84

Yes.
Yes.

Yes, I started out very bad. I didn't like
it and I didn't try. But after a while,
being aware of the people around me I got
to know myself better.

Yes, I realized that I would like to teach
English.

Not really.

Yes I would say that I was able to get a
better self-understanding because I was
made to think and that helped me.

No, not really.

Some of the things we studied helped; some
of the talks given by the speakers helped
too.

Yes I think so. Certain things that the
teacher lectured about gave me a new out-
look On things and a better self-
understanding. A lot of the literature
that we read and the study of the authors
made me stop and think about things. I
learned to be more open-minded and creative.

Yes, now I don't think that learning is
hard and I believe most people can learn
without pressure. I realize fully that I
cannot be a writer or an actor. Knowing
one's limits can be very useful at times,
especially when it is time to look for a
job. Now I know what not to try and
become.

Yes I did. But it depended on your own
interest.

85

How would you describe your overall experience in this

class?

Student

 

Student

Student :

Student

 

Student '

Student :

Student :

Student

Student

Student

Very different and exciting. You were
never in the same routine; there was
always something new to do. The kids got
along real well with each other and with
the teacher.

I think that the total experience in the
class that I had was on the whole pleasant,
but I didn't think that I learned all that
I could have in the semester.

It was different than other classes. You
could learn if you wanted to, or you
didn't have to learn at all, and for
people preparing for college this is a
good course.

I think I have learned quite a bit in this
class and I really have enjoyed it.

It was very refreshing.

I enjoyed the class. I never used to read
much. Last semester you had us read for

a few weeks and I enjoyed it. You taught
the grammar we needed.

Very different. The whole relationship
between the teacher and student was more
relaxed.

I would describe my overall experience in
this class as one of satisfaction in what
I was learning, Old and new, and happy in
the way I was learning.

Pretty good, different, relaxing and I
found it an independent class.

Interesting experiences with free time.

Student K:

 

Student L:

 

Student M:

 

86

Besides learning about the basics of
American Literature, I learned a little
about peOple, their minds and how to get
along with them. I would say that it was
a different experience mainly because the
teacher was interesting and was interested
in using new techniques of learning to
benefit the students. I think I learned
more about psychology than American Liter-
ature, but at any rate I think I can say
that I learned something.

Very enlightening. It pointed the way to

my reading on American older writers. And
it also showed me that English can be a fun
course and not boring. It was interesting.

In few words, it was very rewarding. It
taught me more things I wanted to know than
things I didn't want to know but had to
know.

What would you say about the roles the teacher played in

the classroom?

Student A:

 

Student B:

 

Student C:

 

Student D:

 

Student E:

 

He played the roles of different things.
Like if we acted out plays, he played the
role of an actor, or if we wrote stories,
he was the publisher, or collage, he was
the artist.

The roles the teacher played, to me, were
those of a babysitter and an aid for those
who wanted to learn.

I think you did a fairly good job in
keeping your cool during this new type of
course, which most kids didn't understand.

I guess they were all right.

He let us on our own as much as possible
which was good. It made us more aware of
ourselves.

Student F:

 

Student G:

 

Student H:

 

 

Student I:

Student J:

 

Student K:

 

Student L:

Student M:

 

87

You did a good job of teaching us. You
taught grammar and poetry and got us to
read.

It was not the role of high and mighty
teacher but more of a person on our own
level.

I would say that the roles of the teacher
in the classroom were ones in which if
someone didn't want to learn it, it was
their problem, not anybody else's.

He was a good teacher and I got the feeling
that he was very interested in helping us
out, and someone we could talk to.

As a guide, very good, always trying to
encourage work to be done to student's
ability.

I liked the new method of teaching he was
using but I don't think too many people
knew how to use this freedom and therefore
spoiled it for themselves by not learning
anything. The class needed to be disci-
plined at all times and the work laid out
before them, before they could learn
anything which, unfortunately, the teacher
did do sometimes. Sometimes I found that
I had no time to do any other homework
because we had such an extreme assignment.
But that was the only time I learned.

He was more like a pointer, not teaching,
but letting us learn by ourselves. It is
a better way of teaching; it makes you
feel like you are not in kindergarten. I
think by being an adviser, the teacher's
role is easier and it allows the slower
student more time with the teacher to be
advised what to do.

I think the teacher was trying to promote
group interaction and participation in the
classroom. He, in my opinion, was seeing
how effectively this could come about by
using different methods of teaching.

88

What were the teacher's attitudes toward you as an indi-

vidual?

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

K:

 

He treated us all equal and fair. I don't
believe he ever let any one down.

I believe that I was recognized as an
individual and therefore treated as one.

They were all right in some ways.
I guess all right.

His attitude toward me at first was very
different than toward the end, I felt at
the end he didn't approve of some of the
things I did and said.

I think you liked me. You have always been
nice to me. You helped me answer my
questions. You seem to enjoy the rest of
the kids. You joke with them and play
cards sometimes.

He treated me as an individual and with
respect.

I would describe the teacher's attitudes
toward me as an individual as one of
kindness and generosity.

Very good and fair.

He was interested in my success as a
student. He respected me as a student and
listened to criticism--was understanding.

He seemed very understanding and quick to
help if asked to. He seemed interested in
getting to know you personally and your
interests in American Literature. A very
interesting person too, I must add, but he
must teach Psychology.

Did

Student

L:

 

Student

M:

 

the teacher

Student

A:

 

Student

B:

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

'11

 

Student

 

Student

H:

 

89

Very good. I think he liked me a little
and it is not like other classes where the
teacher considers you just as one in
thirty or so. It was more of a personal
approach and made learning more of fun.

It was sort of a free and easy type of an
attitude toward me, but I think he was a

little more strict with other members of

the class.

attempt to promote group interaction?

Yes, I believe he did. We had the choice
to sit in small groups of our own choice
and get to work and thereby get to know
each other better.

Group interaction is fine when all are
willing to participate and student inter-
action can be helpful in learning.

It was a good idea and it seemed to work
pretty good.

I guess it was all right.

It made it more interesting and not so
boring.

You tried to get us to work in groups and
I know it's good, but I don't like to work
in groups too much. Maybe that's why
other kids didn't try too hard in groups.

I think he tried to promote group inter-
action and was somewhat successful.

The teacher's attempt to promote group
interaction was very good, but sometimes
it was the students' fault that it failed
because they were not willing to cooperate.
The teacher's attempt was still a good one.

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

How did you

classroom?

Student

90

Yes. Tried to get the students to com-
municate to each other, discuss and take
their own ideas--I believe in it--fight for
what they believe, in discussions.

Always trying to get his students to
participate in group discussions and
panels.

His attempt was very good. You should't
say attempt, you did achieve this, quite a
few times. I can say that we can have
group discussions but they can be good
only when everyone in the group wants to
discuss and listen.

I think the attempt succeeded because people
who wanted to express their opinion were
able to do so.

I feel it was not a successful attempt
because many weren't responsive.

feel about the teacher-student dialogue in the

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

Student

 

They were very close and understanding with
each other.

I felt that the conversations were more
relaxed in this class than any other class
I had before.

It was real good; most students could
express their feelings toward the subject
and the teacher.

I think we learned a lot in the teacher-
student dialogue.

I liked it; it gave us a chance to tell you
things I didn't want to tell you in front
of the whole class.

Student F:

 

Student G:

 

Student H:

 

Student I:

 

Student J:

 

Student K:

 

Student L:

 

Student M:

 

91

Its okay. We discussed things, could
argue a point if we disagreed.

He talked more on our level than on his.

I feel that the teacher-student dialogue
in this class was the same as in other
classes.

Pretty good.

A little more free than most classes I
have enrolled in.

I thought they were good. The teacher had
respect for the ideas and opinions of the
students just as the students had for the
teacher.

It made it easier to get opinion across.

It was basically contradictory. Since
whatever he did to change our class par—
ticipation in class came about all of a
sudden.

What would you say about the teacher's grading practices?

Student A:

 

Student B:

 

Student C:

 

Student D:

 

Very lenient; no one would ever want to
complain. There's not too many teachers
like him.

I believe that self-grading made quite a
few students do anything except American
Literature, because they knew they could
get at least a B for a grade.

It was all right.

I think they are pretty good.

Student E:

 

Student F:

 

Student G:

 

Student H:

 

Student I:

 

Student J:

 

Student K:

 

Student L:

 

Student M:

 

92

I liked it. It gave the teacher a better
chance to see how the student rated
himself.

They were all right. You downgraded us if
we didn't do what we were supposed to do
and you gave us good grades for the work
we did well.

I didn't like them. I think the teacher
was too lenient.

The teacher's grading practices were very
fair because he had to figure out what the
student was saying on a test or a quiz and
see if it was on the general idea of the
question.

Average, but fair.
Liberal but fair.

They were fair. He gave the person what
they earned, plus taking into consideration
what the student felt he learned and de-
served, which is important. The student
knows better than anybody if he is learning
and working up to his full capability. He
believed that when you learn you compete
with yourself, not with your neighbor. He
always gave me A's. Keep grading that way;
talk with the student beforehand and see

if you both agree on the grade. Never wait

until the student sees the report card and
then it is too late to change.

May be a little relaxed; let's face the
facts. It was very easy to make A's. I
say this because if you worked up to your
ability you get an A and I feel this is
the way grading should be.

Simple. I didn't know any. You gave A's
to people who worked and everything else
to the people who didn't.

93

Analysis of the Descriptive Data

 

The students were not given any special pattern for
responding to these questions. They were asked to put
down whatever feelings they had about the class. However,
a pattern seems to have evolved in the way they responded.
The responses were grouped into piles and the percentages
below give an idea of the variability of the students'

responses.

Question 1: What were your attitudes toward learning

 

in this class?

Nine students felt that they were interested in
learning and were well disposed toward it; three students
reported that they were somewhat indifferent about
learning in this class; one student thought that his

attitudes were like those of other students.

Question 2: What would you say about what you have

 

learned in this class?

The responses to this question were somewhat varied.
Six students reported that they learned a great deal;
three students felt that they learned a lot for the future;
one reported that what he learned helped him to be
independent; one thought that he did not learn enough;

one reported that the teacher should have stuck to the

94

text more; one mentioned that he learned things only if

they were useful.

Question 3. Were you happy to come to this class?

 

Ten students reported that they enjoyed coming to
this class; one thought that it was a welcome change in
the beginning but not toward the end; one said that he did
not mind it--it was like study hall; one student reported
that he was somewhat confused and did not know what to

expect.

Question 4: Were you able to get a better self-

 

understanding as a result of taking this

course?

Ten students responded positively--they thought
they were able to get a better self-understanding as a
result of taking this course; two students thought that
the course did not really help achieve this goal; one
student reported that some of the things done in the class

helped in achieving this goal.

Question 5. How would you describe your overall

 

experience in this class?

In answering this question, the students made use

of such words as rewarding, interesting, enlightening,

 

 

 

different, relaxing, enjoyable, pleasant, exciting, etc.

95

Grouping the responses into some sort of patterns, we find
that nine students felt that their experience in this class
was good. They stressed the idea that they learned what
they really wanted to learn. The other four students
reported that their overall experience in this class was
different from that in other classes. It was more

relaxing.

Question 6: What would you say about the roles the

 

teacher played in the classroom?

Five students perceived the teacher as one who
tried to foster independent study by giving the students a
great deal of freedom and latitude in making their own
decisions; four students perceived the teacher as a helper;
one reported that the teacher was a person who talked to
students at their own level; one thought that the teacher
was a baby-sitter; one responded to the question by stating

that the teacher did a good job.

Question 7: What were the teacher's attitudes toward

 

you as an individual?

Seven students perceived the teacher as one who
treated them as individuals and showed them respect and
kindness; two thought that the teacher treated all equally
and fairly; one felt that the teacher was too easy; one

student reported that the teacher was not very

96

understanding toward him in the end; two students responded

to the question by stating "all right."

Question 9. How did you feel about the teacher-

 

student dialogue in the classroom?

Eight students thought that it helped bring about
better communication between the teacher and the students;
two thought that it was a good idea; two students reported

that it was "all right"; one thought it was contradictory.

Question 10. What would you say about the teacher's

 

grading practices?

Six students reported that the grading practices
of the teacher were fair; two students thought that it was
pretty good; four students reported that they did not like
it because some students took advantage of it; one did not

have any special comment on it.

Quantitative Data

 

Tests of Academic Progress (TAP) were used to pre-

 

test and post-test the students in the academic areas of

reading! composition, and literature. The Scholastic

 

 

Inventory was used to collect pre-test and post-test
measures on the student's self-concept of academic ability
and achievement, their attitudes toward school and
learning, and their sense of purpose and determination in

life. The researcher was mainly interested in the group's

97

average performance on these tests and their mean scores

on the inventories. These scores with their means and

standard deviations and the tests of significance are

reported in the following tables.

TABLE 4-1. Reading Test Statistics.

 

 

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Statistic (Am.Lit) (Am.Lit) (Am.Lit)
Pre-test Mean 32.656 31.964 33.148
Pre-test
Standard Deviation 12.386 10.136 10.33
Post-test Mean 38.00 36.57 38.556
Post-test
Standard Deivation 10.909 11.17 11.12
Correlation .812 .794 .722
t test 3.83 2.28 2.618
Degrees of Freedom 62 54 52
.05
Significance
.01 * * *

 

*Significant at .01 level.

98

 

 

 

mmv.o HN.~ mm.mma ammunumom
Auflq.s<v

mm.o AomVAmmvmmo. m AmNVAmmvmnm. m an.moa m
ummunmum
mnv.o va.m n>.vma ummuuumom
AMHQ.E$

mm.o ABNVAnmvao. m AnNVAnmvmnm. m mm.moa m
ummuumum
va.o no.m mo.mHH ummunumom
Auflu.eav

mm.a AHMVAHmvao. m AHmVAHmvmnm. m Hm.mma a
ammunmum

mammoMMHcmHm msam> m l~-zclauzvmmo. m Amuzcfianzomhm. m mocmflum> msouu

.mocmwum> mo mammamcm "umme mcapmmm one .muv mqmde

99

TABLE 4-3. Composition Test Statistics.

 

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Statistics (Am.Lit) (Am.Lit) (Am.Lit)

Pre-test Mean 35.656 36.43 36.296
Pre-test
Standard Deviation 10.02 10.68 11.04
Post-test Mean 41.031 40.03 40.00
Post-test
Standard Deviation 8.865 9.252 10.635
Correlation .868 .893 .789
t Test 3.21 1.91 1.75
Degrees of Freedom 62 54 52

.05 H: *1:
Significance

.01 *

 

*Significant at .01 level.

**Significant at .05 level.

 

100

mo¢.o HN.N HN.MHH ummulumom

 

Auflq.smv

no.a Aomvfiwmvmmo. m Aomvxomvmem. m mm.ama m
ammulmum
meq.o ea.m mm.mm ammunumom
Auflq.eav

mm.H Aevanmvmmo. m Ahmvxnmvmnm. m mo.eaa N
ammunmum
Nme.o no.m mo.me ummuuumom
Auflq.e<v

mN.H Aamvxamvmmo. m “Hmvxamvmnm. m oe.ooa H
ummunmum

mocmoHMHcmHm msam> m Aauzvxauzvmmo. m lauzvxauzvmnm. m mommaum> msouo

 

.QUCMHHM> mo mflmwamcd upmwe :oHuHmomeou one .vuv mqmde

101

TABLE 4-5. Literature Test Statistics.

 

 

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Statistic (Am.Lit) (Am.Lit) (Am.Lit)
Pre-test Mean 33.375 31.429 33.926
Pre-test
Standard Deviation 7.778 9.147 8.82
Post-test Mean 38.156 36.964 36.222
Post-test
Standard Deviation 7.525 9.084 8.417
Correlation .804 .679 .814
t Test 3.53 3.213 1.38
Degrees of Freedom 62 54 52
.05
Significance
.01 * *

 

*Significant at .01 level.

 

102

mov.o HN.N om.on umoulumom

 

luflq.aac

OH.H Aeneimmvmmo. m AGNVlmmvmha. m me.ee m
umouuoum
mnv.o «H.m mq.mm ammuuumom
iuflq.a<c

No.H “emolumvmmo. m AeNViemvmnm. m Ne.mm N
pmounoum
mmq.o no.m on.mm ammu-pmom
Auflq.sav

no.a AHMVAHmemo. m leVlevmem. m mm.oo H
amounoum

mocmofioflcmflm msam> m AH-zVAH-zcm~o. m lauzclauzcmkm. m mocmflum> asouo

 

.oocoflno> mo mHmMHocd “woos ousuououfiq one .muv mqmde

103

 

 

 

TABLE 4-7. The Inventory on Self—Concept: Statistics.
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Statistic (Am.Lit) (Am.Lit) (Am.Lit)
Pre-test Mean 23.406 25.107 23.815
Pre-test
Standard Deviation 12.316 13.914 14.857
Post-test Mean 28.00 26.143 26.704
Post-test
Standard Deviation 11.211 15.770 13.668
Correlation .482 .742 .657
t Test 2.207 0.368 1.052
Degrees of Freedom 62 54 52
.05
Significance
.01 *
*Significant at .01 level.

104

TABLE 4-8. The Inventory on Attitudes Toward School and
Learning: Statistics.

 

 

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Statistic (Am.Lit) (Am.Lit) (Am.Lit)
‘Pre-test Mean 20.282 25.00 25.333
Pre-test
Standard Deviation 13.73 11.168 15.341
Post-test Mean 26.00 28.393 25.333
Post-test
Standard Deviation 13.048 14.649 13.222
Correlation .704 .609 .713
t Test 2.415 1.378 0.00
Degrees of Freedom 62 54 52
.05
Significance
.Ol *
*Significant at .01 level.

105

TABLE 4-9. The inventory on Sense of Purpose and Determi—

nation in Life:

Statistics.

 

 

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Statistic (Am.Lit) (Am.Lit) (Am.Lit)
Pre-test Mean 9.093 11.53 7.481
Pre-test
Standard Deviation 11.04 10.95 10.30
Post-test Mean 8.00 13.25 10.407
Post-test
Standard Deviation 9.95 8.907 9.50
Correlation .364 .633 .658
t Test -0.589 0.909 1.538
Degrees of Freedom 62 54 52

.05
Significance
.01

 

TABLE 4-10.

106

The Follow-up Statistics.

 

Statistic Reading

Comp.

Lit.

Inv. 1

Inv. 2

Inv. 3

 

Exp. Group
Mean 34.40
Exp. Group
Standard

Deviation 13.866
Comp.
Mean

Group
30.62

Comp. Group
Standard
Deviation 10.564

t Test 2.168
Degrees of
Freedom 98

.05
Signifi-
cance

.01 *

41.32

9.

36.

10.

3.171

98

37.02

242 9.52

92 29.96

35 10.536

5.803

98

22.702

16.503

22.255

18.602

-0.174

92

23.574

13.454

22.532

14.367

-0.514

92

12.128

9.446

7.574

10.231

3.18

92

 

*Significant at .01 level.

Note:
and achievement;
learning; Inv.
life.

Inv. l.--Se1f-concept of academic ability
Inv.

2.-—Attitudes toward school and

3.--Sense of purpose and determination in

107

Analysis of the Quantitative Data
In this study, we were interested in the changes
that were brought about during the period of the research
in the group performance on the defined tests and their
mean scores on the given inventories. For purposes of
statistical tests of significance, several hypotheses were
generated; the results are analyzed below:

Hypothesis la. There is no difference in the two mean
scores obtained on the reading test.

TABLE 4-11. Test of Hypothesis la.

 

 

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Pre-test Mean 32.656 31.964 33.148
Post-test Mean 38.00 36.57 38.556
.05
Significance
.01 * * *

 

*Significant at .01 level of type 1 error.

The test of this hypothesis involved computing the
mean scores and the variance on the two tests, and corre—
lation between the two tests. The tests were administered
to the same subjects and therefore the data had to be
treated as correlated. These statistics are reported in
the Table on page 97. The t test run on the data showed
that the value obtained was significant at the .01 level.

Consequently, the null hypothesis was rejected. The data

108

also indicated that there was consistency across all three
groups. The data, it was concluded, provided evidence for
a significant difference in the groups' mean performance
across all three groups.

Hypothesis lb. There is no difference in the two

variance scores obtained on the
reading test.

 

TABLE 4-12. Test of Hypothesis lb.

 

 

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Pre-test Variance 153.51 102.82 106.65
Post-test Variance 119.03 124.82 123.65
.05
Significance
.01

 

The F test conducted on the data gave too small
values to indicate significance on the tests. These values
are reported in the Table on page 98. The decision rule
was to reject the null hypothesis at the .05 level of
type 1 error. Since significance was not obtained in the
tests, the null hypothesis was not rejected. It was
concluded, therefore, that there was no significant
difference in the variance scores obtained. The data also
indicated that there was no consistency across all three

groups.

109

Hypothesis 2a. There is no difference in the two mean
scores obtained on the composition
test.

 

TABLE 4-13. Test of Hypothesis 2a.

 

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Pre-test Mean 35.656 36.43 36.296
Post-test Mean 41.031 40.03 40.00
.05 ** *1:
Significance
.01 *

 

*Significant at .01 level of type 1 error.

** Significant at .05 level.

The value of the test statistic was significant at
the .05 level. Consequently the null hypothesis was
rejected and it was concluded that there was significant
difference in the two mean scores obtained. The data also
indicated that there was significance across all groups.
In group 1, there was significance at the .01 level of
type 1 error.

Hypothesis 2b. There is no difference in the two

variance scores obtained on the
composition test.

 

The obtained value of the test statistic F was not
significant at the .05 level and therefore the null
hypothesis was not rejected and it was concluded that

there was no significant difference in the two variance

110

TABLE 4-14. Test of Hypothesis 2b.

 

.—- 1...“ --— -__—_-_- 'o-s .- --._. - -fi _ -...—~_- . - - ..-_ —.—. .-..... .__..
._.'.:- m ‘—

 

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Pre-test Variance 100.40 114.06 121.88
Post-test Variance 78.68 85.56 113.21
.05
Significance
.01

 

scores obtained. The data also indicated that there was

consistency across all three groups.

Hypothesis 3a. There is no difference in the two mean
scores obtained on the literature test.

 

TABLE 4-15. Test of Hypothesis 3a.

 

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Pre-test Mean 33.375 31.429 33.926
Post—test Mean 38.156 36.964 36.222
.05
Significance
.01 * *

 

*Significant at .01 level of type 1 error.

The test of significance performed on the differ-
ence in the mean scores for the two groups showed that there
was significance at the .05 level in two groups. The
third group did not indicate significant changes and

therefore the null hypothesis for this group was not

111

rejected. However, since two out of three groups showed
significant changes, the null hypothesis was rejected and
it was concluded that there was significant difference in
the two mean scores.

Hypothesis 3b. There is no difference in the two

variance scores obtained on the Liter-
ature test.

 

TABLE 4-16. Test of Hypothesis 3b.

 

 

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Pre-test Variance 60.52 83.72 77.79
Post-test Variance 56.70 82.45 70.90
.05
Significance
.01

 

The F test gave values that were not significant
at the .05 level and therefore the null hypothesis was not
rejected and the conclusion was that there was no signifi-
cant difference in the two variance scores obtained.
Consistency across all three groups was also indicated by
the data.

Hypothesis 4. There is no difference in the two mean

scores obtained on the self-concept
inventory.

 

The t test run on the data showed that there was
significance at the .01 level in group 1. The null

hypothesis for this group was rejected. However,

112

TABLE 4-17. Test of Hypothesis 4.

 

 

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Pre-test Mean 23.406 25.107 23.815
Post-test Mean 28.00 26.143 26.704
.05
Significance
.01 *

 

*Significant at .01 level of type 1 error.

significance at the .05 level was not obtained for the
other two groups and since two out of three groups did not
manifest significant change, the null hypothesis was not
rejected and therefore it was concluded that there was no
difference in the two mean scores obtained.

Hypothesis 5. There is no difference in the two mean

scores obtained on attitudes toward
school and learning.

 

TABLE 4-18. Test of Hypothesis 5.

 

 

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Pre-test Mean 20.282 25.00 25.333
Post-test Mean 26.00 28.393 25.333
.05
Significance
.01 *

 

*Significant at .01 level of type 1 error.

113

The results of the test showed that there was
significance at the .01 level in group 1, but the other
two groups did not show significance at the .05 level.
Since two out of three groups did not give significant
changes, the null hypothesis was not rejected.

Hypothesis 6. There is no difference in the two mean
scores obtained on the inventory on

sense of purpose and determination in
life.

 

TABLE 4-19. Test of Hypothesis 6.

 

 

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Pre-test Mean 9.093 11.53 7.481
Post-test Mean 8.00 13.25 10.407
.05
Significance
.01

 

The tests failed to give significance at the .05
level and consequently the null hypothesis was not rejected.
It was concluded that there was no difference in the two
mean scores obtained. The results also indicated that
there was no consistency across groups. There were
negative results in group 1.

Hypothesis 7. There is no difference in the mean
scores obtained across all six tests.

 

114

TABLE 4-20. Test of Hypothesis 7.

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Test 6

 

Exp. Group

Mean 34.40 41.32 37.02 22.702 23.574 12.128

Comp. Group

Mean 30.62 36.92 29.96 22.255 22.532 7.574
.05

Signifi-

cance
.05 * 'k * i:

 

The value of the test statistic t was significant
at the .01 level for the three tests in the academic area,
viz., reading, composition, and literature; significance
was obtained also in the inventory on students' sense of
purpose and determination in life.

Significance was not obtained on the other two
inventories, viz., self-concept and attitudes toward
school and learning. Since four out of six groups showed
significance, the null hypothesis was rejected and it was
concluded that there was significant difference in the

mean scores obtained for the two groups.

Summary
This chapter has presented the data collected at

the close of the experiment. Two kinds of data were
collected: descriptive and quantitative. The descriptive
data were analyzed by grouping the responses into patterns

and giving the percentages of the various response

115

patterns. Tests of statistical significance were performed
on the quantitative data and thereby the results were
analyzed. The null hypotheses and their tests have been
reported in this chapter. The next chapter will deal with

the discussion and interpretation of the results.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter presents a review of the research
reported. It discusses the results and makes suggestions

for further research.

Review

This study describes the particular method the
researcher followed in teaching his high school students,
assesses the overall reactions of the students to his
particular classroom practices and management, and analyzes
the changes that were brought about in the students'
academic and affective growth.

The researcher employed a single-group design,
which involved administering a pre-test, measuring the
dependent variable, applying the experimental treatment
to the subjects, and administering a post-test, measuring
again the dependent variable. In this single-group design,
a total of three groups were involved in order to study
the consistency of change across the three groups. All
three groups were taught by the same teacher in the same

manner .

116

117

The study population consisted of all the
college-bound tenth-graders of Sexton High School, Lansing,
Michigan, during the school year 1970-71. There were 419
students enrolled in this program. From these a random
sample of eighty-seven students were assigned to the re-
searcher to teach. These students had been randomly
enrolled in three sections and taught at three different
time periods during the day.

These students were taught in a particular way.
Unique to this procedure was that the teacher's behaviors
in the classroom were primarily oriented toward bringing
about perceptual in addition to academic changes in the
students. The researcher emphasized such changes in the
classroom as would encourage more independent and self-
motivated activities, thereby affording students the
opportunity to use freedom with responsibility rather
than work under external pressure and demand. Students
were given a considerable amount of freedom in choosing
and organizing their strategy. All elements of external
pressure were removed and students were encouraged to
mobilize and rely upon their own inner resources instead.

In order to study their overall reactions to this
particular approach, the students were given a questionnaire
in which they were asked to respond to each question by
recording whatever feelings they had about the class. In

order to analyze the changes brought about in their academic

118

growth, they were given three tests from the TAP
battery-~a reading test, a composition test, and a lit-
erature test. Changes in the affective realm were in-
vestigated by administering three inventories--(l) an
inventory on academic self-concept, (2) one on attitudes
toward school and learning, and (3) one on the student's
sense of purpose and determination in life.

The study explored these major questions: (1) How
did the students perceive what they learned in the class,
the particular method of teaching, and the teacher's class-
room management practices? Did they feel that they learned
something that was relevant--something that was useful to
them? Did they feel that the teacher was interested in
their progress and was trying to help them in their growth
and development? (2) Did the students make significant
progress in the defined academic areas? Is it possible
for students to change in these areas, if the teacher
does not make demands on them? If the consequences of
failing or getting a low grade or other sources of external
motivation are removed, will the students still perform
adequately? (3) Did these procedures help bring about
significant changes in the defined areas of the student's
affective growth? Is it possible to bring about signifi-
cant changes in these areas by drastically restructuring
the classroom atmosphere? (4) As compared with the stu-

dents from the same population who were not in the

119

researcher's sections, how did the students in the experi-
mental sections perform later on these same tests and in-
ventories?

The major statistical tools used in the study were
t tests and F tests. The criterion employed in the study
was the overall change brought about in the group's mean
performance. In order to study the significance of this
change, t tests were thought to be most appropriate.
Changes brought about in the variability of the groups
were also analyzed; for this F tests were employed. The
decision rule was to reject the null hypothesis at a =.05
level of type 1 error; a second decision rule employed was
to reject the null hypothesis if two out of three groups
showed significant change. The descriptive data were
given subjective interpretation based on the researcher's

observation of the students.

Discussion of the Results

 

The first question the study attempted to answer
was: how did the students perceive what they learned in
class, the particular method of teaching, and the teacher's
classroom management practices? Did they feel that they
learned something that was relevant--something that was
useful to them? Did they feel that the teacher was inter—
ested in their progress and was trying to help them in

their growth and development?

120

This question has two parts: one dealt with the
students' perception of the efforts they made in order to
learn something in class; the other dealt with the students'
perception of the particular roles the teacher played in
the classroom. The questionnaire had five questions deal-
ing with the first part, and five questions dealing with
the second part. The responses given by the students
throw some light on the points of our enquiry.

Question 1a: What Were Your Attitudes
Toward Learningpin this Class?

 

 

About seventy-five per cent of the students thought
that they were interested in learning and that they were
well-disposed toward it. The other twenty-five per cent
did not seem to find anything particularly stimulating in
this class. From the responses, it is more than evident
that the majority of the students in the class had favor-
able attitudes toward learning. Many students indicated
that they were self-motivated to take up activities which
they thought would help them and which they thought they
would enjoy doing. The opportunities given to the students
to make their own decisions, the flexibility of the approach,
the absence of tenseness in the learning situation, the
familiarity of the teacher-student relationships--all these
seem to have contributed to form favorable attitudes in the
students toward learning. Those students who were not

enthusiastic about learning in this class seemed to have

121

felt that they had too much freedom and not enough
direction. They felt that they learn better when someone
tells them what they should do and how they should do it.
Question lb: What Would You Say

About What You Actually
Learned in Class?

 

 

 

About eighty per cent of the students thought they
learned much in this class. Some of them mentioned that
they learned much for the future; some felt that what they
learned helped them to be more independent. The rest of
the students complained that they did not learn enough
from the textbook. It seems quite clear that some of the
students were able to grasp the meaning of learning which
the researcher was trying to convey to them. Many said
that they learned much in class. They made it clear that
what they learned was something that helped them in their
life, something that helped them to grow up to be inde-
pendent and self-motivated individuals. The remaining
twenty per cent of the students apparently did not under-
stand the type of learning which the teacher was trying to
stress or had not accepted it. They said they should have
learned more from the textbook.

Question 1c: Were You Happy
To Come to This Class?

 

 

About seventy-five per cent of the students reported
that they were happy to come to this class. They felt that

they did not have to go through the boredom they experienced

122

in other classes; they were happy that they did not have
to undergo the anxiety experienced in other classes. The
rest of the students did not seem to have enjoyed their
experience that much. It is evident that the majority of
the students felt that their needs were served in this
classroom. These were probably students who have learned
to function in situations where they are given much freedom
and where they know how to use this freedom with self-
control. The other students were probably of the type
that needs considerable amount of guidance and direction.
They do well when somebody leads them and tells them what
to do. These students must have felt that they did not
get much out of the class, or they were not motivated to
do anything because they did not get the direction and
leadership they needed. Probably these students have
always been exposed to situations in which they exhibited
mostly conditioned responses rather than a self-motivated
behavior.

Question 1d: Were You Able to Get

A Better Self-Understanding as a
Result of Taking this Course?

 

 

 

About seventy-five per cent of the students re-
sponded in the positive--they thought that they were able
to get a better self-understanding as a result of taking
this course. The rest of the students felt that they had
not achieved this goal. There is further evidence to indi—

cate that the majority of the students felt they had

123

accommodated to the flexible type of learning situation.
These are students who, when left to themselves, act in
their best interest and engage in activities that help
them in some way. These students said that they had been
led to thinking and reflecting about their interests, their
talents, and aptitudes and had been motivated to work for
their development. The other students apparently were not
able to grasp what was actually going on in the class.
Their conception of learning was apparently different and
they did not seem to have accepted the new concept of
learning put forth by the researcher.

Question 1e: How Would You Describe

Your Overall Experience
In This Class?

 

 

 

Again about seventy-five per cent of the students
thought that their experience in this class was very enjoy-
able. They described their experience in such words as

rewarding, interesting, enlightening, different, relaxing,

 

 

pleasant, exciting, etc. All of them stressed the idea

 

that they learned what they wanted to learn, what they
perceived would be useful to them. The other twenty-five
per cent of the students felt that their experience in this
class was different from other classes, but they thought
that they did not learn what they should have learned.

The students' responses to the five questions shed
considerable light on the points of our investigation.

The point of inquiry was to find out how the students felt

124

aabout what they learned in class: did they feel that they
learned something that was useful to them? There is evi-
dence to indicate that the majority of the students felt
positively about what they learned in class. They were
motivated to learn and they seemed to have enjoyed what
they actually learned. Their responses clearly indicate
that they felt they were learning something which they
perceived as useful. However, it must be kept in mind that
this was true of only about seventy-five per cent of the
students. The other students, even though they did not
have negative feelings about what they learned in class,
did not feel that they were learning the "right thing" or
that they learned enough. They said that they sould have
learned more from the textbooks; they seemed to feel that
the objectives of the course should have been more academic
than affective.

Why did these students perceive their experience
in this way? The question is Open to speculation. We
do not know the real reason for this discrepancy in their
perception. One's perception is based on one's needs.
If something helps a person to satisfy his needs, he per-
ceives that thing as good and useful for him; if it does
not, he may build up negative feelings toward it. This
might partially eXplain why the students perceived differ—
ently what they learned in class. Some students felt that

their needs were satisfied in this class; consequently

125

they had positive feelings about what they did in class.
The other students felt somewhat negative about it because
they felt their needs were not being fulfilled. Perception
also depends on previous eXperiences. Students who have
been exposed to situations which are structured find it
easier to operate in similar situations and thereby satisfy
their needs. Conversely, students who feel the need for
independence and self-motivated activities perform better
in situations where they are given much freedom and where
they make their own decisions.

What conclusions can we draw from these findings
that may have implications for subsequent educational pro-
cedures? No one questions the fact that students are
different and therefore insistence that all be provided
with similar experiences and treatment would only do them
an injustice. Therefore, it is vitally important that
students be given options. How can schools and teachers
in the classrooms provide these options? Studies are
being conducted to inquire into these possibilities.
Experiments have been conducted and changes are beginning
to take place in this direction. The concept of "a school
within a school" is becoming popular. This operates within
a framework where the students are given as many options
as are needed. Resource centers are provided in schools
where the students can go and get what they feel is impor-

tant for them; other places are also provided where they

126

can go and carry out the type of activities they like to
engage in. These facilities are intended to meet the
various needs of the different students.

Teachers can also make such provisions in their
classrooms. They can provide classrooms within a class-
room. Students could be given the option of selecting
the program of study that interests them and the teacher
can act as a resource person to those who ask for help and
guidance. Considerable progress is beginning to be made
in this direction. Some schools are beginning to provide
opportunities for students to work independently, where
the students draw up a program of interest to them and
work independently with the teacher of their choice. The
teacher gives only the help and guidance the students seek.

An often-heard criticism leveled against this ap—
proach is that the students are not prepared to handle this
much freedom. Critics argue that the students will misuse
their time. This criticism does not appear to be well-
founded. How can we expect students to be independent and
use freedom well, if they are never allowed any freedom?
It takes time to adjust to a new situation. This is true
of adults, and it is all the more true of young peOple.

Children do not use their freedom well. This is
a weak argument for not attempting new approaches in edu-
cation. We need to keep in mind that many of the students

are already conditioned to a pattern of behaving by the

127

time they enter the high school. Whenever a new situation
arises, they tend to behave in the way to which they have
become accustomed. This is because human beings have a
"retroactive tendency," that is, they tend to continue a
previously learned pattern of behavior. Many of our
schools are highly structured. When someone tries out a
new system which is characterized by flexibility, some
students are likely to continue to be totally dependent
upon the teacher to set every task to be performed; they
are totally dependent for guidance and direction regarding
every detail. While they may be slow to adjust, other
students are able to make a quick adjustment. This might
partially eXplain why some students in our study were not
able to use to advantage the new type of classroom exper-
ience the researcher was trying to provide them, while at
the same time, others were able to make significant progress
in the more permissive classroom situation.

We need also to keep in mind that much frustration
has been built up in many students during the many years
of schooling they have had. Students have always been told
what they should and should not do; they have never had
the opportunity to make a decision of their own. The
dictatorial attitudes of many teachers have caused con-
siderable dissatisfaction in many students. When someone
gives them a little bit of freedom, they tend to misuse

it and they go out of control. This is because they feel

128

the need to give vent to some of their pent-up frustra-
tions. A slow and gradual transition to more permissive-
ness may have to be made if we are going to witness their
ultimate development into responsible citizens. As is
clear from the evidence we have, most students are likely
to modify their behavior pattern eventually if they are
given freedom and responsibility.

The second part of the question deal with the
student's perception of the roles the teacher played in
the classroom. The question was: how did they feel about
the roles the teacher played in the classroom? Did they
feel that he was interested in their progress and was try-
ing to help them in their growth and development? Five
questions, dealing with they points of our inquiry, were
given to the students. Their responses, though varied,
reveal their perception of the different roles the teacher
played.

Question 2a: What Would You Say

About the Roles the Teacher
Played in the Classroom?

 

 

 

More than seventy-five per cent of the students
perceived the teacher as one who tried to foster independ-
ent study and as one who was trying to help the students
in their growth and development. They indicated that the
teacher gave them plenty of free time and encouraged them
to utilize it in their best interest. Some thought that

the teacher was a person who came down to the level of the

129

students and talked to them at their level. Other stu-
dents, too, had favorable feelings about what the teacher
did in class. But one student thought that he was more
of a baby-sitter than a teacher.

From their responses, it is more than evident
that most of the students were very pleased with what the
teacher was trying to do in the class. The behaviors the
teacher exhibited in class must have been conducive to
bringing about a learning situation in the classroom, or a
situation where they felt they could satisfy their needs.
There is evidence that some students did not perceive the
teacher as one who did much for them. The reason for this
is clear from what was pointed out earlier. Some students
probably looked for structure and direction, and since the
teacher did not give it unless it was asked for, they must
have built up somewhat negative feelings about the differ-
ent things the teacher did in the class.
Question 2b: What Were the Teacher's

Attitudes Toward You as an
Individual?

 

 

 

About seventy—five per cent of the students had
very positive feelings about the teacher's attitudes toward
them. They felt that the teacher treated the students as
individuals and showed them respect and kindness; some
thought that the teacher gave all equal and fair treat-

ment. Some, however, felt that the teacher was too easy

130

and consequently a few students abused their privilege.
Some said that the teacher was very understanding in the
beginning, but that later he changed.

There is further evidence to indicate that the
majority of the students could operate in the type of class-
room atmosphere that the researcher was trying to create.
They found the situation satisfying and rewarding. The
rest of the students apparently could not operate well in
such a setting. They might have been much better off in
a structured situation.

Question 2c: What Would You Say About

The Teacher's Attempt to Promote
Group Interaction?

 

 

 

All the students felt that the teacher was trying
to promote group interaction; but only seventy-five per cent
of the students thought that he was successful. Some of
the rest of the students felt that he failed in his at-
tempts. However, they explained that the failure was
caused by the students; they complained that some students
were not prepared for this type of teaching and because of
their indifference they spoiled everything.
Question 2d: How Did You Feel About

The Teacher-Student Dialogue
In the Classroom?

 

 

 

Almost all the students were very happy about it.
They thought that it was a good way to bring about better

communication between the teacher and the students. They

131

seemed to have grasped the reason for introducing such a
practice into the classroom. One student complained that
it was "contradictory." I am not sure what he meant by

it. It may be that he did not understand what the question
was referring to; or, possibly, he was bothered about the
informal relationship between the teacher and the Students.
His background probably led him to expect the teacher to

be a lecturer, an evaluator, and a disciplinarian.

Question 2e: What Would You Say

About the Teacher's Grading
Practices?

 

 

 

About sixty per cent of the students reported that
it was fair and good. Thirty per cent of the students
thought that it was bad because they thought some students
took advantage of the situation and did not work hard to
earn the grades they received. The rest of the students
had no comments on grading.

The responses to these questions reveal much about
what students expect. From the data, it is clear that
most of the students were happy about the permissive class-
room procedure and grading practices. They felt they were
able to accomplish something in the classroom. But we must
keep in mind that the particular behaviors the researcher
exhibited in the classroom will not be the best for all
the students. Just as some students in our sample did not

feel positively about the informal way the teacher behaved

132

in the classroom, so we are likely to find in any pOpu-
lation some who will be enthusiastic about this approach
and some who will be indifferent about it.

These findings suggest something about the direction
schools might take in bringing about changes in classroom
procedures to permit more student self-direction and perhaps
greater self-discipline. All the students are not the
same; they have individual differences. This being the
case, assigning students to a teacher without any choice
on their part is probably not the best practice. Whenever
feasible, students should be given the option of selecting
the teachers they wish to work with. Some need teachers
whose classroom procedures are very structured; others
need teachers who permit them to work individually. The
data do not tell us what is ideal. Since we are dealing
with different types of individuals, it is altogether
impossible to speak in terms of the ideal. There are as
many needs as there are different types of personalities,
and therefore we need as many different approaches as

possible.

Discussion of the Results

 

This description of the sample is not based on
any objective data collected; it is based on observation
of the students by the researcher during the period of
the research. The researcher is fully aware of the sub-

jective element in this observation.

 

133

Student A:

 

A very responsible student, who can do excellent
work when he is prOperly directed and is given the
right type of positive reinforcement. He does not
perform well in a strictly controlled structure; he
would tend to be disruptive. He is sensitive to

criticism, but very responsive to positive reinforce-

, {#215

ment. He performs well when he is allowed to work

independently.

Student B:

 

 

An achievement—oriented student who does well in a
structured situation which is characterized by rigorous
competition. He is a capable student and it is likely
that he would win in every competition. He does a

good work if it is systematically organized and planned
for him. He does not like to see others doing differ-
ent things. He prefers that all do the same things

and compete with each other.

Student C:

 

A somewhat indifferent type of student who does not
mind what actually goes on in the classroom. He is
satisfied if he gets an average grade. But he does
well if someone reasons with him and tries to moti-

vate him to study harder.

134

Student D:

 

A conscientous student who makes any adjustment asked
for. He also does well if left alone and given some
help by the teacher. He gives up if forced to work in

a structure and compete with other students.

Student E:

 

A capable student who does well when left to himself
and given a definite direction. But he cannot function
in a controlled situation; he might even drop out of

school.

Student F:

 

An industrious student who does his best work when
left to himself and given some general directions.
He does not function well when he works with small
groups. He is well motivated, but works well only if

left to work by himself.

Student G:

 

A capable student who works best if everything is well
planned and organized. He cannot function well in a
flexible situation. If told to do certain things, he

does an excellent job; if not told, he wastes time.

Student H: A responsible student who does excellent

 

work when he is given a considerable amount of freedom
and positive reinforcement for what he does. He is

sensitive to negative criticism. While he does not

135

mind competition in the class, nevertheless he believes
that everyone should have a chance to compete with

himself.

Student I:

 

A well motivated student who does not mind how the
teacher teaches. He can adjust to any situation. He
does well both when freedom is permitted or when the

situation is highly structured.

Student J: An excellent student who works best when

 

he is given the needed direction and given the freedom
to work by himself. When forced to work with others,

he does not function as well.

Student K: A capable student who adjusts to any type

 

of situation; but he works better under structured
conditions. When he is given specific directions and
positive reinforcements for the work done, he does

very well. He generally needs guidance and a degree of

external control.

Student L: A conscientious student who does well in

 

a flexible type of situation. He cannot operate in

a structured situation; he would be disruptive in it.
When given freedom, he utilizes it to his best interest.
He exercises self-control when left to himself and

engages in activities useful to him.

136

Student M: A responsible student who can make adjust-

 

ment to any situation, but works better in a situation
where everything is clearly laid out for him. He works
better when positive reinforcements are given for the

work done.

The above description gives us an idea of the
differences in the various individuals and their prefer-
ences. Three of these students perform better in a strictly
controlled type of situation; three can work in any type
of situation, but perhaps they work better if someone under—
stands them and gives them specific directions. Seven of
these students perform best in a flexible type of situa-
tion, where they are given the opportunity to make their
own decisions and freedom to work independently. Since
this sample was drawn randomly from all the students who
returned their responses, we have reason to believe that
this sample does represent the population fairly well.

The second question to which the study addressed
itself was: did the students make significant progress in
the defined academic areas? Is it possible for students
to bring about changes in these areas if the teacher does
not make demands on them? If the consequences of failing
or getting a low grade are removed, will the students
perform adequately? How will they perform as a group?

Three hypotheses were generated to test whether

the students made significant progress in the areas of

137

reading, composition, and literature. The tests conducted
on the data show that the changes obtained in these areas
were significant at the .05 level of type 1 error. Con-
sequently the null hypotheses were rejected and it was
concluded that the changes obtained on all the tests were
significant. For the reading test, significance was ob-
tained at the .01 level of type 1 error; there was con-
sistency across all the three groups. In the composition
test, Group 1 showed significance at the .01 level of

type 1 error, and the other two groups showed significance
at the .05 level of type 1 error. In the literature test,
Group 1 and Group 2 showed significance at the .01 level of
type 1 error, but Group 3 did not show significance even
at the .05 level of type 1 error.

There is clear evidence from the data that the
students did make some significant progress in their
academic growth. Significance was obtained on all the
tests across all the three groups. What were the factors
that were responsible for bringing about these changes?
Can we conclude that the changes were due to the experi-
ment? We do not know the answer to this question. We
can only speculate and arrive at possible reasons. It
should be kept in mind that the teacher did not provide
anything special in the way of new programs or aids in
order to bring about changes. He did not assign specific

tasks for the students to perform in class; he did not

138

even provide the usual aids given in the ordinary class—
rooms-~1ectures, assignments, tests, etc. However, stu-
dents were told several times during the course of the
semester individually and collectively that since they
were college-bound students it was important for them to
bring about changes in these academic areas. This idea
was instilled into them by reasoning with them and thereby
getting them to see the need for it. They were encouraged
to work at their own pace and in the manner they consid—
ered most useful for themselves. The teacher did give
help individually and collectively whenever he was asked.
But in most instances, they were left to work alone or in
small groups--whichever they felt was more secure and
profitable. Thus instead of limiting the tasks that could
be performed, the teacher encouraged them to indulge in
a wide variety of activities, based on interest and talents.
From the data there is evidence that the students
did a desirable amount of work in these areas in order to
improve. The obtained significance cannot be explained
unless we accept the fact that they worked in these areas.
Any incidental learning that could have occurred through
reading or other studying cannot explain the significance
we have obtained. These tests are rigorous, and, conse-
quently, any casual learning cannot bring about significant
improvement in performance on them. It must be inferred

that the students, feeling the need to achieve, worked

139

diligently, either independently or in groups they elected
to work with. Even though the teacher did not teach any
special skills for improving their reading, they were
encouraged to read in class whatever they decided to read;
plenty of time was given in class for recreational readings
as well as other readings which require more concentration
and abstraction. Similarly, it is not easy to obtain
knowledge of literary skills by just any type of reading.
Unless one makes the effort to study these skills, it is
impossible for one to attain them. The fact that they

did make significant improvement in performance on the
literature test clearly indicates that the students did
make sincere effort to study diligently. Likewise, the
improvement they made in writing can be explained partially
at least by accepting the fact that they got some practice
in this area. Knowledge of the mechanics of the language
is not something that can be obtained by just any type of
incidental reading. It is probably true that over a period
of time extensive reading can help one improve his know-
ledge of the mechanics of the language. But it requires
purposive reading for a prolonged period of time. If
significant changes were brought about within the period

of a semester, it may be inferred that the students made

at least some of the improvements as a result of class

activities.

140

We do not know why one of the groups did not show
significant change in the literature test, when the other
two groups did. Since this particular group was the last
class taught in the afternoon, the time of day could be a
factor. Being the last class, exhaustion could, perhaps,
partially account for the lack of significance in the
changes brought about. Due to the teacher's exhaustion
as well as of the students, it may not have been possible
for both to engage in the type of interaction that would
be conducive to intensive study. The data seem to indicate
a sort of decreasing effect on all the the tests. The group
that was taught during the first hour seems to have made
the greatest gains followed by the second group which was
taught during the fourth hour, while the late afternoon
group showed the least gains.

Since the teacher did not provide special programs
which could explain these changes, we have reason to be-
lieve that they were actually brought about by self-
motivated and independent study. The teacher did spend
a considerable amount of time working with individual stu-
dents, reasoning with them, and attempting to get them to
recognize the need for study in these areas. He was ex-
tremely informal with them; he talked with them at their
level, he listened sympathetically to their problems, he
was flexible in approach to accommodate individual needs,

he gave them the reinforcements they needed, he showed

141

them personal interest in their growth and develOpment.
All these may have contributed to create a situation in
which the students were motivated to work diligently for
their own self—improvement.

What conclusions can we draw from these findings?
Can we conclude that all students will make progress in
their academic growth if the teacher does not demand work
from them or if the teacher does not assign work for them
to do, but tries to motivate them to practice self-
discipline? From this study, it is difficult to make
broad generalizations; the study was not intended for that.
However, we can infer that it is possible to bring about
changes in certain students' academic growth by focusing
attention on the self of the learner. But we cannot con-
clude that we can do this with all learners. Some students
are better motivated when the teacher tries to manipulate
the learning process and the learning situation; some work
only when the teacher gives personal and individual atten-
tion. As is clear from the data all the students were not
motivated to work by the particular method the teacher
followed. Some students indicated that they felt that
they did not learn enough. These students may have learned
more if the teacher had paid more attention to the learning
situation rather than to the individual learner. But we
do know that the majority of the students felt positively

about this particular approach and that their progress was

142

significant. We may possibly conclude at this point of
time that certain approaches can work well only if the
students feel that they can operate securely in them and
that their needs can be satisfied. There is no universal
approach which can be used with equal success with all the
students.

A third question we may ask is this: if the teacher
is not demanding, will students perform adequately as a
group? If the teacher organizes group activities and the
students work as a group, changes in the groups' variability
are likely to be reflected. Were there significant changes
in the groups' variability? Three hypotheses were gener-
ated to test this. The F tests conducted showed that there
was no significant change in variability on any test in
any group. On the reading test, in Group 1 there was a
slight decrease in variance; but the change was not large
enough to be significant. Groups 2 and 3 showed slight
increase in variance; however, the increase was not sig-
nificant. In the composition test, all the groups showed
a decrease in variance. Group 1 showed the greatest,
followed by Group 2 and then Group 3. The changes were
not large enough to be significant at the .05 level of
type 1 error. In the literature test, too, all the groups
had shown a decrease in variance; but since the decrease
was slight, significance was not obtained at the .05 level

of type 1 error; consequently the null hypothesis was not

143

rejected, and it was concluded that there was no signifi-
cant change in the groups' variability.

The changes in variability were not significant.
However, the teacher did try to promote group interaction
and encourage students to work in small groups. What is
the reason for not getting significant changes in vari-
ability? The data showed that there was a slight decrease
in variance in nearly all of the groups. Only two groups
had shown slight increase in variance. This indication
seems to tell us that if the groups had had more time and
had the Opportunity to get to know each other, they might
have worked more as a group and significant changes might
have been brought about. We ought to keep in mind that,
since the teacher had not demanded group work, the idea
of working in groups had to come spontaneously from the
students. It takes a considerable amount of time for
students to come to this realization; often this realiza-
tion is achieved after they have had a chance to come to
know the other students better. If they had had more time,
probably they would have taken the initiative to come to
know each other and subsequently to work in groups. It
was actually pointed out by some students that, at the
start, they were not willing to work in groups, but, as
they got to know each other better, they worked in groups

and that this helped them.

144

The third question the study sought to investigate
was this: did the students make significant changes in the
defined areas of their affective growth? The specific
questions asked were: (1) Did the students manifest sig-
nificant changes in their self-concept of academic ability
and achievement? (2) Were there clear indications of
change in their attitudes toward school and learning? :
(3) Did they manifest a more determined sense of purpose
and direction in their life?

Three hypotheses were generated to test the changes {

 

brought about in these areas. To determine the signifi- I
cance of the change, t tests were run on the data. The
tests showed that there were changes brought about in all
the groups, but that these changes were not large enough
to be significant. On the self-concept inventory, Group 1
showed changes that were significant at the .01 level of
type 1 error. Groups 2 and 3 showed some changes, but
they were not significant at the .05 level of type 1 error.
Consequently, the null hypothesis of no difference was not
rejected for this test, and it was concluded that there
was no significant change in the groups' progress. The
tests on the self-concept inventory data, too, failed to
give significance at the .05 level of type 1 error; there-
fore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. However,

Group 1 showed significant changes at the .01 level of

type 1 error; the second group showed slight changes, but

145

they were not large enough to be significant; the third
group showed no changes at all. The tests conducted on
the results of the third inventory showed that there was
no consistency across the three groups; the results were
not consistent with the results obtained on other tests.
The first group, which showed significant changes on the
other two inventories, showed negative changes. But they
were not large enough to be significant. Groups 2 and 3
showed some positive changes but they, too, were not sig-
nificant at the .05 level of type 1 error. Therefore, the
null hypothesis of no difference was not rejected.

The lack of consistency indicated in the data makes
it impossible to make generalizations based on the evidence
of the data. Group 1 did show significant changes on the
self-concept and attitude inventory, but there were small
negative changes on the third inventory. The students in
this group seem to have obtained a better self—concept of
academic ability and achievement and their attitudes toward
school and learning improved; but in their sense of purpose
and determination in life, they seem to have regressed
slightly. It is difficult to identify the causes for these
changes. It is possible that some of the changes were
brought about by the experiment. The students were asked
to respond to the various items on these inventories with
reference to their experience in class. We have reason to

assume that they did respond to all the items with reference

146

to their experience in class. If this is so, we conclude
that the eXperience they had in the class made some con-
tribution in bringing about these changes.

What is the reason for this lack of significance,
especially since the teacher's care and attention were
directed to bring about changes in these areas? First and
foremost changes in the affective realm may come about
more slowly than changes in the academic realm. It takes
a long time to form one's self-concept of academic ability
and achievement, or one's attitudes toward school and
learning, or one's sense of purpose and determination in
life. What attitudes students have are the result of many
years' accumulation of experiences. In order to bring
about changes more concentrated work for a prolonged period
of time is required; it would also seem necessary to iso-
late the students from other injurious influences. This
experiment was not able to manipulate these two factors.
However, the fact that students showed slight changes in
the positive direction is a good indication. Possibly,
they would have shown significant positive changes if the
study was conducted over a longer period of time, and if
the teacher had more time to work with them each day. The
impact that the teacher provided may have been too slight
compared with what they were getting in other classes or
from their home environment. If students are exposed to

other teachers who behaved the way the researcher behaved

147

for a prolonged period of time, significant changes may
possibly be brought about in these areas.

The lack of significance could perhaps be also
explained by the particular type of response pattern that
was followed. The response pattern was based on a five-
point continuum, running from the response "strongly
agree" to "strongly disagree." The change from one posi-
tion to the next on this continuum is comparatively large.
If the students perceive that the change is not sufficient
to take them to the next point on the contiuum, they tend
to place themselves on the same point. If the pattern had
permitted them to take into account smaller changes, the
data may have been different. This is clear from the fact
that the descriptive data clearly showed that the students
perceived that they were aware of changes in themselves.

The fourth question of interest for the investi-
gator was this: as compared with the students who took
the regular sections, how did the researcher's students
perform on the same tests and inventories subsequently?
The researcher's purpose was to see if his approach had
some negative effects on his students in their later per-
formance. It was feared that these students would not be
able to adjust to other classroom situations which were
somewhat structured. Yet it was hypothesized that these
students would perform as well as other students on all

the tests and inventories. The t tests conducted on the

148

test results showed that in the three academic areas the
students in the experimental groups did better than the
comparative groups. The changes indicated were signifi-
cant at the .01 level of type 1 error. The null hypothesis
was rejected and it was concluded that the students in
the experimental groups performed significantly better
than the students in the comparative groups. In the
affective realm, the students in the experimental group
rated much better on the inventory on sense of purpose
and determination in life. The differences were signifi-
cant at the .01 level of type 1 error. On the other two
inventories, there were slight changes, but they were not
large enough to be significant. Thus on four tests out of
six the students in the experimental groups scored higher
than the students in the comparative groups. The differ-
ences were significant at the .05 level of type 1 error and
so the null hypothesis of no difference was rejected and
it was concluded that the students in the experimental
groups did better than the students in the comparative
groups.

What conclusions can we draw from these findings?
Did the students in the experimental groups perform better
because they were exposed to the tests before? These
students were exposed to the tests twice before; the other
students took the test for the first time. The significant

changes cannot be explained merely by previous exposure

149

to these tests because the results were not discussed
with the students. Secondly, these tests are demanding
and consequently it is not possible for students to bring
about significant changes merely because of previous ex-
posure. Neither can it be said that they did better be-
cause they were in the experimental classes. The study
does not reveal enough to establish this conclusion. The
study merely inquires if these students performed as well
as others taught more conventionally. There is enough
evidence from the data to state that the performance of
these students was better than that of the students in the
comparative groups.

The data seem to reveal that the students in the
experiment did not make as much progress in the second
semester as in the first. Their mean scores were slightly
lower than the ones they had at the close of the first
semester. It is difficult to say whether the decrease was
due to the teaching they got during the second semester.
It could have been because of the changed conditions in the
classroom; but we have no reason to believe this. From the
study it is very clear that the special approach the stu-
dents were exposed to during the first semester did not
have injurious effects on them. If it had any influence

on them at all, it was definitely positive.

150

Suggestions for Further Study

 

While the data reveal much, it is difficult to
make broad generalizations. The researcher, however,
wishes to make the following suggestions for those who
might be interested in conducting a similar study:

(1) It would be more useful to have both experimental and
control groups. More certain conclusions could then be
drawn. (2) The conclusions would be more valid if several
other teachers were also involved in the study. Teachers
with similar beliefs about teaching methods could be
identified. Those teachers committed to the flexible
method could be assigned the various groups in the ex-
perimental treatment, while other teachers who have a
strong committment to the structured method could be
assigned the groups in the control treatment. (3) This
type of study can be most effectively conducted only if the
researcher has the freedom to schedule and conduct the
classes the way he thinks is most desirable. (4) If one
wishes to get the best results from this type of study,

it should be conducted in situations where there are ample
instructional facilites. With limited reference and audio-
visual resources, it is difficult for the students to in-
vest time on things of interest to them and thereby to
develop their talents and to bring about significant
changes. (5) If the researcher wishes to work on the

affective growth of the students, it is desirable that he

151

spend a considerable period of time each day with the
students, paying attention to their individual needs and
thereby creating a situation that is conducive to their

affective growth and development.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BI BL IOGRAP HY

Antoinetti, J.A.; Welsh, P.; and Thayer, P.W. "An
Industrywide Study of Programmed Instruction."
Journal of Educational Psychology, XLXX (1965),
61-73.

Basset, S. J., and Brooks, F. D. "The Retention of
American History in the Junior High School."
Journal of Educational Research, XLIV (1928),
44-51.

Bingham, A. Improving Children's Facility in Problem
Solving. New York: Bureau of Publications,
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958.

Brookover, W. B.; Paterson, A.; and Thomas, S. Self-
Concept of Ability and School Achievement. U.S.
Office of Education Cooperative Research Project
No. 845. East Lansing: Bureau of Research and

Publications, Michigan State University, 1962.

Brooks, F. D., and Basset, S. J. "The Retention of
American History in the Junior High School."
Journal of Educational Research, XVIII (1928),

 

44-51.
Bruner, J. S. "Some Theorems on Instruction Illustrated
With Reference to Mathematics." Theories of

 

Learning and Instruction. Edited by E. R. Hilgard.
Sixty-third Yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1964.

 

Case, H. W.; Roe, K. V.; and Roe, A. "Scrambled Versus
Ordered Sequence in Autoinstructional Programs."
Journal of Educational Psychology, LIII (1962),
101-04.

Colville, F. M. "The Learning of Motor Skills as Influ-
enced by Knowledge of Mechanical Principles."
Journal of Educational Psychology, XLVIII (1957),
321-27.

152

153

Combs, A. W., and Snygg, D. Individual Behavior. Rev. ed.
New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1959.

 

. Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming: A New Focus

for Education. Yearbook of the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development. Washington,
D.C.: National Education Association, 1962.

 

. The Professional Education of Teachers: A
Perceptual View of Teacher Preparation. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, 1965.

 

Cronbach, L. J. Educational Psychology. Vol. I of Annual
Review of Psychology. Edited by C. P. Stone and
D. W. Taylor. Stanford: Annual Reviews, 1950.

 

Dewey, J. Ethical Principles Underlyinngducation.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1903.

Durflinger, G. "The Fundamental Forgotten by College
Students." Journal of Educational Research, XLIX
(1956), 571—79.

Ebbinghaus, H. Memory: A Contribution to Educational
ngchology. Translated by H. A. Ruger and C. E.
Bussenius. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1913.

 

Friedenburg, E. Z. The Vanishing Adolescent. Boston:
Beacon Press, 1959.

Froelich, C. P., and Moser, W. E. "Do Counselees Remember
Test Scores?" Journal of Counseling Psychology, I
(1954), 149-52.

Grace, G. L. "The Relation of Personality Characteristics
and Response to Verbal Approval in a Learning Task.‘
Genetic ngchology Monogram, XXXVII (1948), 73-
103.

 

Haggard, E. A. "The Proper Concern of Educational
Psychologists." American Psychologist, IX (1954),
539—43.

Haselrud, G. M., and Meyers, S. "The Transfer Value of
Given and Individually Derived Principles."
Journal of Educational P§ychology, XLIX (1959),
293-98.

 

Henry, Jules. Culture Against Man. New York: Random
House, 1963.

 

154

Henry, Jules. "Vulnerability in Education." Teachers
College Record, XLVIII (November, 1968), 135-45.

 

Hilgard, E. R. Theories of Learning and Instruction.
Sixty-third Yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Learning, Part I. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1964.

Howell, M. "Spelling Through Written EXpression."
Elementary School Journal, LII (1950), 207-14.

Hurlock, E. B. "Evaluation of Certain Incentives Used in
School Work." Journal of Educational Psychology,
XVI (1925), 145-59.

Kelley, E. C. "What Are Children Learning?" Childhood
Education, XXXI (1954), 9-12.

 

Kersh, B. Y. "The Adequacy of 'Meaning' as an Explanation
for the Superiority of Learning by Independent
Discovery." Journal of Educational Psychology,

 

XLIX (1958), 282-92.

. "The Motivating Effect of Learning by Directed
Discovery." Journal of Educational Psychology, LII
(1962), 65-71.

Kitzhaber, A. Themes, Theories and Therapy: The Teaching
of Writing in College. New York: McGraw Hill,
1963.

Koerner, J. The Miseducation of American Teachers.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1963.

Lecky, P. Self—Consistency: A Theory of Personality.
New York: Island Press, 1945.

Lewin, K.; Lippit, R.; and White, R. K. "Patterns of
Aggresssve Behavior in Experimentally Created
'Social Climates.'" Journalrof Social ngchology,
3rd ed. New York: Holt, 1958.

Lindgren, H. C. Educational Psychology in the Classroom.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967.

Lippit, R.; Lewin, K.; and White, R. K. "Patterns of
Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created
'Social Climates.'" Journal of Social Psychology,
3rd ed. New York: Holt, 1958.

155

Lublin, S. C. "Reinforcement Schedules, Scholastic
Aptitude, Autonomy Need, and Achievement in a
Programmed Course." Journal of Educational
Psychology, LVI (1965), 295-302.

 

 

Maier, N. "Reasoning in Children." Journal of Comparative
Psychology: XXI (1963), 357-66.

 

 

McQuary, J. P. "Some Relationships Between Nonintellectual
Characteristics and Academic Achievement." Journal
of Educational Psychology, XLIV (1953), 215-28.

 

Meyers, S., and Haselrud, G. M. "The Transfer Value of
Given and Individually Derived Principles."
Journal of Educational Psychology, XLIX (1959),
293-98.

 

Moser, H. E. "Concept of Arithmetic Readiness: An
Invesitgation on the Second Grade Level."
Unpublished thesis, Duke University, 1947.

Moser, W. E., and Froelich, C. P. "Do Counselees Remember
Test Scores?" Journal of Counseling Psychology,
I (1954), 149-52.

 

 

Newell, C. A. "Class Size and Adaptability." Teachers
College Record, XLV (1944), 556-57.

Page, E. B. "Teacher Comments and Student Performance:
A Seventy-four Classroom Experiment in School
Motivation." Journal of Educational Psychology,

 

XLIX (1958), 173-81.

Pasamanick, B., and Rettig, S. "Status and Job Satis-
faction of Public School Teachers." School and
Society, LXXXVII (1959), 113-16.

 

Paterson, A.; Brookover, W. B.; and Thomas, S. Self-
Concgpt of Ability and School Achievement. U.S.
Office of Education Cooperation Research Project
No. 845. East Lansing: Bureau of Research and
Publications, Michigan State University, 1962.

 

 

Pressey, S. L. "A Simple Device for Teaching, Testing,
and Research in Learning." School and Society,

 

Rettig, S., and Pasamanick, B. "Status and Job Satis-
faction of Public School Teachers." School and
Society, LXXXVII (1959), 113-16.

 

156

Rice, J. M. "The Futility of Spelling Grind." Forum,
XXIII (1897), 163-72.

Roe, A.; Roe, K. V.; and Case, H. W. "Scrambled Versus
Ordered Sequence in Autoinstructional Programs."
Journal of Educational Psychology, LIII (1962),
101-04.

 

Roe, K. V.; Case, H. W.; and Roe, A. "Scrambled Versus
Ordered Sequence in Autoinstructional Programs."
Journal of Educational Psychology, LIII (1962),
101-04.

 

Roth, R. H. "Student Reactions to Programmed Learning."
Phi Delta Kappan, XLIV (1963), 278-81.

 

Schmuller, A. M., and Thorpe, L. P. Contemporary Theories
of Learning. New York: Ronald, 1954.

 

 

Silberman, C. Crisis in the Classroom: The Remaking of

 

 

American Education. New York: Random House, 1970.
Smith, F. T. "An Experiment in Modifying the Attitudes
Toward the Negro." Teachers College Contributions,

 

DCCCVII (1943).

Snygg, D., and Combs, A. W. Individual Behavior. New York:
Harper, 1949.

 

Spitzer, H. F. "Class Size and Pupil Achievement in
Elementary Schools." Elementapy School Journal,
LV (1954), 82-86.

 

Stouffer, G. A. W., Jr. "Behavior Problems of Children as
Viewed by Teachers and Mental Hygienists." Mental
Hygiene, XXXVI (1952), 271-85.

Thayer, P. W.; Welsh, P.; and Antoinetti, J. A. "An
Industrywide Study of Programmed Instruction."
Journal oprpplied Psychology, XLIX (1965), 61-73.

 

Thomas, S.; Brookover, W. B.; and Paterson, A. Self-
Concepp of Ability and School Achievement. U.S.
Office of Education Cooperative Research Project
No. 845. East Lansing: Bureau of Research and
Publications, Michigan State University, 1962.

 

Thorndike, E. L. "Mental Discipline in High School
Studies." Journal of Educational Psychology,
XV (1924), 1-22, 83-98.

 

157

Thorpe, L. P., and Schmuller, A. M. Contemporary Theories

 

of Learning. New York: Ronald, 1954.

Tyler, R. W. "Cooperation and Conflict in the Mental
Development of the Child." Mental Hygiene, XXXII
(1948), 253-60.

 

van de Riet, H. "Effects of Praise and Reproof on Paired-
associate Learning in Educationally Retarded
Children." Journal of Educational Pscyhology, LV
(1964), 139-43.

Welsh, P.; Antoinetti, J. A.; and Thayer, P. W. "An
Industrywide Study of Programmed Instruction."
Journal of Applied Psychology, XLIX (1965), 61-73.

White, R. K.; Lippit, R.; and Lewin, K. "Patterns of
Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created
'Social Climates.'" Journalgf Social Psychology,
3rd. ed. New York: Holt, 1958.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

THE CITY OF LANSING

APPENDIX A

THE CITY OF LANSING

Lansing, centrally located in the "palm" of
Michigan's mittenshaped lower peninsula, serves as the
economic and social center of an extensive region of
central Michigan. Economically and functionally, Lansing
is a part of the midwestern industrial "heartland" of the
nation. It serves as a manufacturing center, a govern-
mental center, and a cultural and educational center.
Lansing's past population and economic growth trends
generally parallel trends in other metropolitan areas in
the midwest region and in the nation.

Lansing, with a population of about 134,000 in 1968
and a tributary area population of abOut 350,000, is clearly
subordinate to the Detroit metropolitan area, about ninety
miles southeast, which serves4,000,000 persons, and to
Grand Rapids, about sixty miles northwest, which serves
nearly 500,000 persons. Other urban centers comparable in
size to Lansing--Flint, Saginaw, Jackson, Battle Creek--1ie
in a circular pattern around Lansing and effectively con-

strict Lansing's sphere of regional influence. Lansing,

158

159

however, is a key focal point in the new interstate high-
way network connecting these large urban centers and thus
has a singular opportunity to develop new region-serving
economic activities in the future.

As a state capital and site of a major university,
Metropolitan Lansing serves politically and culturally an
extended multi-state region. It also commands national
recognition as a manufacturing center of specialized con-
sumer and industrial products.

Effectively linked to the national transportation
and communication networks, Metropolitan Lansing is one of
the key regional centers in the nation. It has the oppor-
tunity to play an expanding role in national affairs as

the opoulation becomes increasingly more urbanized.

Growth and Development

 

Lansing's population has increased rapidly from
1960 to the present with the exception of "depression

decade, 1930-40, when the population remained virtually
constant, increasing only about one-half of one per cent.
In the following two decades--l940-60--population increased
at a steady rate, slightly faster than the nation during
the 1940's but slightly lower during the 1950's. The

1950-65 pOpulation trends in Metropolitan Lansing gener-

ally followed the same trends common to most regional

160

centers during the period. These trends are illustrated

as follows:

1. Metropolitan area increased more rapidly than
the nation, 22 per cent compared with 18.5 per cent

during the 1950-60 decade.

2. Central city population increased only 17 per cent
during the same period. Nearly 70 per cent of the
metropolitan population gain occurred in the

adjacent suburban fringe.

3. Suburban population consists of middle and higher
income white families, both in-migrants and those

moving out of the central city.

4. Non-white population in the central city more than
doubled during the 1950-60 decade as a result of
high birth rates and in-migration. Non-whites
comprised 6.5 per cent of the city's population in
1960 compared with 3.3 per cent in 1950. By 1965,
non-whites comprised 9.0 per cent of the city's
pOpulation. In 1970 the total white population

was 118,248; the Negro pOpulation totalled 12,294.

Economic Base

 

Manufacturing, distribution, government, and
education are the major components of Lansing's economy.

These activities provide the main economic support for the

161

area's population, generating a little more than half of
the employment and most of the "basic" income in the
metrOpolitan area.

The city is a major regional job center. About
84,000 jobs are located within the city boundaries, of
which 30,000 are held by in-commuters living outside the
city limits. It is the largest source of payrolls in the
local economy. Manufacturing, employing 36,000 in 1965,
provides about thirty per cent of metropolitan area jobs
and about thirty-three per cent of the city's total em-
ployment. Auto-manufacturing, a high-wage industry,
provides nearly seventy per cent of the total manufacturing
jobs in the metropolitan area.

Government is the second largest employer in the
metropolitan area. State government alone employed about
18,000 in 1965, including Michigan State University em-
ployees. In the city, government and retail trade are
equal in employment size, each employing about one-third
the number in manufacturing.

The labor force is drawn from a wide area. About
thirty-nine per cent of the jobs are held by in-commuters
to the city. Resident employment gains have been mostly
in services, government, and professional occupations.
Most of the manufacturing jobs gained have been filled by
in-commuters; resident employment in manufacturing has

declined in recent years. Generally, city resident

162

employment gains have lagged behind city population growth,
indicating that non-participants in the labor force are
concentrating in the city. Resident employment gains have
been greatest in the traditionally lower-wage activities,
while in—commuters fill new jobs in higher-wage activities,
reflecting the tendency of the more affluent to move to

the suburbs.

APPENDIX B

SEXTON COMMUNITY

 

APPENDIX B

SEXTON COMMUNITY

Sexton High School serves a large community of

1,947 families.

The school community is highly hetero-

geneous, with people belonging to different races and vari-

ous walks of life living in it.

of the 1,947 families,

Spanish, and 5 are of other origin.

1,474 are Caucasian,

The school files show that
422 Negro, 46

The percentages of

these families in the school community are 76 per cent,

21 per cent, 2 per cent, and l per cent, respectively.

The files in the Information Office of the Lansing School

Board of Education give the following data regarding the

socio-economic background of the families living in the

Sexton community. These data

school year 1969-70:

1. Percentage of parents
school . . . . .
2. Percentage of parents
only . . . . . .
3. Percentage of parents
diploma 0 O O O O
4. Percentage of working

or managerial jobs .

were collected during the

with education beyond high

0 O I O O O O O O 25
with a high school diploma

0 O O O O O O O O 43
without a high school

I O O I O O O O O 31
parents with professional

. . . . . . . . . 20

163

 

164

5. Percentage of working parents with skilled

clerical or sales jobs . . . . . . . . . 32

6. Percentage of working parents with semi-skilled

or unskilled jobs . . . . . . . . . . 48
7. Percentage of pupils from families where both
parents work . . . . . . . . . . . 31

8. Percentage of pupils from families receiving ADC

or welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Percentage of pupils from families with two
parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

10. Percentage of attendance at parent-teacher con-

ferences . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

 

These data give us a fairly clear picture of the
type of community Sexton High School serves. Not only is
it racially mixed, it has the highest racial mixture in
town. It is also widely mixed in its socio-economic back-
grounds. There are many people living in the Sexton commu-
nity who belong to one of the professions; but there are
also some on welfare. The bulk of the people is middle
class, having a high school education and clerical or sales

jobs.

 

HoEHmE JOOIom Io_I ZOwam Co ZO_.EmOn:)_Oo

H “:3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.zmw
Uni
JOkE<u
_ . 52.2;
..\
z" x 38
32:: m 3092, 55m
mi 2125 H
mm w. :3? ii m
w an . /,/ m .1; m m
1 mt; L325, more....._......

   

xosazoo
025.65 238238 7%

3:193: wt

.48 .128 02.33 25
soozom :9: zotxum I

xoaazoo 38.53

 

 

x$§§0b ‘Vlb§\

kaxveu éOk‘W.

 

APPENDIX C

SEXTON HIGH SCHOOL

 

APPENDIX C

SEXTON HIGH SCHOOL

Founded in 1865 as Lansing High School, the
J. W. Sexton High School came into existence in 1945 when
the Central High School was transferred to the new build-
ing located on a thirty-eight-acre tract of land south of
Michigan Avenue and west of McPherson Avenue. Over the
years, Sexton has been outstanding in several areas of
performance. The school is particularly well-known for
its academic excellence and athletic renown.

The program of study that Sexton offers is devised
to provide every student with the kind of training that
best suits his individual needs. The curricula are based
upon the following two broad objectives: (1) Providing
an educational program that is terminal with emphasis
upon preparation for living in our democratic society;

(2) Providing pre-vocational and vocational training for
specific occupations or for additional formal education.
The school program contains required and elective courses.
The general courses which are required of all students

include five semesters of English, three semesters of

166

 

167

Social Studies, and four semesters of Physical Education.
Twenty-eight credits are required for graduation from

school and are obtained as follows:

Required courses: 5 semesters of English; 3 of Social

 

Studies; 4 of Physical Education.

Additional recommended courses: 6 semesters of a major

 

sequence; 4 semesters of a minor sequence.

Electives: 6 semesters.

 

The student body of Sexton High School is charac-
terized by heterogeneity in racial mixture and in socio-
economic backgrounds. The racial mixture of the student
body is as follows: 76 per cent White, 21 per cent Black,
and 3 per cent other. Sexton has students that spring
from families of the top echelon as well as of the lower

social groups.

APPENDIX D

INSTRUMENTS

 

APPENDIX D

INSTRUMENTS

The Tests of Academic Progress, TAP, and the
Scholastic Inventory were used for the purpose of collect-
ing the data. The TAP tests were prepared under the
direction of Dale P. Scanner, Professor of Education and
Associate Dean of the Graduate School of the University
of Kansas, in cooperation with the following subject

matter specialists.

Composition and Literature: Oscar M. Haugh, Professor

 

of Education and Supervisor of Student Teaching in
Language Arts of the University of Kansas; he is the
co-author of a high school English textbook series

and trustee of the Research Foundation of the National

Council of Teachers of English.

Reading: Henry Smith, Professor of Education, Univer-
sity of Kansas; author of Psychology in Teaching and

co-author of Psychology in Teaching Reading.

 

168

 

169

The authors of these tests spent considerable time
reviewing the textbooks most commonly used in these areas,
as well as courses of study, recommendations of national
curriculum organizations, opinion of curriculum and subject-
matter specialists and experts. Test specifications were
developed which reflected the most common and important
goals and content of the areas under conSideration. The
tables of specifications provided the blueprints for the
subsequent develOpments of the tests and test items. The
characteristics of the items which were developed were
studied in several experimental programs. Pilot studies
were conducted to determine whether the test formats were
appropriate for the educational level of the group to be
tested and to obtain an estimate of appropriate test length
for given administration times.

Data from these try-out tests were analyzed to
obtain for each item the difficulty level and indices of
discrimination. The try-out data provided important infor-
mation for the selection of items and their placement on
the final test. After editorial revisions and re-try-out,
items were selected for each level of the test. To be
selected, each item had to meet the twin criteria of
appropriate difficulty and adequate discrimination for the

grade levels which would take the item in the final test.

170

Reading Test

 

The reading test is designed to test student
competency in reading. Each item has five options in its
response pattern; there are sixty-six items in all. The
reading passages cover such areas as home living, biography,
logical reasoning, personal hygiene, geography, geology,
botany, agriculture, cultural history, general science,
nature, history, and human relationships. Most of the
items require the student to discover meanings rather than
simply locate information. Many questions require the
student to coordinate information in order to see relation-
ships among facts and arrive at valid conclusions. The
items can be classified into four broad categories:
identification of explicitly stated facts, details, and
relationships; comprehension of information which has been
identified; application of information in drawing conclu-
sions and forming inferences; and evaluation of the theme

or purpose of the writer.

Composition Test

 

This test attempts to approximate as closely as
possible in a multiple choice format the problems en-
countered in the production of a finished piece of writ-
ing. There are seventy items in all. The test contains
six compositions of varying types which are followed by

items which relate to the passages. The compositions

 

 

171

cover such areas as simple paragraph, simple narrative,
book report, theme of several paragraphs, business letter,
friendly letter, narrative of several paragraphs, etc.

The skills measured are essential to clear and accurate
writing. The items can be classified into five broad
categories: capitalization, punctuation, grammar and

usage, organization and spelling.

Literature Test

 

The purpose of this test is to determine how well
a student can read and interpret the six types of litera-
ture: short story, novel, essay, narrative poem, lyric
poem, and drama. Each type of literature is represented
by one passage, taken from a selection of recognized
literary merit. There are sixty-two items and they can be
classified into four general categories which reflect the
major goals of the teaching of literature: understanding
meanings in context; understanding the content of literary
selection; understanding literary devices; and, using

literary background.

Statistical Validity
Since these are recent tests, the authors have not
had the opportunity to collect comprehensive evidence of
concurrent or predictive validity. However, preliminary
findings suggest that TAP will yield correlation coeffi-
cients which are at least as high as the coefficients

yielded by similar achievement test batteries.

172

There are also reasons to believe that statistical
evidence may not be the most appropriate description of a
test's validity. Correlation coefficients merely reflect
the extent to which two sets of scores for the same indi-
viduals tend to agree. If two tests are equally poor,
they may correlate highly with each other. If one pro-
vided a good measure and the other a poor one, the two
scores probably will not correlate highly. If the corre-
lation between a test and a second type of measure is to
be accepted as a form of validity, one would have to accept
the second measure as being more valid than the test.
Obviously, this is unlikely because the most valid measure

available will be from the test itself.

Reliability of the Test Scores

 

The reliability of a test score is the extent to
which the score accurately and consistently represents the
trait which the test measures. Reliability is the most
important statistical characteristic of a carefully devel-
oped and comprehensively standardized test of achievement.
The reliability of a test is usually described in two
ways. One is the reliability coefficient, a correlation
coefficient which shows the extent to which the test
correlates with itself. The other is the standard error
of measurement, an index reflecting the variability of test
scores due to random and temporary factors associated with

the test, the examinee, the administration of the test, etc.

 

173

Reliability coefficients can assume values from
.00 to .99 and usually fall between .70 and .95. The more
closely the index approaches the upper limit, the more
consistent are the test scores. Even though reliability
coefficients are numerical values, absolute meaning cannot
be attached to a single index by itself. To determine how
satisfactory the value is, the coefficient for the test
must be compared with those for other tests which are
equally valid and practical.

The standard error of measurement is the standard
deviation of a distribution of scores obtained by measur-
ing the same individual a large number of times with the
same test or equivalent tests. It must be assumed that an
individual is unchanged throughout the administration of
the tests. Obviously, the distribution is hypothetical,
but even so, the error of measurement concept is well
established in theory and is very important to test score
interpretation. If a student took a series of tests which
are equivalent, he would not earn the same score each time.
The scores would differ because of the factors associated
with the administration of the test, with differences on
specific items on the tests, and with characteristics of
the examinee. The best estimate of the student's "true
score" would be the average of all scores he obtained.
Most of his scores would be close to the "true score" but

some would deviate rather markedly. The less susceptible

174

the test is to the factors noted above, the less the scores
would vary from each other. The standard error of measure-
describes the extent of such variability.

When a student takes a test, the score he receives
is not necessarily the one he would receive on an equivalent
one administered the next day or next week. In fact, the
score is actually one of the scores in the distribution
described in the previous paragraph. We can never know a

student's "true score,’ or how close one particular score

is to the "true score." However, using the standard error
of measurement, we can establish intervals which most
likely would include his "true score." An interval formed
by adding one standard error to the obtained score and
subtracting one standard error from the obtained score
should contain the "true score" for two out of three stu-
dents. Similarly, an interval formed by adding or sub-
tracting two standard errors should contain the "true score"
95 times out of 100.

Standard error of measurement and reliability
coefficients for the three tests of TAP battery are given
in Table D-l. Standard deviations of student scores
and standard errors of measurement are presented in both
raw scores and standard score units. The reliability data
presented here were obtained by a split test procedure and
are based on representative samples, ranging in size from

1,699 students to 2,530 students selected from the complete

175

standardization sample. The data presented were obtained

during the fall of 1963.

TABLE D-l.--Standard Deviations, Standard Error of Measure-
ment, and Reliability Coefficients of TAP.

 

Standard Deviation Standard Error
of Measurement

 

 

T Reliability
est Coefficient
Raw Standard Raw Standard
Score Score Score Score
Reading 11.91 9.81 3.33 2.75 .92
Composition 11.74 10.70 3.71 3.38 .90
Literature 10.07 10.48 3.32 3.46 .89

 

The Scholastic Inventory was a special scale deviSed
and developed by the investigator for the purpose of meas-
uring some of the changes brought about in the affective
realm of the students. Many of the items on this scale
were adapted from Michigan State University Orientation
test, which the researcher had given to another group of
students at Sexton some time prior to this study for the
sake of collecting some background information on those
students. At that time, no effort was made to analyze the
data statistically. However, some analysis was made and

subsequently some items were revised and some eliminated.

176

Many new items were also written. Before writing these
new items, the researcher had the constructs broken into
their factors and each factor was loaded with a particular
number of items, depending on how highly the factor was
assumed to correlate with the construct. If a particular
factor was assumed to correlate very highly with the con-
struct, more items were loaded under that factor; similarly,
if another factor was assumed to correlate only very
slightly, only very few items were loaded under that fac-
tor. The table of specifications given on the next page
indicates the various constructs used in the inventory,
their various factors, and the number of items loaded in
each of these factors.

Self-Concept of Student's Academic
Ability and Achievement

 

A study conducted by Dr. Brookover50 and his
associates has given the evidence that a student's self-
concept of his academic ability and achievement is posi-
tively correlated with what the student thinks about
himself, with what the parents think and expect, with
what the teachers think and expect, and with what one's
close friends think. In devising this instrument, the

procedure followed was to load each of these factors with

 

50Wilbur B. Brookover, A. Patterson, and S. Thomas,

Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement, U.S. Office
of Education Cooperative Research Project No. 845 (East
Lansing: Bureau of Research and Publications, Michigan
State University, 1962).

177

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n maoom Hocofluoosoo m.oco .m
n maoom Hocoflumoo> m.oco .m
n maoom Hofi00m m.oco .v
om N wmocflacooao Houcoecoufl>cm .m oMHH cw
m ucoecuo>om m.oco .N soapocwEHouoo
v mucouom poo Saaeom m.oco .H ego omomudm
use umonoucfl HocOmuom mo omcom
v mucouom .w
v mucoosum Hozuo .m
n muocoooa .e
om "guns masmcoaumaou was an cofluamommao
v Hoonom ca Hao3 maomoco mcfluosocou .m
n mcwcuooq .m mcacuooa can
v Houocom ca Hoonom op mswow .H Hoonom cuozou
"ouo3ou coaufimommflo oosufluud
m xcfisu mocowuw omoHo m.oco pong .v ucoEo>oflnoo
m uommxm can eggs» muonommu map has: .m can muaaunm
on m uoomxo cam xcwsu mucouom onu non: .N OHEooooo mo
ma oaomsan usonm mxcanu ucoosum map page .H ummocoouoamm
oEouH Houoom
mo .02 Hmuoe soon a“ mEoUH muouoom nonhumcoo
.muouco>cH oaummHosom on» now mucuumoHMHoodm mo manoeuu.mno mamas

178

a particular number of items depending on how highly the
factor was assumed to correlate with the main construct.
Thus this scale has twenty-six items in all; of these
thirteen items were loaded in the first factor, which is
assumed to have the highest correlation with the main con-
struct; there are six items in the second, five items in
the third, and two items in the last factor. On each one
of these items, the student was asked to rate himself on

a five-point continuum. It was assumed that the composite
picture obtained from this inventory gave a rough idea of
the student's self—concept of his academic ability and

achievement.

Attitudes Toward School and Learning

For the purpose of this study, the researcher
made the assumption that a "good" student will have favor-
able--as decided by adult standards--dispositions toward
(1) going to school in general; (2) learning; (3) conduct-
ing oneself "well" in school--that is, as is expected of
him--and in his relationship with (4) teachers; (5) other
students; and (6) parents, especially when they inquire
about his performance in school.

In this scale, there are thirty items; of these,
four items were loaded in the first factor, seven in the
second, four in the third, seven in the fourth, and four

each in the fifth and sixth. The response-pattern is

179

again based on a five-point continuum, asking students to
rate their perception as to where they stood on this
continuum.

Student's Sense of Purpose and
Determination in Life

 

In drawing up a scale for meaSuring this particular
variable, the researcher made the assumption that a student
having a sense of purpose and determination in life will
show interest in the following: (1) his family and parents,
(2) his government, (3) environmental cleanliness, (4) his
social goals, (5) his vocational goals, and (6) his edu-
cational goals.

There are thirty items in this scale. In each of
the factors just mentioned a certain number of items were
loaded. In the first factor, there are four items, in the
second factor three items, in the third factor two items,
and in the fourth, fifth, and sixth factors there are
seven items each. The response pattern was the same as

was given before.

I '\

Validity and Reliability

 

No attempt was made to study and analyze the
validity of the Scholastic Inventory (this includes all
the three scales) through a statistical procedure. These
instruments were not correlated with similar other instru-
ments having high validity indices. Lack of time and con-

venience prevented the researcher from doing this

180

desirable thing. However, some effort was made to achieve
factorial validity. The inventory was devised to measure
changes in three variables. Each of these variables was
broken into their major factors and each of these factors
was loaded with a certain number of items depending on how
highly these factors were assumed to correlate with the
main construct. The researcher was well aware of the fact
that in making these decisions, he was making many assump-
tions, viz., assumption of correlationship between factors
and construct, assumption of high or low correlationship
among factors, etc. The study has value only in as far as
these assumptions are valid. The researcher is cognizant
of this fact and therefore the importance he attaches to
this study is only hypothetical and not absolute. Secondly,
these scales were given to several experts in the field

of educational measurement for their scrutiny. The items
passed the scrutiny and study of Dr. Nelson, Dr. Olson,
Dr. Eberly, Dr. Juola, and other specialists of the Office
of Evaluation Services at Michigan State University. Since
all the changes suggested were incorporated, it could per-
haps be assumed that the researcher made some genuine
effort to make the instrument valid. Thirdly, by defini-
tion, the student's rating of himself on a defined scale
is absolutely bound to have validity; what he rates is

his self-perception. Whether his self-perception is too

high or too low from another's point of view is not the

181

point of our consideration; we are interested in knowing
how the student perceives himself and rates himself on

the given items. What he rates about himself is absolutely
bound to be true for himself. Therefore, by definition,
the instrument has validity. Of course, we need to make
the assumption that the student is really rating his own

self-perception and not rating himself blindly.

Reliability

 

The split-half method was used to get an index of
reliability. This is a procedure in which a given test
or inventory for each individual is split into two halves.
This is usually done by counting the number of odd-numbered
items answered correctly and the number of even-numbered
items answered correctly and a Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficient is computed between the two sets
of scores. Sometimes other splits are made, such as items
1 and 2 go into the first score, 3 and 4 into the second
score, and 5 and 6 into the first score. Here the split
used was between the odd and even-numbered items. The
pre-test measures were used to get this index of relia-
bility. The pre-test was thought to be more apprOpriate
for this analysis, because if the instrument is not reli-
able, its further use for the post-test could not be
justifiable. It should be kept in mind that the relia-

bility of a test is directly related to the length of the

182

test. When we scored our test on an odd-even basis, we

actually cut the length of the original test in half. The
reliability coefficient which we have computed then is one
equivalent to the half test. For this effect a correction

is made by using the Spearman-Brown formula:

2 r
r = oe
tt 1+r
oe
The values we have obtained for our test are: r0e = .80.
The reliability coefficient is: rtt = .89.

The Questionnaire

 

In order to collect some descriptive data, the
following questionnaire was given to the students, and they
were asked to record whatever feelings they had about their
overall experience in the class. The questionnaire dealt
with aspects of teaching, learning, and practices of class-

room management.

1. What were your attitudes toward learning in this

class?

2. What would you say about what you have learned in

this class?
3. Were you happy to come to this class?

4. Were you able to get a better self-understanding

as a result of taking this class?

10.

183
How would you describe your overall experience in
this class?

What would you say about the roles the teacher

played in the classroom?

What were the teacher's attitudes toward you as an

individual?

Did the teacher attempt to promote group inter-

action?

How did you feel about the teacher-student dialogue.

in the classroom?

What would you say about the teacher's grading

practices?

The Scholastic Inventory

 

Self-Concept of Academic Ability

 

And Achievement

 

Being well read gives me a sense of satisfaction.
I am a fast reader.

My parents don't care if I quit school before
graduating.

Most of my teachers think that I am a good reader.

My close friends think that I am one of the best
students in my class.

I am capable of helping other students in my class
who have difficulty with this subject.

My parents want me to graduate from high school
but do not encourage me to consider any further
education.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.
18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

184

My Social Studies teacher thinks that I am an
outstanding student.

I am a good student.
My parents expect me to get a college education.

My math teacher thinks that I am not working up
to my full capacity.

I am likely to be selected for a scholarship to
go to college.

My close friends think that I am capable of getting
a college scholarship.

When a test is given I can usually finish the test
before most of the other students in the class.

My parents expect me to do graduate work or to
pursue professional studies beyond college.

I can prepare for a test without putting in long
hours of studying.

I should earn higher grades than I actually do.
I deserve higher grades than I usually get.

My grades usually reflect by ability fairly
accurately.

My parents expect me to get high grades in my
courses.

My English teacher thinks that I should major in
English.

My parents expect me to spend sufficient time on
my studies.

I have little or no difficulty with the mechanics
of English composition.

My teachers expect me to be a model to other stu-
dents in learning.

Changes that I make on examination questions
seldom raise my score.

I usually have a good idea what is going to be
stressed on examination.

185

Attitudes Toward School and Learning

 

1.

11.

12.
13.
14.
15.

16.

17.

18.
19.

20.

21.

If I had my choice, I would drop out of school.
Most of my teachers are competent.

I like most of my classmates.

Students are justified in presenting complaints
about time schedules, subjects, teachers, and

other things to the Principal.

My parents expect me to conduct myself properly
in school.

In general, I like school.

Most of my teachers are easy to talk to.

Most of my classmates like me.

I spend sufficient time on each of my subjects.
To give vent to their frustrations, students are
justified in breaking windows, throwing paint, or

destroying things.

My parents are justified in expecting me to study
diligently in school.

School is intellectually stimulating.

Most of my teachers are dedicated to their work.
School affords me a chance to make new friends.
I get my written assignments in on time.

More often than not I do what my teachers eXpect
me to do.

My parents are justified in checking on my conduct
and performance in school.

My counselor is very helpful.
Students who study diligently are to be admired.

I usually find something of interest in just about
every course I take.

Most of the time, school is very boring.

186

 

22. A student should do more than the barest minimum
required to pass a course.
23. A student ought to thank his counselor for helping
him solve a difficult personal problem.
24. I feel sorry for those students who are planning
to quit school before they graduate.
25. School is helping me to understand myself better.
26. I try to apply science principles whenever an
opportunity presents itself.
27. Even though school is not always pleasant, I want
to attend school every day if I possibly can.
28. School is at its best when it is intellectually
challenging.
29. Teachers do not understand students' problems.
30. On the whole my teachers wear authority gracefully.
Sense of Purpose and Determination in Life
1. On the whole, I am trying to be a good student.
2. Going to school will help me in my future career.
3. My parents should have the final say about my
activities.
4. I would like to work in government foreign service.
5. I would like to get involved in cleaning up the
environment.
6. One should help others who are in difficulty.
7. It is important to maintain a good grade point
average.
8. I would like to become an outstanding writer.
9. I like to do things that make my parents feel
proud of me.
10. I hope to become a leader in my community.

11.

12.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

18.

19.
20.

21.

22.

23.
24.

25.

26.
27.
28.

29.

30.

187

Most movements for environmental cleanliness
lack sincerity.

I choose friends irrespective of color, creed, or
nationality.

I hope to enter one of the professions.

I prepare my assignments thoroughly.

Members of my family are close to each other.

I would like to become a social worker.

I am rapidly becoming independent of my family.

People are justified in destroying public property
to show their disapproval of their government.

I am a fast walker.

One should be expected to help his family in case
of need.

I would like to become influential in public
affairs.

I would like to continue improving my reading
rate.

When I face an unpleasant task I do it promptly.
I have a definite place for each of my things.

I like to think about what I will be doing ten
years from now.

As a rule my clothes are neat and clean.
I usually do what I promise I will do.

Students should get more involved in decision-
making at school.

Studying is a tedious but essential part of educa-
tion.

Violence against the government should not be
permitted.

188

The Response-Pattern
1. Strongly agree.
2. Agree.
3. Don't know.
4. Disagree.

5. Strongly disagree.

Scoring

Since the response pattern is based on a five-
point continuum, ranging from one extreme point to another,
for the purpose of analyzing the data, a weighted scoring
device was followed. The points given for the various
reSponses were as follows: +3, +1, 0, -1, and -3. The
best response to each item, as decided by the researcher,
was given +3 points; likewise the worst response was given
-3 points. For each student, the plus points were added
together and the minus points were subtracted in order to
get a score on each test. The tests of significance were
then conducted on the differences between the pre-test

scores and the post-test scores.