watt ABSTRACT FREEDOM THROUGH BUREAUCRACY: A STUDY OF ONE UNIVERSITY'S SYSTEM OF EXAMINATION AND GRADING By Franklyn Wedgwood York This dissertation is an attempt to assess attitudes toward a special examination program found in the Univer- sity College of Michigan State University. University College final examinations, called course wide finals, are written by a special office rather than by an instructor. This independent evaluation makes possible a number of innovations in education; perhaps the most striking is acceleration. Acceleration refers to the granting of course credit by passing the course wide final examination without PeEuler enrollment in the course. Acceleration is not Open to all students but only to those who qualify by various means; at present the principal means is the Waiver examination program. The waiver examination is a ShOI’tened version of the course wide final given at the beginning of each term; it is open to all students, and: for those who score sufficiently high on it, that particu- lar University College course requirement is waived. Those g Franklyn Wedgwood York who score still higher (waive with special permission) are given the opportunity to accelerate the course at the end of the term. It is the attitude of this group of accele- ration-eligible students that I am primarily concerned with in the study. The primary sources of data for the dissertation were two hundred eighty-two acceleration-eligible students who responded to a mail questionnaire. In addition, information from their student transcripts and other sources was gathered. Interviews were also conducted with University College faculty members and with the examiners who prepare the course wide finals. The student data was analyzed for relationships among responses and for significant patterns in the means and frequency distributions of the responses. The faculty and examiner data were used for certain com- parisons with the student data and each other. The com- parisons of the faculty and examiner data were not so nmthodologically sound as the analyses of the student data alone; therefore, the findings involving the faculty and examiner data should be considered suggestive only. The following were among the more important findings of the study: 1. Students were very favorable to waiving and ac- celeration in the abstract but were not nearly so favorable to the course wide final or the University College. Franklyn Wedgwood York 2. Students did not see the course wide final as pre- requisite for waiving and acceleration, but in- stead saw the course wide final as closely tied to the University College. 3. Students' grade point averages and their performance in waiving and acceleration bore little relation to their attitudes toward the course wide final. h. In comparison with the examiners, neither the students nor the University College faculty were as sensitive to the intrinsic benefits of independent evaluation. Following the analysis of the data, an effort was made to place the results of the dissertation in a more general social science framework. The students' simplistic view of independent evaluation was seen as an analogue of the over- simplified views of complex societal phenomena held by many groups. An effort was made to examine the results of the study in relation to the problems of the University College, and the Student, Faculty, and Examiner comparisons were viewed from the perspective of interest group theory. Some of the implications of the widespread use of independent evaluation and acceleration were considered, especially concerning their possible effects on students of lesser ability. Finally, I tried once again to show how independent evaluation does provide freedom through bureaucracy. ~__..-—__--1- F—fa FREEDOM THROUGH BUREAUCRACY: A STUDY OF ONE UNIVERSITY'S SYSTEM OF EXAMINATION AND GRADING BY Franklyn Wedgwood York A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Social Science 1969 To the memory of my father, who on learning about acceleration said, "Why, a man could stOp by in the morning and come home that night with a college degree!" ii -,-. a” J.“ ——— “l ‘Ph v '- 2 ’- e u - c ‘v. ‘ u -. v-A ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer of any study of a particular organization is indebted to the members of that organization, and this is especially so in my case. All of the members of the Office of Evaluation Services furnished help and coopera- tion which made this dissertation possible. I should especially like to thank: Mrs. Shirley Anthes Dr. Leroy Olsen Dr. Mary Burmester Dr. Osmund Palmer Dr. Irwin Lehman Mrs. Opal Young Dr. Clarence Nelson The clerical chores were ably handled by Miss thherine Kehnast and the computer work was generously paid fbr by the Social Science Research Bureau. I should like to thank Dr. M. Ray Denny and Dr. Joseph Schlesinger, two of the members of my committee, and Dr. J. Oliver Hall, who advised me on the history of acceleration. Belated thanks are due the National Science Foundation for supporting the dissertation during the fall of 1965 and spring of 1966 with a Graduate Fellowship. Finally, my greatest debt is to Dr. Donald Olmsted who served as co-chairman of my committee and offered much assistance on the social science aspects of my dissertation, iii . v . Q .vv"_"‘ 5- I, t” J7 .n .4 . _...‘._.y a\‘ ' ‘ '."..,.....v' . . .. u. -r ’ .. L”... - and to Dr. Willard G. Warrington who advised me from the beginning, served as co-chairman of my dissertation, and gave me an assistanship which enabled me to conduct the research on which this dissertation is based. iv -.. ~- .-- ‘u- ‘ .. .n— . v-- \v-ti —. a. -4c..o- - . V v“ ...... ' v . _.-V, .._. v s . v-r—-.--.. . . . . A.. ... 4 . - c.-.,. - ... . ._ 'v ., .. - o A~ . . a “‘» -. v -.- ‘ .h- . ‘V ' . " ~-. . .... on. _ ; .‘n- , - _.. up“, I -v-a . V e ‘5‘ a. ’ “ -.v._ .' -...’_ u: ‘ , o._.' ’ o o. u 7" no. _ '- ‘vc . . ‘ s ‘ ' . w r. " I .- ' ..- "a. . ...| g- ‘ '¢.. ., - ~ I. ‘- . “v-c l . A . D ‘— ‘v- a). - 'OI.‘ . "-. . .-'." hi... 4.- I . . o ,‘ .. ' o F -~.~ '9... ... * v. ‘ . " h- '. ug ‘ . . .. . v: nl'r.A " e '1 n . "'o V I . . b._ v. . r ‘O..‘ a - l ‘o. ‘ - - ‘-I' ‘-V -.. ‘. "§t . .‘ v, ‘_ '.. — v .“ 4 - c v . u. ‘ ‘. “ Q o '.. ..5 ., v “ \ . ~ u. \o. .. a V . -. . ._ ' ‘ ‘u a .. -,_ ‘ . -5 ._ i . , ... _ " II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I: INDEPENDENT EVALUATION IIJTRODIJCTIOIJ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Bureaucracy in Education , . . . . . The Institutional Setting . . . . . Reminiscences of an Underachiever. . Rationale of the Study . . . . . . . Some Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . Value of the Study . . . . . . . . . T113 COURSE WIDE FII‘IAL o o o o o o o o o o The Uses of a Course Wide Final . . . . . Some Relations and Comparisons Between Waivin and Acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . Educational Effectiveness of Acceleration The Prerequisites of Independent Evaluation BRIEF HISTORY OF INDEPENDENT EVALUATION . The University College and the Course Wide Final . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparative Growth of Waiving and Acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acceleration in Other Colleges and Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The University of Chicago . . . . . . . . TI-IE STUDY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Selection of the Study Population . . . . Sampling and Interviewing Procedures . . . Development and Content of the Questionnaire Outline of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . SECTION II: DATA ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION TO THE DATA ANALYSIS . . . . Item h Used as a Sample Item to Explain the Symbols and Terminology Used . . . . . . A Numerical Listing of the Items . . . . . V E) H \O¥TH 12 1A 16 lb 23 28 3O VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. XII. GROUP I: ATTITUDES TOVJARD MICHIGAN STATE UIVIVERSIT'I o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Group I. Correlational Analysis . . . . . . Group I. Analysis of Means and Frequency Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GROUP II: THE COURSE WIDE FINAL AND THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group II. Correlational Analysis: The Basic Ten Items of Group II . . . . . . . . Other Members of Group II . . . . . . . Group II. Discussion of Correlations . The Super Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . Question 37 and Wrong Way Correlations . Group II. Analysis of Means and Frequeno Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C I v '- - ‘-.- ~ ‘ ' I "' .I.., A 7 . , . n v.“ . .. ..~..- -,_ u u q-n... _ > . ' " bio...- .~ Q'V ‘- o I. ‘d‘ d‘-. ‘ '- u - i n ‘ ‘ .“» ..~ l"" ~ . ., ‘ ~ . '--.. u a ‘n '0... . U.. ‘ -~. ‘ - ‘- 1"- ‘I. .4. . .- . . - . . -s .‘u ‘ Q o.. . ! ..- ...'_l v.- k: . . I U. ., V 1 "h~ - . u . ‘. ~ . -~ ‘0 ..- ‘ o s .. .. .. I .~._ h‘. ' ~ \ \l ‘ . h_ . I I o -. - ~ F V I “§ -fi- ‘. .‘A .- ~ “ C. O i .‘s‘ ‘- ‘ ‘ . 'n _ - “. -." ‘ 'u ‘ \ v v n . . \ i _ s, ' .n ‘v \ ..,~ ’ V . . . . \ ‘_ - . , - . ~v . u ‘ - v \ ~ . .. r " O ~ - 1 '. I. - XIII. XIV. >< <1 XVI. XVII. XVIII. Group VI. Analysis of Means and Frequency Distributions . , , , , , . . . . . . . STUDENT, FACULTY, AND EXAMINER COMPARISONS Group I: Consensus . . . . . . Group II: Examiner Divergent . . . . . . Group III: Faculty Divergent . . . . . . Group IV: Students Divergent . . . . . Three Portraits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . SECTION III: THE SOCIETAL CONTEXT OF THE RESULTS C ODICRETI SI‘G o o o o o o O O o o o o o o o 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concretism and the Course Wide Final . . . A Bad Book and Its Enthusiastic Reception PROBLEMS OF THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE . . . . Problems of the Course Wide Final . . . . NE‘TING OF INVENTIONS . . . . . . . . . . Practical Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . Questions and Answers About th Course Wid Final 0 O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O Utopian Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instructional Techniques . . . . . . . . . ROLES AND OPINIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . EDUCATIONAL CHANGE AND SOCIAL CHANGE . . . The Mentally Retarded . . . . . . . . . . FREEDOM THROUGH BUREAUCRACY . . . . . . . Libertarian Opponents . . . . . . . . . . The Division of Labor . . . . . . . . . . The New Individuality . . . . . . . . . . SOME POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS OF THE RESULTS THIS STUD O O C O O O C O O O O O O O 0 Psychology . . . . Social Psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . Political Science . . . . . . . . . . . . Sociology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii e OF 173 183 1:55 190 195 200 203 208 213 213 267 270 271 272 273 SECTION IV: CONCLUDING REEARAS XXII. GENERAL RESUME, sUMRARY, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27A Postscript 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Suggestions for Further Research . . . . . . . 280 GLOSSARY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 2633 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 APPENDIX. QUESTION BY QUESTION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . 289 viii Q ""rv . '4. I - _ \_-. 0. q .-__ . .. .. ««.: H v-.. -- I- ‘ 'n U ‘ ' -.- a— .- ..’u_ iv»... C “H 3.. . . . .. v I . .‘ I .. . ..._ .. . .Vs .“-. . -___ 'o_ . . . hV-‘. . ..' , -‘ . I: o . . 'I ‘ . -_- . " ,‘~ .1... '- .'— . -Q LIST OF FIGURES Group I Chart 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 la lb 10 Group II IIa IIb IIc IId A comparison of the percentages of students expressing dislike of various aspects of NSU Overlap graph showing h9.7% of the students like MSU and are indifferent toward or dislike the University College . . . . . . . A comparison of the percentages of students liking MSU, the Course Wide Final, and the University College overall . . . . . . . . . Chart 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Comparison of percentages of respondents accepting various aspects of the Course Wide Final as beneficial . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of percentages saying multiple choice exams do a better job of evaluating students with percentage saying they personally prefer multiple choice examinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of percentages expressing liking for waiving overall, acceleration overall, the course wide final overall, and the University College overall . . . . . . . . . Comparison of percentages of respondents expressing a dislike of waiving overall (Qh3), dislike of acceleration (th), dislike of the course wide final overall (Q12), and dislike of the University College overall (Q22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix 80 82 83 8b. 95 10k 105 106 107 n - ..‘ — .- -- - ‘ u - . ....:.O l I . 3,.9' ' n ‘- - 9" .0. "“ .p-A " ' .v‘ I- v . o ..- ' .3. 5 . a )‘-oa - ‘J .o'I"- a o - -- ' . ‘Odgv. - . ‘ _.-..... I ....I h _ '..‘.. . -.. --“A u . O-n- O .- u- n v’v'-v V .. .“-|...- a 09-- ’\ . ...- Do... .- ..'.. ‘ ‘ .péu t...» .- . ‘ ...'. . - on... ...—. a Q a . ! n-g . a“ u 1... ‘.-_ “~. - "‘. .. v..:o '- I! l ‘u- ,- ~ 0'. ~.- ‘- . V ~. _ . . v A... : 1“ I I " . .."7‘_H: . . . 4 ’r—_ — .."- : -._': I Q. . ‘- g“ ._' - fl . Q 'l I. ' h -’ fi.: 'vl. IIe IIf Comparison of percentages opposing various limitations on waiving and acceleration with percentages favoring ideas which involve greater use of independent evaluation in the classroom . . . . . . . . Percentages preferring Independent Evaluation inside and outside class . . . . Breakdown of Question 13: A comparison of the percentage of students who think University College course wide finals count more than regular finals with percentage of students who think they count less . . . . Group IIA Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIAa IIAb Comparison showing minimum percentage of students who have favorable overall evaluation of MSU and also favoring abolishing one or more UC courses . . . . . A comparison showing that nearly three- fourths of the respondents like both the waiver program overall and the idea of an automatic waiver for majors in the field which a UC course covers . . . . . . . . . . Group III Chart 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1118 IIIb IIIc A Comparison showing that 13.8% of the respondents agree that Waiving and Acceleration is the greatest thing that's happened to them in college but disagree that W&A are a new and valuable way of learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison showing overlap between those who like waiving and agree that the purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College Overlap graph showing that 22.0% of the sample both favor the waiver program overall (Qh3) and feel that waiving and acceleration are useful only as a way out of dull courses (Q26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 109 110 116 118 119 12a 129 130 131 a. . ,. .“..v fi.. ,n'V -0‘ o A ‘ ‘ “.vafif 4 u “_ _,..u 4 . . .. :.,;‘ o ;' ‘qv—d ..-‘ ‘:-' “-2.0; t.-.«.. . -. r egg. .4.40 i q ' --vp - I ~ y‘- .4.. Plop.-'~. A S- I034 .ng ~Q P’QAII "" I C c ..4.. h '- a "'7’ fi” -. ‘ .- I".-‘~ a :0 ...'_. lc‘d....- ‘l :IQA'. o AV D ) ‘ ‘ I h f. ‘- | I “I ‘1‘ I It! 1» ) ~. _v. v.‘ I IIId IIIe Group IV IVa IVb IVc IVd Breakdown of Question 39: Comparing percentages of students who feel acceleration is more a matter of new learning with those who feel acceleration is more a matter of demonstration of previous knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A comparison of the percentages of students agreeing that "Waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning" (Q28) and agreeing that "waiving and acceleration added flexibility to otherwise strict course requirements." (Q27) . . . . . . . . . . . Chart I O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0 Comparison of percentages wishing abandonment of GNP and who like waiving overall showing minimum overlap . . . . . . Overlap Graph showing that 23.8% of the students both like acceleration overall (th) and choose statements unfavorable to the course wide final overall (Q12) . . . . Percentage of students favorable overall to acceleration compared with percentage who have adequate idea of relation of acceleration to CWF . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of the percentage of students who would like to see a program set up to accelerate non-University College courses (Q60) and the percentage of students who have a reasonably adequate idea of what wozld be required to set up such a program Q 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gro up V Chart 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Va Vb A comparison showing the percentages of students with high school, University College and MSU grade point averages of 3.60 and above 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 . Breakdown of Question 73: A comparison of the percentages of students with higher high school and higier MSU grades (Students with equal grades excluded) . . . xi 132 133 139 1A3 th me 152 158 159 o . . r' " . ‘“,.. -‘ - .-'Q;' '_‘..... a :.. :fl‘ ou- " 1" ~. ~31 -.a I I R. -u‘ .- . v- " fi‘ - 5.... " 7,...o“ .1 ... v.0 0'. .v-9 ‘ - ...,..-c . , . nu-q - u - 4 ..-- A. . ‘ D ,. ..... . \ "nu—n ~- I‘ In... .u‘ I".-c~ Or-I- ,.. ’ 4 IMO. 0-.0 9 "v~o '. Ina.- . I I-..'. n " ‘1- -. "ou. .': 'M.|,.“ c . t bun... ‘ . ....‘.. n a :0.‘.. - d "-v-‘- 'b ‘ :A‘; ‘n "v -T. ., . . . -:"‘ "Ub...o‘ .. 0‘ - , v-vu § ‘ «.3 . ~.' .5“ . 'Q-‘ -- .|.. i . o. . “-_ u ' _ .... I ~' I" "\ ‘QI. .- o. 0 0 I ., ~. .h-u ‘. .- .~. I a -r 4.. .- I u o .. u y .. -4 4 .- . a ‘ I n. o .- .. I p n u n. o 1-.«. 5.. I -. .. : --‘ . w-l . A. . a. A U 'V - . .. v... 4.. i v. ‘- - ~ Q Vc Vd Ve Group VI VIa VIb VIc VId VIe SFEa Information Gap: A comparison of the percentage of students who learn of waiving and acceleration their first term or earlier at MSU and the percentage of students who know why acceleration is confined to the University College . . . . . . . . . . . A comparison of the mean number of waivers attempted, waivers failed and waivers with special permission per respondent . . . . . Analysis of Question on: A comparison of the percentage of students who do not wish they had waived or accelerated one or more courses and the percentage who do wish that they had waived one or more courses . . . . Chart 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Comparison of University College and Non— University College accelerations per student Comparison of mean number of waivers with special permission which the student chose not to accelerate and mean number of accelerations per student . . . . . . . . . Missing courses: Graph showing that of the 12 University College courses per student, h.6 were not enrolled or written off by the Independent Study program . . . . . . . . . A comparison of the percentages who feel waiving more important with the percentages who feel acceleration is more important . . Comparison of the performance of students in general on the waiver and the students used in the questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . Restrictions on Independent Evaluation: A comparison of student and faculty opinion on the issue of requiring a 2.00 GPA for attempting waivers (Q35) and the issue of requiring an "A" for successful acceleration (Q36) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii 160 181 16k 172 178 179 180 181 182 205 SFEc Similar and Divergent Opinion: A comparison of student and faculty opinion means on Q10 "Do multiple choice or essay exams do the best job of evaluating students?" and Q11 "Which kind of exam do you personally prefer?" . . . . . . . . . 206 Near Perfect Trichotomy: A comparison of student, faculty and examiner answers to QAO, showing percentages who prefer waiving and acceleration over extension of the honors program 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 207 xiii I. INTRODUCTION Bureaucracy in Education "Freedom Through Bureaucracy" is not meant as a para- doxical or contradictory phrase. The pejorative conno- tations of bureaucracy have been so emphasized that it is forgotten how many of the benefits of our civilization depend on bureaucracy. In particular, this paper is concerned with, as the rest of the title implies, educational bureaucracy, made possible and necessary by the mass education which has characterized contemporary America. Mass education usually earns a mixed reaction from those who write about it. The results of mass education are usually seen as praiseworthy; America has more persons receiving higher education than any other nation in history. Yet the process of mass education is not seen as praise- worthy, and many criticisms have been made concerning the reduction of the formerly personal student-teacher relation- ship to the anonymity of the IBM card. For some, the quintessence of mass education and educational bureaucracy is the separation of instruction and testing. Here the teacher lacks control over even the student's grade; the computer appears to have destroyed the last vestige of humanity remaining in higher education. .oa - < ¢ . . . . u v . . o . a a a a: u. . o . a: . . . ... . A. 0 find 0 v r” .r- V . . . a b a . F u f—‘ #1 g. . 3 e l o u... “1.. . s e - a3 «a . . .s. . . . C“ . . ... .3 .ru .. —.. u . 2. a. .p. . . . P . a; ..o 03 __ l. o L. r . . . O! Q ‘r. on rad u Q .. a v «P5 II ' u .u. D b 0 d O. . .—. “ I p . Q! 0 pm. I. c I. . an. O l u Q ~ . Ru. 6 4 v. o I. o r a .y- I. . .~ A F“ .ru 7“ ~I. o». .41 I: n a Q. a :. u u .l 3 . u u v u .3 . ¢ . . a: a 4 . . 3. :u r .. CG .2 i. a . . nsu ru .. u A I u n. . .u. .3. ~ :u o o I o .p u g . r: o. a .1 .2 rs» . a a. . o .. . . . r“ i. um "I .i .2 ru 5 ... I . a . s‘u .na 5 u n c 0 i .n u noi .p- . n o o b u u . n10 .- . . n- u O .-u III I. A -\. o v Iii ... I .n. I . . v . . . I n . . H .p. u -!d I - . v _ l I O ' t u .o. h v. . . I O I‘ - . u I»! 5 ‘ p .Q I . . v u . w a n . u w ,.. v. . .. « v ., v . v. c 1n;.. I. . W... - a . . . . 2 It is a cardinal premise of this paper, however, that separation of the teaching and examining functions does not destroy humanity flexibility and freedom in education, but that instead it makes possible new and important kinds of freedom. How is this so? Let us begin by criticizing the phrase "mass edu- cation". This is surely an elliptical expression. For mass education may refer to the unthinking application of the same instructional methods to thousands of students with no consideration for differences in ability and no use of the techniques made possible by large enrollment. This kind of mass education is often found in the high school. In the high school the teacher's status is typically low, and learning is limited by various community taboos as to what may and may not be discussed. Further, the functions of both teacher and school are at least partially custodial as well as educational and the able student's pace is limited to that of the average in the class. Yet, and this is a vital exception, it is not in the high school that grading is done by machine. There are, to be sure, such things as the College Board examinations and the New York Regents tests, but the student's grade is very much in the teacher's hands, and the teacher may use whatever criteria he chooses. Typically, these criteria may include such irrelevant issues as attendance, classroom decorum, homework, and so on. In contrast to the high school setting, let us 3 consider a radically different kind of "mass education", specifically the University College, the setting for the research in this dissertation. 1v. .. 4'1“. r ‘).d\: . :7“ p h The Institutional Setting1 The University College is one of the colleges of Michigan State University, a large coeducational university in East lensing, Michigan. The University College offers "general education". General education is based on the idea of requiring all students to have a general background in several important areas of knowledge. In some senses, general education is very similar to "liberal education", but unlike liberal education, general education involves special innovations in both course offerings and testing procedures. The University College has four principal courses: American Thought and Language, Natural Science, Social Science, and Humanities. These four courses count for a total of AS term hours and constitute one-fourth of the 180 hours required for most degrees at Michigan State. The four courses are required of all undergraduates at MSU with cer- tain exceptions and are ordinarily completed during the first two years of college. Unlike other colleges of MSU, the University College offers no degrees; instead, its courses are taken by the students of the other colleges of MSU. One of the ideas behind the University College was the offering of a common background for all students at MSU; 1All the special terms used in this dissertation are defined in the Glossary immediately preceding the List of References. I. 1‘ EV?! ...~||| S». ta 1 .. thus everyone would be assured of a minimum background in areas which were considered important for all college gradu- ates. This was considered especially important for students who were interested only in a particular specialty and would not otherwise be introduced to important knowledge outside their majors. A further advantage of the University College is that it gives students who are unsure of their major field an Opportunity to sample many content areas and thus find a major they like. Because there are AS credits common to all students, changes in major fields are also facilitated. However, as was stated before, the emphasis of this study is not upon courses; rather, its focus is upon testing procedures. Unlike most courses, University College courses do not have final examinations which are written by the instructor. The final examinations for University College courses are prepared by members of a special testing office, the Office of Evaluation Services, with the help of the teaching departments of the University College. These exams are taken by all of the students enrolled in the course, with certain exceptions. At the time the research for this dissertation was conducted, the examination prepared by the Office of Evaluation Services counted one-half the student's grade with the other half being given by the instructor. The University College final examination is called the course wide final, and differs from conventional instructor- given examinations in a number of ways: ,. u- . ‘ 3 ..-.. .u .I \ ..“‘.>“' .-v , $0.0-o . auv-' . - r 'r'f' ”w“, . ud‘. bpéilb I o I ~. ‘ ‘ V .- a .‘ p44- .. z. .. ov 5., . "'I 155-. Q -u....-l .‘ . uh- . -_ A.-. .-‘ ‘I \n.‘ .. I -‘ I v '- ~ .. 1 .‘ "" v- 4 o q Q"-_ .- 4. ..v" '0 ' ‘;v--, ‘ a t...‘-‘. "‘¢:L >~‘~.‘ u - “ D 'u . l u ‘ v . - ,., h n A l. 6 It is a multiple choice examination emphasizing understanding and application of principles rather than recall. This is possible because the exami— nation is written by experts who devote full time to it, rather than hastily prepared by an in- structor who can devote only a small portion of his time to it. I use the term "inferential" to distinguish the course wide final from ordinary recall examinations. The course wide final makes possible the granting of credit through means other than ordinary class attendance. Specifically, in the University College. the course wide final makes acceleration possible. Acceleration refers to the granting of credit by simply taking the final examination for the course without attending any classes; if the student scores high enough on the final, he is given credit for the course. Theoretically, ac- celeration is possible in all courses at MSU; in practice, acceleration does not work with instructor-centered grading. This is so for a number of reasons. a. The instructor's tests usually ask questions which can be answered only by attending his classes. This does not mean that these things are essential to a good understanding of the subject matter; rather they are simply 7 idiosyncratic emphases of the instructor. b. The instructor's tests are usually essay examinations with all their problems of subjective grading. Further, there is often no norm group to compare the student's per- formance with. c. Without a special testing office there is no one to set up the mechanics of a program of acceleration. Whom does file student apply to? How does he qualify? When and where does he take the exam? The course wide final given by the University College obviates these problems. The course wide final is prepared from the textual materials which are available to all stu- dents, and the student's performance is compared with that of a large number of other students taking the exam. Also, since the course wide final is a multiple choice test which is machine-graded, the student is assured of objectivity that he would not get with an instructor-graded essay exam. Finally, the student is given the Opportunity to utilize a regular program set up for acceleration. This program is called the waiver and acceleration program and is fully described in a subsequent section of the dissertation. I should emphasize at the outset, how- ever, that the waiver program is Open to all students and excuses those who are successful from the requirement of taking the otherwise-required University College course. ‘ _ —v I "‘ r '5 -‘ J- - CI . ’ Z ‘ '..o ‘. v . MI ‘0. II. . .... ~" I ‘0... . .n-n“ ‘ A'- vii- ¢» In... . .. .- c a P N n .. . a. ' \ . y a. . . .- n d ‘ t ‘, ‘IA "9 It .' O-‘ p- .- .. 'M. ' I n .I.‘. '1 ' Q . ‘ ' ‘ '."‘A.V .' r . Io. . The waiver program also qualifies the student who scores ex- tremely well (waives with special permission) to attempt ac- celeration. The acceleration program is not Open to all students but only to those who qualify through the waiver and certain other means. The acceleration program offers credit without class attendance to those who score well on the course wide final. The whole complex of the course wide final and waiving and acceleration is called independent evaluation. Thus we see that "mass education" can embrace radically different programs. The reader has perhaps already realized many Of the advantages of independent evaluation. Nonethe— less, a specific instance may make these benefits clearer. Allow me, then, to use my own experiences as an example. Reminiscences Of an Underachiever I suppose my interest in independent evaluation began in elementary school. My regular teacher-assigned grades were not very good, but I always did well on the standardized achievement tests which were given at the end of the year. High school was even less enjoyable for me than elementary school, and my teacher-assigned grades were even lower. In particular, my English grades were very poor, yet at the same time I did better than anyone else in my class on the College Board English Achievement Tests. All this finally caused some concern to the school counsellors who with typical high school perspicacity tried to determine what was wrong with me and why I wasn't "working to potential". Of course, it had been an achieve- ment test, not an aptitude test that I had scored well on, but that made no difference. The system couldn't be wrong. In spite Of my bad high school grades I entered college, and, after a year at the University Of Miami in Florida, transferred to Michigan State University. Here I learned about the waiver and acceleration program for University College courses and did well enough to be used as an example in the University College pamphlet, "Making College Programs More Flexible". How much can be gained by waiver and acceleration examinations? Theoretically it is possible for a student to waive all University College courses. It is even possible, by making high scores on all twelve waiver examinations and taking all the term-end examinations, to gain MS hours Of ' 0' u. 'I' "‘I-‘ a .‘ ' ‘ua d... . "1" . r" .- :,. .. c. . - .._ “.0 L10' .. .. .y q ' a. , v .,..a u ... 0 ”PW" :' . . g‘..Jao .“ 0 ~ . ..'“-- ,; ~‘ .. $.4.a- V" .. . I . .‘f'n ' 'U ’ .' ..-.~. v _ I .,.;n :nw-J ‘___. y... -.- H‘- " uni... ”q filth' ‘ "II D‘ a .01 iv fit. I | "-4,: (‘H r- . 1 g.....~ . .. w. 'U'.‘ - \ .. nu 1‘ vao - 0 st 0 A r- o.- r“ «no u. i a. . . - "V I. '0 Or. 6."- . u a -... m .... 0.. f O I' ., . ...a. .u -‘_‘ P A U ‘ U. s.-. I _ . " ’5 ’V‘DA. . u... _.-'.A ~ I "i . . .. ‘ . 1' sf ‘ ‘-~., .-. ~ -~ I C q ( a», P‘ " ~.._ “ ‘ ' "QJ‘ 'v '- ~_a ' 'p. R t... .~ ~ 2 0U -‘A . . ~. *w- .0 - .,_ ‘ .' v ' ‘ .., . 3‘2“ v "'I V «o. a . 1‘ . ‘I ' '.'~ -. I on ""v I u.‘_ C“ I,.‘ Q,_-- ‘ I "a..." " ‘." 2 ”.4 . - f-‘." . ". a“ . 1.. v., : " u ." . . 5‘ 1‘ ‘.A. h ’0‘ < v c. ' ‘ i.. ‘. a fi . "s l“ ‘._ 2.. “I ‘ .‘V . ‘. b I 4 I A “‘4' Mo ‘A Q.. ._\ . I. I U . .p Iy-r“, ‘,‘ F.‘ ‘.- 10 credit for the four University College courses without enrolling in any of them. NO student has done this, and it would perhaps not be advisable to undertake this much independent work, but here is what one student did: In January he took waiver examinations for one term Of Natural Science and two terms Of Humanities. his scores on all three examinations were high enough to qualify him tO attempt acceleration. He took these three term-end examinations in March, making "A" on each. He began the spring term by taking waiver exami- nations for another term of Natural Science and two terms of Social Science, and duplicated his achieve- ment Of the previous term. In June he took a waiver examination for the third term Of Social Science, and in August again made "A" on the term-end examination. Thus in three terms he not only had waived more than half Of his University College course requirements, but had gaineg 28 credits (and 112 grade points by exami- nations.) As the preceding indicates, my experiences have been such that it is difficult for me to feel neutral about independent evaluation and acceleration. I like them very much, and this paper is written from the standpoint of a beneficiary Of independent evaluation, not a disinterested Observer. I must also, therefore, beg the reader's indulgence for what may seem an undue amount of polemics in a scholarly paper. Further, I should add that this research was sponsored by the Office of Evaluation Services which is hardly neutral toward independent evaluation, since it prepares the course wide final and administers the acceleration program. How- ever, any invidious statements made are entirely my own, since Dr. Warrington, Director Of the Office of Evaluation 2Makin College Programs More Flexible, University College Broc ure. 11 Services, has asked me to moderate several unduly blunt remarks about teacher-centered grading. . O D ': 2": '1 .. .“ - u .- ."."" q :o‘ ..:."-'_ .. '0 ,- .:.o -“3 2' w__,. ....... u.- . . ,.. I d“ '- _.....a.a-- ‘0 lv' .1. . fl. 0. 2' ‘5- o.‘ . I “‘1 A h 5 12 Rationale Of the Study It is largely assumed rather than demonstrated that acceleration Offers important benefits for the accelerating student. There are two other basic propositions associated with acceleration which are related to the research for this paper, which are not merely assumed. One Of them has been demonstrated by previous studies Of acceleration; the other is explored by the present research. 1. The Educational Efficacy of Acceleration. From a strictly educational or psychometric standpoint acceleration works and works very well. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in all the studies I have been able to find on the stubject. Several of these studies are quoted in subsequent sections Of this dissertation. In spite of the fact that acceleration works well from an educational standpoint and in sgite Of the very real benefits it Offers to the accelerating student, acceleration has not revolutionized American education. On the contrary, as we shall also see in subsequent sections, acceleration is not common in American education and has, in fact, been retreating rather than expanding. Thus, the combination Of these three propositions suggests something Of a paradox. Here is a program with great potential benefits which works well educationally at least for those students who attempt it, and yet it is l3 contracting rather than expanding. The focus of this study, then, is not to demonstrate the benefits of acceleration nor to show that it works educationally. Instead, I attempt to explore the attitudes of several groups who are affected by independent evaluation and from these findings learn what social milieus are con- ducive to the flowering Of independent evaluation and what has hindered its growth up to the present time. '. ’r ‘ " ‘ p "“ 4 . nan-u "‘ . Q 9 ‘ V _ _ _ . 1 ,.,o I ,3 . , v-.. - ,... rv . . ‘ I ' .4.” do-‘ "" ” I . ' ‘.-..:-u " " <fl".'.-~ '. '. .c- .. -. . . - . a- . ..- " . -... gs... c I I no 0 vv‘-:'. "v «I. [n in I“ ‘. N «I! 11+ Some Hypotheses To this end I attempt to study the attitudes of acceleration eligible students, University College faculty members, and members of the Office of Evaluation Services. A discussion of these three groups and the reason for their selection will be found in the Study Section. I have not formulated formal hypotheses but have been concerned with gathering information in the following areas: I. Specific Attitudinal and Demographic Information A. Students 1. 3. TO what extent are students' attitudes toward one aspect Of independent evaluation related to their attitudes toward other aspects? Are students' successes in waiving, acceleration and grades related to their attitudes toward independent evaluation? How do students feel about the various aspects Of independent evaluation? How successful were students in academic achievement, particularly in waiving and acceleration? B. Faculty and Examiners 1. How do the Opinions Of faculty members and examiners compare with students' Opinions? II. How do independent evaluation and the results Of this dissertation fit into the larger body of general social science theory? ,..-: 'v~ '00“ u ,uo . ---v‘ ....o' mg.~ -.. j‘ _. .-—- . I I.‘ .~ -v-< -:.~..-.--»‘ ~ -. . —- >4 .- .. H... —~‘ - C h D. ‘Aq’ .- ‘ '--v. a --.o.... -- ~4~.‘.. . . 'I-v . _ a“- L,‘._. .1. .- " .. ....‘: 'C‘1‘_I ‘9‘-“ ..—‘ -—-., - .. " g n": 4., . - ' "“n. " on-.-.; ‘5' . uv-'... fi-P" . ic-“. - A..' .0 l I l .n. . rug“ L.- I'll .. - . In 1)- 15 Value Of the Study I have chosen to study independent evaluation for a number Of reasons, but the study seems Of potential value in the following three areas: 1. 3. The Object of Study. Independent evaluation and acceleration are intrinsically interesting. As the quotation on the dedicatory page implies, their general application would radically alter American education. Also, as we shall see on subsequent pages, the other benefits Of independent evaluation are worthy Of study. I Innovations. Change is of interest to social scientists, but too Often their concentration on change is one Of the social problems created by the change. This study looks at what could be an extremely beneficial change. My study Of innovation is also somewhat different in that it considers a relatively unsuccessful innovation. Freedom. Independent evaluation has many political overtones, specifically in the kind of freedom it provides from instructor control. Analogies are rightfully distrusted, but surely politics and the issues of human freedom can be as relevant for the classroom as for the state. Having hopefully whetted the reader's interest in the study, let me now turn to a fuller discussion of the course wide final. II. THE COURSE WIDE FINAL The Uses of a Course Wide Final The focal point Of this study is the University College course wide final. The course wide final is a multiple choice examination prepared by the Office of Evaluation Services Of the University College with the help of the teaching departments Of the University College. It is given for each Of the twelve regular University College courses at the end Of eacn term, and, at the time this study was con- ducted, counted one-half of the students' grades, with the other half being supplied by the instructors. Unlike conventional tests then, the course wide final is neither graded nor prepared by the instructor. Grading is independent Of teaching, hence the term, "independent evaluation". Such a program of independent evaluation Offers a number Of advantages; these are discussed in a paper by Warringtonl on which most Of the following dis- cussion is based. 1. A course wide final encourages attention to the whole course rather than only those aspects which are of interest to the instructor. Detractors of lWarrington, Willard G., Some Positive Academic Functions 23.5 Common Examination Program. Unpublished Paper. 16 ‘.,.o‘r. 1....- -o ~77 " o—‘ y ..<‘.. d. -' I a a ‘. . , .u.u 4- o. u.. U. D-Jv . . van... O‘ll. . 4 ' ‘V k U o 7-- ‘a H H" ' .‘.~‘-‘. g a: Q."v' I Rs ‘ 3 .H a ‘A.'. v .I‘O.' O ‘9 V. 'A a - «- ‘.' .5 v A’~i‘ V . ." C . .. .‘n ‘. .v . s h,‘ ‘ ~‘ ‘ ~- fi‘ M ‘ K ‘ ‘ A‘. . ‘IW' I c .. .‘ I. V ‘_‘ M" .~ ‘5 ‘. V‘ . .‘.- w p - \_. .Q . I. ’ - \ ‘ _' d v. “H‘ a “ . - I .~ 4 V n 1? independent evaluation Often speak disparagingly Of "teaching for the test"; but, given an expertly constructed examination, teaching for the test will mean teaching the whole course and teaching it well. This certainly limits the freedom Of the instructor to teach only what he wishes, but I do not feel that this is a legitimate freedom, especially in an introductory course. Students have a right to a full introduction in a beginning course, and teachers Of more advanced courses expect students from different sections Of beginning courses tO have some common background. Warrington remarks that courses should be changed through Departmental procedures, not through unilateral action. A course wide final is a better examination. This point is so Obvious that I would not elaborate on it, were it not for the Objections voiced against the course wide final. The accomplishment of any complex task requires specialists. We do not pull ‘the first man we see from the street to design toridges, perform surgery, or program computers for 143. Tests are important and they are difficult to 'write well. Unfortunately, since instructors are ‘not usually evaluated on the quality of their tests, the inadequacies of many instructor-given tests are hidden, but they are nonetheless real. A test written by men who like to write tests and who n w - .a 3,, ’0 coon J Q -~-. ~“' . '..r .‘ ‘Q ‘(1 (i «l» H“ pa ’3 18 devote a large prOportion of their time to such work Offers a multitude Of advantages over a hastily—written instructor exam. This may be a good place to mention the relative merits Of multiple choice and essay examinations. Too many people feel that multiple choice exami- nations Offer no advantages other than a savings Of instructor time in grading. Multiple choice examinations test recall and essay examinations test general understanding. Is this true? It is certainly true that multiple choice examinations can be used merely to test recall. For example: When did the Civil War begin? a. 1859 b. 1860 c. 1861 d. 1862 e. 1863 But essay examinations are often merely recall examinations tOO. The instructor presents material, the student records it in his notes, and he then :repeats it on the essay exam given by the instruc- tor. More important, however, is the point that tmultiple choice examinations need not be recall tests. Consider the following question and accom- panying explanation taken from the "Sample Test Items" booklet prepared by the Social Science Department and the Office of Evaluation Services 19 of the University College. Which Of these forms Of social security would a Communist regard as necessary only in capital- istic economies? 1. Health protection 2. Workmen's compensation 3. Old age pension u. Unemployment compensation The above item is brief, and might be easy and quite factual were the information needed for answering it given in so many words in the readings. However, it is likely that more than mere rote learning will be needed. Although the item might appear to be chiefly concerned with the concept of social security, this is actually a device for discovering whether a student has an insight into one aspect Of Communist theory. One who is acquainted with Communism should know that unemployment is regarded by Communists as inevitable in capital- istic countries but non-existent under socialism. This is the knowledge that should be recalled and applied despite the apparent concern Of the item with measures Of social security. Such subtlety in a question is possible only because the multiple choice question supplies the alternatives and requires that the student choose the best alternative. I do not think that the same chain of reasoning could be so well elicited with an essay examination. The multiple choice examination Offers other ‘advantages as well. Because the student need not Spend his time writing, it is possible to ask far imore questions and thus insure a far better sampling Of the material in the course. Grading is also much faster and more accurate as well as more Objective, since it can be done by machine. -~ A‘“':w~' '.Jo~-b ~ u ,n..‘. .; hr. A . . Op"'r l .- 5... .»U . , . ‘ r-q I 2 u lovtovd . ' ~ . o , .V.l.‘-‘- . O h “‘°'v-- — ‘0 ‘.-ouo . 0,. (P H 4 b... .i. ‘7». 1 v " 5. O..' '.f - .- .‘.‘-g . v..‘ . 4 v- hl."-..' A. . \ .".. ‘ "H. ~ ~ . I h. “‘ . .‘."-' n R‘. \. ~.~ ‘\ 7. u— a- i... ' - 'A _\,. 5‘ ‘ 2 ._ _~ ’4 | o - s.“ y-_ ‘u ‘1 ‘5 b .‘- . _ v -"‘~ 0 '0- ‘ O s. s..- ‘4 u a u ' n h l a. U‘A , - 20 Olmsted2 performed an interesting experiment (which is relevant here) in his social psychology courses. He compared the performance of his fall and winter sections on examinations for social psychology. He gave essentially the same exami- nation both terms, but for the winter term he permitted the students to use whatever notes they wished on the examination. The examinations were multiple choice, yet there were practically no differences in the performances of the students in the fall and winter terms. Clearly, it would seem that Olmsted's tests were testing something other than recall. The course wide final is a multiple choice exami- nation, and most of its questions are inferential (such as the question on unemployment) rather than ruecall. This is possible because students are é§isven the results Of specialists' expertise. 3- Title course wide final permits fairer grading because it eliminates "the luck of the draw" which i-ES .found in multiple section courses. Some i—Ilstructors are hard graders while others are easy E31?aders, and without a course wide final, serious iTlequities can result. The course wide final €31iminates these inequities by comparing the 2 . gllnsted, Donald, Open Note Examination lg Introductory Social, ~3Vchology. Unpublished Paper. .. .‘U'rOOO ‘ -govinr y... . . r.; r . .u. o . . . . . p b. w. r .. «a a» a.» As. .. «a . o . u .— v u as. 2. s n. «L. .: h. 3 5. o. 3. .. .. L“ .. .3 Lu .3 ea .—.. “b. o . ..v r 1.. Ru 6! -\5 a o a v e .s. .\~ F-m .P 0 . u p o u c. .FU 21 performance of everyone taking the course, not just the students within a given section. A course wide final Offers alternatives to the usual pattern of class attendance. A course wide final makes possible credit without class attendance in three ways: a. It provides a realistic standard Of comparison. Since all students take the examination, it is possible to compare the performance of non- class-attending students with the performance of those who have attended class. If an ad hoc examination is given to the non-class-attending student, the performance required Of him may be far in excess Of that which would be required of a class-attending student. The course wide final is not prepared by a particular instructor and does not test the student on material that can be gained only by attending that instructor's classes. Also, because the course wide final is machine-graded, greater Objectivity is assured than would be possible with an instructor-graded essay exam. Because a special Office handles the testing program, there is someone to set up a program which takes care Of the mechanics of a program Of credit without regular class attendance. In addition, unlike the instructor, the special ,- .noa- -v. Ian-- iv' e ‘7 1“. | ll‘ (II «I! lo‘ 22 Office has no vested interest in seeing that students attend class to gain credit. There are many conceivable ways in which a course wide final could be linked to credit with altered or reduced class attendance. These would include such methods as programmed learning, sections covering a year's work in One term, and others. In the University College at present, however, the only method is that of independent study by the student who then takes the course wide final and receives credit if he is successful. This pro- cedure is known as acceleration or more informally as "comping". The following is a discussion of how acceleration and its important adjunct, waiving, work. 23 Some Relations and Comparisons Between Waiving and Acceleration Acceleration is especially important to this study because it is the purest form of independent evaluation in the University College. Under ordinary circumstances the inanmctor's grade counts one-half in determining the Suwant's grade, but the acceleration student is graded mflely'on the basis of his course wide final performance. Acceleration also demonstrates the revolutionary power the student Of the course wide final. In an ordinary class, is required to attend class and work at the pace set by the instructor. NO matter how good the student is, he is still adjusted to the pace Of the average student. He has no assurance that his superiority will result in better grades, for the instructor may grade on class attendance, homework, and other factors extraneous to test performance. The accelerating student is required to demonstrate his competence on a test made up by experts, and this is all he 13 requi red to do. This is the meaning Of the quotation on the dedicatory page Of the dissertation; a good student might not really stop Off in the morning and come home that night With his degree, but surely the time Of college attendance could be drastically shortened for superior students. Also, while the time gained would be wonderful, an even more important gain would be the freedom tO learn as one wished . Acceleration is almost a can't-lose proposition in 2h the University College for the student who qualifies. If the student receives an "A" or a "B", this grade is re- cOl‘ded on his transcript, and he receives credit for the Course. If he receives a "C-plus", the course requirement is waived, but he receives no credit and is given an "N" grade which does not figure in his average. If he receives a "C" or below, he receives an "N" grade and is required to enroll in the course, providing he did not previously waive the course. Briefly then, a student receives an "A" or "B" or no grade at all. The sole difficulty in acceleration is qualifying for it. Only certain groups of students are eligible to attempt acceleration. These are: 1. Students who receive "A's" from their instructors at midterm in the first term Of a University College course or have at least an "A-B" combina- tion for the first two terms Of their course. 2- Honors College students under certain circumstances. 3- Students who "waive with special permission." The la“ group is the most important. Numbers one and two bOth involve teacher-cent ered evaluation to qualify for accelerati On, but for number three only independent evalu- ation is ‘18 ed to establish the student's qualifications. How then <3(Des the third method work? The Waiver examination is given at the beginning Of each term With a separate examination for each of the twelve regula‘P Ul'liversityCollege courses. The examination is Open 'V “b HOdo 2slflléalive only. The student is excused from the course 31‘63quirement but is not permitted to attempt the Jf'inal examination at the end of the term. 3' I$8.11 to waive. The student is required to enroll in the cours e . 3 AT”; 111 is an exception because it involves a writing test. only one other waiver may be taken with the ATL lll waiver ' o u o. 1 - ‘ .n.- .. -. l-.: n—’ . a a... o.-—- ""‘w:-- - ‘ a — .-" I‘v- - .. . A .' "P- 'u...“; . n . . , " ~4“ ., . c . . H. . “~ .-. . v . ~u' I‘. H. \ . ~ 'v ‘I . .. ,, .- ‘Q u' ‘ . .‘ C . ._‘ .L’. v u as ~,_ .'.‘- .- - -b . . *- . . \ \ . <3 ‘ " Q . ‘ ~ -. n . ~ . . 26 Educational Effectiveness of Acceleration This dissertation views the course wide final as an invention which makes acceleration possible. I do not attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of acceleration as an educational device. The following tables and the discussion taken from Hall and Pressey in the next section cogently demonstrate that acceleration works and works well. Every study made of acceleration has shown that ac- celerating students do better than regularly enrolled stu- dents. HallLL presents this in a table Of the results Of the 1948 Spring Comprehensive: A Comparison of the Performance of Regularly Enrolled and Accelerating Students A B C D F All 3rd Term 5.2% 2u.1; u8.5% 15.53 6.7% Students Accelerating 23.0% 22.1% u0.1% 12.3% 2.5% Students Hall's own research involved covering the entire year of Social Science in one term. For his group of students there were twelve "A's", fourteen "B's", and only two "C's". Hall's group was one Of high ability, but no one argues that acceleration is for everybody. More recent data for Michigan State show the same pat- tern. For example, in the spring of 1967, the acceleration uHall, J. Oliver, A Study Of Acceleration Methods 32 Basic College Social SciEnce. (East Lansing, Michigan: UnpublIsHed Ed. D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1951)! p0 61. 27 grades were as follows: A B Below B 57% 32$ 10% Nearly 90% Of the students who attempted to accelerate received "A's" or "B's"! Dressel, Warrington, and Sweet have also conducted studies demonstrating the effectiveness Of acceleration. fact, the very cogency Of the studies about acceleration introduces the question Of why this method Of learning has not revolutionized American education. Yet acceleration has not expanded at Michigan State; if anything, it has In retreated. We shall see this in the following chapter after a brief discussion of some of the functional requirements of independent evaluation. . - n . . t - 4 .. -... ~- ._- ‘ o . . . \~ . .'~ ‘- . . . - I The Prerequisites Of Independent Evaluation The effectiveness Of independent evaluation is unde- niable but is dependent on several conditions. One pre- requisite is that Of having courses with enrollments which are large enough to justify having independent examiners prepare the tests. This technical problem, however, could Often be overcome by having some sort Of consortium ar- rangement among colleges and universities. Another problem which is more fundamental and not so amenable to technical solution concerns the subject matter assumptions required for independent evaluation. Independent evaluation is common testing-— thus the term course wide final - and common testing involves some agreement among various instructors teaching the discipline concerning what the student should be required to know. Here there are real differences between subject matters and within disci- plines at differing levels Of difficulty. Specifically, it seems that there is far more consensus at the introduc- tory levels than at the more advanced levels as to what the student should be required to know. Every student in history should know about the Roman Empire, but is a knowledge Of Baltic or of Balkan politics to be more esteemed? Dr. Joseph Schlesinger suggested this section, and it is perhaps most appropriate that he did so, since his 5Many of the ideas contained in this section were suggested by Dr. Schlesinger. Robert Merton's On Theoretical Sociology (New York: Free Press, 1357) was aISO mosthelpful. 29 discipline, political science, illustrates this lack of consensus concerning what the student should be required to know. Aristotelian physics and the phlogiston theory of combustion are no longer among the living in the natural sciences, but Aristotelian political theory still has staunch defenders in political science. The same is true to a greater or lesser extent in all Of the social sciences and humanities. iany professors who are nominally in the same disci- pline are actually Operating from completely different theoretical presuppositions. Note that this does not refer simply to specialization within a discipline. The physical chemist and the organic chemist have different Specialties, but each accepts the validity Of the other's specialty. The Aristotelian political scientist and the behavioral political scientist do not do this. Independent evaluation, Of course, does not create this problem and, in a sense, the requirement for consensus is a strength of independent evaluation as in the case of introductory courses which were discussed in the initial section on the benefits Of a course wide final. However, independent evaluation does make explicit these formerly implicit conflicts, and thus it may be impossible in a discipline which does not have unification among its prac- titioners. And so, once again, we see the far-reaching latent effects Of independent evaluation. III. BRIEF HISTORY OF INDEPENDENT EVALUATION The University College and the Course Wide Final1 The University College was organized in 19hh with in- struction in its courses beginning in the fall of that year. The University College was at that time known as the Basic College and Offered seven courses: 1. Written and Spoken English (required of all students) 2. Physical Science (one Of these two to be taken 3. Biological Science each student) A. Social Science (one Of these two to be taken by 5. Effective Living each student) 6. History Of Civilization (one of these two to be 7. Literature and Fine Arts taken by each student) Along with these, the student was required to select one ad- ditional course beyond the four required above. Since each basic course counted nine credits, this made a total of forty-five credits, or about one-fourth Of a student's undergraduate work. The courses were nominally divided into terms, but a student's grade for the whole year was dependent on a com- prehensive examination given at the end of the three term sequence. Advisory instructor grades were given at the end 1Much Of the following discussion is taken from Evaluation in the Basic College (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1538) and The Basic College pf Michigan State (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State College Press, 1955). 30 31 Of each term, but these grades were replaced by the compre- hensive examination grade which counted 100% Of the student's grade. There was no waiver program at this time, but pro- vision was made for superior students to attempt the com- prehensive examination after only one or two term's work2 rather than the usual three. The minimum grade for credit under this acceleration program was "C". The examination program was administered by The Board of Examiners which is now known as the Office of Evaluation Services. The comprehensive examinations were worked out in conjunction with the teaching Departments and were largely multiple choice. Not surprisingly, so radical a program of innovation encountered strong resistance from various groups including: 1. Some faculty members, who thought it reduced them to the status Of tutors. 2. The Registrar's Office, which felt it made the recording Of grades more difficult. 3. Students who did well on their advisory instructor grades but poorly on the comprehensive. From all that I have learned in my reading and dis- cussions with people involved, these critics were a noisy group, but the Comprehensive Examination survived while the original Dean of the University College was in Office. How- ever, Dean Rather died in 1952, and with a new Dean, a new 2Under exceptional circumstances without enrolling in any terms at all. u... Ar* . ‘. ,u’ “' _ ....w .3 _ .nu"V' ‘\ . - .- “ .. o . o .. g .‘ ,. ..A. v ' I '- . ‘. A. n u. . ‘ . ‘ a n .- 40 Ur. .. .‘u a; 5"‘ l o-vll. 0‘. | .Iaa.. x . ‘ ““c IO: 9 n _' ..v H ~ ~. ‘.o v c 1r , p. u. . ‘00. I I m .. 'u. . “.- ‘ I .. 1 l o . . - v ‘ . n ' I - N W. . ~t -' s ...‘ ‘ n J "I ‘A . I" . v ~< ‘V '1 h ‘. . - fl. '. . V ,. \ r v '1 ‘. . ”V. a? -‘ ‘ . v V c ‘.I \ ~ ‘. \ . v .' a. ‘. §>_ ‘. _ ‘ 'o ‘\ I . ' s , . 32 program was instituted in the Fall Of 1953. The number Of course Offerings was reduced from seven to four, and stu- dents were required tO enroll in all four without Option. These four courses are: 1. Communications Skills 9 credits 2. Natural Science 12 credits 3. Social Science 12 credits h. Humanities 12 credits Because of the increase in credits for three of the four remaining courses, the total credit requirements for the University College remained at forty-five for each student. Radical changes were also made in examination proce- dures. The Comprehensive Examination was abandoned and the course wide final introduced in its place. While under the Old program, a student received a single grade for a whole year's work; under the new, the course wide final was given at the end Of each term, with the grade for each term inde- pendent Of the other two terms. However, questions covering the work Of earlier terms were included in the second and third term course wide finals. Finally, the course wide final counted only 50% Of a student's grade; the other 50% was given by the instructor. In spite Of these radical changes however, much Of the Old program remained. The examinations were still ad- ministered by an independent agency and were still expertly constructed multiple choice examinations. However, there .‘ .‘§_ ».. ’7 .o-n..4 w. .1. _-.... .». _ n ”a. -. . 33 seemed to be more application of principles and inference required in the Old comprehensive examination than in the course wide finals. Warrington and Mayhew3 mention this, and in reading sample questions from the Old comprehensives in the book Comprehensive Examinations 33 3 Program pg General Education, I formed the impression that these questions were less oriented toward specific information and less tied to a particular textbook than those Of the present course wide final. Acceleration survived the change. A student who re- ceived an "A" at midterm from the instructor in the earlier terms Of the course was eligible to take the course wide final for the next term's course without enrollment, and receive credit if he scored "B" or better. Acceleration at the "C" level was not allowed, except for those students over twenty-eight years of age. Thus, while acceleration survived the changes, it was curtailed as Warrington and Mayhew mentionu. All of the 1953 changes in the Basic College were in the direction of the conventional. Much Of the original program Of independent evaluation was vitiated. Since 1953 there have been nO comparable reorganizations of the University College courses. In 1961 the name of the college 3Warrington, Willard G. and Mayhew, Louis B., "On the Credit Side," Dressel Evaluation in the Basic Collegg. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 19587: p. 158. ulbid.. pp. 156-158. 3A was changed from "Basic College" to "University College" and "Communications Skills" has become "American Thought and Language", but these are small changes indeed, compared to the 1953 revolution.5 5 But see Postscript 1969. 35 Comparative Growth of Waiving and Acceleration In 1959, however, the waiver program was introduced. This change ran counter to those of 1953 which restricted independent evaluation. As mentioned in the introduction, any student may attempt a waiver once. If he scores well enough, he is permitted to attempt the course wide final for that term and receive credit. The requirements for waiving with special permission are stringent, but they are entirely independent evaluation requirements. Whereas formerly a student had to please an instructor to the extent of receiv- ing an "A" at midterm, now all a student had to do was to score high enough on the waiver examination. For many students, Of course, the purpose of the waiver program is the avoidance Of an undesired course. But for our purposes, this is secondary to the use of waiver as a vehicle to acceleration. I have collected some fragmentary data on the waiver program and its part in acceleration. In spite of the incompleteness Of this information, the trends it por- trays are so clear that it serves well for my purposes. Further, the comparisons made here do not consider the rapid growth Of Michigan State University between 1960 and 1967. I do not feel that such consideration is necessary because the point of these tables is a comparison between the waiver and acceleration programs and both programs were equally affected by Michigan State's growth. 36 Table A. Waiving 1960-1967 Fall Terms.6 Table A presents a picture Of the explosive growth Of the waiver program. I have chosen fall term as representa- tive, since I have the most complete data for this term. In general, waivers seem to be higiest in the fall and winter terms. WSPw and Percentage Term Waiver Attempts Waived WSP Of WSP's% Fall 1960 38 32 16 u2% Fall 1961 339 202 6h 19% Fall 1962 521 265 69 13% Fall 1963 728 N32 13k 16% Fall 196a 1527 876 265 17% Fall 1965 2269 1115 280 12% Fall 1966 2809 1u29 29h 10% Fall 1967 3u56 1u86 252 7% *Waivers with special permission Table B. Two Full Year Waiver Comparisons.7 summer term). Table B compares two full school years (excluding The number Of waiver attempts from the 1960- 1961 school year to the 1967-1968 school year increases more than twenty fold. 1960-1961 School Year —— 30h waiver attempts 1967-1968 School Year - 7h6h waiver attempts 6All Of the following data was Obtained from Office of Evaluation Services records with the help Of Mrs. Opal Young. 7Taken from Office Of Evaluation Services records. 37 8 Table C. Sources Of Acceleration Attempts. Table C is the most fragmentary but also the most in- teresting table. Table C presents a comparison of the sources of acceleration permissions (the Departmental per- missions are largely those for students with high instructor grades), the number of acceleration attempts, and successful accelerations. Qualifications Attempts Successes Winter 1961 WSP 17 ll 10 Dept. Per. mg 128 5gp Total md 809 550 Winter 1962 WSP 76 53 AA Dept. Per. £23 426 395 99 5u9 389 Winter 1967 WSP 290 md md Dept. Per. _mg md mg Total md 3116 293 Winter 1968 WSP 32h md md Dept. Per. ‘img mg mg Total md 366 316 In spite of the high amount Of missing data, two things are clear from Table C: 1. Unlike the waiver attempts, the number Of acceler- ation attempts has not grown. Indeed, the shrinkage in the number suggests that students who formerly attempted acceleration may now substitute waiving. 2. The number Of Departmental Permissions appears to have declined sharply, since the number Of waivers with special permission has increased, while the number Of acceleration attempts has declined. Taken from Office Of Evaluation Services records. 38 The tables are incomplete but their message is clear. Tables A and B chart the expansion Of the waiver program; waiving has increased nearly one hundred fold from the fall of 1960 to the fall of 1967. The percentage of waivers with special permission has shown secular decline (although the figure for fall, 1967 may be unusually low). This is probably the result Of the far larger numbers Of students attempting the waiver; whereas in earlier years waiver at- tempts were more largely confined to high ability students, now many lower ability students also attempt waivers. Nevertheless, absolute number of waivers with special permission has increased. Table C shows the stagnation of the acceleration prO- gram. A smaller percentage of students is now attempting acceleration than did in the early 1960's. Also, Warrington and Mayhew reported in 1958 that the number Of acceler- ations was smaller than than in the early years Of the University College.9 These data, then, show a tremendous increase in im- portance for the waiver program, but a decrease in impor- tance for the acceleration program. After a brief descrip- tion of the experiences of other Universities with acceler— ation, we shall see how their data fit in with the findings of the study in the Data Analysis Section. 9Warrington and Mayhew, pp. cit., pp. 157-158. 39 Acceleration in Other Colleges and Universities John Oliver Hall's 1951 dissertation, g Study 3f Acceleration Methods lg Basic Collegg Social Science with the help of Sidney L. Pressey's Educational Acceleration Appraisals and Basic Problems reviewed the literature on acceleration through 1950. I have current material on the University College; but regrettably, interest in acceler- ation seems to have declined since the early 1950's and so I have little data on current practices in other schools. Halllo discusses various kinds of "acceleration" in- cluding early college entrance, lengthening of the school year, and taking heavier than normal class loads. My interest, however, is solely with credit by examination, and I shall confine my use of the term "acceleration" to mean credit by examination with none or with greatly lessened class attendance and use the phrase "means to early graduation" for the other methods discussed by Hall. Lengthening the school year has become popular since Hall wrote his dissertation; many schools including the University of Michigan have adopted the trimester system which squeezes three semesters into a calendar year. The advanced place- ment program Of the College Boards is a kind of early col- lege entrance with students taking courses for college credit in high school. I am not sure to what extent taking 10Hall, J. Oliver, 5 Stud gf Acceleration Methods 1g Basic College Social Science. East Lansing, Michigan: Unpublished Ed. D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1951), Chapter II. ,~ V. ' ,— C ,- ." - 1 ‘7-,1-" , . .»“' ‘ I “ a‘r‘ ‘— -. -e..- .. r~..., 1-... - O . .._ _._ "ns- ‘. - Z ‘-.‘ \ 1" ’-. ~‘~ -v‘ q. ... U V. 5' _ . -“- o . . 'c,‘ V ‘. ‘h . o «., _ . “~“. .7 1“ ~ ‘ I- ... ‘O‘ v. .. u . . - v- Q. ‘ . '§ 9 C s. ’ . Q..: . ‘. ‘v "O I , n .“ v s.. \V. ‘ . . \. s- . .. v‘ ._~ .- ,\ v \ - -‘3 1 a ‘\ ‘1 hO heavier-than-normal class loads is used as a means to early graduation, but this is unquestionably the favored method for students who are a few credits shy of graduation in their senior year. All Of these methods, however, share a technique Of merely taking up the slack or making use of what would ordinarily be free time. (Except possibly the Advancelelacement Program which does use special exami- nations). They do not alter the ordinary pattern of credit by regular attendance in class with grading, instructor controlled. Credit by examination acceleration does alter that pattern, however. Hall discusses three Universities which have made use Of acceleration in the past. Ohio State University allowed credit in Introductory English for the tOp 15% on the English Placement Test. The Department Of Chemistry also allowed credit for superior students in the first year Of chemistry. Those students who were allowed credit in first year Of chemistry received the highest proportion of "A's" and "B's" in second year chemistry.11 The University Of Buffalo develOped an examination program in the early thirties whereby superior students could Obtain college credit by satisfactory scores on these examinations. In 1933, one hundred thirty-five students Obtained credit in this manner. Later studies showed that llPressy, Sidney L., Educational Acceleration: Appraisals and Basic Problems. (Columbus, Ohio: The Bureau Of Educational Research, Ohio State University, 1989). pp. 60. 63-6u. a1 the students suffered no disadvantages compared to the students who regularly enrolled in the courses.12 ('1' O b 12Hall, pp. ci p. 26. . . .. .n. u. - . o . .. ... . . .I. . . . . .Q a . . ._. ._. . ..~ ..- . . 0 ... L. ... . . n. o. u 4 o». n o u . e . . ... . a . .. -.u a 7‘ L. . , . .. _ _ .. . . . . . .. .. . .. . , 1 , .. . .. .. 1 . . . . . ... . x. .. a 1 _ 1. . .1 .q . . . . M2 The University of Chicago The school which is most associated with acceleration is the University of Chicago. In 1931, the University Of Chicago instituted comprehensive examinations as a sub- stitute for course credit; in 1938, the University sub- stituted entrance examination scores for high school grades as the primary basis of admission.13 Then in l9h3, the University Of Chicago began to use placement tests to place students in the prOper level courses and to grant credit to those students whose scores were high enough on the placement tests to allow them not to enroll in the elementary courses.1u Each student's enrollment at the University of Chicago was guided by his placement test scores, and his performance in the courses in which he en- rolled was measured by his scores on the comprehensive examinationsgyven at the end Of the term. Students whose scores on the placement tests were nearly good enough for credit were given the Opportunity to read recommended books or take special short courses in order to pass the comprehensive examinations without full course enrollment.15 Bloom and Allison found that students who take the comprehensive examinations without course enrollment do significantly better on the examinations than students who take the examination on the basis of regular course 13Ibid., p. 50. lulbido, p. 51. 151618., p. 52. 1.1.3 enrollment. Seventy percent of the "special permission" students received grades of "A" and "B" as compared with 28% of the regular students, and only 3% Of the special permission students received grades Of "D" and "F" as com- pared with 21% of the regular students.16 The University of Chicago, then, had an even more ex- tensive program Of independent evaluation than the University College of Michigan State. Indeed, Chicago's program came very close to the ideal program which I discuss later in this paper. Yet Chicago has largely abandoned its extensive prO- gram Of independent evaluation. From all that I have been able to learn, the departure Of President Hutchins brought about a gradual return to conventional evaluation. In the spring Of 1967, I attempted to visit Dr. Bloom, one of the chief examiners at the University of Chicago, but he was gone at the time and I was unable to learn anything further. I should also mention that the Chicago program provided a model for the University College and that the University College was created with.the help of consultants from the University Of Chicago. l6Allison, Jane M. and Bloom, Benjamin S., "The Operation and Evaluation Of a College Placement Test Program," The Journal of General Education, Vol. IV (April. 19507.15. '2—T3 .-' IV. THE STUDY As was discussed in the preceding section, previous studies Of acceleration have concentrated on demonstrating its efficacy. The focus Of this study is the converse of that purpose. I am interested, among other things, in trying to explain at least indirectly why acceleration has not been a far more potent force in American education. To this end, I explored the attitudes of several groups which are most immediately affected by acceleration. The instru- ment used to measure these attitudes was a questionnaire which was concerned with those institutions and practices which are most immediately relevant to acceleration and independent evaluation. (3 A - .;v-.;, “ O (1» ,n.‘ v -.. o . ... 1. ..V. .. ....—n v- " ‘1 '< ~-"....-..u’ . a. .- .. .. l,’_ “g '- -o. a... . r I .4 . I D t .0 “a..- ll? u LLB Selection Of the Study Populations There are many conceivable definitions of groups which one could consider in learning about attitudes toward inde- pendent evaluation: students in general, parents of students, Trustees of MSU, students who attempt waivers, students who fail waivers, and on and on. However, it seemed to me that there were three groups which were especially affected by acceleration, and it was these three groups which I chose to study. 1. Students who qualify for acceleration. Unlike waiving, the requirements for attempting accel- eration are stringent, so that for many students the pros and cons Of acceleration are not immedi- ately relevant. Yet for students who waive with special permission, Honors College students, and students who receive "A's" from the instructor at midterm in their earlier terms of University College courses, acceleration is a real alternative to class attendance for the gaining Of credit. I have not restricted the sample to students who have actually attempted acceleration, because this would exclude many students who have qualified for acceleration but have chosen not to attempt it. These qualifying but non-attempting students may be expected to have significantly different attitudes than those students who actually attempt accel- eration. The inclusion Of students who attempt a e .u- an. .4;- .‘v A: .~' 6 v _. a . L. n. 1.. ... . . «a a: .v e . so 1. ‘1. A... L. a J a: ..u - u(¢ h6 waivers, or even those students who successfully waive but do not waive with special permission, would include tOO many students who do not have the alternative Of acceleration, since only a small percentage of those who attempt waivers are able to qualify for acceleration (approximately 13 to 1hfl of waiver attempts are waivers with special permission). 2. University College Faculty. University College faculty are affected by independent evaluation and acceleration, since it provides students with an alternative means Of credit in the courses they teach. Their inclusion is principally for a comparison of their attitudes with the acceleration eligible students. I felt that non—University College faculty were too peripherally affected by acceleration tO merit their inclusion in the study. 3. Examiners and Office of Evaluation Services Personnel. Certainly the group which administers the acceleration program should be included in the study. These then were the three groups which were included in the study. There were several other groups which I considered including, but I did not include them because Of limitations Of time. The one group which I most seriously considered including, but did not, was that of Chairmen Of other departments at MSU. I was interested in getting their LL? feelings on the extent to which they thought University College courses overlapped with their Department's Offerings and whether or not they thought independent evaluation and acceleration would work in their Departments. -,‘ ..~ ‘A‘ .v’ -r' a... y no 4- “f- -r‘ v-- . "v d ‘0. . q- v-‘ -c \ *-.4 u. 2‘ v- v cl- .. u.. . u._ a-“ u. o —. ._.‘ v._ “-7- § 6 r. »< v_‘ V- ge- t“ n“ .- a ‘- ~ . ~ 0 ‘c . ‘.— ~.\ E i I. $ V ‘ 'A ‘~ v ‘. .P ~..‘I. Q ‘ ~I ‘ ‘U- h8 Sampling and Interviewing Procedures 1. Acceleration Eligible Students. This was by far the largest of the three groups and the only group for whom sampling presented any problem. The students' sample was drawn by looking through the University College grade lists for the winter of 1965 through the spring Of 1966 and selecting those students who had attempted to accelerate a course or had received a "15" CA-plus") for an instructor grade. This was done on the assumption that such students had an "A" for a midterm grade and were thus eligible to accelerate next term's course. Preference was given to the selection of students who would be juniors and seniors in December, 1966, since they would have completed all the University College courses; likewise, freshmen were eliminated as not having had enough of the University College courses. In addition, names were taken from the cumulative waiver book main- tained by the Office Of Evaluation Services. Those names selected were of students who had waived one or more courses with special permission. The same time period was used for selection, and once again preference was given to juniors and seniors, with freshmen being eliminated. I am reasonably sure that the time period selected was not atypical, and since the study was meant to assess current A9 attitudes, use of a current time period seems well justified. Sampling error for the time period pre- sented a little problem, since my sample amounted to almost an enumeration. The names thus drawn were checked against the Student Directory to see if the students were currently enrolled, since the sample was confined to these students. This probably biased the sample against women who married, since they might have still been enrolled, but listed in the Directory under another name. The students thus selected were introduced to the study by means of a letter (see Appendix B) which was mimeographed on Office Of Evaluation Services stationery, with the student's name typed in and the letter hand signed. Approximately 7-10 days later the questionnaire was sent out with a cover letter and stamped return envelope. When approxi- mately two to three weeks had passed, I called all those students who had not returned the question- naire and visited those who did not list a telephone in the Directory. The response rate was very good; Of the 325 questionnaires sent out, 28h were returned (two Of which were uncodable because students merely wrote a few random comments rather than answered the questions) and 282 usable questionnaires were Ob- tained for a response rate of 87%. SO In addition to the questionnaires, demographic information was obtained concerning the students by getting transcripts from the Registrar's Office and using the records of the Office of Evaluation Ser- vices. It might be well to note here that this demographic information was not obtained for all students; thus the percentage of missing data is higher for the demographic items than for the questionnaire items. All of the demographic infor- mation about the students is as of January, 1967. University College Faculty. This population is, of course, much smaller than the students. Thus, since the primary focus in the study was student opinion, the faculty sample is much smaller. Forty names were drawn from the lists of Assistant Pro- fessors and above in the 1967 MSU catalogue. In- structors and Assistant Instructors were eliminated as being too marginally concerned or too new to the University College to be included in a sample of regular faculty members. As with the student sample, faculty members were reached by an introductory letter signed by Dr. Warrington and me. The student questionnaire was used in a slightly modified form for the faculty interviews. Because of the small number of respondents, it was decided to personally interview the faculty members. The respondent was 3. 51 given a c0py of the interview and chose his re- sponses from the alternatives presented. I re- corded these answers and whatever additional com— ments the respondent cared to make. Interviews were conducted with twenty-four of the forty faculty members in the sample for a re- sponse rate of 60%, much poorer than the student response rate. This was not due to any refusals on the part of faculty members but was the result of the difficulties of getting in touch with and arranging appointments with the faculty members. This probably biased the sample in favor of those faculty members who had more free time and spent more time on campus. A few of the faculty members objected to the close-ended format of the interview; for these respondents I recorded open-ended re- sponses. Their open-ended responses, however, added little if anything, and, as an impressionistic finding, this group as a whole seemed more hostile toward and more poorly informed about the course wide final and acceleration than the other University College faculty members. Office of Evaluation Services Personnel. The selec- tion and interview procedures for this group were much more informal than for the other two groups. Since I worked at Evaluation Services and personally knew the members of the staff, it was possible to 52 talk to them and discuss various aspects of indepen- dent evaluation in a very open-ended manner rather than relying on a formal interview, although the faculty interview was also used with several mem- bers for their reactions. These discussions with OES personnel resulted in two kinds of data. 8. Information about independent evaluation. None of the other respondents offered any- thing but opinions and attitudes about inde- pendent evaluation. Office of Evaluation Services personnel were able to supply me with much additional information which I used in perfecting the interview and incorporated into various parts of the dissertation. Attitudes toward independent evaluation from a group with far different perspectives and be— liefs than either the faculty or the students. This difference in perspective can arise from two sources: 1. Examiners are far better informed about the course wide final. 2. Examiners, unlike students and faculty, are committed to the course wide final because its preparation is their vocation. Development and Content of the Questionnaire The items for the questionnaire were worked out during the Fall of 1963 and during most of 1966 with the help of Dr. Warrington, head of Evaluation Services, and other members of the Office of Evaluation Services staff. Pre-testing was done during this period through personal interviews with roughly seventy-five students. Personal interviews were used in pre-testing to get students' reactions to the con- struction of the questionnaire and to the form of the questions as well as to get some idea of how students felt about independent evaluation. Like those used in the final questionnaire sample, these students were acceleration eligible. Since the faculty interview is only a slight modification of the student questionnaire with some questions deleted, it was pre-tested on only eight faculty members. Most of the questions employ a closed-end format to facilitate coding. There were few objections to this, and, as in the case of the faculty interviews, most of those who objected tended to dislike the course wide final. The high level of interest in the study is apparent from the response rate, and almost all of the students appeared to enjoy the questionnaire during pre-testing. Initially, there was some worry that students might have difficulty in understanding some of the basic mechanics of acceleration,and I included a brief explanatory note on the waiver and acceleration pro- gram in the questionnaire. However, most students appeared 51+ well informed on the basic mechanics of the waiver and ac- celeration program, although as we Shall see,students were not well informed on the subtler aspect of the relation be- tween waiving and acceleration and the course wide final. An outline of the questions included in the question- naire and the demographic information gathered on the stu- dents is included at the end of this section. The follow- ing is a general discussion of each of the five basic categories into which.the questions were placed. This out- line is not used for the analysis of the data, only where questions are grouped by their correlations. Further dis- cussion of each of the items is given in the Question by Question analysis. I. Michigan State University. Acceleration does not occur in most educational institutions; are feelings toward acceleration and the course wide final re— lated to feelings toward MSU? I was especially in- terested in feelings that MSU was too bureaucratic, since it is with a special kind of bureaucracy I am concerned, and presumably attitudes against MSU bureaucracy would generalize to the course wide final and acceleration. II. The Course Wide Final. This is the key to the pro- gram of independent evaluation and acceleration and has more items on the questionnaire than any other single tOpic. General attitudes toward the course wide final are explored, especially as the course 55 wide final relates to better students. Knowledge of the relation between the course wide final and acceleration is also an important part of this section. III. Waiving and Acceleration. Waiving and acceleration IV. are considered as a unit since most acceleration attempts come from students who waive with special permission. In addition to overall attitudes toward waiving and acceleration, questions concerning the purpose of waiving and acceleration are included. Are the waiver and acceleration programs seen as a new means of learning or merely as a way to escape dull courses? Students are asked for their opinions on the advisability of various limitations on the waiver and acceleration programs and are asked to compare the relative merits of waiving and acceleration. Demographic information about the extent to which students waive and accelerate is also collected. The term "demographic", along with all other special terms, is explained in the Glossary. The University College. Many of the questions re- lating to the University College are subsumed under the Course Wide Final and Waiving and Acceleration sections so this section is perhaps deceptively small. The overall evaluation of the University College is included, along with two questions I\ l 5 56 relating to hypothetical curtailments of the University College. Courses and Grades. This is something of a catch- all category. Questions about the relative merits of multiple choice and essay examinations are in- cluded as well as those relating to other attitudes about courses and grading that may be relevant to acceleration. Demographic information on the ability of the students is also placed under this heading. Ordinary measures of ability such as high school and MSU Grade Point Average were obtained, and in addition, differential measures of ability were gathered. The latter involved comparisons of students' relative abilities in high school and college; the idea behind them being that students who did relatively better in college would be more favorable toward independent evaluation and acceleration. II. 5? Outline of the Questionnaire Key numbers at end refer to analysis number and interview location or if demographic data, OES is used to key second number. iichigan State University A. Is MSU Too Bureaucratic h-Al B. Provide Special Freedoms No Smaller Institution Could Offer S-A2 C. Overall Evaluation of MSU 6-A3 The Course Wide Final A. Attitudes 1. General attitudes a. Overall evaluation of course wide final l2-B3 b. Course wide final fairer than ordinary finals? h8-Ila 2. For better students a. Course wide finals reward conforming and penalize creative student? h9-Ilb b. Abandon for better students in University College? SS-Ilh c. Use course wide finals in honors sections? hl-GSb 3. Objectivity a. Course wide finals show how well a student can do without instructor bias Sh-Ilg b. Under what circumstances is a "Y" grade justified? l9-Dl c. What does discrepancy between instructor and CWF grade signify? S7-C6 h. Compared to other grading a. University College grading versus high school grading 20-D2 b. Course wide finals versus regular multiple choice finals lh-BS c. Course wide finals fairer than ordinary finals? h8—Ila 5. Other attitudes a. Course wide final useful in evaluating programmed learning SO-Ilc b. Often bear little relation to material covered in course Sl-Ild c. Course wide finals as means of instructor evaluation Sé-CS d. Course wide finals make instructor's job harder 63-Ilf B. Knowledge of the Course Wide Final 1. Relation of course wide final to acceleration a. What changes needed for non University College acceleration 61-Flb b. Why is acceleration confined to the University College? 65-Hh 2. 58 c. What are some uses of a course wide final? 59-Du Other kinds of course wide final knowledge a. Do course wide finals count more or less than regular finals? l3-BS C. Other Independent Evaluation Issues 1. 2. Extension of independent evaluation in the classroom a. Should weighting of course wide final be increased or decreased? 17-C3 b. Can a good instructor leave testing to a special office? lB-Ch c. Should course wide finals be given in all courses? S2-Ile Non—classroom independent evaluation a. MSU entrance exams or high school grades better ability indicator? 23-D6 b. Stangard Bar Exam for all Law School graduates? hé-H 0. College Boards or high school grades better ability indicator? h7-H6 III. Waiving and Acceleration A. Attitudes 1. Overall liking a. Overall evaluation of waiving h3-Hl b. Overall evaluation of acceleration hh-H2 c. Greatest thing that's happened to me in college 25-E2a d. Added flexibility to strict course requirements 27-E2c e. Waiving and acceleration"not for me” 29-E2e Purposes of waiving and acceleration a. Useful only as a way out of dull courses 26-E2b b. New and valuable way of learning 28-E2d 0. Purpose better served by abandoning the University College 32-E2h d. Work only because University College courses so easy 33-E2i Would limitations on waiving and acceleration be a good idea? a. WSP students meet departmental standards for acceleration 3h-F2 b. 2.00 GPA required for attempting waiver 35-F3 c. Require an "A" for successful acceleration 36-Fu d. Require enrollment before acceleration 37-F5 Comparative merits a. Waiving or acceleration more important? hS-R3 b. Waiving and acceleration versus honors sections hO-GS Waiving and acceleration too easy? ... 59 a. Is waiving too easy? 30-E2f b. Is acceleration too easy? 3l-E2g 6. Miscellaneous attitudes toward waiving and acceleration a. Bad feeling toward course enrolled in because of failed waiver 38-Gl b. Acceleration - new learning or previous knowledge? 39-G2 c. How would you use year of college saved by acceleration? 63-G3 d. What courses would you waive or comp if you had a second chance? 6h-Gh B. Non University College Acceleration 1. Attitudes a. Would widespread comping raise or lower academic standards? h2-G6 b. Would you like to see a program set up to comp non University College courses? oO-Fl 2. Extent a. How many non University College courses have you attempted to accelerate? 62-Flc C. Waiving and Acceleration Demographic Information 1. Waivers a. Number of waivers attempted 66-OES b. Number of waivers failed 67-OES c. Number of waivers with special permission without acceleration attempts 68-OES d. Number of waivers with special permission 71-OES ' e. Number of waive only's 7h-OES f. Number of waive only's and waivers with special permission 78-OES 2. Other Demographic Information a. Number of successful accelerations 69-OES b. Number of University College courses enrolled in 70-OES c. When did you learn about waiving and acceleration? 2h-Elb IV. University College A. Overall Evaluation 22-DS B. Would Students Like More Regular Courses in Place of University College Courses? 15-01 C. Automatic Waiver for Some University College Courses 16-C2 V. Courses and Grading A. Examinations 1. Essay Versus multiple choice as better evaluator lO-Bl 2. Essay versus multiple choice personal preference ll-Blb B. Other Attitudes l. Learned most in hardest courses B-AS 2. 3. u. 60 Important to get along with teachers for good grades 7-Ah Learn more from texts or instructor? 9-Ab How important is it to you to get good grades? 2l-D3 C. Measures of Ability 1. Straight measures of ability a. High school GPA S8-C7 b. MSU GPA 72-OES c. University College GPA 76-OES d. College Qualification Test (CQT) scores 79-OES Differential measures of ability a. Comparison of high school GPA and MSU GPA 73-OES (58 and 72) b. Comparison of high school GPA and CQT scores 80-OES (58 and 79) Other Demographic Information 1. Year in college 7S-OES 2. Sex 77-OES :- :g“ ’- u .4. on ‘ { .,....‘.. n“__ ‘ H “"H. a. O: can. “ ‘ nun . - d .u. a. “I--. u ;|.-....SO~ ‘F g ‘ a ”.‘u‘v. s. u ‘u ni, ‘ ‘: ..' i a 3,: .. ‘4‘- _‘ . 'q C"!.~ .- I ‘ ‘ " h. i. U r'; ~ . .V‘o ‘ .- .... ‘Q ""83" g ‘ "~.,‘..‘ . ~ .‘..‘ x ‘ § . ‘V‘...“ a b. _ v‘w""‘ J_ v .I "IIQEu ‘. ..l U ' Ikul “' -c .. “k v r:: g .."~ .I - “b .' :;“Vv «'~‘. ' '1 .'§- .. ‘ ‘ I '¢ d~3. " s- U v.- . \:T.\,_~’ . .‘\ A. ~. 7“ l2: ‘u. .._ I k ‘~.. .' ,. .v.‘ 3 ‘5“ 3“ . "3 .‘ . ’- ‘CI‘ ‘2 I. v.‘~ a. .H I ~ “I “V .. ‘ “‘V 0-“ ' “as. .l ‘- \;,\_. . " h: . I‘-~ ”Ll . \ . '.I Q r .: .‘ ' v on, \ ‘ I‘- “—~. A.‘ V. INTRODUCTION TO THE DATA ANALYSIS By far the most analysis was performed on the data gathered from.the student questionnaires. The questionnaire and demographic data were coded on IBM answer sheets which were transformed into punch cards by the scoring office of Office of Evaluation Services. (This was itself an amazing demonstration of the power of automation; it took weeks to code the questionnaires; they were transformed from IBM answer sheets to punch cards in only a few minutes.) There were seventy-seven items so recorded on the punch cards. For each of these seventy-seven items, frequency distribu- tions,means and standard deviations were calculated by the MSU Computer Center. In addition, each item was correlated with every other itenland chi squares were calculated for certain of these correlations as detailed below. To observe Fisher's dictum and to avoid using the same data to test the hypothesis whidh suggested the hypothesis, the sample was divided into two parts -— a small cross validation sample of 80 and the main sample of 202. The correlations were tested for significance using a two-tailed test; only those correlations which proved significant for both samples were used. By using cross validation, the number of significant correlations expected by chance alone 61 62 was reduced from 300 to 15.1 There were a total of 5,929 correlations calculated. For correlations in which both of the members con- stituted an interval scale, as was the case with some of the demographic data, no further analysis was required. However, for the attitudinal data and some of the demographic data, a chi square significance test was run on the correlations which appeared significant, and only those relations which proved to have significant chi squares were retained. The purpose of first running the correlations was to save com- puter time. Since each chi square requires a full sheet of printout, 5,929 pages of printout would have resulted if the non-significant relations had not first been weeded out. After inspection of the correlations (the term "correlation" is used very loosely to cover both the true correlations and the chi squares) it was possible to assemble the items into seven groups suggested by their correlations. These are: I. Attitudes toward Michigan State University II. The Course Wide Final and the University College 113. Effort and Value III. The Purpose of Waiving and Acceleration IV. Waiving and Acceleration V. Measures of Ability VI. Waiving and Acceleration Demographic 1This analysis was suggested by Dr. Denny. 63 To some extent these groups follow the patterns used for the outline of the questionnaire but in other respects they depart significantly. I used these categories, rather than the a priori categories, to simplify the analysis of the data. The analysis of the means was much less complicated than the correlational chi square analysis. Basically, it involved an inspection and comparison of the means and frequency distributions for interesting patterns and anomalies. In general, I have preferred to show frequency distributions rather*than means for the attitudinal data. Means were used for the interval scale demographic data where they were appropriate. Means are used, however, in the student-faculty- examiner comparisons. Since the data for the examiners and faculty members were so tenuous to begin with, I did not feel that this additional violation would do much further harm. Naturally, this renders all conclusions from this data tentative or suggestive at best. Formal significance tests were not used in discussing the student means, but the graphs and tables which accompany the discussion of the means seem to me to be more striking than any statement of significance at the .OS or .01 level. For the student data alone the use of frequency distri- butions obviates the assumption of an interval scale, and conclusions from the student data alone are on much firmer ground than the student-faculty-examiner comparisons. .'_: a S 0..“ '4" ~v- .. -. ..- ° - .,. s-- - —‘ .. . . .-. Q‘ M .1... I h... ..~ . - u .Ifin—fd‘ .. 'I-v -,. ‘ ’ I -..’ .A..4 - .. .'_ .fl .......,..a e. .-"-‘: .; ~~-'.. ‘ . ’4. v..— . . Clo. ‘ e O .- -‘ 'v- ._- . _~. . I N. ‘ .v- -. ~. w ' 4...I 1 -. ‘ A. .V.‘.. .VI AQ~ ~,'_ ». .. 0 . . . v. p “.3. A h ‘0 ‘— t ‘ as. 4 ‘ -‘ *vA 4‘V I L-.‘ \ ‘ "e' .~“ A‘ O -‘ 1 5‘ . \_ u .- “‘ ‘Q ‘- Rc ‘ ‘D .' . . ‘, N \ - Q ‘ v \‘ § .‘. A'l. “‘ . x ‘t 'q “- t g “ 1“ “d ‘1 ~ . 'I' I” w .' A ‘ \.' vs ‘ . ' 3 1‘.- n N- . . 4 ‘~' ‘~ I \ ‘- . n . 3. ‘HC’ \.. v V '1 I‘- ‘ Q ‘. ‘-~".. ,-'.\_",,~ w- V \- ‘ \ - \‘ _ U“ - 6h Since the frequency distributions suggest no particular arrangement, I have largely grouped the items as they are grouped for the correlational analysis. These groupings are called both groups and clusters, no particular signi- ficance is meant by the use of one term rather than the other, and I have used the terms interchangeably. The student-faculty-exmniner comparisons are discussed in their own separate section. Almost all of the items are listed in one or more places in the Data Analysis section, although there were a few items that did not fit in anywhere. These few items and all the rest of the items are discussed in the Question by Question Analysis in the appendix. In addition, while a rather complete description of the items appears in the Data Analysis section (see accompanying sample item for an explanation of the terminology used), the most complete description of each item's individual characteristics is found in the Question by Question Analysis. The Data Analysis begins with a table of all the items in numerical orderzshowing their means, frequency distri- butions and correlations. A discussion of the items by groups follows, and the Analysis is completed by a separate comparison of the Student, Faculty and Examiner means. 2The first item is numbered "four", since the first three spaces on the punch cards were used for the student's identification number. 65 Item h Used As A Sample Item To Explain the Symbols and Terminology Used Question h. (This line indicates the question number for analytic purposes.) (A1.) (This line indicates the item's location in the interview or indicates if the item was obtained from Office of Evaluation Services records in which case the abbreviation OES is used.) Many peOple feel a big institution like MSU is just too impersonal and bureaucratized. Do you: (This reproduces the item as it appeared in the interview or explains the demographic data.) 1. Agree strongly 5.3% 2. Agree 30.1% 3. Neither agree nor disagree 15.6% h. Disagree h0.8% 5. Disagree strongly 7.h% (The above section presents the response alter- natives with the percentages of students choosing or fitting into each alternative.) MD 0.7% I'Iean 3 o ILL SD 1.11 (The above presents the missing data, the mean, and the standard deviation for the item.) Correlations: (The term "correlation" is used although except for the demographic data, chi squares were used to establish significance.) The numbers refer to the other items with which the given item "correlated" significantly. Simply reporting the number means the relation was significant at the .05 level. One asterisk indicates significance at the .01 level. Two asterisks indicate significance at the .001 level. A minus sign indicates an inverse relation. An "a" indicates the relation is artifactual. A "w" indicates the relation was in a direction op- posite to that predicted. 10. 11. 12. 66 A Numerical Listing of the Items Feel MSU is too bureaucratic M 3.1M SD 1.1 Agree stronglyl Disagree strongly 3.3 30.1 15.6) no.8 7.u Corr: 5-%* 6-** 15 26 32** 33 h9* 55* MSU's size provides freedoms M 1.95 SD 0.82 Agree strongly Disagree strongly 26.6 57.8 8.9 5.3 1.1 Corr: h-** 6%* 25 28 50 6h Overall toward MSU M 1.93 SD .79 Like very much Dislike very much 26.2 58.2 9.2 4.6 0.7 Corr: h-%* 5%* . Getting along with teachers for good grades M 2.u7 SD .80 Very important Not at all important 8.5 uu.3 35.8 9.9 Corr: 27** 28 60 Have you learned most in your hardest courses M 2.37 SD 0.98 Almost alwa 3 Almost never 19.5 3h. 32.6 12.1 Corr: 10%* ll* l5 16 17* 18- 3h* hl- 52- 55 Learn more from texts or from instructor M 2.2h SD 0.83 Texts Instructor 1 2 3 h 17.u u0.8 31.2 5.0 Corr: 1?- Multiple choice or essay exams best for evaluating students M 2.32 SD 1.19 Essay best Multiple choice best 1 2 3 h 5 29.5 28.7 21.6 11.3 5.3 Corr: 8* ll%* l2%* 16 17% l8-*% 22- 3h h0 h8-** h9** 51% 52-%% 5U-** 55%* 57- 59-** Which kind of exam do you personally prefer M 3.56 SD 1.92 Essay Multiple choice 1 5 33-3 59-6 Corr: 8% 10** 12%* 17* 21- 22- 31 32 36 h7w h8—** hg*% 51** 52-% 53 5h-** 55** 70 Univ. 0011. CWF overall evaluation statements M 3.05 SD 1.19 Guessing games Very good 1 2 3 u S 10.3 27.7 9.9 h3.6 5.3 Corr: lO*% ll** lh-%* 15 17** 18- 20** 22-* 28- 3O 32* 33 39* h0-%* h9%% 51** 52-** Sh-%* 55** 59—* ' t . .. - 5.- \ -. .~ , . . -. .-. ._- ‘ . . 5 ‘1 1'1. a '— .- v.._ l3. 114-. 15. 16. l7. 18. 19. 20. 67 Do UC CWF's count more or less than finals in other courses M 1.h9 SD 0.6M More Same Less 1 2 3 5h.6 35.1 5.0 Corr: 35 Are UC CWF's better than other multiple choice finals M 2.86 SD 1.08 Much better Much poorer 1 2 3 u S 9.6 25.5 30.9 21.6 5.7 Corr: 8% 9- 10% 11% 12%% 18-%% ho h8-%% 89* 51% 52-%% 5LL-%% More regular intro courses in place of UC courses M 2.39 SD 1.0h Yes, more reg. intro. No, not at all 1 2 3 u 2h.1 23.8 31.9 1h.9 Corr: h 8 12 1h- 16%% 22-%% 31% 32%% 33%% h8—% A9 51 55 6h- Automatic waiver for UC courses for majors M 1.68 SD 1.05 Excellent Very bad 1 2 3 u 5 58.9 26.6 2.5 8.9 2.5 Corr: 8 10 15%% 22 32 55% 60 Change percentage instructors grade counts M 2.21 SD 0.58 Inst. 100% ch 100% l 2 3 u u.6 62.h 19.5 2.1 Corr: 8% 9- 10% 11% 12%% 18-%% ho h8—%% h9% 51% 52-%% su-ee 55* 58 59- A good instructor can leave testing to a special office M 3.86 SD 1.11 Agree strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 u S 3.5 9.9 11.3 A3.3 30.9 Corr: 8- 10-%% 12- 1h l7-%% h8%% 52%% 5h%% When is a "Y" grade justified M 1.h3 SD 1.19 Never or cheating only Other circums. 1 _ 87.2 9.9 Corr: 55-%w Is high school or UC grading fairer M 2.91 SD 1.05 HS much fairer UC much fairer l 2 3 A 5 7.h 22.7 38.3 17.7 6.? Corr: 12%% 1h—%% 22-%% 28-%% 32 33% ul- h8-% h9 51%% sue 55* 59-** 7h-* _.I . ' - .. o. -~'_V‘.l ~.,.. 3 .. a ...,.f .. a “5 .1-..- ._ - ‘4 . .. JO-r ‘Vfio “iv. 1.. \ - .- / ‘ A. ’v v I ‘P. f.- .‘o _ u x, )- § - .‘ I '5- ‘ . I - x . h - ¥n 21. 22. 23. 2h. 26. 27. 28. 68 How important is it to you to get good grades M 1.77 SD 1.05 Very important Not at all important 1 2 3 h 31.9 56.h 8.5 1.1 Corr: ll- 72% Overall feeling toward UC M 3.0M SD 1.06 Like very much Dislike much 1 2 3 h 5 h.6 27.0 31.6 25.5 8.2 Corr: 10- ll- 12-% lh%% 15-%% 16 26- 28% 32-%% 33-%% hl% 48%% h9-%% 51-%% 52 5h 55-%% 6h% High school grades or MSU entrance exams better measure college ability M 1.57 SD 0.56 HS grades better MSU exams better 1 2 3307 1111.061. Corr: h7-%% 58 60-% When did you first learn of waiving and acceleration M 1.h5 SD 0.81 Before entering MSU Later 1 2 3 h 1 68.h 19.5 6.7 3.5 Corr: 35-%% 58%% 6h 66- 72% 76 79%% Waiving and acceleration greatest thing that's happened to me in college M 2.32 SD 0.79 Agree strongly Disagree strongly l 2 3 u 13.1 hh.0 3h.8 5.0 Corr: 5 27%% 10- h3 h6% 62 Waiving and acceleration useful only as a way out of dull courses M 2.65 SD 0.82 Agree strongly Disagree strongly l 2 3 u 9.9 23.8 53.9 10.6 Corr: h 22- 28-%% 31% 32%% 33%% 38 h8- h9%% 51%% 55%% Waiving and acceleration added flexibility to strict course requirements M 1.65 SD 0.6h Agree strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 Alol 50.7 5.3 1.1 Corr: 7%% 25% 28%% 29-% h3% Waiving and acceleration new and valuable way of learning M 2.70 SD 0.86 Agree strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 6.M 33.7 38.3 18.u Corr: 5 7 12- 20-%% 22% 26-%% 27%% 32-%% 33-% 38-%% 39 uh M8 52% 5h 59% 72 .« , .1 1» ‘u _. .. . .4 . .. ... .. 1.. ..¢.... ' . . ' , u . 1 . . .. c . I .. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3h- 35. 36. 69 Waiving and acceleration may be all right for some but not for me M 3.38 SD 0.61 Agree strongly Disagree strongly l 2 3 h O.h 3.5 52.1 h2.6 Corr: 27-% 31 3h 66% 70- 71 7h 78% Waiving is too easy M 2.73 SD 0.67 Agree strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 A h.6 22.0 63.8 6.h Corr: 12 31%% 32% 33%% 3h%% h0 h3—%% hh- h9 55 Acceleration is too easy M 2.89 SD 0.65 Agree strongly Disagree strongly l ' 2 3 h 3.5 12.8 66.7 10.6 Corr: 8 11 15% 26% 29 30%% 32 33%% 3h h0% Purpose of waiving and acceleration better served by abandoning UC M 2.62 SD 0.90 Agree strongly Disagree strongly l 2 3 13.8 21.6 h8.6 13.1 Corr: h%% 12% lh-%% 15%% 16 2O 22-%% 26%% 28-%% 30% 31 33%% 38% h8-% h9% 51%% 52— 55%% 6h- Waiving and acceleration work only because UC courses are so easy M 2.69 SD 0.76 Agree strongly Disagree strongly l 2 3 h 7.1 2h.1 57.h 8.9 Corr: u 12 15%% 20% 22-%% 26%% 28% 30-%% 31%% 32%% N9 51 52- 55%% 73%w Should WSP students have to meet department standards for acceleration M 8.06 SD 1.71 Yes No l 5 22.0 72.7 Corr: 8% 10 29 30%% 31 66%% 67 71 7h 78 Good idea to set stds. for attempting waivers such as 2.0 GPA M h.23 SD 1.59 Yes No l 5 18.8 80.1 Corr: 13 2h-%% 37%% 52%w 66 7h 78 79- Require an "A" for successful acceleration M u.65 SD 1.14 Yes No l 5 8.2- 90.1 Corr: ll hh-%% 73%w \u .‘VP,. ~“"‘10 \ k in. .A‘ - 37. 3a- 39. M0. M1. M2. M3. 70 Require enrollment in one term of UC course before acceleration M M.70 SD 1.07 Yes No l S 7.1 91.5 Corr: 35%% M1%w M9-%w 52%w 55-w Bad feeling toward enrollment from failed waiver M 2.66 SD 1.98 Yes No 1 5 53.2 383 Corr: 26 28-%- 32* 39- M0 M9* 70 Acceleration new learning or demonstration of previous knowledge M 3.61 SD 1.91 New learning Previous knowledge 1 S 29.8 56.M Corr: 12- 28 36w 38- 51-%% HonOrs program versus waiving and acceleration M 3.18 SD 2.00 Honors program Waiving and accel. 1 S M0.l M8.6 Corr: 10 17 25- 30 31% M9 52- 5M-% 55%% Should students in honors program take regular CmF M 3. 9M SD 1. 76 Yes No l 5 2M-9 70.3 Corr: 8- 22% 37%w M8%% 52%% 5M% 55-%% 59 6M%% What effect would widespread comping have on acad. stds. M 2. 69 SD 105 Definitely raise Definitely lower 1 2 3 M 5 8.5 MO.1 2M.8 l7.M 5.3 Corr: M3 MM%% 60%% 6M- 65 Waiver program overall evaluation M 1.66 SD 0.78 Very favorable Very unfavorable l 3 M 5 MM 3 M562 0 M.3 3.3 0.7 Corr: 25 27% 30-%- M2 MMm 78- Acceleration program overall evaluation M 1.7M SD 0.79 Very favorable Very unfavorable l 3 M S M0.8 M5. 0 . M.3 3.2 0.7 Corr: 20- 28 30- 36-%% M2; WM3 -x MS- 60% 68 M6. M7. M8. M9. 50. 51. 52. 71 Which is more important -— waiving or acceleration M 2.1M SD 0.89 Waiving definitely Acceleration def. 1 2 3 M 23 .8 ' M0. 8 23.M 7.M Corr: MM- 51 52-% 55 66- 68%- 70—%% 71- 78- Use bar exam as basis for qualifying every lawyer M 1.52 SD 1.33 Yes No 1 5 79.2 11.6 Corr: 25% College Boards versus hi7? h school grades as admission criteria M 2. M9 SD 0.81 Colleve Boards best HS grades best 1 2 3 M 9. 6 3M.O 39.7 7.M Corr: 11w 23-% :51w 77 CNF'S fairer than ordinary finals M 2.M9 SD 0.77 Agree strongly Disagree strongly l 4 2 3 M 6.7 M3.3 38.7 7. 8 Corr: 10-%% ll-%% 12-%1M%% 15-% 17—%% 18%% 20-% 22: 26- 28 32-% Mlm My- W51- % 52%% 5M%% 55-m 57% 59** 77 CWF's reward conforming and penalize creative student M 2.19 SD 0.73 Agree strongly Disagree strongly l 2 3 M 15.2 50.M 29.8 262.5 COI‘I’: 1.1-X- 1055 X' 11'):- 'X' 1251*): 1.8- 15 17 20 22-‘33 30 3253' 33 37-w 38 MO MB-m 51% 52-m WSM- 55 59- 67- CWF's help evaluate innovations programmed learning M 2.22 SD 0.58 Agree strongly Disagree strongly l 2 3 3.5 67.7 18.M 3.2 Corr: 5 59 80 CWF's bear little relation to material in course M 2.68 SD 0.76 Agree strongly Disagree strongly l 2 3 M 6.M 26. 2 253.9 9.6 Corr: lO-x 11%% 12-x-2: 1M -%% 15 17-:: He 22-%% 26%% 33 39-1. us u7w MB—w- M9 52-% SM- w 55** 5 CvlF's should be given in all courses M 3.11 SD 0.87 Agree strongly Disagree strongly l 2 3 M 2.8 20.9 3M.M 38 3 Corr: 8- 10-%% ll-% l2-%% 1M%% l7-%% 18% % 22 28% 32- 33- 35-w 37‘:w :MO- Ml%% M5—% M8%% M9- -51-%- 5M%% SS-m W57 59% 7* cow 'N \I \I - ‘C Q I\ 0‘ \a c l\ 53. SS. 56. 57. 58. 59. 72 CWF's make an instructor's job harder M 2.73 SD 0.77 Agree strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 u A L.6 30.1 h9.3 13.8 Corr: ll CWF '3 fight instructor bias M 2. 28 SD 0. 7L Agree strongly Disagree strongly l 2 3 h 9. 9 55.0 26.2 5.7 Corr: 10-:-% 11-% 3e 12--k% 1L2: l7--x % 18:3* 20- 22 28 LO-* M1*h8mh9-k Sl-m 52% W55 57** 58- 59- CWF's should be abandoned for better students M 2.L3 SD 0.89 Agree strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 h 16.2 28.L L0.L 8.5 Corr: L% 8 10** ll** 12%* lL-+* 15 162% 17%M91w 20* 22-** 26%% 30 32** 33* 37-w LO Ll-m (L5 L8-%% L9%* 51** 52-%* 5L—~-: 59 - 6L- What is best means of evaluation of instructors M L.30 SD 1.26 CWF only CWF and other Other only 1 3 6.M 19.5 72.u Corr: L8 What does wide discrepancy between CWF and instructor grade mean M 2.77 SD 1.06 Instructor error CWF error 1 2 3 A S 11.0 22.7 ul.S 9.6 7.u Corr: 10- L8* 52% SL** 65 71w HS GPA M 2.70 SD 1.95 hO-38 379-36 359-3h 339-32 319-30 1 2 3 u 5 36.9 1L.2 11.7 11.0 7.u 299-28 279-26 259-2L 2.39 and below 396 7 8 9 2. 8 2.1 0.8 Corr: 17 23 2L- 51? :5;- 6L 68- 70* 71-* 72** 73-wa 76-* 77-:* o-* Advantages to CWF M 8.03 SD 1.02 Strong No advantages 1 2 3 u 2.1 S. O 16.0 38. 3 37.9 Corr: 10--:-%-12-:: luv): 17- 20-% 28 L1 L8H :L9-* 50 52%% su-* SS-m 61* 63* 60. 61. 62. 63. 6h. 65. 66. 67. 73 Would you like to see non University College acceleration M 1.uu so 1.27 Yes No l 5 80.9 11.0 Corr: 7 16% 23-% UZ%% M3 uu% What changes would be needed M u.27 SD 1.21 Need CWF Bad or nothing 1 2 3 u 5 u.6 6.0 8.5 lu.2 6h.2 Corr: 59% 63% 65%% Number of non University College courses accelerated M 0.08 SD 0.35 None One Two Three 89.7 h-3 1.8 0 Corr: 25 What would you do with year saved by acceleration M 2.u5 SD 0.80 Excellent use Poor use 1 2 3 M 12.8 30.5 51.1 3.5 Corr: 59% 61% 65% UC courses not enroll in if given second chance M 1.71 so 1.96 0 1 2 3 u S 33.3 20.6 16.0 11.9 0.3 1.1 6 7 8+ 2.8 0.7 3.2 Corr: 5 15- 2h 32- Nl% 42- SS- 58 72% 76 Why is acceleration confined to University College M 3.73 SD 1.09 Because of CWF Nothing 1 2 3 u 5 0.6 7.u 10.9 06.5 20.9 Corr: N2 57 61%% 63% Number of waivers attempted M 3.u1 SD 2.13 0 1 2 3 u 5 6.7 10.6 17.7 11.3 10.3 18.5 6 7 8+ 906 3.2 3.2 Corr: ZN- 29% 3h%% 35 NS- 67%%a 68%%a 70—%%a 71%%a 7N%%a 78%%a 79-%% 80- Number of waivers failed M 0.13 SD 0.8M 0 1 2 3 u S 62.1 lu.2 6.u 2.8 0.7 0 Corr: 3b AQ- 66%%a 72 73% 76%% 79 68. 69. 70. 710 72. 7h Number of WSP's not chosen to attempt acceleration M 0.03 SD 1.17“" 0 1 2 3 u 5 50.3 19.1 5.7 3.2 2.1 0.7 06 7 8+ 0.0 0. u 0 Corr: bu ebS-M 58- 66%- xa 69-%- xa 70-x -a 71* x—a 72-% 73- 76- %a 79-*- 80- Number of successful accelerations M 1.18 SD 1.67 0 l 2 3 u 5 29.u 30.1 16.3 5.0 2.8 2.5 6 7 0.u 0 Corr: 66%%a 68—%%a 70-%%a 71%%a 76-%a 78%%a Number of University College courses enrolled in M 3.u1 SD 1.67 0 1-2 3-u 5-6 7-8 9-10 1 2 3 u S 2.8 6.0 16.3 11.7 19.5 16.3 11-12 768 Corr: 11 29- 38 A5; 51 55 5% -66-* xa 68--x -a 69-%%a 71-* X-a 72% 73 7u-x a 76>: a 78-% a 79* ' Number of WSP's with and without acceleration M 1.77 SD 2.1u 0 l 2 3 u 5 11.7 32.0 20.2 7.1 7.1 3.9 6 7 8+ 1.1 0.7 Corr: 29 3h MS- 57 58-% 66%%a 69m :a H70- ka 72-% 76-%% 78%%a 79—%% 80- MSU GPA Overall 1% LL03? SD 2.1“. 64.003308 3079-306 3059-3014. 2 3 7.8 9.6 12.8 3039-302 3019-300 2.99.208 A 5 6 15.6 11.3 13.1 2.79-2.6 2.59-2.u 2.39 and below 7 8 9 60,4. 205 LL03 Corr: 21% 2h% 28 58% W6u 67 68-* 70*- 71-% 73%%a 7h 76%%a 79%% 73. 7h- 75. 76. 77. 78. 75 HS-MSU GPA difference score M 6.80 SD 1.98 +8 or more +3 +2 +1 0 l 2 3 8 5 1 means higher Coll. 1.8 0.7 3.2 3.2 18.5 grades 9 means higher HS -1 —2 -3 -8 grades 6 7 8 9 12.8 17.0 9.9 13.5 Corr: 33* 36% 58-*a 68- 70 72%%a 76%a 77 80%*a Number of University College courses waived only M 1.36 SD 1.51 0 1 2 3 8 5 30.5 22.3 18.9 7.8 7.1 2.5 6 7 8 or more 0.8 0.0 0.8 Corr: 20-* 29 38 35 66%%a 70-*a 72 75a 78**a 79-* Year in college M 3.26 SD 0.76 Frosh SOph Junior Senior Grad l 2 3 U 5 0 13.8 80.8 36.5 1.8 Corr: 78a UC GPA M 2.90 so 1.98 8.0-3.8 3.79-3.6 3.59-3.u 1 2 3 28.1 18.9 18.9 3.39-3.2 3.19-3.0 2.99-2.8 u S 6 12.1 6.8 1.8 2.79-2.6 2.59-2.8 2.39 and below 7 8 9 2.5 1.8 1.8 Corr: 28 58%% 68 68- 69-*a 70** 71-** 72*%a 73%a 78- 79** 80* Sex M 2.86 SD 1.93 Male Femgle 1 62.0 35.8 Corr: 87 88 52* 58—%* 73 80* Number of waives and WSP's M 2.91 SD 2.02 0 l 2 3 8 S 802 11.105 1607 161.05 909 1107 6 7 8 or more 6. 2.8 1.1 0 Corr: 29% 38 35 83- 85- 66**a 69**a 70-%*a 71*%a 78**a 76- 79-%% 80- 76 79. Percentile ranking on CQT M 3.99 SD 2.67 99 98-96 95-93 92-90 89-86 1 2 3 16.9 22.0 13.1 6.6 9.6 85-81 80-76 75-70 69 and below 6 7 8 9 5.0 6.0 2.8 11.0 Corr: 2M** 35- 58*% 66-%* 67 68-%% 70%* 71-** 72*% 7h-% 76%% 78-*% 80*%& 80. CQT-HS diff. score M 5.91 SD 2.32 +u or more +3 +2 +1 0 l 2 3 h 5 3.2 1.8 h-3 7.8 1h.9 -1 -2 -3 —u or more 6 7 8 9 18.1 9.6 5.3 17.0 Corr: SO 58-*a 66- 68- 70%* 71- 73**a 76% 77* 78- 79**a VI. GROUP I: ATTITUDES TOWARD MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Group I. Correlational Analysis The three questions asking for attitudes about MSU were all inter-related. Question A. Many peOple feel a big institution like MSU is (A1.) just too impersonal and bureaucratized. Do you: 1. Agree strongly 5.3% 2. Agree 30.16 3. Neither agree nor disagree 15.66 A. Disagree no.8é S. Disagree strongly 7.Afi MD 0.7% Mean 3.1a SD 1.11 M4 15 26 32** 33 u9* 55% Correlations: S—** 6 Question 5. Others feel MSU's very size provides freedoms (A2.) no smaller institution could offer. Do you: 1. Agree strongly 26.6% 2. Agree 5g.8% 3. Neither agree nor disagree .95 u. Disagree 5.3@ 5. Disagree strongly 1.1% MD 0 11% flean 1.95 SD 0.82 Correlations: M-** 6%% 25 28 50 6A 77 I—- 78 Question 6. What is your overall feeling toward MSU? l. I like it very much 26.2fl 2. 1 like it 58.2% 3. I'm indifferent toward it 9.2% u. I dislike it u. % S. I dislike it very much 0.7% 1D 1.1% Mean 1.93 SD 0.79 Correlations: h-** 5** Questions h, S, and 6 were all related at the .001 level, as might be expected, since all three asked for at- titudes about the value of MSU. Indeed, Question 6 had no other correlates save Questions A and 5. Question A was able to relate better to questions con- cerned with waiving and acceleration and the course wide final than were the other two questions. Question A related to three questions which were concerned with the issue of whether or not waiving and acceleration were merely a means of escape from University College courses, and whether curtailment of the University College might not better serve the purposes of waiving and acceleration (Q's 15, 26, 32, 33). Feeling that MSU was too bureaucratized was also related to feeling that the course wide final was ill-suited for better students (Q's M9. 55). Agreeing that MSU's size provided freedoms no smaller school could offer was related to two questions suggesting very positive benefits of the waiver and acceleration program (Q's 25, 28), to the use of course wide finals in programmed learning (Q 50), and to not wishing to waive or 79 comp more courses (Q6LL).l As mentioned before, Question 6's only correlates were Questions h and 5. All of this suggests that attitudes toward hSU are relatively independent of attitudes toward the course wide final and waiving and acceleration. The only possible ex- ception here is the feeling that MSU is too bureaucratic (Q11). This interpretation is supported by the means for these questions; almost everyone felt MSU provided freedoms no smaller institution could offer and almost everyone liked MSU. In contrast, the means for the University College and the course wide final showed far more mixed emotions. Attendance at MSU is voluntary, and I should think that successful students who were very unhappy there would not have attended all the way to their junior and senior years. The University College is, of course, not voluntary, so that it is quite possible to like MSU and dislike the University College. 1In regard to Question 6h, see Chapter XI, "The Second Chance Question". P 0 Group I Chart 91 Group I. Analysis of Means and Frequency Distributions By far the most unfavorable feeling toward MSU was registered in Question A; 35.h% felt that MSU was too bureaucratized and impersonal, whereas only 6.h% felt that MSU'S size did not provide freedoms no smaller institution could offer (Q S), and only 5.3% disliked MSU overall. These differences among the three questions in percentages expressing negative Opinions toward MSU are shown in Graph Ia. The most striking comparison in differences in at- titudes is shown in the comparison between the overall evaluation of MSU (Q 6) and the overall evaluation of the University College (Q 22) from Group II. Overlap Graph Ib shows that nearly half of the students like MSU and are at the same time indifferent toward or dislike the University College! This dislike for the University College is a finding which pervades all the research, and, in connection with other findings, has profound implications for the future of waiving and acceleration. Finally, we note that the course wide final occupies a position intermediate in evaluation between the opinions toward MSU and the University College. However, Graph Ic shows that the course wide final is much closer to the University College than to MSU in the Opinions of the respondents. afiixii _\ 82 Graph Ia. A comparison of the percentages of students expressing dislike of various aspects of MSU. 100% 90 80 7O 60 50 1.0 :5 30 35.1» 20 10 l W l I 5.373 ] 01+ Q5 Q6 feel MSU too MSU's size dislike MSU bureaucratic provides overall no special freedoms 83 20 30 MO 70 8O 9O Graph Ib. Overlap Graph showing h9.7$ of the students like MSU and are indifferent toward or dislike the University College. Q22 Percentage indifferent toward or disliking University College overall 100% 90 65.3% r 80 70 60> A9 % OV .LAP 50 no 30 8h.u% 20 10 Q6 Percentage liking MSU overall h h 811 Graph Ic. A comparison of the percentages of students liking MSU, the Course Wide Final and the University College overall. 100% 90 80 8A.u% 7O 6O 50 no 38.0% 0 3 31.6% ‘77 20 10 Q6 MSU Q12 Course Q22 University overall Wide Final College evaluation overall overall evaluation evaluation VII. GROUP II: THE COURSE .51 DE FINAL AND THE U IJERSITi COLI E}E Group II. Correlational Analysis: The Group II had far more items than any other groug. Basic Ten Items of Group II The following ten questions were all intercorrelated: Question 10. (B10) Question 11. (Blb.) Question 12. (83.) Do you think essay or multiple choice exams do the best job of evaluating students? 1. Essay exams do much better 29.5% 2. Essay exams do somewhat better 28.7@ 3. They do about the same 21.6p h. Multiple choice exams do somewhat 11.36 better 5.1iultiple choice exams do much 5.33 better 4D 3.575 Mean 2.32 SD 1.19 Correlations: 8* -% 11* l2%* 16 17* l8-%% 22- 3A MO h8- Wh9 : 51% 52-** Su-m 55% S7 59-** Which kind of exam do you personally prefer? 1. Essay 33. 3S 5. Multiple choice 59. 6p MD 7.1% iean 3.56 SD 1.92 Correlations: 8% 10% a 12%* 17% 21- 22- 31 32 36 h7w hq-Wh9151** 52-* 53 ELL-'3‘ 55a:- e70 Please check the statement which best describes your views of University College course wide final examinations. i 1 Question 22. (DS.) Question h8. (113.) 86 1. They are guessing games which 13.3; reveal little or nothing of the student's knowledge of the course. 2. They are rather poor exams and 27.75 are not very indicative of the subject matter of the course. 3. They are all right I guess. I 9.95 have no opinion about them. h. They are good examinations; in U3.6j general they do a pretty fair job of measuring a student's knowledge of the subject matter of the course. 5. They are very good examinations 5.3} which do an excellent job of measuring a student's knowledge of the course. MD 3.2% Mean 3.05 SD 1.19 Correlations: lO** 11*% 1h-** 15 17** 18- 20*% 22-* 28- 3O 32* 33 39* hO-** h9** Slxx 52—** Sh-** 55** 59-* What is your overall feeling toward the University College? 1. I like it very much h.6fl 2. I like it 27.0; 3. I'm indifferent toward it 31.65 t. I dislike it 25.5% S. I dislike it very much 8.2% MD 3.2% Mean 3-OU SD 1.06 Correlations: lO- ll- 12-* 1h** 15-** 16 20-** 26- 28* 32—x* 33-%* al* h8** M9-** 51-%* 52 5h 55-%* 6h* Course wide finals provide a fairer means of grading than ordinary finals. 1. Agree strongly 6.7% 2. Agree h3.3@ 3. Disagree 38.?k h. Disagree strongly 7.8fi J Question A9. Question 51. (Ild.) awestion 52. (Ile.) 87 MD 3.6; Hean 2.M9 SD 0.77 Correlations: lO-*% ll-** l2-%* lh%* 15-* 17—** 13—a :e 20--:e 22%% 26- 28 32—99 h1:h)-~* 51-%% 52%% SAW 55-; * 56 57* 57** 77 Course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative student. 1. Agree strongly 15.23 2. Agree 50.bfl 3. Disagree 29.33 h. Disagree strongly 2.5; MD 2.2% Mean 2.19 SD 0.73 Correlations: h% 10*% 112:3 :3 lM- 15 17 2O 22-~* 13O 32* 33 37- w 38 L10 LLB-“2:: :155‘52-“53 pLL-ii- SSfifi S9-* 67- Course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course. 1. Agree strongly 6.Mfl 2. Agree 26. 2p 3. Disagree 53. 9p u. Disagree strongly 9. 6p MD 3.5% Mean 2.68 SD 0.76 Correlations: 10* 11%* l2*% lh-*% 15 17-* 20% 3 22-* 26*-: 32 33 39-i AS u7w A8- h9* 52-~- Su-m 55% S& Course wide finals should be given in all courses at GSU which have sufficient enrollment for them. 1. Agree strongly 2.83 2. Agree 20.9% 3. Disagree 3u.h% A. Disagree strongly 38.35 Question 5A. (Ilg.) Question 55. 88 MD 3.6; Mean 3.11 SD 0.87 Correlations: 8- lO-** ll-% l2-%* 1A** l7-** 18*% 22 28* 32- 33- 35%w 37%w AO;NA1 A5-% A8; A u9-*% 51-** SS-A 57,. 5 9AA 77* Course wide finals do a good job of letting the student see how well he can do without instructor bias. 1. Agree strongly 9.95 2. Agree 55.0% 3. Disagree 26.25 A. Disagree strong gly 5.78 MD 3.2% Mean 2.28 SD 0.7A Correlations: lO-*% 11-* -» 12-%1A* 17-* 8** 20- 22; 2|;3- AO- A1;AAQ ug-A 51-.. A ss-AA A 58- 59-- Course wide finals better students in 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree 3. Disagree A. Disagree strongly MD 6.A% should be abandoned for the University College. 16.3% 8AA io‘—r/3 8. 5/0 Mean 2.A3 SD 0.89 Correlations: A* 8 lO::-x-1l%12** 1A- *% 15 16%17zc 19? -w 20:- 22-% -A 26%% 30 32 * 33* 37-W A0 Al-"‘ A5 AB-W A9‘* 51% r-><">52- 5A-<* 59-‘-:6 +— 70 89 Other Members of Group II The following two questions were not correlated with each other but were correlated with all but one or two of the preceding ten items. Question 1h. (35.) Question 17. (03.) In comparison with multiple choice final exams in other courses would you say University College course wide final examinations were: 1. Much better 9.6% 2. Better 2S.S$ 3. About the same 30.9% h. Poorer 21.63 5. Much poorer 5.7% MD 6.8% Mean 2.86 SD 1.08 Correlations: l2-%% 15- 18 20-%* 22** 32 h8** h9 51%* 52%% Sh* 55** 59*% (Q 1h correlated with all of basic ten except 0'3 10 and 11 which might be expected since Q 1h controls for preference between multiple choice and essay exams) At present, the instructor‘s grade counts one- half in determining the grade a student receives in a University College course. If this proportion were changed, how much and in what direction should it be changed? 1. Instructor's grade should count n.65 100% 2. Instructor's grade should count 62.h§ more than 50% but less than 100% 3. Instructor's grade should count 19.5% less than SOfi but still count some A. Course wide final grade should 2.1% count 100% MD 11.ufl lean 2.21 SD 0.58 Correlations: 8% 9- 10* 11* l2** 18-** no 48-** h9* 51% S2-** 5h-** 55% 58 59- (Q 17 correlated with all but Q 22) 90 The next two questions correlated with seven of the ten basic items; they also intercorrelated. Question 20. In general would you say your high school's (02.) grading is fairer or less fair than University College grading? I. High school grading is much fairer 7.h§ 2. High school grading is somewhat 22.7fi fairer 3. Each is about equally fair 38.3” h. University College grading is 17.78 somewhat fairer S. University College grading is much 6.7fi fairer MD 7.1% Mean 2.91 SD 1.05 Correlations: l2** lh-** 22-** 2p-W 32 33* {(82.8 MSW M9 51'x '2‘ 58- 55‘ 59W“ (Q 20 correlated with all of the basic ten save Q's ll, 22, and 51) Question 59. Do you see any advantages to a course wide (Du & Dhb.) multiple choice final examination other than savings in instructor time? 1. Yes (If yes) Please list advantages. 5. No Question 59 was coded on a five point scale according to the quality of the advantages the student listed. Examples of responses are given in the Question by Question Analysis. 1. Strong advantages 2. Good advantages 3. Fair advantages 1 A. Weak advantages 3 5. No advantages or "No" to Dh 3 ‘\\ j \.. Q\O'~\D~\ ~saflrvim (upcacnw \°§\\C {\ MD 0 . 7% Mean h.03 SD 1.02 Correlations: lO-% * l2-* lh% -:8 l7- 20- ** 28 hl 888 8 89-8 so 528: SL8 35- 88 M1 63: (Q 59 correlated with all of the basic ten save 0'8 10, ll, and S2) 91 The final three questions in regular Group II showed five or more correlates with the basic ten items in Group II and in most cases had other Group II correlates as well. Question 18. (Ch.) Question hO. (GS.) Question hl. (GSb.) "A good instructor can simply try to help his students learn and leave the testing to a special office." Do you: 1. Agree strongly 3.53 2. Agree 9.9% 3. Neither agree nor disagree 11.38 h. Disagree h3.3% S. Disagree strongly 30.95 MD 1.1% Mean 3.86 SD 1.11 Correlations: 8- lO-** 12— 1h l7-%* h8%* 2:4,". ’4 2%.”. n u D n n The ATL Department has offered an extensive honors program as an alternative to waiving and acceleration for better students. Do you think this should be encouraged in other Departments and waiving and acceleration dis- couraged? 1. Yes h0.l% 5. No h8.é% MD 11.u% Mean 3.18 SD 2.00 Correlations: 10 17 25- 3O 31* 38 49 52- Sh-8 55%% Do you think that students in this Honors Program should cover similar materials and take the regular course wide final for ATL? 1. Yes 2h.9% 5. No 70.3% MD 5.0% Mean 3.9M SD 1.76 Correlations: 8- 22% 37%w h8*% 52%% Sh8 SS-%% 59 6h%% 92 Group II. Discussion of Correlations Group II is basically composed of items expressing attitudes toward the Course Wide Final. Seven of the ten basic correlates and four of the seven other correlates are course wide final items. Nonetheless, there were several other items which showed surprisingly strong relations to Cluster II. The two items concerned with the relative merits of multiple choice and essay tests (Q 10, Q 11) and the overall evaluation of the University College (Q 22) were included in the basic ten. The inclusion of these items is especially interesting since overall evaluations toward waiving (Q h3) and acceleration (Q uh) were not re- lated to any of the items in Cluster II. Clearly, the course wide final is seen as a multiple choice exam which is part of the University College. The course wide final is not seen as something which makes waiving and accele- ration possible. The correlational data is here supported by the mean findings; Question 65 which asked why accele- ration was confined to the University College received mkmuate answers from only 12% of the respondents. Other mumtions concerned with this same issue received equally dismal answers. (See Groups III, VI, IV) There were two questions which were concerned with the issue of extending classroom independent evaluation beyormi the University College; both related well to Cluster DD them 52, which asked whether course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU which have sufficient 93 enrollment for them, was one of the basic ten of Cluster II. Question 18, which asked if a good instructor could simply help his students learn, did not have so many correlates as Question 52, and was not in the basic ten,but had all of its correlates in Cluster II. In contrast to the success of Questions 52 and 18, questions which were concerned with independent evaluation outside the classroom utterly failed to relate to Cluster II. Question 23 which asked for a comparison of the relative merits of high school grades and MSU entrance exams as predictors of college ability had no correlates in Cluster II, nor did Question us which was concerned with the advisability of a standard bar exam for admitting lawyers to practice. Question h? which asked whether a boy with high College Board scores or a boy with high high school grades should be admitted to college related to two questions in Cluster II, but in the wrong direction! Preferring College Boards as entrance criteria was associated with preferring essay exams over multiple choice exams (Q 11) and seeing course wide finals as bearing little relation to the material mwered in the course.1 Respondents then do not see a cmumction between independent evaluation inside and out- side the classroom. This is discussed in the Mean Section of this group. While the overall evaluations of waiving and au3celeration failed to relate to Group II, questions fSee special correlation discussion following this 39051, On o ‘ ' .. fist Li ,...-v~ w .- A. ‘ "v. ‘--... . _‘ x.. -. L fr .7"- .h .. a.“ ’5. ‘~. \ N. . . x 4, ’1 'I 9h concerning the purpose of waiving and acceleration or con- taining implicit evaluations of the University College re- lated very well to Group II. These questions are discussed in Group III. Neither the ability demographic measures of Group V nor the waiving and acceleration demographic measures of Group VI managed very many correlations with Group II. In general, neither a student's grade point average nor the number of courses he waived or accelerated related to his feelings toward Group II. Question 70, the number of University College courses enrolled in, was an exception which did manage three Group II correlations. In all these Question 70 correlations, enrollment in more Univer- sity College courses increased favorability toward the course wide final. Question on, which asked if the student would waive or accelerate more courses if given a second chance, had a few Group II correlates, and, analogously with Question 70, not wishing to waive or accelerate more courses increased favorability toward the course wide final. Question 70 is a member of Group VI, and Question &Iis discussed more fully in Group V. In all these cases we see the close link between the mflyersity College and the course wide final in.the students' minds and the simultaneous lack of relation between the courmue wide final and waiving and acceleration. 95 Group II Chart 22 1o 11 12 1+8 1+9 51 52 5b, 55 M 17 20 59 18 no 41 57 32 8 15 16 10 22 15 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 10 x 16 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 11 x x 12 x x x x x x x x x x 10 12 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 48 10 x x x x 18 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 49 x x x x x %g x x x x x x x x x x x 51 x x x x x x i2 x x x x x x x x 52 x x x x x x x i3 x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 54 x x x x x x x x 17 x x x x x x x x x 55 x x x x x x x x x 10 x x x x x x x x x J 1# x x x x x x x x 13 x x x x x 17 x x x x x x x x x 12 x x x 20 x x x x x x x x 12 x x 7 59 x x x x x x x x x 10 x 18 x x x x x x x g x 40 x x x x x x, 2 #1 x x x x x x g x 57 x x x x z 32 x x x x x x x x x x § x x 12 8 x x x x x x x g x l b 5 x x x x x x x x x 10 x 16 x x x x x x 3 O 22 10 11 12 #8 49 51 52 54 55 14 17 20 59 18 40 41 57 32 8 15 16 Upper number is number of correlates with basic 10 Lower number is total number of Group II correlates X significant at .05 level or more Heavy line indicates "Basic 10" quadrant 96 The Super Item Question 55, which asked for agreement or disagree- ment with the statement, "Course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College" had twenty-eight correlates which was the most of any item. ‘Why the success of Question 55? First, of course, because it was concerned directly with the course wide final and so belonged to the largest single category in the questionnaire. It also tapped a most important attitude toward the course wide final, that the course wide final is somehow beneath the dignity of the better student. I had originally thought that Question 55 would have a rather skewed distribution with most stu- dents disagreeing with it. It is, after all, a very strong statement of disapproval toward the course wide final. In- stead, we find very close to an even split with hh% agree— ing, h9% disagreeing, and 6% missing data, and note that the "strongly agree's" outnumber the "strongly disagree's" by two to one, 16% to 8%. Given that nearly half the sample agrees with this condemnation of independent evalu- ation in the classroom, many of the other anomalies in the results become explicable. Here are students, selected because they have had an opportunity to gain credits in the pleasantest, easiest way imaginable, and yet nearly half of them favor the abandonment of the device that has made 'UfliS Opportunity possible! Clearly, a realization of the benefits of independent evaluation for the superior student 97 is not reaching the very students it benefits. And the importance of this failure to reach these students is shown by the twenty-eight correlations for Question 55. Agree- ment with Question 55 is related to everything from feeling MSU is too bureaucratic (Q h) to wishing to substitute other courses for University College courses (Q 15). A correlation does not tell us which is cause and which is effect but it nonetheless seems clear that better students will not develop a true appreciation of what the University College has to offer until they appreciate the special kind of examinations that it offers. 98 Question 37 and Wrong Way Correlations Question 37. Should a student be required to enroll in at (F5.) least one term of a University College course before comping any University College courses? 1. Yes 7.1; 5. No 91.5; MD 1.5% Mean h.7O SD 1.07 Correlations: 35** hl*w h9-*w 52*w 55-w Question 37 has an extremely skewed distribution which tends to produce anomalous results, but there is a con- sistency to the anomalies produced by this question which makes it something more than a chance occurrence. I ex- pected that limitations on acceleration would be opposed by those who are favorable to the course wide final exami- nation. But what are Question 37's relations? We find that feeling that a student should 23 £3: guired to enroll in at least one University College course before acceleration is associated with feeling that honors students should take the course wide final (Q hi), that course wide finals do 223 reward the conforming and penalize the creative student (Q M9), that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU (Q 52), and that course wide finals should 323 be abandoned for better students in the University College (Q 55). What is the explanation of these incongruous findings? How is it that students who favor a restriction on the exercise of independent evalu- aticnlthrough acceleration are more likely to favor selected aspects of the course wide final? 99 The answer seems to lie in the general finding which permeates this research. The course wide final is seen as linked to the University College and not to waiving and acceleration. Question 37 is apparently a kind of back- handed measure of liking for the University College, with those students who favor enrollment before acceleration somewhat more favorable to the University College. In addition, because the relationship between the course wide final and the University College completely overpowers any relation between the course wide final and waiving and acceleration, we have the anomalous set of findings above. Questions 19, 35, and h? also had similar wrong way correlations which are discussed in the Question by Question Analysis. 100 Group II. Analysis of Means and Frequency Distributions In addition to the questions previously discussed in the correlation section, the following questions are included in the discussion of means and frequency distributions for Group II. Question 13. Question 23. (D6.) Question 35. (133.) Do you think University College course wide final examinations count more or less than final examinations in other courses in determining a student's grade? 1. UC finals count more 5h.6fi 2. UC finals count about the same 35.1% 3. UC finals count less 5.0; MD 5 . Lu; Mean l.h9 SD 0.6h Correlation: 35 Do you feel your high school grades or your scores on the entrance examination that you took when you entered MSU provided the better measure of your ability in college? 1. HS grades provided better measure 33.7; 2. MSU scores provided better measure hh.hp _ 0\. MD 22 . 032:; Mean 1.57 SD 0.56 Correlations: h7-%* 58 60-% Do you feel that it is a good idea to let anyone attempt a waiver or that some reasonable standards should be set such as a 2.00 GPA? 1. Set some reasonable standards 18.8% 2. Let any student attempt a waiver 80.1% MD 1 . 13% Mean u.23 SD 1 . S9 Correlations: 13 2h-%* 37** 52w 66 7h 78 79- 101 Question hé. Graduates of some Law Schools are not required (H5.) to take the State Bar Exam. Graduates of some other schools, for example correspondence schools, are not allowed to take the Exam. Would it be better to require every graduate to take it to become a lawyer? 1. Yes, allow and require all to take it 79.2% 5. No, present system is better 11.6p Mean 1.52 SD 1.33 Correlation: 25* Question h7. You are an admissions officer at a college with (Ho.) many more applicants than room. John and Robert are two applicants. John has high College Board scores but only so-so high school grades; Robert has only so-so College Board scores but excellent high school grades. Whom would you admit? l. Definitely John 9.6g 2. Probably John 3h.0@ 3. Probably Robert 39.7% h. Definitely Robert 7.hfi Mean 2.M9 SD 0 . 81 Correlations: llw 23-** 51w 77 Student sentiment toward the course wide final is luke- warm. Students are far readier to accept the obvious benefits of the course wide final than to appreciate the subtler benefits it offers. This is shown in Graph IIa where we note the pre- cipitous drop from the statement that course wide finals help fight bias to the statement that course wide finals do not penalize creative students. There are even fewer stu- dents who will agree that a good instructor can simply help his students learn and leave testing to a special office 4.. 102 (Q 18). This is indicative of the strong resistance to extending the principle of independent evaluation in the classroom. In discussing the chi square analysis, we noted the close relation between the course wide final and multiple choice attitudes. The tendency to see only obvious benefits in independent evaluation is paralleled in the attitude toward multiple choice exmns vis-a-vis essay exams as shown in Graph IIb. Only 16.6% of the students felt multiple choice exams did a better job of evaluating students than did essay exams, but 59.6% of the students said they personally preferred multiple choice exams. Another point noted in discussing the chi square analysis was the lack of relation between attitudes toward the course wide final and attitudes toward waiving and ac- celeration. Graphs 110 and IId show the large gulf which separates waiving and acceleration overall evaluations from the course wide final evaluation and the University College overall evaluation. Because of the construction of the middle alternative, there was a much higher percentage of respondents choosing this alternative for the University College overall evaluation than for the course wide final evaluation. Therefore, I have shown both a comparison of Inegative attitudes and a comparison of positive attitudes toward waiving and acceleration and the course wide final and the University College. Another interesting comparison is that between the 103 percentages of students who oppose restrictions on waiving and acceleration and the percentages of students who favor various extensions of the use of independent evaluation in the classroom. Graph IIe shows the chasm which separates the attitudes toward these two kinds of proposals. Both attitudes are favorable to independent evaluation, but students see them as very different. Independent evaluation outside the classroom is not so rejected as independent evaluation in the classroom. Graph IIf contrasts the attitudes toward these two kinds of independent evaluation. Graph IIg shows that students are inclined to think of University College finals as figuring rather heavily in a student's grade. This is, I think, a misconception on their part, many final examinations at Michigan State count 50% of the student's grade and some count more. Graph 100% 90 80 7O 6O 50 hO 3O 2O 10 10h IIa. Comparison of percentages of respondents accepting various aspects of the Course Wide Final as beneficial. 6h.9% fights instructor bias CWF fairer does not penalize creative student 23.7% should be 3.u% given in all courses Q18 good Inst. can leave testing to special office 105 Graph IIb. Comparison of percentages saying multiple choice exams do a better job of evaluating students with percentages saying they personally prefer multiple choice examinations. 100% 90 80 7O 6O 59.6% 50 to 30 20 16.6% 10 Q10 multiple Qll prefer choice better multiple choice 106 Graph IIc. Comparison of percentages expressing liking for waiving overall, acceleration overall, the course wide final overall, and the University College overall. 100% 90 89.3% 85.8% 80 7O 60 50 u8.9% 110 30 31.6% 2O 10 Qh3 th Q12 CWF Q22 waiving acceleration overall University overall overall College overall 107 Graph IId. Comparison of percentages of respondents expressing a dislike of waiving overall (Qh3), dislike of acceleration (th), dislike of the course wide final overall (Q12), and dislike of the University College overall (Q22). 100% 90 80 7O 50 no 38.0% 30 33.7% 20 10 9&3 Qh9 Q12 Q22 waiving acceleration course University wide College final “I“ ”I5! fiaiflldi!td 109 Graph IIe. Comparison of percentages opposing various limitations on waiving and acceleration with percentages favoring ideas which involve greater use of independent evaluation in the classroom. 100% 91.5% 90.1% 90 Q37 Q36 80.1% do not require "A" not enrollment in 80 required for UC courses 72.7% Q35 acceleration before permitting no 2.00 GPA acceleration 7Q Q3h requirement for waiving no dep't stds for sec 60 for WSP students 50 to 30 a Zuog/O 23.7% .— 21.6% th 20 Q52 honors Q17 sections CWF's in 13.h% should all reduce inst's % 1c) take CWF courses of UC grade Q18 good instructor can leave testing to special office 109 Graph IIf. Percentages preferring Independent Evaluation inside and outside class. 100% 90 80 .— 79.2% Ind. Ev. 70 Outside Class 60 50 m.u;;o g. H0 h3.6% Inside 30 Class 20 23.7% ' lO 13.u% Qhé Q23 Qt? Q52 Q18 Bar MSU College CWF Good Exam Ent. . Boards all Inst. Exam courses i» 110 Graph IIg. Breakdown of Question 13: A comparison of the percentage of students who think University College course wide finals count more than regular finals with percentage of students who think they count less. 100% 90 80 7O 6O 50 ELL-6% to 30 10 __g I 5.0% l University University College finals College finals count more count less VIII. GROUP IIA: EFFORT AND VALUE Group IIA. Correlational Analysis This group is concerned with questions which display attitudes concerned with the relation between the difficulty and the value of courses and those questions which express attitudes that University College courses or the course wide final are too easy to be of value. The following questions were all inter-correlated. Question 8. Have you found that you learned most in your (A5.) hardest courses? 1. Almost always 19.5% 2. Usually 3h.8% 3. Sometimes 32.6% h. Rarely 12.1% 5. Almost never 0.0% MD 1.1% Mean 2.37 SD 0.98 Correlations: lOas 11* 15 16 17* 18- 3h* h1- 52- 55 Question 15. Would you prefer more regular introductory (01.) courses, rather than some or all of the University College courses, for example, a year of Introductory English rather than ATL, or History of Civilization rather than Humanities? 1. Yes, very much so 2h.l% 2. Yes, probably 23.8% 3. No, probably not 31.9% A. No, not at all 1h.9% MD 5.1% Mean 2.39 SD 1.0h Correlations: h 8 12 1h- 16%* 22-** 31* 32** 33%% u8-* ug 51 55 et- 111 Question 16. (02.) 112 Do you think it would be a good idea to auto- matically waive University College courses for students majoring in the field which the University College course covers, for example, Natural Science 181 for biology majors or Social Science 233 for political science majors? 1. Excellent idea 58.9% 2. Good idea 26.6% 3. No opinion 2.5% A. Bad idea 8.9% 5. Very bad idea 2.56 MD 0.7% Mean 1.68 SD 1.05 Correlations: 8 10 15** 22 32 55* 60 In addition to the above three questions, Question 55 from Group II, "Course wide finals should be abandoned for better students", was correlated with all three of the questions. The following two questions were not correlated with the members of Group IIA but are discussed with the Group IIA correlations. Question 7. (Au.) How important is getting along with your teachers in getting good grades? 1. Very important 8.5% 2. Somewhat important hh.3% 3. Not very important 35.8% h. Not at all important 9.9% MD 1.5% Mean 2.M7 SD 0.80 Correlations: 27%* 28 60 113 Question 9. Do you feel you learn more from the textbooks (A6.) and other readings assigned in a course, or do you learn more from the instructor? 1. I almost always learn more from 17.h% the texts 2. I usually learn more from the h0.8% texts 3. I usually learn more from the 31.2% instructor h. I almost always learn more from 5.0% the instructor MD 5.7% Mean 2.2h SD 0.83 Correlations: 17- In contrast to the questions concerning the overall nqégxrits of waiving and acceleration, which one would expect ‘th Jvelate to the course wide final items but which did not, Glocpiip> IIA includes questions which one would not on the face mf .i.t expect to relate to the course wide final, but which do, JDELrhaps the most delightful of these "unexpected" Correla tea is Question 8, "Have you found that you learned most in your hardest courses?" In pre-testing the question- naire, LI: learned that many students felt that credits gained by acce leration were too easy to be worth much. Because of thhr 1: LITn. Question 7 did relate in the right direction to thme not correlated with, correlated with all others 125 Group III. Analysis of Means and Frequency Distributions In addition to the seven questions discussed in the correlation section, the following three questions are in- cluded in the discussion of means and frequency dis- tributions for Group III. Question 25. The 're waiving and acceleration the greatest y o , (E2a.) thing that's happened to me in college. 1. Agree strongly 13.15 2. Agree hh.0§ 3. Disagree 3h.8fi h. Disagree strongly 5.05 MD 3 . 2;; Mean 2.32 SD 0.79 Correlations: 5 27% h0- h3 h6% 62 Question 27. They [waiving and acceleration] added flex- (E20.) ibility to otherwise strict course requirements. 1. Agree strongly hl.lfl 2. Agree 50.7% 3. Disagree 5.3% h. Disagree strongly 1.1% MD 1 . 8% Mean 1.65 SD 0 . 6L; Correlations: 7%* 25% 28** 29-% h3r Question 39. Do you feel acceleration is more a matter of (G2.) new learning or demonstration of previous knowledge? 1. New learning 29.8; 5. Demonstration of previous knowledge 56.hfi MD 1 3 . 9;: Mean 3.61 SD 1.91 Correlations: 12- 28 36w 38- Sl-** Within Group III, there were some extremely negative at- titudes toward waiving and acceleration and the University College, and these negative statements received a sur- prising amount of agreement. 33.7% of the respondents agree that waiving and acceleration are useful only as a way out of dull courses (Q 26), 35.h% agree that the pur- pose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College (Q 32), and 31.2% agree that waiving and acceleration work only because University College courses are so easy (Q 33). In spite of these antagonistic attitudes, 57.1% of the respondents agreed "Waiving and acceleration is the greatest thing that's happened to me in college" (Q 25). When composing this question, I assumed that anyone who agreed with it would appreciate the intrinsic merits of the waiver and acceleration program, but in View of the re- sponses to other questions, I became suspicious of the high percentage agreeing with Question 25. What did the re- spondents mean when they agreed that waiving and accele- ration were the greatest? I had assumed that agreement with Question 25 would come about because the students felt that they had learned from the waiver and acceleration pro- gram, but was this the case? Question 28 asks for agree- ment or disagreement with the statement "Waiving and ac- celeration are a new and valuable way of learning." If the 57.1% of the respondents who agree that waiving and accele- ration are the greatest thing that's happened to them in college feel that way because they have learned from the program, then at least that high a percentage should agree ._-“: :. u b. .2 .‘u .c. As‘ ag- 127 that waiving and acceleration are new and valuable ways of learning. A comparison of the percentages agreeing with Question 25 and disagreeing with Question 28 shows that for, at least a fair sized percentage of the students, agreement with Question 25 does not imply acceptance of the intrinsic benefits of the waiver and acceleration program. Even with the reduction in respondents because of the missing data, Graph IIIa shows that at least 13.8% of the respondents agree that waiving and acceleration are the greatest thing that's happened to them in college (Q 25) but disagree that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning (Q 28). Do these students think waiving and acceleration are the greatest thing or greatest escape! Graphs IIIb and IIIc provide further support for the "greatest escape" interpretation. Graph IIIb shows that 2h.7% of the students both like waiving overall and feel that the purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College. Graph IIIc shows that 22% of the students both like waiving overall and feel that it is useful only as a way out of dull courses. Graphs IIId and IIIe provide still more support for the hypothesis that students see waiving and acceleration as a means of escape from what they regard as dull courses rather than as a new means of learning. Graph IIId shows that almost twice as many students regard acceleration as a 128 demonstration of previous knowledge as regard it as new learning. Graph IIIe shows that while only u0.1% agree that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable means of learning, 91.8% agree that waiving and acceleration added flexibility to strict course requirements. The agreeing strongly attitudes are even more striking for Graph IIIe. 129 Graph IIIa. A comparison showing that 13.8; of the respondents agree that Waiving and Acceleration is the greatest thing that has happened to them in college but disagree that Waiving and Acceleration is a new and valuable way of learning. Q28 disagree W&A new and valuable ’ way of learning 100% 0% 9O 10 80 2O 7O 3O 60 g 56.7% no .33b 50 OVER ‘ ’ SO (+0 57.1% 60 3O 7O 20 80 10 9O Q25 agree W&A greatest thing that has happened to them in college 130 Graph IIIb. Comparison showing overlap between those who like waiving and agree that the purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College. Qh3 waiving overall 100% 0% 80 20 7O 3O 60 L70 50 50 1&0 89.3% 60 3O 70 217.7" OV AP 20 80 10 90 35.11% Q32 purpose of waining and acceleration better served by abandoning UC L)‘ I ‘§ J.- 131 Graph IIIc. Overlap graph showing that 22.0% of the sampl 100% 90 80 70 60 50 to 30 20 10 both favor the waiver program overall (Qh3) a feel that waiving and acceleration are useful only as a way out of dull courses (Q26). Qh3 like waiving overall e nd 89.3% ’//////’ 22.0% ////,/r OVER 1/////,/ 33.7% Q26 agree waiving and acceleration useful only as a way out of dull courses 10 20 30 no 50 6O 7O 8O 9O . -- .m 7 ~51 A.-- . Q ‘2 t . n “’ KA J J M- 132 Graph IIId. Breakdown of Question 39: Comparing percentages of students who feel acceleration is more a matter of new learning with those who feel acceleration is more a matter of demonstration of previous knowledge. 100% 90 8O 7O 6O 56.8% 50 ac 3O 29.8% 20 10 Acceleration Acceleration more new more demonstration learning of previous knowledge ‘ V I?" at"? . ~ I . ' 4,...“ ..>¢V- . ”.4 .- avu‘. (W‘ "a )9 ‘VJ Graph IIIe. 133 A comparison of the percentages of students agreeing that "waiving and acceleration is a new and valuable way of learning" (Q28) and agreeing that "waiving and acceleration added flexibility to otherwise strict course requirements." (Q27). 100% 90 , 91.8% 80 7O 60 50 to 81.1% h0.l% agree strongly 3O 20 10 6.h% agree st. Q28 new and Q27 added valuable way of flexibility learning nu» . u a, . ._v .‘ c v . . . . . u .. o. s ”a .3 : Ada p.» P; 2. o . ._. y o p. u H. E. eh. . . ..~ ~-. 138 Extreme Responsesl Groups II and III had a number of questions which re- lated directly to the use of the course wide final for better students and to the purpose of waiving and accele- ration. In most cases, the responses showed a surprising rejection of the course wide final as a device for better students and for waiving and acceleration as a new means of learning. In Question h9, 65% of the students agreed that course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative student. In Question 55, h5% of the students agreed that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students. In Question 28, 57% of the students disagreed that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning. And in Question 32, 35% agreed that the purpose of waiving would be better served by abandoning the University College. Large as these rejecting percentages seem, they may still understate the extent of dislike. Each of these questions was a four alternative rather than a five alter- native question. The student could: (1) Agree strongly (2) Agree (3) Disagree (h) Disagree strongly. There was no indifferent point such as "Neither agree nor disagree". This forced choice technique was useful to get every student to express an opinion on these important issues, but it does mean that a student who is genuinely indifferent is still 1This analysis was suggested by Dr. Warrington J 135 forced to agree or disagree; and further, the use of fre- quency distributions makes no distinction at all between those who merely agree or disagree and those who do so strongly. To make full use of the data therefore, let us drop out the middle alternatives and contrast the percentages of those who agree strongly and disagree strongly with the above statements. In Question M9, 65.6% agreed that course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative student, while 32.3% disagreed. (The missing data is excluded from all these comparisons.) This is a 2:1 ratio of acceptance for this negative statement about the course wide final. Now what happens if we drOp the middle alternatives? We find that 15.2% agree strongly with Question h9 and only 2.5% disagree strongly. The ratio jumps from 2:1 to 6:1. In Question 55, we find that hh.5% agree course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College and h8.9% disagree, roughly a 1:1 ratio. However, if we again drop the middle alternatives, 16.2% agree strongly with Question 55 while only 8.5% disagree strongly and the ratio jumps to 2:1. In Question 28, 56.7% of the students disagreed that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning, while hO.l% agreed. This is a ratio of about 3:2. If we consider only the extreme alternatives, we find that 18.h% disagree strongly and only 6.h% agree strongly with G '\v'* In t) T .s 'v ".- "v. In (1' '1 I) In -.-~i . 136 Question 28; the ratio jumps to 3:1. Finally, consider Question 32, the purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College. Only a minority, although a sur- prisingly large one, agreed with this extremely negative item. 35.h% agreed and 61.7% disagreed with this question, so here at least a majority rejected the negative approach to waiving and acceleration by a ratio of about 1:2. But what happens when we consider only the extremes? 13.8% agree strongly with Question 32 and only 13.1% disagree strongly and the ratio changes from 1:2 to 1:1. In all four cases then, a consideration of only the extremes makes the responses more negative toward the course wide final as an evaluator for better students and for waiving and acceleration as a means of learning. This same pattern is repeated in other questions although I have confined the discussion to these four. This finding is supported by previous, more im- pressionistic evidence. In pre-testing students, I noted that those who were Opposed to the course wide final tended to be considerably more strident in their Opinions than those who were favorable to the course wide final. I am Lumure as to why this is so; perhaps the climate of Opinion toward the University College and course wide final is such that it is easier to be noisy about criticism than praise. Then again, this may be more of a restatement of the Phenomenon than an explanation. I ’..~.Q A 2.35“.“ ’9.- .. (2;.5. 1. .. 81‘"+1 .5 .‘VJ 8" a (5‘! vf‘ l-‘U X. GROUP IV: WAIVING AND ACCELERATION OVERALL EVALUATIONS Group IV. Correlational Analysis Question h3. How do you feel overall toward the waiver (Hl.) examination program of the University College? 1. Very favorable hh.3% 2. Favorable h5.0% 3. Indifferent h.3% h. Unfavorable 3.3% 5. Very unfavorable 0.7% MD Mean 1.66 SD 0.78 Correlations: 25 27* 30-** h2 hh** 60 78- Question h2. If comping became widespread in all courses at (G6.) MSU, what effect do you think this would have on academic standards? 1. Widespread comping would definitely 8.5% *raise academic standards 2. Widespread comping would probably h0.l% raise academic standards 3. Widespread comping would have no 2h.8% effect on academic standards 1 h. Widespread comping would probably l7.h% lower academic standards 5. Widespread comping would definitely 5.3% lower academic standards MD Mean 2.69 SD 1.05 Correlations: h3 hh%* 60%* 6h- 65 137 ‘1: I'J I! Question |. (H2.) Question 60. (F1.) 138 How do you feel overall toward the acceleration program of the University College? 1. Very favorable h0.8% 2. Favorable h5.0% 3. Indifferent h.3% h. Unfavorable 3.2% 5. Very unfavorable 0.7% MD Mean 1.7h SD 0.79 Correlations: 20- :3 30- 36—%* h2*% h3** h5- 0* Theoretically there is provision for credit by examination in all courses offered at MSU; in practice, acceleration of non-University College courses is exceedingly rare. Would you like to have a program set up to more easily comp non- University College courses? 1. Yes 86.9% 5. No 11.0% MD Mean l.hh SD 1.27 Correlations: 7 16* 23-* h2%* h3 hh% The inter-correlations of these questions show a consistency of attitudes toward waiving and acceleration in the abstract. Their lack of correlation with Group II shows once again the lack of relation between attitudes toward waiving and acceleration in the abstract and the course wide final and the University College. 6‘2, 4‘3 60 w 1110 Group IV. Analysis of Means and Frequency Distributions In addition to the four questions discussed in the correlation section, the following questions are included in the discussion of means and frequency distributions for Group IV. Question 61. (F1b.) Question 65. (Hh.) DO you think any changes would have to be made in the evaluation or testing procedures of most non- University College courses in order to comp them? Yes NO (If yes) Please specify Question 61 was coded according to the adequacy of the suggested changes the respondent pro- posed. See question by question analysis for fuller explanation. 1. Excellent h.6% 2. Good 6.0% 3. Fair 8.5% LL. Bad 1L102XD 5. Very bad 6t.2% MD Mean h.27 SD 1.21 Correlations: 59* 63% 65** Why do you think acceleration is largely confined to the University College? Question 65 was open-ended and was coded according to the adequacy of the student's response. The better responses were those which said or implied something about the course wide final. There was no missing data because "no answer" was coded as 5. 1. Excellent h.6% 2. Good 7.8% 3. Fair 14.9% 8. Bad h6.5% 5. Very bad 20.9% MD 0.0 Mean 3.73 SD 1.09 Correlations: h2 57 61** 63* Y‘, (a. ." ,-o~ a" J. '. q v .H.A . . ._. «(v I .- «\i {-4 lhl Almost everyone liked waiving and acceleration overall, 89% for waiving and 86% for acceleration. Yet, as has been sug- gested in the discussion for the earlier Groups, this liking for waiving and acceleration may be for many an appreciation of the negative benefits of the programs, the ability of them to enable the student to avoid University College courses. Students appear to be much less appreciative of the intrinsic or positive benefits of the waiving and ac- celeration programs, the opportunity for a new means of learning. Thus we see that merely knowing that someone likes something in the abstract does not tell us why he likes it or whether he will accept particular concrete ap- plications of that which he professes to like. Consider the following example:1 Opinion Do you believe in freedom of speech? Yes 97% No 1% Don't know 2% (If yes) Do you believe in it to the Yes 23% extent of allowing Fascists and Com- NO 72% munists to hold meetings and express NO Opinion 5% their views in this community? Nearly everyone believes in freedom of speech as long as those holding Opposite views are not allowed to speak. Nearly everyone likes waiving and acceleration as long as he isn't asked to accept it as more than a means of escape from lCantril, Hadley, Gauging Public Opinion. (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University, l9hh), p. 22, citing Broom, Leonard and Selznick, Philip, Sociology, 3rd Edition. (New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1963), p. 281. lh2 University College courses. Overlap graph IVa shows that the liking for waiving does not spill over into the course wide final for many students; 33.9% of the students liked waiving overall but felt the course wide final should be abandoned for better students in the University College. Nor does liking for acceleration overall create favorable opinions of the course wide final. Graph IVb shows that 23.8% of the students liked the acceleration program overall but chose unfavorable statements in evaluating the course wide final overall. Part of the reason for the anomalous overlap graphs and the lack of relation between attitudes toward waiving and acceleration overall and the course wide final is shown in Graphs IVc and IVd. In IVc we see that over seven times as many students are in favor of the acceleration program overall as have an adequate idea of its relation to the course wide final. In IVd we see that over eight times as many students would like to see an acceleration program set up for non-University College courses as have an adequate idea of the requirements for such a program, the require- ment being, of course, a program of independent evaluation. The relation of acceleration to the course wide final is discussed further in Group VI. fan “ . .‘p' Graph IVa. 100% 90 80 70 60 50 no 30 20 10 1&3 Comparison of percentages wishing abandonment of CWF and who like waiving overall showing minimum overlap. Qh3 like waiving 89.3% uh.6% 10 20 30 to 50 60 70 80 90 o. Q55 abandon CWF 'A 1&8 Graph IVb. Overlap Graph showing that 23.8% of the students both like acceleration overall (th) and choose statements unfavorable to the course wide final overall (Q12). th like acceleration 100% overall 0% 9O 10 8O 20 7O 30 60 MO 50 50 to 85.8% 60 3O 70 2O 8O 10 38'O% 90 ‘— fli_ Q12 dislike course wide final overall --——-' “flu-4'.- a v. . 1 . 4 Au; a; c d .i/ at. n/s r“ s .U 1&5 Graph IVc. Percentage of students favorable overall to acceleration compared with percentage who have adequate idea of relation of acceleration to CWF. 100% 90 8 .85!) 80 5 / 7O 60 50 MO 30 2O 10 12.0% th like Q65 acceleration understand relation to CWF .‘.' It ' Ho; JV lQ6 Graph IVd. Comparison of the percentage of students who would like to see a program set up to accelerate non University College courses (Q60) and the percentage of students who have a reasonably adequate idea of what would be required to set up such a program (Q61). 100% 90 86 .9726 80 7O 60 50 no 30 20 10 L 10.6% Q60 want Q61 have program adequate idea of requirements Question 58. (07.) Question 72. (Obtained from OES records.) XI. GROUP V: MEASURES OF ABILITY Group V. Correlational Analysis What was your high school grade point average? (Please specify if other than u.OO = Ail The answers to this question were grouped as follows: 1. u.oo-3.80 36.9% 6. 2.99-2.80 3.9% 2. 3.79-3.60 16.2% 7. 2.79-2.6o 2.8g 3. 3.59-3.60 11.7% 8. 2.59-2.u0 2.1» u. 3.39-3.20 11.0% 9. 2.39 and , 5. 3.19-3.00 7.6% below 0.66 MD 9.6% Mean 2.70 SD 1.95 Correlations: 17 23 2h%* 51* Su- 6h 68— 70%* 71-% 72** 73—*a 76** 77-** 79** 80-*a MSU overall grade point average. Grouped exactly like the high school grades. 1. 7.8% 1 2. 9.6% 30 12.8/6 S. 11.3% MD 16.7% Mean H-37 SD 2.1M Correlations: 21% 2h% 28 58%% 6k% 67 68-* 70%* 71-% 73**a 7h 76%*a 79** 0 / \0 CON 0\ C O . . PM C‘b.) Vflflfiibf E\\§x\o ( 1&7 Question 73. (Obtained from Q58 and Q72.) Question 76. (Obtained from OES records.) Question 79. (Obtained from OES records.) 118 High school - college difference in grade point average. The number recorded in Question 72 (MSU GPA) was subtracted from the number recorded in Question 58 (high school GPA). High MSU low HS 1. +h or more 1.8% 6. -1 12.8% 2. +3 0.7% 7. —2 17.0% 3. +2 3.2% 8. -3 9.9% 8. +1 3.2% 9. -h or more 13.5% S. O 18.5% Low MSU high HS MD 23.8% Mean 6.h0 SD 1.98 Correlations: 33* 36* 58-*a 67* 68- 7O 72**a 76%a 77 80%%a University College courses grade point average. Grouped exactly like the high school grades in Question 58. 1. 28.1% 6. 1.8% 2. 18.9% 7. 2.5% 3. 18.9% 8. 1.8% A. 12.1% 9. 1.8% S. 6.8% MD 20.6% Mean 2.90 SD 1.98 Correlations: 2h 58%% 6h 67%* 68- 69-*a 70** 71-** 72**a 73*a 78- 79** 80* Percentile ranking for the overall score on the College Qualification Test. 1. 99 percentile 1h.9% 2. 98-96 percentile 22.0% 3. 95-93 percentile 13.1% M. 92-90 percentile 6.8% 5. 89-86 percentile 9.6% 6. 85-81 percentile 5.0% 7. 80-76 percentile 6.0% 8. 75-70 percentile 2.8% 9. 69 percentile and below 11.0% MD 9.2% Mean 3.99 SD 2.67 Correlations: 2h%* 35- 58** 66-** 67 68—%* 70** 71-** 72** 7h-* 76*% 78-*% 80-::--::-a 1&9 The preceding five items were all perfectly intercorrelated, but it should be noted that several of these correlations were artifactual; for example, the correlation between MSU GPA (Q72) and University College GPA (Q76). These artifac- H tual correlations are marked with an "a . The next three items were correlated with all but one of the preceding five items. Question 2h. when was this? [fihen the student first learned (Elb.) about waiving and acceleration:] 1. Before entering MSU 68.8% 2. First term at MSU 19.5% 3. Second term at MSU 6.7% 8. Later 3.5% MD 1.8% Mean 1.h5 SD 0.81 Correlations: 35-*% 58%% 6h 66- 72* 76 79%% (Correlated with all of basic five except Question 73.) Question 67. Number of waivers failed. (Obtained from OES 1. 62.1% records.) 2. 1h. % 35 2087/9] 8. 0.7/'6 5. 0.0% MD 13.8% Mean 0.83 SD 0.88 Correlations: 3h 49- 66%*a 72 73* 76** 79 Question 80. College Qualification Test - high School Grade (Obtained Point Average Difference Score. The number from OES recorded for Question 79 (CQT total score) was records.) subtracted from the number recorded in Question 58 (high school GPA). 150 High CQT low HS 1. +h or more 3.25 6. -1 18.1% 2. +3 1.8% 7. -2 9.6g 3. +2 8.35 8. -3 5.33 h. +1 7.h% 9. -h or more 17.0% 5 . O 12.1. 976 Low CQT high HS MD 18.8% Mean 5.91 SD 2.32 Correlations: SO 58-*a 66- 68- 70** 71- 73*Ma 76% 77* 78- 79**a (Correlated with all but Q72.) Many of the items in this group are artifactual and thus not very exciting. Yet Group V contains some unexpected items. Questions 73 and 80 were not intended as measures of ability, but because students did so much better on their high school grades than on their MSU grades or CQT scores, the two items turned into measures of ability. For example, if a student were at the top on both high school grades and MSU grades, he received a five, which should have put him at the mean. However, because the mean for Question 73 was 6.8, ability became confounded with doing better in college than high school. The questions could have been recoded, but in view of the failure of other demographic questions to relate better to attitudinal data, I did not think it worthwhile. I had hoped that those who did relatively better on college grades and CQT scores than on high school grades would be more favorable toward the course wide final. Yet even had Questions 73 and 80 been corrected I'm still not at all sure that they would have picked up these cor- I%1ations, since Question 69, the number of successful accelerations, failed to relate to any attitudinal data. 151 In general, success with waiving and acceleration was no more related to attitudes toward the course wide final than were overall attitudes toward waiving and acceleration re- lated to attitudes toward the course wide final. Another somewhat surprising inclusion in Group V was Question 2h, which showed when the student learned about waiving and acceleration. The reason for the inclusion of this question seems to be that more pains are taken to inform high ability students of the waiver and acceleration program through pre-enrollment counseling and so on. Question 68, number of waivers with special per- mission the student chose not to accelerate, and Question 70, number of University College courses enrolled in, were also related to all of the basic five questions for Group V, but they seemed better included in Group VI. Question 67, number of waivers failed, was included in Group V how- ever, and was a fairly good ability measure, correlating with four of the five basic items. The more waivers the student failed the less likely he was to have high ability on fine other measures. 152 Group V Chart — — -- artifactual 1- 1L! 153 The Sweetest Correlation Were I forced to choose my favorite relationship out of the hundreds I found, I should pick the relation be- tween Question h9 and Question 67. This is only at the .05 level of significance and in view of Question 67's ability to relate to only one other attitudinal variable, may be partly due to chance, but I prefer to think other- wise. What does this relationship say? Question 67 recorded how many waiver examinations the student failed and Question h9 asked for disagreement with the statement "Course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative student." The relationship ran in such a direction that the more waivers a student failed, the more likely he was to agree that course wide finals reward conformity and penalize creativity. I am sure that these "creative" students would enjoy Banesh Hoffman's The Tyranny 3: Testing.1 1 See Chapter XV, "Concretism". 15M Sex, Attitudes, and Ability Question 77. Sex (Obtained from OES 1. Male 62.0% records.) 5. Female 35.8% MD* 2.2; Mean 2.h6 SD 1.93 Correlations: h7 h8 52* 58-%* 73 80* The findings in regard to sex differences in performance on course wide finals versus regular evaluation are those that I had hoped to find in regard to the relation between course wide final performance and attitude toward inde- pendent evaluation. Women received higher high school grades and were more likely to have their grades go down as they entered college. In addition, their entrance exam scores were more likely to be poorer vis-a-vis their high school grades than were those of males. (Correlations with Questions 58, 73 and 80) In attitudes, women were more likely to prefer high school grades to college boards as college entrance criteria (Q h7), were less likely to agree course wide finals are a fairer means of grading (Q h8), and were less likely to agree that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU (Q 52). Question 77 did not have a large number of correlations, nor were they impressively high, but in their consistency and their ability to relate attitudes and differential performance, they make Question 77 stand alone among the demographic data. *Missing data was from students with ambiguous first names and for whom the student directory supplied no information. 155 These findings support other studies of University College grading which have shown that women are more likely to receive higher instructor grades than course wide final grades as compared to men. So the correlations certainly make sense, but why then was the number of successful accelerations (Q 69) unable to correlate with any attitudinal data at all? Group V. Analysis of Means and Frequency Distributions The means and frequency distributions for Group V show that the sample of acceleration eligible students is indeed a high ability group. However, they were able to do considerably better in high school and the University College courses than they were in MSU courses as a whole. Graph Va presents a comparison of the percentages of high grades in these three areas. As mentioned before, this considerably better per- formance in high school created problems for Question 73 which became a simple measure of ability rather than a measure of differential ability in high school and college. Graph Vb shows the percentages of students with higher high school and higier MSU grades. Clearly the student who im- proved his grades from high school to college was unusual. Question 2h asked when students first learned of the waiver and acceleration program. The percentage of 87.9 who learned of waiving and acceleration during their first term at MSU or earlier indicates that the University College is doing a good job of publicizing the existence of waiving and acceleration. Nevertheless, while students know of waiving and acceleration, they do not understand its relation to the course wide final. Graph Vc presents this information gap. How successful were the students overall in their waiving efforts? Graph Vd presents some of the relevant 157 / variables here. The average student attempted 3.h1 waivers, failed 0.h3 and was able to waive with special permission 1.77 times. Thus, in fewer than one out of eight times, the student was unsuccessful in his efforts to waive and in slightly more than half the times, he was able to waive with special permission. Further comparisons of the students' successes on the waiver program are presented in Group VI. 158 Graph Va. A comparison showing the percentages of students with high school, University College and MSU grade point averages of 3.60 and above. 100% 90 8O 7O 6O 50 51.1% no 39.0% 30 20 I 17.u% 10 Q58 high Q76 Q72 school University Michigan GPA's College State GPA's GPA's ——-—-—n——L_—_—.—I-- a.» Q» -l «(J 159 Graph Vb. Breakdown of Question 73: A comparison of the percentages of students with higher high school and higher MSU grades. (Students with equal grades excluded) 100% 90 8O 7O 6O 50 53.2% no 30 2O 10 8.9% Higher MSU Higher high grades school grades Graph V0. 100% 90 80 7O 60 50 hO 3O 20 10 160 Information Gap: A comparison of the percentage of students who learn of waiving and acceleration their first term or earlier at MSU and the percentage of students who know why acceleration is confined to the University College. 87.9% 12.0% Q2h Q65 161 Graph Vd. A comparison of the mean number of waivers attempted, waivers failed and waivers with special permission per respondent. 3.5 3.hl 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 J l Q66 waiver Q67 failed Q71 waivers attempts waivers with special permission 0. § A... . 162 The Second Chance Question Although it had quite a number of correlations, Question 6h failed to fit into any of the regular groups neatly. I have rather arbitrarily assinged it to Group V. Question 6h. Are there any University College courses that (Gh.) you enrolled in that you would attempt to waive and/or comp if you had it to do over again? 1. Yes (If yes) please Specify course(s) and term(s). 5. No This question was coded by recording the number of courses listed each term counting as a separate course. "No" was coded zero. 0 33.3% S 1.8% 1 20.6% 6 2.8% 2 16.0% 7 0.7% 3 1h.96 8 or more 3.2% ’4 u. 3% MD 2 . 9% Mean 1.71 SD 1.96 Correlations: 5 15- 2h 32- h1** h2- 55- 58 72* 76 The graphic analysis of Question 6h shows that if given a second chance a majority of the students would indeed waive or accelerate more courses than they did. Nearly two- thirds of the students wished they had waived or accelerated one or more extra courses. Even more interesting about Question 6h are the correlations and the direction in which they ran. Wanting to have waived or accelerated more courses was not associated with liking the waiver and acceleration programs. Instead it was associated with a dislike for the University College and the course wide final. Specifically, ._.—.1 163 wanting to have waived or accelerated more courses was associated with: l. Wanting more regular introductory courses in place of the University College courses (Q 15). 2. Feeling the purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the Univer- sity College. 3. Not wanting students in University College honors sections to take the course wide final (Q Ml). h. Wanting to abandon course wide finals for better students in the University College (Q 55). Once again we see that waiving and acceleration are viewed by a majority of the students as escapes from unwanted courses, not as new Opportunities for learning. Graph Ve presents a comparison of the relative per- centages of students who wished they had waived or ac- celerated more courses and those who did not. QAA" -d- (In ’4 —J (g) 16h Graph Ve. Analysis of Question 6h: A comparison of the percentage of students who do not wish that they had waived or accelerated one or more courses and the percentage who do wish that they had waived one or more courses. 100% 90 80 7O 60 63.9% 50 AO 30 33.3% 2O 10 Would not waive Would waive or or accelerate accelerate one or any more courses more extra courses if had it to do if had it to do over again over again ‘1. 'n¢ 165 The Hypothesis That Didn't Work Part of the hOpe in the writing of this dissertation was the identification of differential ability characteris— tics of respondents and the relating of these ability characteristics to the attitudinal data. Question 73 was designed to measure the student's relative performance in high school and MSU, while Question 80 compared high school grades and MSU Entrance Exam scores. In both cases I had hoped that students who did better in college and on MSU Entrance Exams would be more favorable toward independent evaluation. My reasoning here was that the problems of instructor centered grading are at their worst in the high school. I had the greatest hOpes for Question 80 since MSU Entrance Exams are clearly closer to independent evaluation than are MSU Grade Point Averages. Neither question, how- ever, was at all effective. Part of the reason for this was a difficulty in scaling; since high school grades were higher than MSU grades and MSU Entrance Exam scores, higher ability in college and higher ability on MSU Entrance Exams became simply higher ability.2 While these flaws in the scales could have been cor- rected, I did not do so because of the general failure of the other demographic data to relate to attitudinal items. Perhaps it was because the student group was truncated at the lower ranges of ability, or perhaps it was because of 2See Questions 73 and 80 in Question by Question Analysis for complete explanation. 166 the lack of knowledge of the relation between waiving and acceleration and the course wide final, but in any case, none of the demographic items was truly effective. For Question 69, number of successful accelerations, there were no attitudinal correlates, and it was impossible to identify students who were favorable toward the course wide final by simple inspection of the demographic records. XII. GROUP VI: WAIVING AND AS 1)::II";OL}71APHIC I‘lEAflHiES CELEHA “ i'I 1N Group VI. Correlational Analysis The following six questions were all intercorrelated, although most of these correlations were artifactual. Question 66. (Obtained from OES records.) Question 68. (Obtained from OES records.) Question 69. (Obtained from OES records.) Number of waiver examinations attempted. 0 6.73 5 1a. 53 1 10.63 6 9.63 2 17.73 7 3.23 3 11.3% 8 or more 3.25 M 10.33 MD 12.83 Mean 3.hl SD 2.13 Correlations: 2h- 293 3h33 35 us— 67333 68:‘: 3a 69% a 70-3 78 3a 79-3 80- u u u ' u u . .- ’- C - C. C n a n n a n n a Number of University College courses waived with special permission which the student did not choose to attempt to accelerate. This category does not include acceleration exam- inations which_ were failed. 0 5M.35 b 0. 75 1 19.13 6 0. M5 2 5.73 7 0.1175 3 3.23 8 or more 0. 03 u 2.13 MD lh.2% Mean 0.63 SD 1.17 Correlations: uh h5-m 58- 663- 3a 69-33a 70--x a 7I3- x—a 72-3 73- 76- 7833a 79-+3X- 80- Number of successful accelerations. This figure is practically identical with the number of acceleration exams attempted so the latter figure is not reported. 167 168 0 29.113 5 2.5: 1 30.1/« 63 0.11: 2 16.33 7 0.05 3 .03 8 or more 0.03 A 2.85 MD 13.53 Mean 1.18 SD 1.27 r‘! ‘ _‘ u u u \a l \r \r u ., Correlat1ons : 6633a 68-33a 70-33a 7133a 76-3a 7833a Question 70. Number of University College courses enrolled (Obtained in. Previous categories were not grouped from 0E3 because there were so few over eight. Cate- records.) gories for Question 70 were grouped as follows: Actual Number Recorded As 0 0 1-2 1 3-u 2 5-6 3 7-8 A 9-10 5 11-12 6 0 2.83 M 19.53 1 6.M3 5 16.33 2 16.33 6 7.83 3 11.7% MD 19.23 Mean 3.h1 SD 1.67 Correlations: 11 29- 38 u533 51 55 5833 66-33a 68-33 69-333 71-33a 7233 73 7u-3a 7633a 78-33a 7933 803* Question 71. Number of University College courses waived (Obtained with special permission both with and without from CBS acceleration. records.) 0 11.73 S 3.93 1 311. 03 6 1 . 13 2 20.23 7 0.73 3 7.1% 8 or more 0.0% u 7.1% Question 78. (Obtained from DES records.) 169 TD 11} . 297; IWe an 1.77 so 1 .LL9 Cor relations: 29 3h LB- 57 58-* 66% 6 x 69% :-a 70-* xa 72-* 76-~: 70 *%a 79-** 50- Number of University College courses both waived only and waived with special permission. 0 8.2a S 11.7p 1 lu.5; 6 6. o; 2 16 . I]; 7 2. 8:) 3 1h.“3 8 or more 1.1% L}- 909/) Ml) 1h . 5’ 1’, Mean 2.91 SD 2.02 Correlations: ') 3h 35 h3- h5- 66%*a 69**a 69- a 70-% X-a 7l*- xa 7h%%a 76- 79-:399 80- The following three questions correlated with four or five of the basic six items of Group VI. Question 29. (E2e.) Question 3h. (F2.) They [fiaiving and acceleration] may be all right for some peoole but not for me. 1. Agree strongly O.L,é 2. Agree 3.5% 3. Disagree 52.1p u. Disagree strongly h2.o% MD 1.5% Mean 3.38 SD 0.61 Correlations: 27-* 31 3h 66% 70- 71 7h 78% (Correlated with all but C 69) Do you feel that students who have waived with special permission should be required to meet some Departmental standards for acceleration as do students who are recommended by their instructors for acceleration? 1. Yes 22.0% S. No 72.7; .4 fly ,A “ ix ‘xa 170 BID 5 .151 Mean h.06 SD 1.71 Correlations: 9? 10 29 30*% 31 66*% 67 71 7h r] ‘\ (Correlated with all but Q's 69 and 70) Question MS. Which privilege do you feel is the mire im- (H3.) portant -— waiving or acceleration? l. Waiving is definitely more 23.85 important 2. Waiving is probably more no.5t important 0 ..' 3. Acceleration is orobably 23.hm more important A. Acceleration is definitely 7.u% more important le [ix/9% Kean 2.1M so 0.89 Correlations: 51 52-* SS 66- 68 7O 7]- 78- (Correlated with all but Q 69) Correlations for practically all of the basic six items for Group VI are to a greater or lesser extent arti- factual. All refer to waiving and acceleration of University College courses except Question 70 which has a backhanded reference, since courses enrolled in cannot be waived or ac- celerated. There are very few attitudinal correlations with this set of demographic data, especially in the case of Question 69 which has no attitudinal correlates at all. The overall evaluation for acceleration (Q uh) does corre— late with waivers with special permission not accelerated (Q 68), which certainly makes sense, since someone who didn't even bother to attempt acceleration when qualified must certainly have a low Opinion of acceleration. However, overall favorableness toward acceleration does not correlate fl. 9.; iv fly A V- p... v.4- 171 with the number of successful accelerations, nor did over- all favorableness toward the waiver program (Q A3) correlate with any of the waiver demographic questions except (Q 78). Question ME, which asked for preference for waiving or acceleration, does correlate with all the waiving and ac- celeration questions except Question 69. This may be be- cause there was more variance in the answers to Question MS than the highly favorably skewed answers to Questions M3 and uh. Note that enrollment in more University College courses (Q 70) was associated with a preference for ac- celeration over waiving. Question 70 was also the only one of the demographic questions in this group to have any correlates with Group II. This is entirely consistent with our earlier findings that it is the University College and not waiving and acceleration with which the course wide final is seen as being associated. Enrollment in more University College courses is at least partially a kind of liking for Use University College (although it is also a negative ability measure; see Group V), and the more courses a student enrolled in, the more likely he was to like cer- tain aspects of the course wide final. Waiving more courses was also associated with a dislike for restrictions on ac- celeration for students who waive with special permission (Q 3k) and logically enough with npt feeling that "waiving and acceleration are not for me" (Q 29). 172 Group VI Chart L)\/ /I \/ l \\7‘\// \\ \ | /\ /)( \/ \ 173 Group VI. Analysis of heans and Frequency Distributions In addition to the ten questions discussed in the correlation section, the following three items are included in the discussion of means and frequency distributions. Question 62. (Flc.) Question 7h. (Obtained from OES records.) Have you ever attempted to comp a non-University College course? 1. Yes (If yes) What courses and were you successful? 5. lflo Question 62 was coded by recording the number of acceleration attempts the student recorded. There were so few attempts, no effort was made to differentiate successful and unsuccessful attempts. "No" was recorded as zero. 0 91.1% 1 my; 2 1.8/'23 3 0.0% MD 2.9% Mean 0.08 so 0.35 Correlation: 25 Number of University College courses waived only, does not include courses waived with special permission. 0 30.5% S 2.5% 1 22.3% 6 o.u% 2 1A . 9;»: 7 o . 052% 3 7.h% 8 or more O.h% A 7.1% MD in.tjjré Mean 1.36 SD 1 . 51 Correlations: 2Q-% 29 3h 35 66**a 70-*a 72 753 7863-22-3 79,; s-w «I» .L. .«4 a: .. u fix.» \I I :v “in. 17A Question 75. Year in college as of December, 1966. (Obtained from OES Freshman 0.0% records.) Sophomore 13.8% Junior h0.8% Senior 36.5% Graduate 1.8% MD 7.1% Mean 3.26 SD 0.76 Correlation: 7ha In View of the lack of knowledge among the respondents of the relation between waiving and acceleration and the course wide final, it might be instructive to check to just what extent acceleration is confined to the University College. Data are extremely hard to find here, since the Registrar's office ordinarily makes no distinction on stu- dent transcripts as to how credit was obtained. This is apparently done so that other Universities do not dis- criminate against credits earned by examination, which is an interesting sidelight in itself. Warrington and Mayhewl report that while Michigan State has long had a policy of granting credit by examina- tion for any course in the catalogue, the policy has been little implemented outside the University College. In the period 19h9-l950 less than 0.2% of the students received credit by examination outside the University College. By contrast, at the time Warrington and Mayhew wrote (1958) n.5% of the credits earned in the University College were lWarrington, Willard G. and Mayhew, Louis B., "On the Credit Side," Dressel Evaluation $3 the Basic College. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1938), p. 155} In 175 credits by examination. However, even at this time there was a downward trend in acceleration partly due to the then recent increase in requirements from a "C" to a "B" for successful acceleration. I should add that Warrington's article predates the inception of the waiver program, and so has nothing to say about this. My data emphatically coincides with the data of Warrington and Mayhew. Graph VIa compares the mean number of successful University College accelerations per student (Q 69) with the mean number of non-University College accele- ration attempts per student, as reported on the questionnaire in Question 62. There were 1.18 successful accelerations per student in University College courses compared to 0.08 acceleration attempts per student in non-University College courses, or over fourteen times as many in University College courses as in non-University College courses. Since we are comparing successful accelerations with accele- ration attempts, the difference may actually be understated. There is of course a problem of bias here, since the student respondent sample was defined as one which is acceleration eligible for University College courses. Nonetheless, if non-University College acceleration were at all common, one would certainly expect to find more than 0.08 attempts per student for a group of h1g1 ability students. However, where acceleration is readily available, stu- dents do not evince a great readiness to take advantage of the privilege as is shown in Graph VIb. Here we note that 176 there were over half as many courses which students could have accelerated, but ghggg not to, as there were courses which the students did in fact accelerate. Perhaps I should note again here that accelerations attempted and successful accelerations are practically synonymous, since the requirements for attempting acceleration are more stringent than the requirements for receiving credit on the exam. For example, waiving with special permission re- quires the equivalent of "A" level performance on the waiver, while only "B" level performance is required on the course wide final to receive credit. Graph VIc presents a comparison of the waiver data (Q 78), acceleration data (Q 69), and courses enrolled in data (Q 70), Which reveals that students are avoiding enrollment in University College courses by means other than the waiver program. Question 78 shows that a little less than three courses per student were waived or waived with special permission; we cannot simply add the 1.18 courses per student which Question 69 shows were accele- rated since most of the accelerations came from the waiver program and these are already counted in Question 78. However, Question 75 shows that while there were no fresh- men in the sample, 13.8% of the sample were SOphomores and presumably would have one or two University College courses to enroll in yet; let us therefore add one to the three we got in Question 78 to be on the safe side. This gives us then an average of four courses per student which the - . . .. .s i .. r_ v . . . I. u! 2. . . .. . n... :. .4 .t W J , J ' . p.‘ - ‘ . . .3 .. v v by » r1» .§ M .5 .- _ Y . p... \ v .4 ‘1‘ 9:1 ..\~ . . U , . n . a T C . _. _ y . . 177 student waived, accelerated, or has yet to enroll in. The four courses probably overstate the actual number. Number 70 shows that there was an average of 3.hl courses enrolled in per student, and, added to the four courses we allowed for waiving and so on, this makes a total of 7.81 per student. Yet there are twelve University College courses, which leaves an average of over h.5 courses per student un- accounted for. I do not have data on transfer students, but in coding the student transcripts I noted relatively few transfer students. Instead, I noted transfers to the Honors College which automatically exempts the student from further University College courses. Question 72 shows that over 30% of the students had MSU GPA's of 3.h and over, and while the Honors College nominally requires a 3.5 average, we may assume that most of these 30% have avoided University College courses via this route. I shall return to this point in interpreting the results in Chapter XV. As a further measure of the weakness of acceleration vis-a-vis waiving, Graph VId splits the responses for Question AS and shows that more than twice as many students think waiving is more important than acceleration than think that acceleration is more important than waiving. Finally, Graph VIe presents a measure of the differential success of the respondents on the waiver pro- gram. Compared to an unselected group of waiver appli- cants, they were nearly four times as likely to waive with special permission. 178 Graph VIa. Comparison of University College and Non University College accelerations per student. No. of courses per student in tenths 1.5 1.11 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.18 1.0 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .LL .3 .2 .1 _ [-073 l Q62 Non Q69 University University College College Accelerations Accelerations 179 Graph VIb. Comparison of mean number of waivers with special permission which the student chose not to accelerate and mean number of accelerations per student. Scale is graduated in tenths of courses per student l.u0 1.30 1.20 1.18 accelerations per student 1.10 1.00 .90 .80 .60 0.63 WSP's without '50 acceleration Q68 WSP's without Q69 Mean number acceleration of accelerations attempts per student Graph Scale units Univ. 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 300 2.0 1.0 180 VIc. Missing courses: Graph showing that of the 12 University College courses per student, u.6 were not enrolled or written off by the Independent Study program. graduated in number of Cell. courses u.6 courses per student neither waived, accelerated, enrolled in or yet to be enrolled in 3.u courses per student enrolled in h.0 courses per student waived, accelerated or yet to be enrolled in fin \‘V 181 Graph VId. A comparison of the percentages who feel waiving more important with the percentages who feel acceleration is more important. 100% 90 80 7O 6u.6% 60 50 110 30 30.8% 20 10 Waiving more Acceleration important more important I QALS 182 Graph VIe. Comparison of the performance of students in general on the waiver and the students used in the questionnaire. 100% 90 80 7O 60 50 51.9% to 30 20 13.3% 10 All students Respondents attempting for the waivers questionnaire Spring, 1967 V‘- . s.‘ E I w . y m V f ‘u . h: . H 1.. 5C n5. . I f 1:. XIII. STUDENT, FACULTY, AND EXAMINER COMPARISONS These three groups were compared on a very unsophis- ticated basis since the faculty group numbered only twenty- four and the examiner “means" were derived from talking to roughly ten to twelve members of the Office of Evaluation Services and determining that anyone who was involved in the preparation of the course wide final and the administration of the acceleration program would have to be favorable toward the course wide final and the intrinsic benefits of waiving and acceleration. In a sense then, the examiner "means" represent an ideal or logical type rather than an empirical portrait, although every examiner I talked to answered the questions as reported. In any case, where there is any question, I have reported examiner answers as falling within a certain range rather than a single figure. Once again I must remind the reader that these data must be interpreted with caution, however, as we shall see, the very coherence and logic of the picture which emerges lends credence to the data. The means were compared for each question, and the questions were divided into four groups on the basis of which mean diverged from the other two. The four groups were divided as follows: 183 18H I. Consensus Group. This group included all those cases where there was less than a one unit difference between the two most divergent means. II. Examiner Divergent Group. This group included those cases where the student and faculty means were less than one-half unit apart and at least one of them was more than one unit from the examiner mean. III. Faculty Divergent Group. This group included all cases where the conditions of Groups I and II were not met and those where the student means were closer to the examiner means than were the faculty means. IV. Student Divergent Group. This group included all cases where the conditions of Groups I and II were not met and those where the faculty means were closer to the examiner means than were the student ‘ means. These somewhat unusual definitions were employed to insure mutually exclusive and inclusive groups. There were no questions which were asked of the faculty and examiners which were not used on the Student Questionnaire. There were, however, a number of questions on the student ques- tionnaire which were not asked of the faculty; therefore, the number of questions used in the Student, Faculty, and Examiner Comparisons is smaller than that used in the analysis of the Student Questionnaires. Question 5. Question 6. Question 35. Question A3. Group I: Consensus Others feel NSU's very size provides freedoms no smaller institutien could offer. Do you: 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree 3. Neither agree nor disagree h. Disagree 5. Disagree strongly Students 1.95 Faculty 2.15 Examiners 1 or 2 What is your overall feeling toward MSU? I like it very much . I like it . I'm indifferent toward it frunwrd I dislike it 5 I dislike it very much Students 1.93 Faculty 1.86 Examiners l or 2 Do you feel it is a good idea to let any student attempt a waiver or that some reason- able standards should be set such as a 2.00 GPA 1. Set some reasonable standards 5. Let any student attempt a waiver Students u.23 Faculty h.0h Examiners How do you feel overall toward the waiver examination program of the University College? . Very favorable . Favorable . Indifferent . Unfavorable . Very unfavorable 014?me Students 1.66 Faculty 1.90 Examiners 1 ~‘ Va' Question MM. Question M6. Question M7. Question 53. 186 How do you feel overall toward the acceleration program of the University College? 1. Very favorable 2. Favorable 3. Indifferent M. Unfavorable 5. Very unfavorable Students 1.7M Faculty 1.90 Examiners 1 Should all Law School graduates be allowed and be required to take the Bar Exam to become a lawyer? (See Question by Question Analysis for complete item) 1. Yes, allow everyone and require everyone to take exam 5. No. Present system is better Students 1.52 Faculty 1.93 Examiners 1 John has high College Board scores; Robert has high high school grades. Who should be ad- mitted to college? (See Question by Question Analysis for complete item) 1. Definitely John 2. Probably John 3. Probably Robert M. Definitely Robert Students 2.M9 Faculty 2.15 Examiners l or 2 Course wide finals make an instructor's job harder. I. Agree strongly 2. Agree 3. Disagree M. Disagree strongly Students 2.73 Faculty 2.80 Examiners 3 or M (ll ‘4 11" u) 5‘ u‘. h t a. (v' .9 187 The Consensus Group was the least interesting of the four groups. All three groups liked MSU (Q's S and 6). This is to be expected since all three groups have volun- tarily chosen to associate themselves with MSU. All three groups liked the waiver and acceleration programs overall (Q's M3 and MM) and all three opposed setting limitations on the attempting of waivers (Q 35). Yet here we do encounter some interesting differences. The faculty are in favor of the waiver program overall and the acceleration overall just as the students and examiners are, and the faculty are opposed to limitations on waiving just as the students and examiners are. However, if we look at Questions 3M and 36 which suggest making the requirements for acceleration more stringent, we note that they fall not in the consensus group but in Group III, the faculty devergent group. All three groups are willing to respond favorably to the waiver and acceleration programs -— everybody is in favor of free- dom of speech -— (See Group IV Data Analysis Section), and all three groups are Opposed to limitations on waiving, but I think for different reasons. The students see waiving as a great escape and see acceleration as a kind of frosting on the cake; the examiners see waiving and acceleration as a new way of learning. The faculty may see the waiver program as a way of allowing students who dislike University College courses to avoid them; such students could be a problem in class and thus the waiver program redounds to the faculty's benefit, and they oppose limitations on it. Acceleration A? V5; .n u a: V . .7»‘ "w P—A. r” u,“ LI.) 0 l C) on the other hand, has no such benefit and they see no reason for allowing credit to no more than the bare minimum number of students. Graph SFEa presents these differences. All three groups disagree that "Course wide finals make an instructor's job harder"l (Q 53). Question 53's problem is discussed in the Question by Question Analysis. Basically the question isambiguous in four ways. 1. One could agree that course wide finals make instructors do a better job and teach for the whole course and thus make an instructor's job harder in a good way. 2. One could disagree that course wide finals make an instructor's job harder because course wide finals are a good thing. 3. One could agree that course wide finals make an instructor's job harder because they remove his rightful prerogatives and are a bad thing. M. One could disagree that course wide finals make an instructor's job harder because course wide finals are just guessing games and don't amount to anything. Thus, agreement with Question 53 doesn't really tell us anything. The moral seems to be to check and recheck one's questions. Finally, the Consensus Group included Questions M6 and One rather status-conscious faculty member objected to the term "job" used in reference to his PROFESSION. 0; OH R v X a *‘u fiv- C1 189 M7 which were concerned with the issue of independent evaluation outside the classroom. All three groups accepted this use of independent evaluation. Perhaps the most important trait of the Consensus Group items was their poor performance on the correlations for the Student Questionnaire Analysis; none of these items were able to relate to the Course Wide Final Cluster. Note that Question M which was also concerned with MSU is not included in the Consensus Group, as are Questions 5 and 6, and Question M was able to relate somewhat to die Course Wide Final Cluster. Question 10. Question 12. Question 17. Question 18. 190 Group II: Examiner Divergent Do you think essay or multiple choice exams do the best job of evaluating students? Essay exams do much better Essay exams do somewhat better They do about the same Multiple choice exams do somewhat better . Multiple choice exams do much better U'U—T’WNH Students 2.32 Faculty 2.12 Examiners M or 5 Please check the statement which best describes your views of University College course wide final examinations. (See Question by Question Analysis for complete item) . Very favorable statement Favorable statement Neutral statement Unfavorable statement Very unfavorable statement \J'L-P'WNH Students 3.05 Faculty 3.50 Examiners 5 At present, the instructors grade counts one- half in determining the grade a student re- ceives in a University College course. If this proportion were changed, how much and in what direction should it be changed? . Instructor's grade should count 100% . Instructor's grade should count more than 50% but less than 100% . Instructor's grade should count less than 50% but should still count some M. Course wide final grade should count 100% WNH Students 2.21 Faculty 2.05 Examiners 3 or M "A good instructor can simply try to help his students learn and leave the testing to a special office." Do you: HANDQ at”, 0 ‘9 (1 L. Question 28. Question Ml. Question M2. 191 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree 3. Neither agree nor disagree M. Disagree strongly 5. Disagree strongly Students 3.86 Faculty 3.81 Examiners l or 2 They're [@aiving and acceleratiofi] a new and valuable way of learning. 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree 3. Disagree M. Disagree strongly Students 2.70 Faculty 2.50 Examiners 1 Do you think that students in this honors pro- gram [§pecial sections of University College course§:] should take the regular course wide final for ATL? 1. Yes 5. No Students 3.9 Faculty M.3 Examiners l u. 3 If comping becane widespread in all courses at MSU, what effect do you think this would have on academic standards? 1. Widespread comping would definitely raise academic standards 2. Widespread comping would probably raise academic standards 3. Widespread comping would have no effect on academic standards M. Widespread comping would probably lower academic standards 5. Widespread comping would definitely lower academic standards Students 2.69 Faculty 2.95 Examiners l or 2 Question M8. Question M9. Question 51. Question 52. Question 55. 1 9 2 Course wide finals provide a fairer means of grading than ordinary finals. 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree 3. Disagree M. Disagree strongly Students 2.M9 Faculty 2.M3 Examiners 1 Course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative student. 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree 3. Disagree M. Disagree strongly Students 2.19 Faculty 2.55 Examiners M Course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course. 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree 3. Disagree M. Disagree strongly Students 2.68 Faculty 3.20 Examiners M Course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU which have sufficient enroll- ment for them. 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree 3. Disagree M. Disagree strongly Students 3.11 Faculty 2.7M Examiners 1 Course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College. ) C) (2 (l1 4-. a 193 . Agree strongly . Agree . Disagree . Disagree strongly ¥Tunw+4 Faculty Examiners Students 2.%3 2. 3 M In contrast to the Consensus Group, the Examiner Divergent Group contained many items concerned with the course wide final, especially those items concerned with the intrinsic merits of the course wide final. Examiners were much more likely to be in favor of extending the prin- ciples of independent evaluation in the classroom. (Q's l7, l8, and 52). Note that this divergence contrasts with the consensus for non-classroom independent evaluation. (Q's M6 and M7). Examiners were also more likely to be favorable in various evaluations of the course wide final. (Q's 12, M1, M8, M9, 51, 55). This was especially true for those questions concerned with the suitability of the course wide final for better students. (Q's M1, M9, and 55). Note par- ticularly here the divergence for Question M1 where almost all the students and faculty agree that students in honors sections should not take the regular course wide final and the sharp disagreement of the examiners. While there was consensus in the overall evaluation of waiving (Q M3)and acceleration (Q MM), feeling that waiving and acceleration were a new and valuable way of learning was characteristic of the examinera but not of the students or Rx 19M faculty (Q 28). Finally, we note that examiners were more likely to feel that widespread comping would raise academic standards (Q M2). «~1- , v.4. ) Question M. Question 11. Question 19. Question 3M. 195 Group III: Faculty Divergent Many people feel a big institution like MSU is just too impersonal and bureaucratized. Do you: 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree 3. Neither agree nor disagree M. Disagree 5. Disagree strongly Students 3.1M Faculty 2.55 Examiners M or 5 Which kind of exam do you personally prefer? 1. Essay 5. Multiple choice Students 3.56 Faculty 1.19 Examiners 5 Under what circumstances do you feel a "Y" grade for a student is justified? (A "Y" grade is an automatic "F" which does not allow a student to take the final and pass the course as he might with an ordinary "F" from the instructor) (See Question by Question Analysis for complete item) 1. Under no circumstances or cheating only 5. For excessive unexcused absences or other reasons other than cheating Students l.M3 Faculty 2.M7 Examiners 1 Do you feel that students who have waived with special permission should be required to meet some Departmental standards for acceleration as do students who are recommended by their instructors for acceleration? 1. Yes 5. No Students M.O6 Faculty 3.52 Examiners 5 I“. ““~¢‘ ~, Q 1 "1'. Question 36. Question MO. Question 50. Question 5M. 196 Do you feel an "A" rather than a "B" should be required for successful acceleration? 1. Yes 5 0 :NO Students M.6 Faculty 3.5 Examiners 5 The ATL Department has offered an extensive Honors Program as an alternative to waiving and acceleration for better students. Do you think this should be encouraged in other Departments and waiving and acceleration discouraged? 1. Yes 5. No Students 3.18 Faculty 1.00 Examiners 5 Course wide finals allow one to evaluate in- novations in education such as programmed learning. . Agree strongly . Agree . Disagree . Disagree strongly -fixanH Students 2.22 Faculty 3.00 Examiners l or 2 Course wide finals do a good job of letting the student see how well he can do without instructor bias. 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree 3. Disagree M. Disagree strongly Students 2.28 Faculty 3.10 Examiners l 197 The Faculty Divergent Group consisted largely of questions where independent evaluation gave the students a chance to escape from arbitrary facutly action or where they felt it gave them a chance to get a better grade. The most interesting example of this was Question 11, "Do you per- sonally prefer multiple choice or essay exams?". Higher means indicate a preference for multiple choice exams. For Question 10, "Do you think multiple chOice or essay exams do the best job of evaluating students?", the student mean was 2.32, the faculty mean 2.12, and the examiner M or 5. This placed Question 10 clearly in Group II, with the students and faculty close together and the examiners divergent. For Question 11, however, while the examiner means remain nearly constant at 5, the student mean jumps to 3.56 and the faculty mean falls to 1.19. Thus students and faculty feel about the same concerning the relative merits of multiple choice and essay exams as evaluation devices, but students personally prefer multiple choice exams, and faculty even more sharply personally prefer essay exams. Graph SFEb presents these differences. The reasons are not too hard to find for this anomaly, since several students wrote it on their questionnaires. Students feel that multiple choice exams are easier but essay exams are better! A strange sort of reasoning: if it's harder, it's better. Perhaps students should be required to write their answers in Sanskrit, since this would certainly make the exams harder. The faculty reasoning was equally I ~‘ ~55." '0‘“ VV“ ‘ 0 5r“ 0; UAAJ- \ nay. VJ“ «a! 198 discouraging. Multiple choice examinations are necessary because of the exigencies of large class, but naturally "I prefer my own essay exams, because multiple choice exams just test recall." The examiners, of course, felt multiple choice exams were intrinsically better. The faculty were more likely to favor the use of "Y" grades (Q 19) and less likely to see course wide finals as useful in fighting instructor bias than were either students or examiners. The faculty were also more likely to favor restrictions on acceleration (Q's 3M and 36). And this cer- tainly makes sense. We would expect students to be more concerned about teacher unfairness than the faculty is. Not so easily explicable are the greater tendencies of the faculty to see MSU as too bureaucratized (Q M) and their greater disagreement with the use of course wide finals to evaluate programmed learning. In regard to Question M, it may be that the faculty have a different frame of reference than the students and feel that MSU is too bureaucratic as a school. I have no explanation for Question 50, which was not a successful question in the student questionnaire correlational-chi square analysis. Finally Group III gives us the fascinating split on the issue of the relative merits of waiving and accele— ration versus honors sections (Q MO). Graph SFEc shows that no faculty member preferred waiving and acceleration, and no examiner preferred honors sections. And to complete O.” A p . 73' 9.1: 361 A ‘ 1~ fl robs. U £13 81137. 199 the perfect picture, students were almost evenly split at 3.18. Clearly, Question M0 was able to polarize faculty and examiner opinion. «\M Question 15. Question 16. Question 22. Question 26. 200 Group IV: Students Divergent Would you prefer more regular introductory courses rather than some or all of the University College courses, for example, a year of Introductory English rather than ATL, or History of Civilization rather than Humanities? 1. Yes, very much so 2. Yes, probably 3. No, probably not M. No, not at all Students 2.39 Faculty 3.50 Examiners 3 or M Do you think it would be a good idea to auto- matically waive University College courses for students majoring in the field which the University College course covers, for example, Natural Science 181 for biology majors or Social Science 233 for political science majors? . Excellent idea . Good idea . No opinion . Bad idea . Very bad idea Students 1.68 Faculty 2.75 Examiners M or 5 What is your overall feeling toward the University College? 1. I like it very much 2. I like it 3. I'm indifferent toward it M. I dislike it 5. I dislike it very much Students 3.0M Faculty 2.00 Examiners l or 2 They're [waiving and acceleration] useful only as a way out of dull courses. C v ~ L» ”A an: 5.. v4. alt e a. t. 11 £ . . . r: 6d .5 L. N V Au. r... .s\ ‘I s k e W..- .»«I D... Pan 2 g 2 . 7... H I I: k\ V tilt I‘ \ 0‘ s ‘V n e» u ‘1 \ 201 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree 3. Disagree M. Disagree strongly Students 2.65 Faculty 3.50 Examiners Question 39. Do you feel that acceleration is more a matter of new learning or demonstration of previous knowledge? 1. New learning 5. Demonstration of previous knowledge Students 3.61 Faculty 2.M7 Examiners 1 While the Student Divergent Group did not contain a large number of items, it was the most consistent of all four groups. Each of the five questions in Group IV con- tained an explicit or implicit evaluation of the University College and in each case the students were significantly less favorable in their evaluations than were the faculty or examiners. Questions 15 and 22 contain open evaluations of the University College. Question 16, the automatic waiver question, is not related to the real waiver at all, since the automatic waiver would vitiate the real waiver program; instead agreement with it is a measure of dislike for the University College. Question 26 is also a slap at the University College, and here too the students are far more likely to agree. Question 39 is a little subtler and more interesting. Faculty members were not shown to be very sensitive to the 91 fisv Era 202 intrinsic benefits of independent evaluation on previous questions, yet here they are significantly readier than stuients to agree that acceleration is new learning rather than demonstration of previous knowledge. Why? The answer seems to be that Question 39 too, contains an implicit evaluation of the University College. Many students express the opinion that University College courses are high school reruns, and agreeing that acceleration is a demonstration of previous knowledge furnishes indirect support for this notion. Naturally, the High School rerun idea is anathema to the University College faculty, and thus they do not agree that acceleration is mostly a demonstration of previous knowledge. Examiners feel that acceleration is a new way of learning, and they, of course, share the faculty's dislike for the high school rerun idea. ' . #- mm L; U an N ." Ven& ‘6‘. "P: pans Ni. V... 203 Three Portraits The comparison of student, faculty, ani examiner has shown the conflicting views held by these three groups con- cerning waiving and acceleration, the course wide final, and the University College. From the data these mean com- parisons have given us, let us attempt to construct por- traits of the typical acceleration qualifying student, the University College faculty member, and the Office of Evaluation Services Examiner. I. The Student. He has a fairly low view of the University College and sees waiving and accelera- tion primarily as a means of avoiding University College courses. He likes the course wide final to the extent that it limits the arbitrary exercise of instructor power but to this extent only. Mul- tiple choice exams aren't really as good as essay exams, but they're handy for helping one's grades. II. The Faculty Member. He likes the University College and feels the course wide final is all right but should count a smaller percentage of the student's grade. Waiving and acceleration are all right so long as they do not bother him, although stricter standards for acceleration might be nice. In any case, a good Honors Program would be far better than waiving and acceleration. Essay exams are far better than multiple choice exams. III. 20L; The Examiner. He sees the course wide final as providing a whole new set of opportunities in education. Acceleration and waiving are new means of learning, not ways of simply avoiding University College courses; no Honors Program could replace them. Multiple choice exams offer intrinsic advantages over essay exams. ‘— - .F A, I 205 Graph SFEa. Restrictions on Independent Evaluation: A comparison of student and faculty opinion on the issue of requiring a 2.00 GPA for attempting waivers (Q35) and the issue of requiring an "A" for successful acceleration (Q36). Opposed to restrictions 5.0 o ‘ ? h 5 Mean u.o Mean n.65 Mean 1 h-23 305 Ll-OOI-l- .. Kean 300 3°53 2.5 2.0 1.5 Students Faculty Students Faculty 1.0 ~ Favor restrictions Q35. "Should a 2.00 GPA Q36. "Should an "A" be be required for attempting required for successful waivers?" acceleration?" .‘v Vxl AC 206 Graph S Eb. Similar and Divergent Opinion: A comparison of W student and faculty opinion means on Q10 "Do multiple choice or essay exams do the best job of evaluating students?" and Q11 "Which kind of exam do you personally prefer?" Most favorable to multiple choice 5.0 LL.S h.O 305 3.56 3.0 Point of indifference 2.5 2.32 2'0 2.12 1.5 1.19 1,0 _£tudenté Faculty Student‘ FacuIty I Most favorable to essay QlO. "Which exam does Qll. "Which kind of the better job of exam do you personally evaluating students?" prefer?" N ,.flr r1h J. a: ,1 (mt, 1..- WV! PU AC vb.» 207 Graph SFEc. Near Perfect Trichotomy: A comparison of student, faculty and examiner answers to QhO, showing percentages who prefer waiving and acceleration over extension of the honors program. 100% 100% 90 80 7O 60 SO Item? no 30 20 10 Faculty Students Examiners XIV. SUMMARY OF THE DATA ANAL’SIS I. Attitudes toward MSU A. Attitudes toward MSU were not related to the course wide final, the University College, or waiving and acceleration [pne possible ex- ception "feeling MSU too bureaucratized" 043 Overall attitudes very favorable (6) 1. Most believe it provides special freedoms (5) 2. Some agree MSU too impersonal and bureaucratized (A) II. The Course Wide Final and the University College A. Attitude toward the course wide final depends on aspects 1. Favorable attitudes a. Liked for fighting instructor bias (5h) b. Fairer, even split in opinion (AB) 2. Extension of course wide final disliked a. Course wide final should be given in all courses (52) b. Good instructor can simply try to help his students learn (18) Course wide final overall draws mixed attitudes, (12) somewhat better liked than University College (22), but much less well-liked than waiving overall (A3) and acceleration overall (AH) and MSU overall (6) Students feel essay exams better (10) but personally prefer multiple choice (ll) Students overwhelmingly reject any limitations on waiving and acceleration (3h, 35, 36, 37) 208 E. F. G. H. 209 University College not well liked overall (22); a large percentage of students who like waiving overall (h3) and acceleration overall (uh) are also in favor of abandoning the University College (15) Attitudes toward the course wide final 1. Attitudes related to a. Attitudes toward multiple choice exams (10, 11) b. The University College (22) c. Use of independent evaluation in the classroom (18, S2) 2. Attitudes not related to a. Waiving and acceleration overall (h3,hh) b. MSU overall (6) 0. Independent evaluation outside the class- room (23. M6, #7) d. Ability measures (58, 72, 79, et a1.) e. Waiving and acceleration demographic variables (66, 69. 78, et a1.) Reverse relation occurred between course wide final attitudes and some restrictions on waiving and acceleration with those favoring course wide final in some cases more favorable to restrictions (35,37) Most powerful correlators in Group II were those that suggested course wide finals are beneath the dignity of better students (h9, 55) IIA. Effort and Value A. Feeling that one did not learn most in one's hardest courses was related to liking the course wide final (8) Dislike of the automatic waiver was related to liking the course wide final (16) Not desiring more regular introductory courses in place of University College courses was related to liking the course wide final (15) III. 210 III. Purpose of Waiving and Acceleration IV. Unlike Group IV (Waiving and Acceleration Overall Evaluations), Group III contains evaluations of the University College and relates to course wide final attitudes of Group II. A. Nearly 1M% of the respondents agree that waiving and acceleration is the greatest thing that has happened in college (25) but disagree that waiving and acceleration is a new and valuable way of learning (28) B. 2M.7% of the respondents who like waiving overall (M3) agree that its purpose would be better served by abandoning the University College (32) C. A comparison of strongly agreeing attitudes and strongly disagreeing attitudes toward the course wide final showed that opposition to the course wide final predominated among the strongly held attitudes Waiving and Acceleration Overall The overall evaluations of waiving (M3) and acceleration (MM) do not relate to other clusters A. Respondents prefer waiving over acceleration better than 2:1 (MS) B. Over one-third of the sample like waiving (M3) but would like to see the course wide final abandoned for better students in the University College (55) C. 85.9% of sample like acceleration (MM), but only 12% understand its relation to the course wide final (65) Ability Group There were few relations between ability demo- graphic variables and attitudinal variables. In particular, differential measures of ability (73, 80) did not relate to course wide final attitudes A. Only 8.9% of the sample had higher high school than MSU grades while 53.2% had higher MSU grades (73) B. 211 While 87. 97 learn about waiving before or during the first term at MSU (2M), only 127 understand its relation to the course wide final (65). Group V contains (2M) because learning about waiving and acceleration sooner was related to higher ability. An average of 3.Ml waiver attempts were made per student with 1.77 WSP'S and only 0.M3 failed waivers per student For an average group of students attempting the waiver exam only 13.37 were waivers with special permission; for the sample, by contrast, 51. 97 of attempts were WSP VI. Waiving and Acceleration Demographic VII. A. There were only .08 non—University College acceleration attempts per student (62), but there were 1.18 University College accele- rations per student (69) There was an average of over M. 5 courses per student which were neither waived nor enrolled in WSP's without accelerations (68) were over half as large as accelerations (69) Group VI's principal attitudinal correlations were with restrictions on waiving and accele- ration (35, 36) and preference between waiving and acceleration (M5) Student, Faculty, and Examiner Comparisons This portion of the study was based on methodologically questionable data but provided rather clear results nonetheless A. The student 1. Sensitive to the benefits of waiving and acceleration only to the extent that they enabled him to avoid dull courses 2. Course wide final was most appreciated as a means of fighting instructor bias 212 B. The University College faculty member 1. Favorable toward the University College 2. Not extremely enthusiastic about the course wide final 3. Waiving and acceleration were approved in the abstract but were not supported in some applications C. The examiner l. Sensitive to the intrinsic benefits of waiving and acceleration 2. Believed the course wide final offered advantages no instructor-made test could match to disc 5. ‘I O :lnCln; a A 33313: «’1 ‘. .fin XV. CONCRETISM Introduction The preceding section, Analysis of the Data, attempted to discuss and organize the specific findings of the study. This section attempts to relate these findings to other findings in the social sciences and to suggest ways in which the findings might prove useful to the University College. Inevitably, mUch of this discussion is speculative and suggestive rather than rigorous; I have suggested various analogies between these findings and theories of voting, Reconstruction, and cultural change. Yet clearly there is a large difference in degree of confirmation between reporting that "Acceleration eligible students as a whole are more favorable toward Michigan State University than toward the University College," and reporting that "Attitudes toward independent evaluation have important parallels with at- titudes toward Reconstruction." Nonetheless I feel that speculation can be valuable in social science, provided that it is identified as such. The following topics are con- sidered in discussing the relation of the dissertation re- sults to more general social science theory: Chapter XV. Concretism XVI. Problems of the University College XVII. Nesting of Inventions 213 PU 2 1M Chapter XVIII. Roles and Opinions XIX. Educational and Social Change XX. Freedom Through Bureaucracy XXI. Summary ChapteniXV. through XX are treated indepently; Chapter XXI attempts to integrate these six chapters. 215 Concretism and the Course Wide Final Attitudes toward the course wide final are conditioned by the obvious or visible characteristics of the examination rather than the subtler more important characteristics. 1. Attitudes toward the course wide final are closely linked to attitudes toward the University College and multiple choice exams; they are not related to attitudes toward waiving and acceleration. 2. The course wide final is seen as helpful for fight- ing instructor bias but not good for the creative student. 3. Multiple choice examinations are personally preferred by students but are considered inferior evaluation devices. The Survey Research Center's voting studies have found that the average voter has an extremely simplistic view of politics.1 The complex issues involved in a Presidential campaign are reduced to superficial aspects of the candi- dates' personalities -— "Ike is the kind of man you can trust", extreme generalizations about the parties -— "The Republicans got us into the Depression", or simply habit —- "My family has always voted Democratic." It is very easy for those who are political professionals or political scientists to grossly exaggerate the political sophistication 0f the average voter. lCampbell, Converse, Miller, and Stokes, The American Voter. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 196M7— Wis 01 33? E stru we: Au 3 will ‘1‘ 8 fly 3!! .f:. I\ s) my run Wu H n. he LIJ 0 . 3v « v 5v cw sh» A\U «C a . QU 0!. r u n...— ’1 I h ““0, 216 V. 0. Key2 remarks that a politician should steal in a way the average man can't understand. A fancy new executive car may arouse the voteIHSire, but legislation to help special interests, who in turn pay huge fees to one's law office, may attract little notice. Visibility of actions often bears little relation to their importance. The peanut-eating uneducated legislators of the Recon- struction Era are found in the high school history books; their actions are visible and easily comprehended. Also found is a description of the battle between Thaddeus Stevens and Andrew Johnson, with Stevens playing the role of the villain. Johnson's impeachment is recorded as the result of Steven's personal vindictiveness. Not found is a description of ante bellum Southern laws and mores which made the South a feudal society, and the efforts of "leading respectable Southerners whom Johnson supported" to reintroduce that feudal society. Also not found is a description of the heroic efforts of many of the figures involved in Recon- struction to have the Negro treated as a human being. The peccadilloes of the carpetbaggers are duly reported; the enormities of Southern life are ignored. In the same way then, this tendency operates in the Students' perceptions of the course wide final examination and allied topics. The course wide final is given for University College courses; it is a multiple choice final and it can fight instructor bias. These things are 2Key, V.O., Southern Politics. (New York: Alfred A. KHOPI‘. 19M9) 217 concrete and obvious. Not so visible are the care and ac- curacy that go into the writing of a course wide final as opposed to the slap-dash methods of many instructor given examinations. Also not as visible is the close link between the course wide final examination, waiving and acceleration, and the better opportunity for the creative student on a well prepared multiple choice examination compared to the usual haphazard essay examination. 113.311 218 A Bad Book and Its Enthusiastic Reception Banesh Hoffmann's egregious, The Tyranny 2f Testing,3 is another example of the confusion of visibility with importance. Hoffmann's whole sweeping attack on multiple choice tests is supported not be carefully assembled data, but by a selection of less than a score of supposedly weak multiple choice questions, some of which were rejected by the very writers of the tests Hoffmann chose. Hoffmann does indeed criticize these few questions (although even here I find most of his argument unconvincing), but he ignores the fact that a single question is only a small part of any multiple choice test and that any single question or small number of questions makes an unreliable test. Indeed, the small number of questions used is one of the flaws of essay exams. Further, Hoffmann has actually hit upon one of the strengths of the multiple choice test -— that its questions may be criticized and improved because the answers are given. As Henry Chauncy, ETS President, points out in reply to Hoffmann: Mr. Hoffmann dismisses evidence with amazing ease...His method is to ferret out questions which he thinks would appear ambiguous to the exceptional student, and then assume that all potential geniuses will see them this way, score poorly, and be lost to society. He has never presented evidence to support his thesis. All our evidence is to the contrary. Quite the reverse, tests have fre- quently idefltified the brilliant student not otherwise recognized. 3Hoffman, Banesh, The Tyranny 23 Testing. (New York: COllier Books, 1962) uflLetter to the Editor," Harpers, (May, 1961), Po 3- 219 Just like the critics of Reconstruction, Hoffmann has chosen to attack visible pecadilloes and ignore less visible enormities. One ambiguous multiple choice question out of a hundred ruins a test, but the often carelessly constructed, limited sampling, subjectively graded essay examination is all right. Dr. Chauncey and other informed critics of Hoffmann were largely alone, however. The first page of Th§_Tyranny 9; Testing quotes various reviewers in the pepular press and elsewhere who recommend the book as "required reading" and "mandatory for every building psychometrician". Further, two reviews that I looked up in the Book Review Digest were also enthusiastic about The Tyranny 2f Testigg. These reviews were in HarpersS and The National Reviewé, two maga- zines which are far above the level of the common man. Yet neither magazine's reviewers could see through Hoffman's specious arguments.7 In contrast, David Goslin's Th3 Search.£23 Ability, which is a fair and considered treatment of the problems of standardized tests, received very little notice and the excellent Taxonomy pf Educational Objectives by Bloom et. al. was not reviewed at all in the upper middlebrow publications as far as I know. This seems to offer further proof of the S 6The National Review, (March 26, 1963), p. 2M7. Harpers, (February, 1963), p. 105. 7Neither was liberalism or conservatism of any use. Har ers is generally considered "liberal", and The National RevIew "conservative". 220 applicability of Gresham's law to cultural phenomena, that is, that good books are driven out by bad books. The respondents were more sophisticated than Hoffmann; they were willing to admit that the College Boards are effective (much of Hoffmann's attack is against the College Boards). The students were not able to see the intrinsic merits of the course wide final, however. A majority of students agreed that "course wide finals reward the con- forming and penalize the creative student"(Q M9). Further, as we have noted several times, students were not able to see the link between acceleration and the course wide final. All these things manifest what I have termed concretism. As with so many other complex societal phenomena, it is the obvious concrete things which are noticed, rather than the less obvious but more important aspects. XVI. PROBLEMS OF THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE Another salient finding was the low esteem in which the University College is held, especially vis-a-vis Michigan State University. What are some of the reasons for this? 1. Faculty Problems. Faculty of the University College have more teaching duties and fewer research activ- ities than other faculty at Michigan State Univer- sity, and this may limit their opportunities to secure promotions and become better known. Because its course offerings are largely limited to the basic twelve courses, a member of one of the four University College Departments ordinarily has a choice of but three courses to teach. University College students are almost entirely lower division undergraduates, so the opportunities for inter- action with upper division and graduate students are likewise limited. Not all these limitations are necessarily disagreeable to all faculty members; there are certainly instructors with a commitment to general education. But the recruitment of this kind of faculty member is less frequent than in the past. Fifteen or twenty years ago some stress was 221 1.). wisltnll...‘ 222 laid on finding instructors with a real interest in general education, but today the University College teaching Departments appear to be interested in specialists in particular subjects.1 2. Student Problems. During the pre-testing of the Student Questionnaire, students offered several criticisms of the University College. a. University College classes are often larger than those for other courses. b. Because University College courses are required of everyone, they may not seem so intellectually challenging to the better students, who were the respondents in my study as specialized or difficult courses in their own major field of study. 0. Many students commented unfavorably on the University College texts; I am not personally familiar with all the texts used. One of the Humanities texts, Gombrich's The Story 2f A332 1Many of the previous studies of University College had the active cooperation of the teaching departments. This dissertation was supported by Office of Evaluation Services alone. This must be an impressionistic finding, but it seemed to me that interest in the University College as a ‘unique educational enterprise was much higher in OES than in any of the teaching Departments of the University College. This difference, however, may be due to the longer tenure of DES staff members . 2combrioh, E.H., The Story 9;; Art. (Garden City, N.Y.: Phaidon.Publishers, 1965). 223 has always seemed excellent to me. However, the Social Science 231 text I used seemed very brief for a four credit course, and included several articles that seemed to me to be of questionable merit, including one reprinted from the Saturday Evening Post.3 3. Other Problems. Because the University College does not offer degrees, it lacks alumni who might offer some support for the College. The develop- ment of the Honors College, a special college at MSU, presents another problem for the University College. Honors College students are not required to enroll in University College courses, creating an ethos that they are in effect superior to University College courses. This would seem to inevitably create some resentment among students who are not so excused from University College courses. Unfortunately, the Honors College idea is becoming more popular as shown by developments such as Justin Morrill College, whose members are also not required to take University College courses. Relations with other colleges and departments of the University have also created some problems for the University College. The College of Engineering, for example, does not recognize Natural Science 3"Are The Public Schools Doing Their Job? Yes." The Saturday Evenin Post, Vol. CCXXX No. 12 (Sept. 21, 1957), pp. 3 9 126, I2E-I25. 2 2M credit which certainly does not help the prestige of that University College department. Also, because the University College does not offer courses in a particular subject matter but offers instead a combination of conventional courses, it competes in some senses at least with the offerings of the regular departments of MSU. This problem of the relation of the University College to other departments is one which, as I mentioned before, I had hoped to explore through interviews with Department Chairmen. Finally, there may be some tendency for waiving and acceleration to draw off the best students, so that the third term of many University College courses may lack excellent students. Earlier studies indicated that this was not so, but these studies were done before the inception of the waiver program which has so expanded in recent years as to dwarf all previous independent study programs. In fact, the University College has come to be viewed as obsolete by some. According to this view, the University College was apprOpriate at a time when MSU was largely oriented toward technical and agricultural education. The University College then provided a needed balance of more traditional academic education in the arts and sciences. (More traditional in some sense at least, in other ‘ " .4 as»); respects, of course, the Basic College was a rad- ical departure from traditional "liberal educa- tion.") Now;however, this function is less necessary because MSU offers more courses in the traditional academic subjects. Also, the hoped-for consolidation of the sciences which is implicit in the University College approach has not occurred, and this too has left the University College on a dead end street.LL I do not accept most of the analysis in the pre- ceding paragraph,5 but the mere fact that it is held by some is another measure of the University College's weakness. These, then, are some of the problems the University College faces. There has recently been some talk of aban-' doning the University College. I am entirely unsure as to what the future holds for the University College, and it is questionable how much of a guide the opinions of the students in my sample can be for a measure of general attitudes toward uThese ideas were suggested, although not endorsed, by Dr. Olmsted in personal conversation. 5In particular, I disagree with the idea implicit in the paragraph that there is no longer a place for general- ized courses. Specialization has certainly increased, but this very specialization has increased the value of general education in at least some respects. Much of the speciali- zation which has taken place is interdisciplinary speciali- zation, biochemistry, social psychology, and the like. This dissertation is a fairly good example of this new kind of specialization; it is concerned with an educational topic, but is not truly an Education thesis. For this kind of cross disciplinary work, ordinary course lines are at once too Specialized and not specialized enough. 1113......4 the University College. Many of these students enrolled in very few University College courses, and here the atypicality of the sample might bias the results in such a way as to make things look worse for the University College than they, in fact, are. In any case, it seems that the University College position is not so secure as it was ten or fifteen years ago. This study is, of course, concerned with the course wide final, not the University College. Nevertheless, as we have seen in the Data Analysis Section, the course wide final is seen as very much a part of the University College, and certainly one cannot ignore the institutional context of the course wide final. I Shall subsequently consider some possible solutions for the problems of the University College, but first I Should like to briefly discuss a few of the problems of the course wide final. 227 Problems of the Course Wide Final The course wide final is not so disliked as the University College, but it is not nearly so well liked as MSU. Certainly, part of the course wide final's problem is the generalization of dislike of the University College. Yet there are some features of the course wide final indepen- dent of its connection with MSU that may create dislike. Strangely enough, some of these are the very features which account for much of the excellence of the course wide final, but then my findings are filled with paradoxes. Independent evaluation as exemplified by the course wide final is a lonesome method of grading. It is not found before or after in the individual's academic career. The student goes from teacher-made tests in high school to teacher-made tests in his upper division courses and graduate school. This lonesomeness of University College grading is especially bad when considered in conjunction with the University College's low status. Independent evaluation is used as a selection device in such things as the MSU Entrance Exams, the College Boards, and the Iowa Tests of Educational Development, and here the respondents are more accepting of independent evaluation. A kind of conservatism seems to operate here; what exists is accepted. Extension of inde- pendent evaluation in the classroom, where it is not common, is resoundingly rejected. University College faculty members do not appear to support the course wide final and independent evaluation. 228 I have no precise data on this, but faculty members were very free in their criticisms of the course wide final during the Faculty Interviews, and from all that I can learn in talking to students and Office of Evaluation Services staff members, the faculty is most reticent about explaining the benefits of independent evaluation to their students. Finally, University College course wide finals are disliked because they are so good! The following quotation from Paul Dressel puts it well. Dressel is describing the results of a questionnaire study undertaken in the mid-fifties. Basic College Examinations Over half (53%) of the graduates felt that the Basic course examinations were inferior to the others they experienced and only 107-157 regarded them as better. This strong and consistent reaction to both the old comprehensive and the more recent term examination re- sults from several factors which we can extract from the written comments. Some of the students do not like objective tests and some do not like the weight at- tached to them in determination of the final grade. The central objection, however, is that the examina- tions are ambiguous -— guessing games or intelligence tests rather than tests of what is covered in the course. ' Only a few students are perceptive enough to recog- nize the deliberate intent in the examination to pose a question in a new guise or to require an application or a relating of ideas rather than recall. [Infer- ential rather than.recall tests, my notE] Such ques- tions are somewhat more difficult but the real problem is that many of the students do not realize that these are reasonable tasks, both appropriate and amenable to reason. Somehow in our courses we have failed to direct the attention of some students beyond the specific facts to the underlying concepts and princi- ples, and to the applicability of these to a wide range of situations and problems. It is not surprising that this is so; it is a difficult task. It is easy to rationalize away unpleasant evidence rather than face up to it. We are convinced that the 229 reactions of these graduates to our examinations Should not be ignored. We, too, are less than completely sat- isfied with our examinations, but the correction of our dissatisfaction would result in more emphasis on 6 thought and cause more dissatisfaction with students. 6Dressel, Paul L. (ed.), Evaluation ig the Basic College at Michigan State Universigy. (New York: Harper and B?others, 1958), pp. 93-9M. XVII. NESTING OF INVENTIONS Do our data help answer one of our original questions, that of why acceleration doesn't revolutionize education for better students as it appears to have the potential to do? Let us consider some of the basic findings: 1. 2. The University College is not well liked by the respondents. The overall evaluation of the University College is negative, and students show surprising agreement with various prOposals which amount to effective abandonment of the University College. The waiver program is very well liked, but it is seen primarily as a means of escape from dull courses, not as a means of qualifying for accel— eration or as part of a program of independent study. Some of the anomalies of the enthusiasm for the waiver program coupled with the dislike of the University College were shown in the graphs in the Data Analysis chapters, especially Chapter IX. The acceleration program, like the waiver program, is well liked, and a proposal for extending accel- eration to other colleges of MSU was widely endorsed. However, students did not see any link between acceleration and the course wide final, 230 231 and when asked which program was the more important, students chose waiving over acceleration by a 2:1 margin. M. Attitudes toward the course wide final were not nearly so favorable as those toward waiving and acceleration. Attitudes toward the course wide final were not related to those toward waiving and acceleration, while attitudes toward the University College were closely related to attitudes toward the course wide final, and the course wide final was not seen as a good test for better students. 5. Although students failed to see any link between the course wide final and acceleration, a student in the sample was more than twenty times as likely to successfully accelerate a University College course as he was to attempt acceleration in a non- University College course. What may we conclude from these findings? Waiving and acceleration are well liked but their existence is contingent on the existence of the course wide final and independent evaluation program whose existence is, in turn, contingent on the existence of the University College. How is it that two popular programs depend on two relatively unpopular ones? Let us consider waiving first. Much of waiving's popularity as mentioned above is not a supplement to the University College nor a means of qualify- ing for acceleration. Instead, waiving is a means of avoid- ing unwanted University College courses. In fact, 857 of fibula-Is... Pd 232 the students endorsed the "automatic waiver" scheme, an idea which would vitiate the real waiver (Q 16). Without the University College, there will be in effect a 1007 automatic waiver for everybody. The case of acceleration is a little more complex. The idea of acceleration is well liked, but very few of the students understood the dependence of acceleration on the course wide final. Eighty-seven percent of the students would like to see a program set up to accelerate non- University College courses, but only 107 have any idea of what it would take to make such a program effective (Q's 60 and 61). In more general sociological terms, we may see the acceleration program as a latent function of the course wide final which is, in turn, a latent function of the University College. What students perceive as manifest dysfunctions of the course wide final and the University College are so salient that the relationship between them and acceleration is obscured. The dependence of one invention upon another is shown when an important part of society changes. The Giesl ex- haust provides a good example. This was an amazing improve- ment which, at very little cost, greatly increased the efficiency of the steam locomotive. Yet the Giesl exhaust never achieved any real importance because it was not developed until the late l9MO's when the steam locomotive was considered obsolete. 233 Any invention is nested within a whole constellation of other inventions. The automobile required strong steel, machine tools, petroleum, and a whole host of other in- ventions to become practical. The automobile is an ex- tremely successful invention; the course wide final has not been so successful. Yet the course wide final, unlike the Giesl exhaust, may suffer from being ahead of its time rather than behind. Perhaps we can use the example of Reconstruction once again, as an even closer parallel. Here was an effort to radically innovate and change existing modes of control which was confined toa fraction of the country, which was violently Opposed by many, and which finally failed because many of its proponents became lukewarm toward it.1 This was especially so after the deaths of Sumner and Stevens, and as a further paralled it might be noted that the 1007 comprehensive examination was abandoned after the death of the first Dean of the University College. Today the ideas of Reconstruction are again important, and the legislation passed during Reconstruction has been revivified. Yet will it take a century for this to happen to the course wide final? 0gburn's theory of cultural lag2 is concerned with what happens when other aspects of society do not change in 1See Chapter XVII. 20gburn, William, Social Change. (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1966) 23M accordance with the conditions created by new inventions. Medieval social structures remained long after their use- fulness had been destroyed by rising capitalism, and were finally destroyed in some cases only by such violent up- heavels as the French Revolution. Adequate workmen's compensation laws were not enacted for a long time after the development of the new and dangerous machinery of the nineteenth century. Finally, a more recent example is the need for metropolitan area government to deal with the vastly expanded urban areas created by the automobile. Cultural lag seems relevant in explaining some of the problems of independent evaluation. The invention of the course wide final has created a set of demands that the conventional pattern of classes may be unable to fulfill. I should like to suggest in a small way how this lag might be lessened. Two sets of recommendations follow: 1. A set of practical recommendations. 2. Some utopian proposals which would more fully utilize the potentiality of independent evaluation. 235 Practical Proposals One problem faced by the University College, which is especially relevant to this study, is the lack of appre- ciation of the course wide final. This was manifested in two ways: 1. There was little understanding of the relationship between the course wide final and waiving and acceleration. 2. Few students realized that the course wide final is an intrinsically better examination, an inferential multiple choice test which measures understanding rather than merely recall. Students were well aware of the existence of waiving and acceleration and this awareness came early in their college careers. So it seems that a pamphlet analogous to "Making College Programs More Flexible" might be used to explain the dependence of waiving and acceleration on the course wide final. I am not so sanguine about the chances for making students appreciate the intrinsic benefits of course wide finals as better tests; I am afraid that Dressel's 1958 remarks still apply.3 Yet certainly a pamphlet such as the one on the following page could do no harm. In addition, Dr. Warrington, Head of the Office of Evaluation Services, or Dr. Carlin, Dean of the University 3See "Problems of the Course Wide Final", Chapter XVI. 236 College, might make a brief speech during orientation which would explain and extol the course wide final and the 0p- portunities it makes possible. There is no reason to confine these remarks to the students. Some sort of handbook could be prepared for new University College faculty mem- bers; this handbook could point out that the course wide final saved the instructor the fuss and bother of final examination preparation and insured that his students would be fairly graded. 237 Questions and Answers About the Course Wide Final The course wide final given in the University College courses probably represents a new method of grading for you. Here are a few questions and answers about the course wide final. 1. Who writes the course wide final? A special examiner in conjuction with a committee from the appropriate Department spends a whole term working on the examination. Why use a multiple choice format, doesn't that just test recall? The multiple choice format enables us to grade your paper faster and more accurately. It enables you to spend more time thinking and less time writing than you would with an essay format. Multiple choice exams which are carefully written do not just test recall; they test your ability to reason and apply familiar facts in new contexts. I have heard that the course wide final is just a kind of IQ test. This is also untrue. Students who do not know the material covered by the examination cannot possibly pass it, no matter how intelligent they may be. But why have a special test, why not just let the Instructor write the examination? Why hire an architect to design a building or a physician to perform an operation? Much of the progress of our age is due to specialization. Everyone does what he can do best; by having a special committee devote a whole term to an examina- tion, it is possible to get a far better examination than an Instructor could write in the limited time available to him. The student is assured of much fairer grading by having the opportunity to take a test made up by experts. Are there any other advantages to the course wide final? Yes. Your grade is compared with those of all the students for the course so that it will not depend 238 on whether your instructor is an easy or difficult grader. Also, it is the course wide final that makes the waiver and acceleration programs possible. The University College is the only college at MSU which has a Significant amount of credit granted by examination through independent study. This is be- cause the course wide final makes it possible to evaluate the performance of students who have not had contact with an instructor. 239 Utopian Ideas The preceding proposals could probably be implemented rather easily. The following ideas are far more ambitious and are unlikely to be realized, Since they run counter to the past trends in the use of independent evaluation. In large part they represent an approach similar to that used in the University of Chicago, and independent evaluation has retreated sharply there. Nonetheless, I think that the following is useful in suggesting some of the possibilities offered by the extensive use of independent evaluation. The following is a list of changes which I believe will more fully exploit the advantages offered by the course wide final. All students should be required to take an examination Similar to the present waiver examination. Yet instead of simply receiving a "waived with special permission", "waived", or "failed to waive" score, the student's scores should be multiple battery scores with his strengths and weaknesses in the particular course analyzed by a computer program. Note that Honors College students would also be required to take this examination which might be retitled a proficiency exam; if Honors College students are superior, they shouldn't ob- ject to proving it on the proficiency examination. The proficiency examination should probably be longer thanthe present waiver examination to insure adequate reli— akxility for sub-sections; however, the amount of time spent 0T1 it would still be small indeed. In addition, the 2M0 examination should probably not be printed, but Should in- stead be presented by means of a television screen or some other electronic method which would obviate the problem of distribution and disposal of old examinations. Also, it should be possible to have ten or fifteen alternate forms or reshufflings of questions by this method, thus obviating the problem of copying from another student's paper. Regional examination centers might also be set up for the coordination of the University College courses with the community colleges of Michigan. This would allow community college students who were planning to attend Michigan State the advantage of taking University College courses, thereby allowing low cost education near home for the first two years, while insuring uniform quality throughout the state. The course wide final examination should again count 1007 of the student's grade as it did prior to 1953. How- ever, it should not be given only at the end of the year as it was then; instead, the policy of giving the course wide final at the end term should be continued, and in addition, a course wide midterm Should be given to apprise students of their progress and to avoid pinning a student's whole grade on a single examination. In reading the 19M9 book Cgmprehensive Examinations i 3 Program gf General Education, the sample questions appeared to be more concerned with égeneral knowledge of the subject matter rather than specifi- cally tied to a particular text as are the questions of the Pu?esent course wide final. Dressel comments on this in the v1. 2Ml 1958 book Evaluation ig the Basic Collegg and attributes it to the practice of giving exams for each term's work rather than a single exam for a whole year's work, but I see no in- herent reason why a course wide final for a single term could not be broadly interpretive rather than tied to a particular set of readings. Finally, it might be a good idea to allow students some feedback on the results of their examinations and have some kind of post-test session where they could go over the final examination with the examiner. This prOposal, however, raises problems with questions which the examiners wish to reuse. 2&2 Instructional Techniques Theuse of the proficiency examination described above should make it possible for each student to have an instruc- tional program specially tailored for him. In place of a student going to all classes as he usually does now, or going to none if he accelerates, the courses would be re- packaged into small units, so that a student could enroll in just those units he needed. All inefficient splits between mechanized teaching and personal interaction should be curtailed. Huge lecture sec- tions and live television classes should probably be abandoned in favor of video tape recordings. The present use of television sections in the University College appears to have a large amount of featherbedding in it; it is used for only a few of the sections rather than all. Instead of this, televised instruction should be used for all the students in those parts of the courses for which it is appropriate. The faculty time thus saved could be devoted to real personal interaction on an individual or a small group basis. There Should be a further benefit of Uhe 1007 use of the course wide final. Because the instructor no longer controls the student's grade, it should be possible for interaction be- tween teacher and student to be on a friendlier, more easy- going basis with neither worrying about grading. In Spite of all the electronic marvels of our age, the -fastest method for reasonably good students to get informa— tidon is through careful reading of good textbooks. The 2&3 University College should make an effort to find more books like E. H. Gombrich's The Story of Art. Attendance at lec- tures and the taking of notes is in general an inefficient method of learning; as mentioned above, the faculty time saved by abandoning lectures could be used for more truly personal contacts between instructors and students. Also, where apprOpriate, slides, tapes, movies, and the like could also be used. However, all these learning aids should be on a voluntary basis with the student's grade solely dependent on his course wide midterm and course wide final grades. XVIII. ROLES AND OPINIONS The comparison of student, faculty, and examiner opinion was admittedly roughly done. Yet with all its methodological inadequacies, it provided rather striking pictures of the typical acceleration eligible student, the University College faculty member, and the Office of Evaluation Services staff member. Clearly, one's attitude toward the various aspects of independent evaluation depends on the position one occupies and the role one fulfills. Yet these differences in attitude were not immediately apparent if only one or two opinions were examined; different groups had the same opinion but for different reasons. The best analogy from a more general point of view seems to me to be interest group theory. Each of these three groups represents particular interests which coincide with one group at one point and with another group at another point. Georg Simmel pointed out that a fundamental differ- ence between two and three person groups is the possibility of coalition formation, and coalition formation may assume unusual patterns. The same institution may be approved of by different groups but for radically different reasons. These different reasons are latent as long as the institution serves the 2th 2M5 purposes of both groups, but the differences will become manifest should the institution continue to serve the interests of one group but fail to serve those of the other. Let us return to the example of Reconstruction once again. Reconstruction served the purposes of the Negro by helping him throw off the bonds of slavery; it served the purposes of the Republican Party by guaranteeing it the votes it needed to elect a President of the United States. Yet when the Republicans found they could elect Presidents on the basis of Northern support alone, the Negro was abandoned. The particular coalition was the "corrupt bargain" of the Hayes-Tilden election, when the Republicans traded the promise to end Reconstruction for the election of Hayes. The shifting coalitions formed in the passage of legislation is a subject of unending fascination for the political scientist. Urban areas are against rural areas on the subject of farm supports; poor districts are against rich districts on the comparative merits of sales and income taxes. This kind of coalition formation was effectively exploited by Henry Cabot Lodge Senior in defeating the League of Nations while not seeming to be against inter- national organizations. There were three groups in the Senate in regard to Opinion on the ratification of the League of Nations Treaty: 1. The Irreconcilables. These were Senators opposed to any form of international organization. 2. The Anti-Wilson Group. These Senators favored mistillj 2M6 ratification of some kind of international agree- ment but with reservations that retained more sovereignty for the United States than did the League Treaty. 3. The Wilson Group. These Senators favored ratifi- cation of the League Treaty. Passage of any treaty favoring international organization required the concurrence of at least two of the three groups. Lodge prOposed a weak treaty with reservations for the United States, and the Anti-Wilson group voted for it. However, the Irreconcilables voted against it because they opposed any international organization, and the Wilson group voted against it because they thought it was too weak. The League Treaty itself was then voted down by a coalition of Irrecon- cilables and Anti-Wilson Senators with only the Wilson Senators voting for the League Treaty. Finally, let us consider the peculiar alliance of the liquor stores immediately outside East Lansing with the Prohibitionists to defeat the legalization of the sale of alcoholic beverages in East Lansing a few years ago. Fur- ther, we may note that liquor was legalized in East Lansing in late 1968. Perhaps the proposed location of a hotel in East Lansing (which is contingent on liquor sales) may have created a new coalition of businessmen.who want the hotel and will work to legalize liquor to get it. In the same way, we noticed that the waiver program is wholeheartedly supported by both the students and examiners, 2&7 but the reasons for this support are radically different. The students, by and large, see the waiver program as a means of escape from dull courses, while the examiners see it as a means of independent study and a gateway to acceleration. These latent differences between students and examiners become manifest if we compare attitudes not toward the real program but toward the pseudo "automatic waiver" (Q16). The automatic waiver provides an escape but it does not provide a new learning experience. Hence we find students still favor it, while examiners do not. Both the faculty and the examiners are probably favorable to both the honors program and waiving and acceleration, but when asked to make a choice the faculty universally chose the honors program, and the examiners just as universally chose waiving and acceleration. The students and the faculty were very close in their evaluation of multiple choice exams versus essay exams as testing devices. Yet almost no faculty members personally preferred multiple choice exams, whereas a majority of students did prefer them. Thus, different groups can like or dislike the same University College policy for different reasons. This worked to the disadvantage of the old Comprehensive Exam; for example, the seemingly remotely connected Registrar's Office worked for its abandonment because it made the recording of grades more difficult. A policy of revitalizing the course wide final, the University College, and independent evaluation will have to make coalition formation work for, rather than against, independent evaluation. XIX. EDUCATIONAL CHANGE AND SOCIAL CHANGE The worst feature of acceleration and the course wide final was not mentioned by any of the faculty or student re- spondents. This is the effect of acceleration on those who g2 not accelerate. For various reasons students vary greatly in ability in a given course. I recall spending an entire evening coaching a girl in my Social Science 231 class; She had come every day to class and had tried very hard, reading all the materials provided. Because of the effort I knew she had put in, I gave her a "D-plus" for the instructor's portion of her course grade. Her score on the course wide final was "F-minus". Another student in my class decided to try and accelerate Social Science 232 and, after spending two week- ends reading the course materials, he received an "A-plus" on the 232 course wide final. The fine adjustment of the exam to the student's ability is clearly a strength of the course wide final, but this very strength can also create severe problems. The variance in the ability of students creates enough problems for the student of lesser ability under conventional circum- stances. Here all the students are required to attend the Same number of classes, and the instructor is likely to give 2M8 2119 some consideration to effort and pass the marginal student who is trying hard. However, under conditions of widespread acceleration, the problems of the marginal student would be far worse. The course wide final's justice is fine for the accelerating student, but the very impartiality of the course wide final can be cruel to the weaker student. The very structure of the course wide final also works against the weaker student. It is not true as is sometimes asserted by critics of the course wide final that it is merely an intelligence or reading test. Nonetheless, the course wide final does put a considerable premium on under- standing of new concepts and their application in novel settings. It is uncertain how much of this kind of ability is genetic and how much is acquired, but it is quite certain that doing well on a test of concept application and general understanding like the course wide final is not affected nearly so much as is the more conventional recall examina- tion by cramming, or the kind of memorization a weaker stu- dent might attempt. The University College has done many studies which Show that high intelligence or previous ability is not a sufficient condition for doing well on the course wide final. However, this does not mean that high intelli- gence or previous ability is not a necessary condition for doing well on the course wide final. The whole issue of grading on the basis of ability is fraught with difficulty. Obvious favoritism is criticized, but how much consideration Should be given to "effort"? 250 At present, many students experience academic difficulties, but by trying hard and attending class regularly, many are able to at least get by. Remember, too, that under con- ditions of ordinary class attendance, the "A" student and the "C" student take roughly the same time to graduate. Yet under conditions of widespread accelerations, superior students would not only get better grades but would graduate sooner as well. Question 8, "Have you learned most in your hardest courses?", seems relevant here. Students who replied "No" to Q8 were rejecting the idea that a student can learn much without putting in a good deal of effort; this belief in the value of effort is certainly widespread in our society and one which runs directly counter to the easy "A-plus" which acceleration offers to the superior student. The converse of this belief is that someone who puts a good deal of effort into something should be rewarded, and this is where the course wide final causes the weaker student trouble. For while the instructor in a course may be cognizant of the student's coming to see him and trying hard in general, the course wide final recognizes performance on the exam and this only. Thus no matter how hard a student tries, he will fail if his performance on the examination is not adequate. 251 The Mentally Retarded Acceleration is not now widespread, but there is an analogous problem in our Society, that of the high grade mental retard. Lewis A. Dexter in "The rolitics and Soci- ology of Stupidity" discusses their problems, problems not as constitutionally given, but as socially determined. Because our society places a high value on intellectual skill per se, the high grade mental retard is penalized throughout his schooling, although there may in fact be many good jobs he can do. By good jobs, I do not mean just basket weaving or janitorial work; the amount of intellectual skill required in most jobs is overestimated. Most high paying crafts and skilled manual jobs such as plumbing and carpentry should be well within the reach of the high grade mental retard.l Dexter goes on to discuss the problem in the context of the emphasis on the equality in our society: The French Revolutionary notion of equality, as it Spread to the American frontier and later to Soviet Russia, involved not only the opportunity to be equal,but the obligation to take advantage of the Opportunity to be equal. Equal opportunity for education tended to result in compulsory education; and this notion of compulsory equality was embedded in the institution of the public or common school...the public school has become, under the inspiration of egalitarian democracy, the central sacred institution of the community to a good many peOple in our society...the high grade retarded become, in such an interpretation of the school, heretics -— unwilling her- etics, heretics despite themselves, but heretics 1Denny, M.R., A Theoretical Analysis and Its Application 32 Trainipg the Mentally Retarded. Unpublished Paper. This paper Shows how even the severly mentally retarded may be taught by using appropriate methods. 252 nevertheless. By merely being what they are, they challenge and cast doubt upon the system through which most people have gone. If, as many of them do, they succeed in earning their own living and getting along well in the community, they are even more puzzlingly unorthodox than those who accommodate to the system by cheating their way through...It is repulsive for some to believe that mental defectives can support them- selves, no matter how much evidence is amassed to this effect, because, if so, how can we justify the discom- forts and sacrifices and anguish of schooling?2 Dexter's conclusion is perhaps even more relevant to the problems of widespread acceleration: Emphasis upon education as a means of equality is considerable. But in the case of the high mental re- tardate (and probably other exceptional persons) the distinction between an Opportunity and a compulsion becomes seriously blurred. Doing well in school then has become a matter not only of ability but of virtue in our society. Good grades become inextricably entwined with a favorable self concept. Given this emphasis on the morality of good grades and the com- pulsion to be "equal", would widespread acceleration exacer- bate an already severe problem? Acceleration certainly makes differences in ability far sharper than does conventional grading. Is there a solution to this problem? One possible direction in which a solution might lie is suggested by the famous Davis and Moore-Tumin Debate on social stratification. 2Dexter, Lewis Anthony, "The Politics and Sociology of Stupidity," The Other Side, ed. Howard Becker (New York: The Free Press, 196M), p. M3. 3Ibid., p. M6. 253 Davis and Mooreu argue that some measure of social stratifi- cation is necessary for the effective functioning of any society. In particular, they argue that social stratifi- cation is necessary in order to induce members of the society to undergo the training and sacrifices necessary to fill the important positions in society. The idea of sacrifice is certainly involved in the attitudes toward education which are discussed in the preceding Dexter quotation. One puts up with the discomforts of education in order to get a good job and be successful in life. This instrumental approach to education is emphasized in the current prOpaganda urging peOple to stay in school. I have just listened to a com- mercial in which a dropout is quoted as saying that he llESQ being out of school at first, but just couldn't get a good job. Few, if any, of the announcements have anything to say abouttme intrinsic merits of education. Tumin5 disputes Davis and Moore's idea that social stratification is necessary in any society and argues among other things that a greater emphasis on the intrinsic merits of one's occupation might obviate the need for differential pay and prestige. One need not accept all of Tumin's argu- ment, but there is an element of it that may be applicable to the emphasis on scholastic achievement in our society. "Davis, Kingsley and Moore, Wilbert, "Some Principles of Stratification," American Sociological Review, Vol. X No. 2 (l9u5). pp. 2h2-2u9. STumin, Melvin M., "Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis," American Sociological Review, Vol. XVIII (August. 1953). pp. 387-393. If it were possible to de-emphasize the extrinsic benefits of education, and present learning as something worthwhile in itself, the problems of widespread accele- ration might be minimized. Utopian, perhaps, but it may be that the present over-emphasis on the benefits of strictly academic education is even more unreal. Bricklayers, auto- mobile mechanics, and plumbers make more money than most teachers and librarians. Automation has had perhaps as much effect on the lower clerical occupations as it has on manual jobs and the demand for certain kinds of manual skills con- tinues to be very high. In a sense it may be true that the distribution of income is more in accord with the recognition of non-academic Skills than is the distribution of occupa— tional prestige. In any case, I feel that a happy carpenter is to be preferred to an unhappy and inferior architect. However, as in the case of "Utopian Ideas" in Chapter XVII, we seem to swiftly run into utopian discussion in con- sidering the conditions required to realize the full benefits of independent evaluation. XX. FREEDOM THROUGH BUREAUCRACY For the purposes of this study, my definition of bureaucracy is a rough one. Bureaucracy is the use of definite generalized rules applicable to everyone falling into a predetermined category. Non-bureaucratic rules are particularistic and vary at the rule giver's pleasure. So much stress is placed upon the iniquity of inflex- ible bureaucratic rules that it is forgotten that much of their value lies in their very inflexibility. Inflexible bureaucratic rules are imposed on the Southern States in the determination of who has the right to vote, but I doubt that any Negroes would care to return to the pro-bureaucratic suffrage determinations. In general, a bureaucratic setting gives a superior less control over his subordinate than a non-bureaucratic setting. Blau illustrates this nicely in discussing a study of a large insurance company by Katz et. al. where relations between supervisors and subordinates were bureaucratically defined.1 In comparing the effectiveness of supervisors, it was found that the most effective super- visors were those who allowed their employees to break minor rules, such as those against smoking and talking. This 1Blau, Peter M., Bureaucracy l2 Modern Society. (New York: Random House, 1956), pp. 70-72. 255 256 permissiveness "furnishes the supervisors with legitimate sanctions against the employee who is not producing adequately." Blau uses the term "strategic leniency" to describe this debureaucratizing of the setting. In education, if the teacher is allowed to grade as he sees fit, he is given great control over what the student does. I could multiply examples ad nauseam, but let us re- turn to the "D" I received in English class as described in the Preface. Here the teacher partially justified her grading on the basis of my not signing my name properly (last name first) on the papers, failing to use ink on several occasions, and other things of this nature. Her basic argument, however, was that she simply thought my work was substandard. Of course, who was to contradict her, Since there were almost no rules defining how she was to grade. She had great freedom, freedom to grade as she chose, but her freedom was at the expense of the student. There also were real losses even for the student who collaborated in her methods; English is not a mountain of fussy little details, and if it is treated as such, the real value of the subject is lost. Independent evaluation does limit the teacher's free- dom to grade as he chooses, but in so doing, as I have argued throughout this paper, it greatly increases the student's freedom. The respondents were sensitive to the negative benefits of the independent evaluation; they would i l. HAM-Ii; . ni- 257 probably appreciate my problems in Senior English. Yet they were less sensitive to the positive benefits of the independent evaluation; that is, they could see how indepen- dent evaluation could protect a student from bad teachers, but they did not see that it has potentialities beyond that of the best single teacher working alone. 14.!!0. 3.14.. I“ I Libertarian Opponents I pre-tested several questions concerning personal liberties and student rights for my interview: 1. Do you feel curfews for co-eds should be abandoned? 2. John, a student at Michigan State, has been arrested for shoplifting at a local store. Should the University do anything to him, in addition to what the police and courts do? a. expell him b. suspend him c. reprimand him d. do nothing These and a number of other questions like them were not included in the final questionnaire, because they failed to relate to attitudes toward independent evaluation; nearly all respondents took the libertarian position.2 This libertar- ianism seems to be central to the kind of freedom I am talking about here. Its opponents are not usually authori- tarians who consciously wish to restrict freedom to learn, rather they feel that they are the libertarians and those who favor the course wide final wish to imprison them in an IBM strait-jacket. This was Shown rather neatly in the reverse correlations that appeared in the relation between requiring students to enroll in one University College 2However, Warrington and Mayhew report that accel- erating students are less authoritarian in responses to an Inventory of Beliefs. [Warrington, Willard G. and Mayhew, Louis B., "On the Credit Side," Dressel Evaluation in the Basic Collegg. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958)T_— Note though, that this involved a comparison of accelerating with students who were not eligible for acceleration. There was no non-acceleration eligible group in my study or pre- testing. "J \n \0 course before accelerating any and favorableness toward the course wide final. Those who were less favorable to the course wide final were more likely to agree that a student should be required to enroll in one University College course before attempting to accelerate. (Q37) For the individual raised in a folk or feudal society, the achievements of modern industrial society are incompre- hensible. Brinton3 and others have pointed out that a revolutionary situation does not develop in a society whose members are so downtrodden that they have no hope of a better life. Revolutions are the result of rising expec- tations, and it is perhaps expectations which is the key word here. The idea of machine developed personal freedom is still rather new in our society, and, just as the Luddites tore down the Eighteenth Century textile machinery, new technological developments are greeted with deep suspicion. Indeed, there has not been full adjustment to the develop- ments of ordinary mechanization. For example, the loco- motive firemen fought for years to maintain their jobs, and the printers in New York City featherbedded several big newspapers out of existence. With this background of resistance to ordinary mechanical improvements, it is not surprising that automation of much that was previously regarded as intellectual work has occasioned even greater resistance on the grounds of the 3Brinton, Crane, The Anatomy 23 Revolution. (New York: Vintage Books, 1959) 260 dehumanization of man and the mechanization of human re- lations. However much of this resistance is misplaced, for there seems to be not a straight line but a curvilinear relation between dehumanization (in a pejorative sense) and advances in technology. 261 The Division of Labor Marx dwells on the alienation of the worker because of the routinization and fractionalization of his job. This fractionalization of work reached its height on the automobile assembly line. Where formerly a wagon maker might have con— structed a complete Vehicle, now a worker's entire job might consist of the tightening of a single bolt thousands of times. It appeared that better living standards had been achieved at the expense of interest in life. Even in Adam Smith's famous example of the nail factory, increased division of labor which brought far greater productivity was probably at the expense of enjoyment of one's work. So it would seem that further technological developments as exemplified by automation must exacerbate this problem. Nevertheless, generalizations about the future of the division of labor are dangerous. Even so august a sociologist as Emile Durkheimu descends to the ridiculous by hypothesizing that women in modern Western Europe were weaker, had a smaller cranial capacity, and were in general less capable than women in primitive societies, and that this was the result of the separation of women from the world of men. This was part of the division of labor and would increase as society progressed. I wonder what Susan B. Anthony and Margaret Mead thought of Durkheim's generalization. Or what were the feelings of Marie Curie who lived in his own country? uDurkheim, Emile, The Division 2f Labor iE_Societ , trans. George Simpson (New York: Free fress, 19335, pp. 57-59. ,-I luv. 262 Just as Durkheim was wrong about the sexual division of labor, those who predicted that further technological progress would bring even more alienating work were wrong. For auto- mation has the potentiality to eliminate alientating routine jobs, because it is precisely those jobs which are most vulnerable to automation. In the chemical and petroleum in- dustries where continuous process technology has replaced assembly line technology, work is considerably more interest- ing than in those industries where assembly line technology is still dominant. Solids are not so amenable as liquids to full automation, but it does not require too much imagination to foresee the day when the job of tightening the single bolt will be done by machine with workers doing the overseeing and repair. The worker's job will thus recapture much of the in- terest and variety it held under craft production. Watching dials and checking on a large number of steps in the process of production should be far more enjoyable than doing a single task over and over again. The relation between uniformity and standardization of product and technology seems to be frequently misunderstood also. First one should make the point that there is both good and bad standardization. If I buy a new set of piston rings for my car's engine, I want them to fit exactly. Here standardization of product is a definite advantage, as any- one who tries to have an exotic sports car repaired will soon learn to his sorrow. Yet there are kinds of standardi- zation which are undesirable. Perhaps the best examples 263 here are the mass media; finer and finer electronic tech- nology is used to transmit poorer and poorer programs with more and more commercials. However, this too may be a particular stage in the development of technology. Some of the most monotonous products of today are houses, yet their monotony springs not from the advanced state of the housing industry but from its technological backwardness. The mass media will probably remain poor, but the develOpments in xeroxing and video tape promise cheaper production costs for of art, and so here too we may see an advancing technology promise greater diversity rather than.monotonous conformity. 262; The New Individuality If we return to education, we see an analogous develop- ment. For the moment let us grant that an individual relation between student and teacher is the ideal learning situation -— Mark Hopkins on one end of the log and the student on the other. Larger classes brought greater productivity, so that one man could teach many students, but they destroyed much of the personal interest in the relation between teacher and student. Where beforeeateacher could personally learn of his student's progress, it now became necessary to resort to a kind of assembly line technique in the form of an essay examination. The student was forced to write answers to questions for an hour or so, and the teacher was forced to spend many hours reading the answers to these questions. Much of the personal bond between student and teacher was broken because the teacher was forced to assign good grades to some students and poor grades to others, and personal friendships were not supposed to play a part in the assign- ment of these grades. The helpful tutor became the feared grade giver on whom much of a student's future success depended. Much has been written about the dangers of instructor bias, about the pretty blonde who gets the good grades, and the challenging student who gets the bad grades. The con- verse of this is the problem of the teacher in dealing with students who are his friends and whose ability he must rate according to their performance on his tests. So the 265 formerly warm and personal relation becomes transmuted by the power of grade-giving. An instructor can never really be sure if the student who praises his lecture is sincere or is just fishing for a better grade. The student can never really be sure if his criticism will be well taken or if his grade will suffer. In speaking of the disadvantages of a course wide final, I discussed the advantage of tempering justice with mercy in grading in our moralistically grade- conscious society. Still, mercy may become favoritism, and the person who is given the power to so temper assumes a different role than one who simply teaches. The opponents of the course wide final argue that it exacerbates the problems of mass education, thus further de- personalizing an already depersonalized situation. Yet just as in the case of continuous process technology versus assembly line technology, we find that technological innova- tion ameliorates rather than exacerbates. The course wide final removes grading from the instructor-student relation- ship and restores much of the old tutorial relationship. The student is still evaluated but not by the person by whom he is being taught. The teacher is free to be as friendly as he wishes with any of his students and no charges of favoritism need haunt him, for he is no longer the arbiter of the students' grades. Students and teacher meet as fellow participants in learning, not as judge and judged. Currying favor with the instructor will do no good and challenging questionable assertions will do no harm. The 266 instructor knows that those students who are friendly with him are not merely trying to influence a grading decision. The roles of both the student and the instructor are radically altered. Another advantage to the end of the log approach to education was its flexibility. 'With but a few students, the instructor is able to adjust his presentation to the abilities of each student. Larger classes have made this impossible under present teacher-centered evaluation. How- ever, independent evaluation should make it possible for the instructor to have more time to devote to his students, since he is freed from the burden of writing and grading examinations. In addition, acceleration certainly imparts a kind of flexibility for the student which has been missing since the end of the log days. The-multiple choice examination too is inherently less alienating than the essay examination. In taking an essay exam the student must partially guess at what the instructor wants, unless the test is one of rote memory. The multiple choice examination, because it supplies the alternatives, is able to elicit far finer discriminations. Further, as mentioned before, the student is able to spend his time thinking rather than writing. The only real disadvantage to a multiple choice examination is that good exams of this type are difficult to write and this, of course, is one of the principal reasons for having a special office write them. 267 XXI. SOME POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS OF THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY A demonstration of the effectiveness of acceleration and the course wide final may be largely confined to the field of educational research. An attempt to explain why they have not been more widely accepted requires a broader perspective. Some inventions like color television and hidden auto- mobile headlights are easily accepted. Others, especially social inventions, are often fought bitterly and may never be accepted at all. The course wide final and acceleration, like many social inventions, involve many changes and effects. Some of these changes and effects are accepted, for example, the control of instructor bias. Others remain surprisingly un- appreciated. I have suggested that this is the case with many complex societal phenomena; most people tend to concen- trate on the obvious and visible traits rather than the subtler and more important ones. In the case of the course wide final, one obvious and visible trait is its connection with the University College. The University College is disliked by many students and this dislike diffuses to the course wide final. The manifest connection between the course wide final and the University College is seen by the students. A more important latent connection is that between the course wide final and waiving and acceleration. Because the respondents do not see this, the anomalies of the liking for waiving and acceleration and the dislike of the course wide final appeared in the results. I have suggested some practical ways to make students aware of the benefits of die course wide final and some utopian methods for realizing die full possibilities of the course wide final. The Student Faculty Examiner comparisons sug- gested an analogy with interest group theory and offered further proof that different groups may agree for radically different reasons. In considering the implications of widespread accele- ration in Educational Change and Social Change, I noted that this would seem to require a change in our attitudes toward grading and reward for achievement. Some of the resistance to independent evaluation noted in this section may be a latent force which caused the downfall of independent evalu- ation at the University of Chicago. Finally, in "Freedom Through Bureaucracy", I suggested that the proper kinds of rules may promote rather than restrict freedom and I con- sidered an analogy between independent evaluation and automation. Since a general social science interpretation is re- quired to explain the results of the dissertation, it seems reasonable that the results should offer something to the body of social science knowledge. The study was from a 269 unitary point of view and any division of the results into particular disciplines must be an arbitrary one; nonetheless, some summary outline of the social science findings is re- quired and the following seems appropriate. It should, how— ever, be added that the application of the results of the study to the various social science disciplines is at a very low level of abstraction. Their findings are a kind of ap- plied social science rather than findings bearing directly on a particular theory. 1. 270 Psychology Tests and Measurements. Proponents of better tests should remember that tests must not only be better but must be seen as better to be fully effective. Appreciation of the benefits of better tests may be redefined by those benefitted so as to vitiate much of the understanding of the superiority of the tests, e.g. respondents personally preferred multi- ple choice tests but felt essary tests were superior evaluation devices. Learning. As earlier studies have suggested, and this one corroborates, it is uncertain how much learning goes on in the conventional classroom setting. l. 271 Social Psychology The individual who is informed about or interested in a particular field tends to exaggerate the sophistication of persons who are not so involved in the field. It was obvious to the members of the OES staff and me that the course wide final is necessary for acceleration. This was not at all obvious to acceleration eligible students, even though one would expect them to be more informed than the average University College student. Stu- dents were unable or unwilling to appreciate the care and effort which went into the course wide final. Support for a given institution may not be meaning- ful support. Earlier I noted that everyone is in favor of free speech as long as no one with whom he disagrees is allowed to speak. This finding was confirmed in the study by the example of the wide- spread support for acceleration. This support was not meaningful because the necessary infra- structure of the course wide final and attendant programs was neither supported nor understood. l. 272 Political Science The extension of bureaucratic control to areas which were formerly non-bureaucratically controlled is likely to be opposed even though this bureaucratic control promises greater freedom. This effect was important in criticism of the University College but was independent of the University College. Consider Question 18: "A good instructor can simply try to help his students learn and leave the testing to a special office." Only 13% agreed and 7h% disagreed. For those who felt strongly about Question 18, the differences were even more striking. A tiny 3.5% agreed strongly while 30.9% disagreed strongly. This question bore no particular relation to the University College, yet students still overwhelm- ingly rejected this application of independent evaluation. Two different groups may agree with a given proposition but for radically different reasons. Both examiners and students favor the waiver pro- gram, but whereas students see'it primarily as a means of escape from unwanted courses, examiners see it as a means of learning. 273 Sociology The resistance to the extension of bureaucratic con- trols is one aspect of the resistances to independent evaluation. However, certain other indirect effects of independent evaluation appear to limit its widespread acceptance. One of the dominant belief patterns in our society is the virtue of hard work. This belief is especially prevalent in the middle class, and since formal education is centered in the middle class, teachers and students alike believe that hard work should bring good grades and that good grades should require hard work. For the reasons discussed in "Educational Change and Social Change", widespread acceleration would threaten this belief pattern. And so this application of the Protestant Ethic may be seen as an exemplification of cultural lag in- hibiting the spread of independent evaluation. This resistance would probably prove even more important in secondary education than in the University, since part of the high school's function is more or less explicitly custodial as well as educational. XXII. GENERAL RESUME, SUMMARY, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Independent evaluation and acceleration provide great freedom and flexibility compared to the usual patterns of grading and class attendance. Other researchers have shown that acceleration works well from a strictly psychometric point of view. This study, however, is not a demonstration of the effectiveness of acceleration. Instead it is con- cerned with the attitudes of several groups which are affected by acceleration and independent evaluation. To this end, the study examines acceleration and independent evaluation in the specific context of the University College of Michigan State University. Two hundred and eighty-two acceleration-eligible student re- spondents to a mail questionnaire were the main source of data, but faculty members of the University College and staff members of the Office of Evaluation Services also supplied data. The student data consists of both answers to the questionnaire and demographic data concerning their suc- cess in waiving and acceleration and their grades in high school and college. This data was analyzed for significant correlations, for chi square relations, and for mean and frequency distribution characteristics. The faculty and 2m 27S examiner data, however, were methodologically doubtful and conclusions drawn from them should be considered merely suggestive. At the beginning of the study, I listed several gen- eral areas for the gathering of information. The following is a presentation of the results of my study in terms of that grouping. I A 1. To what extent are students' attitudes toward one aspect of independent evaluation related to other aspects of independent evaluation? Students attitudes toward the course wide final, the University College, multiple choice tests and the purpose of waiving and accele- ration were all interrelated. Students' overall evaluations of waiving and acceleration were interrelated with each other but not to the items above. Students attitudes toward MSU were not related to other aspects of independent evaluation. 2. Are students' successes in waiving, accele— ration,and grades related to their attitudes toward independent evaluation? In general, there were few relations between the demographic data and the attitudinal data. 3. How do students feel about the various aspects of independent evaluation? Do they like some parts significantly better than others? 276 Students were relatively unfavorable toward the University College and toward the course wide final as a test for better students. Students saw multiple choice tests as inferior to essay tests as evaluation devices but per- sonally preferred them. Students saw the purpose of waiving and accele- ration as a means of escape from dull courses rather than a new means of learning. Students were relatively favorable toward course wide finals as a means of combatting instructor bias. Students were very favorable overall to the waiving and acceleration programs. Students were very favorable overall toward MSU. How successful were students in academic achievement, particularly in waiving and acceleration? Students were considerably more successful in high school and in the University College than in MSU in general. A considerable number of students waived with special permission without attempting acceleration. A student was more than twenty times as likely to attempt acceleration in a University College II. B l. 277 course as in a non-University College course. How does student opinion compare with faculty opinion and examiner opinion on the various aspects of independent evaluation? The typical student has a low opinion of the University College and sees waiving and accel ration primarily as a means of escape from du e— 11 courses. The course wide final is all right as a weapon against instructor bias but not as an intrinsically better test. The typical faculty member likes the Universi College and feels waiving and acceleration ar all right, although a good honors program wou be far preferable. The course wide final is concession to the exigencies of mass enroll- ments. Essay exams are intrinsically better than multiple choice tests. The typical examiner sees waiving and accele- ration as providing a whole new set of learn- ing Opportunities. Course wide finals are intrinsically better evaluation instruments. Multiple choice exams offer intrinsic advantage over essay exams. How do independent evaluation and the results of this dissertation fit into the larger body of general social science theory? ty e 1d 8. 278 Students' answers were seen as manifesting concretism. Obvious benefits of the course wide final were noted but subtler and more important benefits were ignored. The problems of the University College and the course wide final were reviewed. Acceleration was seen as nested within a series of innovations, especially the course wide final. Proposals were made for the more ef- fective utilization of the course wide final. The problems of widespread acceleration for the weaker student were discussed. The dif- fering views of the faculty, students, and examiners were discussed in the context of interest groups and coalition formation, and the course wide final was discussed as pro- viding a new kind of freedom in the context of a new look at the division of labor. Finally, it should be noted again that perhaps the most pervasive finding was the tendency for respondents to see only the obvious visible relations among the institu- tions of Independent Evaluation rather than the subtler, more important relations. 279 Postscript 1969 The research for this dissertation was conducted in 1966 and 1967. Between then and the date this is being written, February 1969, several changes have occurred in the evaluation procedures of the University College. I am appending these as an historical note. 1. 3. The waiver program is now known as "The Indepen- dent Study Pregram." This new name seems more descriptive of the intrinsic purpose of the pro- gram - a means of learning, not simply an escape from unwanted courses. Also, this new title re- lates well to the ideas previously discussed ("Nesting of Inventions") for better publicity for the course wide final and waiving and acceleration. The American Thought and Language course wide final now includes an essay section. Most important among the changes is the reduction in the weighting of the course wide final portion of the student's grade in regularly enrolled University College courses from 50% to hO%. Question 17 on the interview was concerned with this very issue but it was intended as strictly hypothetical; instead it proved unintentionally predictive. This change, however, while important for students who enroll in University College courses, does not affect acceleration. Here the course wide final still counts 100%. 280 Suggestions for Further Research It is incumbent upon the author of any study in social science to close with a plea for more research. In this area, however, I am afraid that present studies may have reached a dead end. It has long been well established that acceleration and independent evaluation work. Further, Dressel reported in 19581 that students did not appreciate the intrinsic advantages of the course wide final. I feel that my research has confirmed Dressel's findings. Students who benefit by the course wide final are surprisingly ready to abandon it, and those students who like acceleration do not appreciate the role the course wide fhal plays in making these privileges possible. Some sort of experiment seems called for then, that uses some method of making the advantages of the course wide final clear to students. This would involve a control group of students to whom nothing was done and an experi- mental group who could be enrolled in a course in testing. Various studies have been made to show that students' Opinions can be changed on such things as racial prejudice; it would seem possible then to change students' opinions toward independent evaluation. However, an experiment such as this runs into the same problems concerned with any experiment which attempts to change attitudes. As discussed in "Educational Change lDressel, Paul L., Evaluation in the Basic College g3 Michigan State Universifiy, ed. (NEW York: Harper and Brothers, I938), p. 91L. and Social Change" and elsewhere in the dissertation, inde- pendent evaluation is Opposed to many basic vested interests in our society. For this reason it may be that college students have had too much experience with teacher centered evaluation to be able to change their Opinions about inde- pendent evaluation. A further disadvantage to changing Opinions about independent evaluation is that independent evaluation benefits those who are probably doing all right under conditions of conventional evaluation. I became interested in independent evaluation because I did not do well under conventional teacher centered evaluation, but I am apparently an exception if the data found in Question 73 is correct. Depending on how ambitious and well-financed the re- searcher was, he might consider the following methods of changing attitudes toward independent evaluation: 1. Simple publicity method. The publication of brochures, speeches, etc. as outlined in "Utopian Proposals", Chapter XVII. Some com- parison of attitudes could be made perhaps, using the data collected in this dissertation as a means of comparison. 2. Special class method. College students could be given special lectures on the benefits of multiple choice examinations. Students could be encouraged to attend through payment and a control group could be studied by having them attend classes on 3. 292 some topic irrelevent to independent evaluation. Longitudinal method. Probably the most effective but also the most expensive. Students at an early age, perhaps even elementary school students could be given special classes explaining the benefits of independent evaluation. Their attitudes and achievements could be compared with a control group. GLOSSARY Acceleration - The gaining of credit through taking the course wide final without enrolling in the course. A student is given credit if he receives an "A" or "B" on the final and is given an "N" grade (no grade) if he is unsuccessful. A student qualifies for accelera- tion through waiving with.specia1 permission or through Departmental permission q.v. Attitudinal Data — Attitudinal data refers to the opinions gathered from the respondents through the questionnaire and interviews. Basic College - The old name for the University College, used prior to 1961. Board of Examiners - The old name for Office of Evaluation Services q.v. CWF - Abbreviation for course wide final q.v. Comping - An informal term for acceleration. The name ap- parently comes from the comprehensive exam which was given prior to the introduction of the course wide final. Comprehensive Examination - An examination given prior to 1953 which counted 100% of a student's grade and which counted for a whole year's work rather than a single term. Correlation - Used in this dissertation to refer to both true correlations and chi square relations. Course wide final - The present University College final examination. Prepared by a member of the Office of Evaluation Services with the help of the teaching De- partment, it counted one-half Of a student's grade at the time this study was conducted. Demographic data - Refers to the information gathered on the student's grade point averages, entrance exam scores, number of waiver and acceleration exams attempted, etc. Departmental permission - The granting of the right to at- tempt acceleration because of high instructor grades in 283 28h previous terms of University College courses. It is also sometimes given to Honors College students. Evaluation - This term is used in two senses in the dis- sertation. (1) Independent evaluation and evaluation device refer to testing procedures. (2) Overall evalu- ation refers to the Opinions respondents have about some aspect Of the study, such as MSU or the University College. In general, the context makes clear which sense is meant. Examiner - Loosely, a member of the staff of the Office of Evaluation Services. Specifically, a member charged with the preparation of a course wide final. Fail to waive - Scoring on the waiver exam at a level insuf- ficiently high to avoid taking the course. Independent evaluation - The generic term for the complex of institutions associated with an examination which is not prepared by the instructor. Independent Study Program - The new name for the waiver and acceleration programs. The term is not used in this study since its inception postdates the research here. Inferential multiple choice tests — Tests which emphasize the application of principles and utilization of the material in new contexts rather than simple recall. Item - Any one of the questions asked of the students or faculty on the questionnaire, or demographic information about the students. OES - Abbreviation for Office of Evaluation Services. q.v. Office of Evaluation Services - The Office of the University College charged with the preparation of the course wide final. Other important duties include the administra- tion of MSU Entrance exams and the scoring of tests for other Departments of MSU. Question , Synonymous with item. q.v. UC - Abbreviation for University College. q.v. University College - A college of Michigan State University whose principal offerings are four basic courses: American Thought and Language, Natural Science, Social Science and Humanities. The University College is im- portant in this study because it is the home of the course wide final. University College courses - One or all of: American Thought and Language, Natural Science, Social Science, and Humanities. W and A - Abbreviation for waiving and acceleration. WSP - Abbreviation for waiver with special permission. Waiver Program - A group of tests given at the beginning of each term which are open to any University College stu- dent. One test is given for each Of the twelve terms of University College courses. If a student scores well enough, he is excused from the University College course and if he scores still higher, he is given an opportunity to attempt the course wide final at the end of that term and receive credit. Waive only - A score on the waiver examination which is high enough to excuse the student from the requirement of taking the course but not high enough to permit him to attempt the course wide final and receive credit. Waiver with special permission - A score on the waiver examination which not only waives the course require- ment but allows the student to attempt the course wide final for credit. LI ST OF REFERENCES Allison, Jane M., and Bloom, Benjamin S. "The Operation and Evaluation of a College Placement Test Program," The Journal 23 General Education, IV (April, 1950), p. 231. Blau, Peter M. Bureaucracy lg Modern Society. New York: Random House, 1956. Bloom, Benjamin, and Allison, Jane. "Developing a College Placement Test Program," The Journal 23 General Education, III (April, 1959), p. 213. Bloom, Benjamin. Taxonomy 23 Educational Objectives. New York: David McKay C0,, 1956. The Board Of Examiners, Michigan State College. Comprehensive Examinations 12 3 Program 2: General Education. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State College Press, l9h9. Brinton, Crane. The Anatomy pf Revolution. New York: Vintage Books, 1959. Broom, Leonard, and Selznick, Phillip. Sociology, Third Edition. New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1963. Campbell, Converse, Miller, and Stokes. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., l96h. Campbell, Gurin, and Miller. The Voter Decides. Evaston, Illinois: Row, Peterson, and Company, 195H. Cantril, Hadley. Gauging Public Opinion. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, l9hh. Cohen, Lillian. Statistical Methods for Social Scientists. New York: Prentice Hall, 195R. Davis, Kingsley, and Moore, Wilbert. "Some Principles of Stratification," American Sociological Review, X, NO. 2 (1915). Pp- 2h2-2h9- Denny, M.R. "A Theoretical Analysis and Its Application T0 Training the Mentally Retarded." Unpublished Paper. 286 287 Dexter, Lewis Anthony. "The Politics and Sociology of Stupidity" in The Other Side, ed. Howard Becker, New York: The Free Press, l96h. Dexter, Lewis Anthony. The Tyranny 2£_Schooling. New York: Basic Books, 196R. Donald, Roy. "Quota Restriction and Goldbricking in a Machine Shop," American Journal pf Sociolqgl: LVII (March, 1952), pp. h27-hfl2. Dressel, Paul L. (ed.). Evaluation lg the Basic College 32 Michigan State Universiyy. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958. Dressel, Paul, et al. Evaluation in Higher EducatiOn. New York: Houghton MIffIIn, I96IT Durkheim, Emile. The Division pf Labor 32 Society, trans. George Simpson. New York: Free Press, 1933. Goffman, Erving. As lums. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., 196 . Gombrich, E.H. The Story 2f Art. Garden City, New York: Phaidon PublIShers, 1960. Goslin, David A. The Search for Ability. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966. Hall, J. Oliver. "A Study of Acceleration Methods in Basic College Social Science." Unpublished Ed. D. Disser- tation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1951. Hamilton, Thomas, and Blackman, Edward, (eds.). The Basic Colle e pf Michigan State. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State College Press, 1955. Hoffman, Banesh. The Tyranny pf Testing. New York: Collier Books, 1962. Key, V.C. Southern Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 19u9. Merton, Robert. 9g Theoretical Sociology. New York: Free Press, 1967. Merton, Robert. Social Theory and Social Structure. New YOrk: Free Press, 1957. Ogburn, William. Social Change. New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1966. 288 Olmsted, Donald. "Open Note Examinations in Introductory Social Psychology." Unpublished Paper. Pressey, Sidney L. Educational Acceleration: Appraisals and Basic Problems. Columbus, Ohio: The Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University, 19u9. Schlesinger, Joseph. Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.,—I966. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1953. Sweet, Robert L. "A Study of Acceleration by Examination in the Basic College of Michigan State College." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, MSU, l9bu. Tumin, Melvin M. "Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis" American Sociological Review, XVIII (AUBUSt, 1953): PP- 387-393- Warrington, Willard G. "Some Positive Academic Functions of a Common Examination Program." Unpublished Paper. Warrington, Willard G., and Mayhew, Louis B. "On the Credit Side" in Dressel Evaluation $3 the Basic College. New York: Harper and Brothers, 19581 Wood, Dorothy. Test Construction. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1961. York, Frank. "High School - University Continium." Unpublished Paper. York, Frank. "Social Anthropomorphisnm Unpublished Paper. APPENDIX QUESTION BY QUESTION ANALYSIS The Question by Question Analysis presents all of the coded questions arranged in order of the data analysis number which was assigned to each. (Interview numbers B2, El, and I2 were not coded and are not presented here.) The questions begin with number four since the first three spaces on the punch cards were used for the respondents' identification numbers. Much of the information given here is presented elsewhere in the dissertation; however, the Question by Question Analysis gives the most complete infor- mation about the individual characteristics of each item. In any case, this section is designed for reference rather than for ordinary reading. The next page presents the same sample item that was used for explaining the terminology in the Data Analysis section. The terminology used in the Question by Question Analysis is very similar to that used in the Data Analysis Section; however, there are still some differences which require explanation. 289 290 Item A Used as a Sample Item to Explain the Symbols and Terminology Used (This number refers to the question number for analytic purposes.) (This number gives the item's location in the interview or indicates if the item was taken from Office of Evaluation Services records, in which case the ab- breviation "0E3" is used.) Many peOple feel a big institution like MSU is just too impersonal and bureaucratic. Do you: 1. ( ) Agree strongly 2. ( ) Agree 3. ( ) Neither agree nor disagree h. ( ) Disagree 5. ( ) Disagree strongly (This reproduces the item as it appeared in the inter- view or explains the demographic data.) Means: Student 3.1a (Std dev 1.11) Faculty 2.15 Examiner h or 5 (This line gives the student mean and standard deviation and gives the faculty and examiner means where appro- priate. Faculty and examiner means are not used beyond Question 55.) Student Frequency Distribution MD I 2 3 h 5 Number 2 15 85 Ah 115 21 Percentage 0.7 5.3 30.1 15.6 No.8 7-M (Means are given for all three groups, but frequency distributions are presented for the students only. "MD" means "missing data".) Basic Group I (The Basic Group refers to the group the item is most highly intercorrelated with and the group in which the item is discussed in the data analysis section. Some items with few correlates have no basic group. The term "other groups" is used for items which have several important relations with another group.) 291 Agreeing that MSU is too impersonal and bureaucratized was associated with: **5. Disagreeing that MSU's size provided freedoms no smaller institution could offer “*6. Not liking MSU overall 15. Preferring more regular introductory courses in place of University College courses (The items are phrased to indicate the direction of the "correlation". Other minor differences in phrasing are not intended to indicate anything.) The word "correlations" includes both true correlations and chi square relations. The magnitude of the cor- relation and certain other information about it is indicated by the following key: 85. .05 level *85. .01 level e%85. .001 level Jo w85. correlation opposite to predicted direction a85. artifactual correlation Comments: (these record barious miscellaneous bits of information about the items) 292 A. Many people feel a big institution like MSU is just too (Al) impersonal and bureaucratized. Do you: 1. 2. 3. u. 5. Agree strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Disagree strongly AAA/\A vvvvv Means: Student 3.1u (Std dev 1.11) Faculty 2.15 Examiner h or 5 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 LL 5 Number 2 15 85 an 115 21 Percentage 0.7 5.3 30.1 15.6 no.8 7.k Basic Group I Agreeing that MSU is too impersonal and bureaucratized was associated with: 35-33; . \l \I WW6 . 15. 26. ::-::-32 . Disagreeing that MSU's size provided freedoms no smaller institution could offer Not liking MSU overall Preferring more regular introductory courses in place of University College courses Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are useful only as a way out of dull courses Agreeing that the purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College Agreeing that waiving and acceleration work only because University College courses are so easy Agreeing that course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative student Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students Comments: This question was included because I felt that attitudes toward MSU bureaucracy might generalize toward the course wide final. The preceding correlations show that there was, indeed, some generalization and Qh was much more successful in this respect than Q5 and Q6, the other two questions about MSU. 293 5. Others feel that MSU's very size provides freedoms no (A2) smaller institution could offer. Do you: 1. ( ) Agree strongly 2. ( ) Agree 3. ( ) Neither agree nor disagree u. ( ) Disagree 5. ( ) Disagree strongly Means: Student 1.95 (Std dev 0.82) Faculty 2.15 Examiner 1 or 2 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 h 5 Number 1 75 163 25 15 3 Percentage O.h 26.6 57.8 8.9 5.3 1.1 Basic Group I Agreeing that MSU's very size provides freedoms no smaller institution could offer was associated with: *%u. Disagreeing that MSU was too impersonal and bureaucratized %%6. Liking MSU overall 25. Agreeing that "waiving and acceleration are the greatest thing that's happened to me in college 28. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning 50. Agreeing that course wide finals are useful in evaluating programmed learning 6h. Not wanting to have waived or accelerated more courses Comments: Q5 is by no means simply the inverse of QA as is shown by the rather different pattern of correlations. Note that Q5 is associated with ESE wanting to waive or accele- rate more courses. This last is explained by the fact that Q6h measures not liking for waiving and acceleration but dislike for the University College (See Q6u). 291i (6. What is your overall feeling toward MSU? A3 ) I like it very much ) I like it ) I'm indifferent toward it ) I dislike it ) I dislike it very much \J‘L-F’wmb-J 0.... Means: Student 1.93 (Std dev 0.79) Faculty 1.86 Examiner 1 or 2 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 h 5 Number 3 7M 16h 26 13 2 Percentage 1.1 26.2 58.2 9.2 h.6 0.7 Basic Group I Liking MSU overall was associated with: *%h. Disagreeing that MSU is too impersonal and bureaucratized -%*5. Agreeing that MSU's size provided freedoms no smaller institution could offer Comments: Q6 did not generalize as did Q's u and 5; its only correlations were with Group I. However Q6 has con- siderable interest in comparison with the mean for Q22, overall liking for the University College. As the com- parisons in Group I show, MSU is very much better liked than the University College. ,J 29? 7. How important is getting along with your teachers in (AA) getting good grades? . ( ) Very important . ( ) Somewhat important . ( ) Not very important . ( ) Not at all important $TVHVFJ Means: Student 2.h7 (Std dev .080) Faculty Inapplicable Examiner Inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution DD 1 2 3 1% Number A 2 125 101 2 Percentage 1.5 8.5 hh.3 35.8 9.9 Basic Group None Other Groups IIa Feeling that getting along with one's teachers was important in getting good grades was associated with: %*27. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration added flexibility to otherwise strict course requirements 28. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning 60. Wanting to have a program set up for comping non- University College courses Comments: This question was something of a disappointment. I had hoped that students who see getting along with mieir teachers as important to good grades would be more favor— able toward independent evaluation. In a small way, this belief was supported; but three correlations is not impressive. The frequency distribution provides an almost even split. 296 8. Have you found that you learned most in your hardest (A5) courses? Almost always Usually Sometimes Rarely Almost never AAAAA l 2 3 h 5 Means: Student 2.37 (Std dev 0.98) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 h 5 Number 3 55 98 92 3A 0 Percentage 1.1 19.5 3h.8 32.6 12.1 0.0 Basic Group IIa Other Groups II Feeling that one learned most in one's hardest courses was associated with: “*10. Believing that essay_exams are better evaluation devices than multiple choice exams *ll. Personally preferring essay exams to multiple choice exams l5. Preferring more regular introductory courses in place of University College courses 16. Believing an automatic waiver for University College courses would be a good idea 17. Feeling that the instructor's percentage of the grade should be increased in University College courses 18. Disagreeing that a good instructor can simply help his students learn and leave testing to a special office *3h. Favoring Department Standards for students who waive with special permission kl. Not wanting students in honors sections to take the regular course wide final 52. Disagreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses with sufficient enrollment for them 55. Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College 297 Comments: Question 8 was far and away the best of the indirect questions relating to independent evaluation. Acceleration is a far easier means of gaining credit for the superior student since it removes artificial restraints to learning. Students who feel a course must be "hard to be good" therefore will reject independent evaluation. 298 9. Do you feel you learn more from the textbooks and other (A5) readings assigned in a course or do you learn more from the instructor? 1. ( ) I almost always learn more from the texts 2. ( ) I usually learn more from the texts 3. ( ) I usually learn more from the instructor u. ( ) I almost always learn more from the instructor Means: Student 2.2h (Std dev 0.83) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 16 M9 115 88 1h Percentage 5.7 l7.h h0.8 31.2 5.0 Basic Group None Other Groups IIa Feeling that one learns most from the texts rather than the instructor was associated with: 17. Wishing to reduce the instructor's percentage of the grade in University College courses Comments: Unlike Question 8, which was rather subtle and had a number of mDrrelations, Question 9 is quite direct and has but a single correlation. This correlation that stu- dents who feel they learn more from the texts would like to see the percentage of the instructor's grade reduced in re- lation to the percentage of the grade assigned by the course wide final in University College courses certainly makes sense, but a single relation at the .05 level fails to qualify Question 9 as a very impressive variable. The frequency distribution for Question 9 indicates that 58.2% of the students feel they learn more from the texts while 36.2% of the students feel they learn more from the instructors. This finding is congruent with later questions which indicate that students feel widespread acceleration would not lower academic standards (Q h2) and the over- Whelming preference for a program to comp non-University College courses (Q 60). Yet Question 9 shows no significant relations with these questions. 299 10. Do tou think essay or multiple choice exams do the best (Bl) job of evaluating students? 1. ( ) Essay exams do much better 2. ( ) Essay exams do somewhat better 3. ( ) They do about the same h. ( ) Multiple choice exams do somewhat better 5. ( ) Multiple choice exams do much better Means: Student 2.32 (Std dev 1.19) Faculty 2.12 Examiner h or 5 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 h 5 Number 10 83 81 61 32 15 Percentage 3.5 29.5 28.7 21.6 11.3 5.3 Basic Group II Believing multiple choice exams were superior to essay exams as evaluation devices was associated with: .v..v.8 l\ l\ . -'--'-18 I! I‘ . 22. 3A . MO. \I \I 8 war); . Not feeling one learned most in one's hardest courses Personally preferring multiple choice exams over essay exams Having a favorable overall evaluation for the University College course wide final Not wanting an automatic waiver for students majoring in a field which a particular University College course covers Wishing to reduce the instructor's percentage of the grade in University College courses Agreeing a good instructor can simply help his stu- dents learn and leave testing to a special office Having a favorable overall evaluation of die University College Not favoring Departmental standards for acceleration for students who waive with special permission Not favoring more honors sections at the expense of waiving and acceleration Agreeing that course wide fhals are fairer than ordinary finals 9395i; . 57. .v .V. 9 If n . 300 Disagreeing that course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative student Disagreeing that course wide finals bear little relation to the material covered in the course Agreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU which have sufficient enrollment for them Agreeing that course wide finals let a student see how well he can do without instructor bias Disagreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College Seeing a wide discrepancy between a student's instructor and course wide finals as the result of instructor error or bias Being able to suggest positive functions of a course wide final Comments: Question 10 makes eminently clear that the course wide final is seen as a multiple choice examination. The means for Question 10 are especially interesting in com- parison with those for Question 11 and are discussed in Group II of the Data Analysis section and in the Student Faculty Examiner Comparisons. 301 11. which kind of exam do you personally prefer? (Blb) l. ( ) Essay 5. ( ) Multiple choice Means: Student 3.56 (Std dev 1.92) Faculty 1.19 Examiner 5 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 5 Number 20 9A 168 Percentage 7.1 33.3 59.6 Basic Group II Personally preferring essay exams to multiple choice exams was associated with: *8. Believing that one learned most in one's hardest courses **lO. Believing that essay exams are better evaluation devices than multiple choice exams -a*12. Holding a favorable overall evaluation of the course wide final *17. Believing that the weighting for the instructor's part of the grade should be increased 21. Not believing that it is very important to get good grades 22. Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the University College 31. Agreeing that acceleration is too easy 32. Agreeing that the purpose of waiving and accele- ration would be better served by abandoning the University College 36. Agreeing that an "A" should be required for successful acceleration Wh7. Agreeing a student with high College Board scores rather than high high school grades should be ad- mitted to college %*u8. Disagreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals 302 **h9. Agreeing that course wide finals reward the con- forming and penalize the creative student “*51. Agreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course *52. Disagreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses with sufficient enrollment for them 53. Agreeing that course wide finals make an instructor's job harder *aSh. Disagreeing that course wide finals let a student see how well he can do without instructor bias “*55. Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College 70. Enrolling in few University College courses Comments: A comparison with Q10 shows that students are far more likely to personally prefer multiple choice exams than they are to see them as better evaluation devices. Note also the correlation with Q21; liking multiple choice exams was associated with feeling good grades are important. In general however, the same pattern of correlations that was found in QlO prevails. The multiple choice construction of the course wide final is salient for these respondents. 303 Please check the statement which best describes your views of University College course wide final exami- nations. 1. ( ) They are guessing games which reveal little or nothing of the student's knowledge of the course. 2. ( ) They are rather poor exams and are not very indicative of the subject matter of the course. 3. ( ) They are all right I guess. I have no Opinion about them. A. ( ) They are good examinations; in general they do a pretty fair job of measuring a student's knowledge of the subject matter of the course. 5. ( ) They are very good examinations which do an ' excellent job of measuring a student's knowledge of the course. Means: Student 3.05 (Std dev 1.19) Faculty 3.50 Examiner 5 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 h 5 iumber 9 29 78 28 123 15 Percentage 3.2 10.3 27.7 9.9 h3.é 5.3 Basic Group II Choosing a statement which was favorable to the course wide final was associated with: %%10. Believing that multiple choice are better evaluation devices than essay exams *all. Personally preferring multiple choice to essay exams **lh. Believing that University College course wide finals are superior to multiple choice exams in other courses 15. Not wanting to replace any University College courses with regular introductory courses %*l7. Wanting to increase the weighting of the course wide final in the determination of grades 18. Agreeing that a good instructor can simply help his students learn and leave the testing to a special office *%20. Believing that University College grading is fairer than high school grading £622 . 28. 30. -::-32. 33- 39. *ahB. as-x-LLC) . %*51. *59. .- 30h Having a favorable overall evaluation of the University College Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning Disagreeing that waiving is too easy Disagreeing that the purpose of waiving and accele— ration would be better served by abandoning the University College Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration work only because University College courses are so easy Seeing acceleration as more a matter of new learning than a demonstration of previous knowledge Agreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals Disagreeing that course wide finals reward the con- forming and penalize the creative student Disagreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course Agreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses with sufficient enrollment for them Agreeing that course wide finals let a student see how well he can do without instructor bias Disagreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College Being able to supply good uses for a course wide final Comments: This was the overall evaluation question for the course wide final in slightly altered form from the usual "I like it," to "I dislike it," format. The means show in- difference on the part of the students. Note that twice as many students chose the extreme dislike response as chose the extreme like response. 305 13. Do you think University College course wide final exam- (Bu) inations count more or less than final examinations in other courses in determining a student's grade? 1. ( ) University College finals count more 2. ( ) University College finals count about the same 3. ( ) University College finals count less Means: Student l.h9 (Std dev 0.6h) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 Number 15 15h 99 1h Percentage 5.h 54.6 35.1 5.0 Basic Group None Other Groups II Believing that University College finals count more than final examinations in other courses was associated with: 35. Believing that a 2.00 GPA should be required of students attempting waivers Comments: This item was not really designed to correlate with other questions and has but one significant relation. This correlation with Q35 indicates a tendency for students who think University College finals count more to favor standards for waiving. This makes a certain amount of sense in that it would seem that students who know less about University College finals would be less in favor of the waiver program. However, the correlation is only at the .05 chi square level and may well be due to chance. The student mean for the question is rather more interesting in that it supports the results in other information questions (Q's 61, 63.and 65) which indicates that students are not well informed about the course wide final. Over half of the students reported University College finals as counting more than finals in other courses, whereas final examinations count at least 50% in most non-University College courses. 306 1h. In comparison with multiple choice final exams in other (B5) courses would you say University College course wide final examinations were: 1. VLF—WM Much better Better About the same Poorer Much poorer Means: Student 2.86 (Std dev 1.08) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD l 2 3 h b J Number 19 27 72 87 61 16 Percentage 6.8 9.6 25.5 30.9 21.6 5.7 Basic Group II Believing that University College course wide finals were superior to multiple choice finals in other courses was associated with: .‘LJ’. I\ n O 15. l8. eeeeEBC). sex-22 . 320 \I \I I I - - - I\ l‘ 8 . 1+9. .‘uv. l I‘ I‘ . Holding a favorable overall evaluation toward the course wide final Not wanting to substitute regular introductory courses for the University College courses Agreeing that a good instructor can simply try to help his students learn and leave testing to a special office Believing University College grading is fairer than high school grading Holding a favorable overall evaluation of the University College Disagreeing that the purpose of waiving and accele- ration would be better served by abandoning the University College Agreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals Disagreeing that course wide finals reward the con- forming and penalize the creative student Disagreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course u n! .‘O- "1‘ 2. *SLL- \I u ’Isu'A-SS . ‘f \I ”7"59 0 307 Agreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU with sufficient enrollment for them Agreeing that course wide finals let a student see how well he can do without instructor bias Disagreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College Being able to report important advantages of a course wide final Comments: Because th asked for comparisons between multiple choice finals, we find no relation with Q's IO and 11 which are concerned with the relative merits of multiple choice and essay exams. th correlated very well with the other Group II items however, and was unifactorial in this regard, having no significant relations outside Groups II and IIa. 308 15. Would you prefer more regular introductory courses (Cl) rather'than some or all of the University College courses, for example, a year of Introductory English rather than ATL, or History of Civilization rather than Humanities? ) Yes, very much so ) Yes, probably ) No, probably not ) No, not at all Means: Student 2.39 (Std dev 1.0h) Faculty 3.50 Examiner A Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 1 68 67 90 A2 Percentage S.h 2h.1 23.8 31.9 lh.9 Basic Group IIa Preferring more regular introductory courses in place of University College courses was associated with: h. 8. 12. 1h. *al6. Thinking MSU is too impersonal and bureaucratized Feeling that one learned most in one's hardest courses Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the University College course wide final Believing University College course wide finals are inferior to multiple choice finals in other courses Wanting to have an automatic waiver for University College courses Holding an unfavorable overall evaluation of the University College Feeling that acceleration is too easy Believing that waiving and acceleration work only because University College courses are so easy Disagreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals Agreeing that course wide finals reward the con- forming and penalize the creative student 309 51. Agreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course 55. Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College 6h. Wishing that one had waived or accelerated more courses Comments: A more or less direct measure of attitude toward the University College, Q15 related reasonably well to the course wide final items. The frequency distributions are discouraging for friends of the University College. /—\ F4 C) C“ No 310 Do you think it would be a good idea to automatically waive University College courses for students majoring in the field which the University College course covers; for example, Natural Science 181 for biology majors or Social Science 233 for political science majors? U'LPWNH 000.. Excellent idea Good idea No Opinion Bad idea Very bad idea Means: Student 1.68 (Std dev 1.05) Faculty 2.75 Examiner h or Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 u 5 Number 2 166 75 7 25 7 Percentage 0.7 58.9 26.6 2.5 8.9 2.5 Basic Group IIa Other Groups III Wanting an automatic waiver for students majoring in a field which a particular University College course covers was associated with: 8. 10. Qfiéfi 1‘ l‘ . 22. 32. Feeling that one learned most in one's hardest courses Thinking that essay exams are better evaluation devices than multiple choice exams Wanting more regular introductory courses in place of University College courses Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the University College Believing that the purpose of waiving and accele- ration would be better served by abandoning the University College and offering more regular intro- ductory courses Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College Wanting to have a program set up to accelerate non— University College courses Comments: This was one of the more subtle questions; ostensibly agreement with Q16 would indicate support for the waiver programs. Actually the opposite is true. The 311 waiver program gives everyone who feels he has competence in the subject matter a chance to demonstrate that com- petence. The automatic waiver would weaken the waiver pro- gram by allowing certain students to skip it, and it would also create problems for students changing majors. As all the correlations (except that with Q60) show, agreement with this idea is associated with dislike for the University College and the course wide final. The acceptance of this idea by the students is discouraging. 58.9% thought it an excellent idea and only 2.5% thought it a very bad idea. 312 17. At present, the instructor's grade counts one-half in (C3) determining the grade a student receives in a University College course. If this proportion were changed, how much and in what direction should it be changed? 1. ( ) Instructor's grade should count 100% j 2. ( ) Instructor's grade should count more than 50% but less than 100% 3. ( ) Instructor's grade should count less than 505 but should still count some h. ( ) Course wide final grade should count 100% Means: Student 2.21 (Std dev 0°58) Faculty 2.05 Examiner 3 or U Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 h Number 32 13 176 55 6 Percentage ll.h h.6 62.h 19.5 2.1 Basic Group II Believing that the instructor's percentage of the grade in University Colleges should be increased was associated with: *8. Feeling that one learned most in one's hardest courses 9. Feeling that one learned more from the instructors than the texts *10. Believing that essay exams are better evaluation de- vices than multiple choice exams wll. Personally preferring essay exams over multiple choice exams %*l2. Holding an unfavorable overall evaluation of the course wide final *%18. Disagreeing that a good instructor can simply help his students learn and leave testing to a special office no. Believing that honors sections should be encouraged at the expense of waiving and acceleration %%h8. Disagreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals *h9. Agreeing that course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative student 313 *51. Agreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course %%52. Disagreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses with sufficient enrollment for them **5h. Disagreeing that course wide finals let a student see how well he can do without instructor bias *55. Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College 58. Having high high school grades 59. Being unable to supply good functions for a course wide final Comments: This question originally was a five choice item with a middle choice of "leave it at 50%% but so many peOple chose this alternative that I changed the item to a four choice forced choice question. This was unfortunate since the course wide final has since been reduced to only h0% of the student's grade, and a statement of the percenta e of students wishing to keep the course wide final at 50p would have been interesting. However, at the time I included the question in the questionnaire I had no idea that there was any chance of Changing the weighting of the course wide final. Q17 was unintentionally predictive. One other characteristic of Q1? deserves mention; Q17 was the only question which related strongly to the course wide final but not at all to the University College. l R 31A a "A good instructor can simply try to help his students (Ch) learn and leave the testing to a special office". Do you: 1. ( ) Agree strongly 2. ( ) Agree 3. ( ) Neither agree nor disagree h. ( ) Disagree 5. ( ) Disagree strongly Means: Student 3.86 (Std dev l.ll) Faculty 3.81 Examiner l or 2 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 h 5 Number 3 10 28 32 12 87 Percentage 1.1 3.5 9.9 11.3 h3.3 30.9 Basic Group II Agreeing a good instructor can simply help his students learn was associated wth: Comments: 8. v u .C-‘ 0 10 o 12. 1h. 6;")?5 2 0 .V..". n n 0 Feeling one did not learn most in one's hardest courses Believing multiple choice exams are better evaluators than essay exams Having a favorable overall evaluation for die course wide final Believing University College finals are better than multiple choice finals in other courses Wanting to reduce the instructor's percentage of the grade in University College courses Agreeing that course wide finals are fairer mien regular finals Agreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses with sufficient enrollment Agreeing that course wide finals help fight instructor bias This question was included to see to what extent students accepted the idea of independent evaluation in.the classroom outside the University College. frequency distributions Show, new role for an instructor. As the means and students did not accept this The question was effective in relating to other course wide final items. 315 19. Under what circumstances do you feel a "Y" grade for a (D1) student is justified? (A "Y" grade is an automatic "F" which does not allow a student to take the final and pass the course as he might with an ordinary "F" from the instructor) 1. ( ) Under no circumstances 2. ( ) Cheating only 3. ( ) Cheating and/or excessive unexcused absences h. ( ) Other (Please specify) Question 19 was coded on a l or 5 basis. If the respondent chose "under no circumstances" or "cheating only", his response was coded 1. If he checked 'excessive absences" or supplied such reasons as "missed homework", his response was coded 5. Means: Student l.M3 (Std dev 1.19) Faculty 2.h7 Examiner 1 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 5 Number 8 2H6 28 Percentage 2.9 87.2 9.9 Basic Group None Other Groups II Feeling that a "Y" grade was justified under no circum- stances or cheating only was associated with: W%55. Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College Comments:Ql9 managed only one anomalous correlation which might be due to chance, since it was certainly opposite to the predicted direction. However, the same effect was noted for Q37 and is discussed in the Data Analysis section under the heading "Special Correlation Discussion". Briefly, this effect is the tendency for some students who dislike the course wide final to also be in favor of greater freedom in grading under some circumstances. 316 20. In general would you say your high school's grading is (D2) fairer or less fair than University College grading? \J'l-F'wmi—J O. O O 0 High school grading is much fairer High school grading is somewhat fairer Each is about equally fair University College grading is somewhat fairer University College grading is much fairer Means: Student 2.91 (Std dev 1.05) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 L} 5 Number 20 21 6h 108 50 19 Percentage 7.1 7.h 22.7 38.3 17.7 6.7 Basic Group II Feeling that one's high school was fairer in its grading than the University College was associated with: \I \I ---- n A 12. -x--::- 1).]. . -v~--22 I‘ I‘ . \I \I wlr28 . 32. -::-33. M9. sex-5 1 . Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the course wide final Believing University College course wide finals are inferior to multiple choice exams in other courses iaving an unfavorable overall evaluation of the University College Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning Agreeing that the purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College and offering more regular courses Agreeing that waiving and acceleration work only because University College courses are so easy Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the acceleration program Disagreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals Agreeing hat course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative student Agreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course 317 5h. Disagreeing that course wide finals let a student see how well he can do without instructor bias *55. Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College %*59. Not being able to supply good uses for a course wide final *7h. Waiving few courses at the waive only level Comments: Q20 had a nearly balanced distribution with a slight preference for high school grading. Again we see further proof of the lack of appreciation of the course wide final. The correlations place Q20 clearly in Group II. 318 21. How important is it to you to get good grades? (D3) . ( ) Very important . ( ) Important . ( ) Not very important . ( ) Not at all important $TCMU+4 Means: Student 1.77 (Std dev 0.66) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 6 90 159 2h 3 Percentage 2.1 31.9 56.h 8.5 Basic Group None Feeling that it was important to get good grades was associated with: 11. Personally preferring multiple choice over essay exams a72. Having a high MSU grade point average Comments: This question was included because some of those with whom I talked in pre-testing, who did not like indepen- dent evaluation, said they didn't think grades were important. This relation did not hold, and, judging from the frequency distribution here, those who do not think grades are important comprise a small group. The two correlations Q21 does have are rather interesting. Preferring multiple cnoice tests appears to be the result of students thinking multiple choice tests are easier. Having a better grade point average could be either the result of these students trying harder or those students who do not have good grades deciding that grades aren't important. 319 22. What is your overall feeling toward the University (D5) College? 1. ( ) I like it very much 2. ( ) I like it 3. ( ) I‘m indifferent toward it h. ( ) I dislike it 5. ( ) I dislike it very much Means: Student 3.0M (Std dev 1.06) Faculty 2.00 Examiner l or 2 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 h 5 Number 9 13 76 89 72 23 Percentage 3.2 h.6 27.0 31.6 25.5 8.2 Basic Group II Other Groups III Having a favorable overall evaluation of the University College was associated with: 10. 11. 2'12. §‘ 9:»):- lh . \I \I I O C- Q l\ I\ o 16. -::--::-20 . 26. ‘I \O - -- - l\ I\ ;; . Believing multiple choice tests are better evaluation devices than essay tests Personally preferring multiple choice tests over essay tests Having a favorable evaluation of the course wide final Believing that University College course wide finals are superior to multiple choice tests in other courses Not wanting to replace any University College courses with regular introductory courses Not wanting an "automatic waiver" Believing University College grading is fairer than high school grading Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration are useful only as a way out of dull courses Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning. Disagreeing that the purpose of waiving and accele- ration would be better served by abandoning the University College and offering more regular courses 320 “*33. Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration work only because University College courses are so easy *hl. Agreeing that students in honors sections should take the regular course wide final 4*h8. Agreeing that course wide fhals are fairer than ordinary finals **h9. Disagreeing that course wide finals reward the con- forming and penalize the creative student **51. Disagreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course 52. Agreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses with sufficient enrollment for them Sh. Agreeing diat course wide finals let a student see how well he can do without instructor bias %*SS. Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College *6h. Not wishing that one had waived or accelerated more courses Comments: An extremely effective question, Q22 clearly in- dicates the close connection in student's minds between the course wide final and the University College. The overall mean shows that the mean student feeling is indifference toward the University College and that % of the students dislike the University College very much. 321 23. Do you feel that your high school grades or your scores (D6 on the entrance examination that you took when you entered MSU, provided the better measure of your ability in college? 1. ( ) High school grades provided better measure 2. ( ) Entrance exam scores provided better measure Means: Student 1.57 (Std dev 0.56) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution 1D 1 2 Number 62 95 125 Percentage 22.0 33.7 hh.h Basic Group None Other Groups II Feeling that one's high school grades provided the better measure of one's ability in college was associated with: **h7. Believing that a student with high hign school grades should be admitted to college in preference to a student with high College Board scores %60. Not wanting a program set up to accelerate non- University College courses Comments: Questions concerned with independent evaluation outside the classroom did not relate to attitudes toward the course wide final. The large amount of missing data was due to students reporting that they had not taken the MSU entrance exams. Many students must have forgotten be- cause I found entrance exam scores for many of the students who reported not having taken them. Note that independent evaluation outside the classroom is much more accepted than independent evaluation inside the classroom. (See Q18) 322 2h. When did you learn of waiving and acceleration? (El ) 1. ( ) Before entering MSU 2. ( ) First term at MSU 3. ( ) Second term at MSU h. ( ) Later (please specify) Means: Student l.MS (Std dev 0.81) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2J 3 A Number 5 193 55 19 10 Percentage 1.8 68.h 19.5 6.7 3.5 Basic Group V Other Groups VI Learning about waiving and acceleration early in one's college career was associated with: %*35. Not wanting to require a 2.00 GPA for attempting waivers %*58. Having high high school grades 6h. Not wanting to have waived or accelerated more courses 66. Attempting more waivers a72. Having high MSU grades 76. Having high University College grades **79. Having high entrance exam scores Comments: A very interesting question; apparently greater efforts are made to inform high ability students of the waiver and acceleration program. Almost all of the students learned of the waiver and acceleration program early in their college careers. The University College is doing a good job of informing students of the existence of waiving and acceleration, but students are not nearly so aware of the relation between waiving and acceleration and the course wide final. R 323 25. The following are opinions various people have (E2a) expressed about waiving and acceleration. For each, please indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement. [This heading was used for the following nine questionsa They're the greatest thing that's happened to me in college. ( ) Agree strongly ( ) Agree ( ) Disagree ( ) Disagree strongly Means: Student 2.32 (Std dev 0.79) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 h Number 9 37 12h 98 1h Percentage 3.2 13.1 uh.O 3u.8 5.0 Basic Group None Other Groups III Agreeing that waiving and acceleration "are the greatest thing that's happened to me in college was associated with: 5. Agreeing that MSU's size provided freedoms no smaller school could offer *27. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration added flexi- bility to otherwiSe strict course requirements no. Not wanting to expand the honors program at the expense of waiving and acceleration M3. Having a favorable overall evaluation of the waiver program *h6. Believing that all law candidates should take the Bar Exam 62. Not accelerating non-University College courses Comments: The enthusiasm shown for waiving and acceleration in Q25 was somewhat anomalous in relation to the responses to other questions and provided several interesting com- parisons in the Data Analysis Section in Group III. 26. (E2b) Basic 32h They're (waiving and acceleration) useful only as a way of getting out of dull courses. ( ) Agree strongly ( ) Agree ( ) Disagree ( ) Disagree strongly ¥Tunw+4 Means: Student 2.65 (Std dev 0.82) Faculty 3.20 Examiner h Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 5 28 67 152 30 Percentage 1.8 9.9 23.8 53.9 10.6 Group III Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are useful only as a way of getting out of dull courses was associated with: LL. 22. Agreeing that MSU is too impersonal and bureaucratized Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the University College Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning Agreeing that acceleration is too easy Agreeing that the purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College Agreeing that waiving and acceleration work only be- cause University College courses are so easy Agreeing that a student has a bad feeling toward a course he is forced to enroll in because of a failed waiver Disagreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals Agreeing that course wide finals reward the conform- ing and penalize the creative student Agreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course 325 %%55. Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students Comments: Q27 was not so much a measure of the waiver program as an indicator of dislike for the University College. As such it had a number of strong relationships with course wide final items. Note also, the discouragingly large number of students endorsing this statement. 326 27. They've (waiving and acceleration) added flexibility (E20) to otherwise strict course requirements. 1. ( ) Agree strongly 2. ( ) Agree 3. ( ) Disagree h. ( ) Disagree strongly Means: Student 1.65 (Std dev 0.6h Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 5 116 1h3 15 3 Percentage 1.8 h1.1 50.7 5.3 1.1 Basic Group None Other Groups III Agreeing that waiving and acceleration added flexibility to otherwise strict course requirements was associated with: *w?. Believing that getting along with one's teachers is important in getting good grades *25. Agreeing that "waiving and acceleration are the greatest thing that's happened to me in college." *%28. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning a29. Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration "are not for me." *h3. Having a favorable overall evaluation of the waiver program Comments: This rather innocuous endorsement of the waiver program was accepted by over 90% of the students. The escape part of the waiver program is well liked, not so the learning part. 28. (E2d) Basic Group III 327 They're (waiving and acceleration) a new and valuable way of learning. 1. ( ) Agree strongly 2. ( ) Agree 3. ( ) Disagree h. ( ) Disagree strongly leans: Student 2.70 (Std dev 0.86) Faculty 2.50 Examiner 1 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 9 18 95 108 52 Percentage 3.2 6.h 33.7 38.3 l8.h Other Groups II Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning was associated with: 5. 7. 12. ‘I " ww20. *22. :L:L \l\ . sex-27 . *33- %*38. Agreeing that MSU's size provided freedoms no smaller school could offer Believing that getting along with one's teachers was important in getting good grades Having a favorable overall evaluation of the course wide final Believing that University College grading is fairer than h1g1 school grading Having a favorable overall evaluation of the University College Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration are useful only as a way out of dull courses Agreeing that waiving and acceleration added flexi- bility to otherwise strict course requirements Disagreeing that the purpose of waiving and accele- ration would be better served by abandoning the University College Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration work only because University College courses are so easy Disagreeing that a student has a bad feeling toward a course he is forced to enroll in because of a failed waiver 39. ALL. h8. *52. 72. 328 Believing that acceleration is more a matter of new learning than demonstration of previous knowledge Having a favorable overall evaluation of the acceleration program Agreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals Agreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU with sufficient enrollment for them Agreeing that course wide finals let a student see how well he can do without instructor bias Being able to supply good uses for a course wide final Having high MSU grades Comments: In contrast to the 90% of the students agreeing that waiving and acceleration added flexibility (Q27) only h0% of the students agreed that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning. Q28 has an im- pressive list of correlations in Group II, indicating that agreement with Q28 is indicative of liking for the course wide final. 329 29. They (waiving and acceleration) may be all right for (E2a) some peOple, but not for me. 1. ( ) Agree strongly ( ) Agree 3. ( ) Disagree ( ) Disagree strongly Means: Student 3.38 (Std dev 0.61) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 h Number A 1 10 1h? 120 Percentage 1.5 O.h 3.5 52.1 h2.6 Basic Group VI Agreeing that "waiving and acceleration may be all right for some people, but not for me" was associated with: %27. Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration added flexibility to otherwise strict course requirements 31. Agreeing that acceleration is too easy 3h. Favoring Departmental Standards for students who waive with special permission *66. Not attempting waivers 70. Enrolling in more University College 71. Not waiving course with.special permission 7h. Not waiving courses at the waive only level *78. Not waiving courses at the waive only level and the special permission level Comments: As might be expected from a sample of acceleration eligible students drawn in large part from a list of students who has waived with special permission, this question got little agreement. It was, however, one of the few attitudinal questions that was able to correlate very much with the demographic data. Note that 029 was not related to any course wide final variables Basic 330 Waiving is too easy. ( ) Agree strongly ( ) Agree ( ) Disagree ( ) Disagree strongly leans: Student 2.73 (Std dev 0.67) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 18 Number 9 13 62 180 1 Percentage 3.2 h.6 22.0 63.8 6 A Group III Agreeing that waiving is too easy was associated with: 12. **31. *32. \l \I ........33 . %%3h. MO. eHz-Li 3 . M9. 55. Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the course wide final Agreeing that acceleration is too easy Agreeing that the purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College Agreeing that waiving and acceleration work only because University College is so easy Favoring Departmental Staniards for students who waive with special permission Wanting to expand the honors program at the expense of waiving and acceleration Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the waiver program Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the acceleration program Agreeing that course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative student Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students 331 Comments: Only a minority of the respondents would agree that waiving is too easy, perhaps because some were Opposed to endorsing, even implicitly, an idea which would restrict the waiver program. The question was one of the few which related to both waiving overall (Qh3) and course wide final items 31. (E28) Basic 332 Acceleration is too easy. 1. ( ) Agree strongly 2. ( ) Agree 3. ( ) Disagree M. ( ) Disagree strongly Means: Student 2.89 (Std dev 0.65) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 18 10 36 188 30 Percentage 6.h 3.5 12.8 66.7 10.6 Group III Agreeing that acceleration is too easy was associated with: 8. *26. 29. *%30. 32. \I ‘0 7" 7‘3 3 0 3h- *hO. Reporting that one learned most in one's hardest courses Personally preferring essay to multiple choice exams Agreeing that it would be a good idea to offer reg- ular introductory courses in place of University College courses Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are useful only as a way out of dull courses Agreeing that waiving and acceleration "are not for N me Agreeing that waiving is too easy Agreeing that the purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College Agreeing that waiving and acceleration work only be- cause University College courses are so easy Favoring Departmental Standards for acceleration for students who waive with.special permission Preferring honors sections at the expense of waiving and acceleration Comments: More students disagreed that acceleration is too easy than disagreed that waiving is too easy; this makes sense. The requirements for applying for acceleration are stringent and requiring a "B" for credit can hardly be called too easy. 2322‘. (E2 ) 333 The purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College and offer- ing more regular introductory courses. 1.. 2. 3. LL. ( ) Agree strongly ( ) Agree ( ) Disagree ( ) Disagree strongly Means: Student 2.62 (Std dev 0.90) St Di Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable udent Frequency stribution MD 1 2 3 h Number 8 39 6l 137 37 Percentage 2.9 13.8 21.6 h8.6 13.1 Basic Group III Other Groups II Agreeing that the purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College and offering more regular introductory courses was associated with: nah. I‘ I\ . *12. 43-2:- 111 . -::--::-15 . 16. 20. 3.....‘2 n n . -x--::-26 . u V O--- A "28 . £330 , 31. Agreeing that MSU is too bureaucratized Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the course wide final Believing that multiple choice finals offered in other courses are superior to University College course wide finals Wanting to replace University College courses with regular introductory courses Favoring the idea of automatic waiver Believing that high school grading is fairer than University College grading Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the University College Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are useful only as a way out of dull courses Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning Agreeing that waiving is too easy Agreeing that acceleration is too easy 332+ 4%33. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration work only because University College courses are so easy *38. Agreeing that a student has a bad feeling toward a course he is required to enroll in because of a failed waiver *h8. Disagreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals wh9. Agreeing that course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative student *wSl. Agreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course 52. Disagreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU with sufficient enrollment for them %%55. Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College 6h. Wishing that one had waived or accelerated more courses Comments: A very powerful item especially when contrasted with the weakness of the overall evaluations of waiving and acceleration (Q'su3 and MA). The strength of Q32 in re— lating to course wide final items comes from its implicit evaluation of the University College. Note the surprising amount of agreement with this exceedingly negative state- ment. Over one-third of the respondents agree with Q32. 33. (E2 ) 335 Waiving and acceleration work only because University College courses are so easy. 1. 2. 30 u. ) Agree strongly ) Agree ) Disagree ) Disagree strongly Means: Student 2.69 (Std dev 0.76) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 1+ Number 7 2o 68 162 25 Percentage 2.5 7.1 2h.l 57.h 8.9 Basic Group III Other Groups II Agreeing that waiving and acceleration work only because University College courses are so easy was associated with: U». 12. \O \I D-.- \ "1;. *20. .“'. .". \ I‘ . %*26. Agreeing that MSU is too impersonal and bureaucratized Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the course wide final Wanting to substitute regular introductory courses for the University College courses Believing that high school grading is fairer than University College grading Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the University College Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are useful only as a way out of dull courses Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning Agreeing that waiving is too easy Agreeing that acceleration is too easy Agreeing that the purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College and offering more regular courses Agreeing that course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative student 51. 52. ‘I \I . -. C \ I\ ; ; . *73 . 335 Agreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course Disagreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses with sufficient enrollment for them Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College Having relatively higher MSU grades than high school grades Comments: Almost a third of the students accept this strong condemnation of waiving and acceleration and the University College. It is the implicit evaluation of the University College which generates the large number of correlates with Group II. 31;. (F2) 337 Do you feel that students who have waived with special permission should be required to meet some Departmental standards for acceleration as do students who are recommended by their instructors for acceleration? l. ( ) Yes S.()No Means: Student h.06 (Std dev 1.71) Faculty 3.52 Examiner 5 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 5 Number 15 62 205 Percentage 5h 22.0 72.7 Basic Group None Other Groups VI Favoring Departmental standards for acceleration for students who waive with special permission was associated with: *8. Feeling that one learned most in one's hardest courses 10. Believing essay exams are better evaluation devices than multiple choice tests 29. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration "are not for me" *%30. Agreeing that waiving is too easy 31. Agreeing that acceleration is too easy %*66. Attempting few or no waivers 67. Failing few or no waivers 7h. Waiving few or no courses at the waive only level 78. Waiving few or no courses at the waive only and the waive with special permission level Comments: Here, nearly three-fourths of the students took the libertarian position which is favorable to independent evaluation. This is repeated in other questions; students may not like the course wide final but they want no restrictions on waiving and acceleration. 338 35. Do you feel that it is a good idea to let anyone (F3 attempt a waiver or that some reasonable standards should be set, such as a 2.00 GPA? l. ( ) Set some reasonable standards 5. ( ) Let any student attempt a waiver Means: Student h.23 (Std dev 1.59) Faculty h.0h Examine r 5 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 5 Number 3 53 226 Percentage 1.1 18.8 80.1 Basic Group None Other Groups V, VI Endorsing the setting of "reasonable standards such as a 2.00 GPA" was associated with: 13. Believing that University College finals count more than those given in other courses *%2h. Learning about waiving and acceleration later in one's college career 37. Agreeing that a student should enroll in at least one term of a University College course before attempting to comp any w*52. Agreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU with sufficient enrollment for them 66. Attempting few or no waivers 7h. Waiving few or no courses at the waive only level 78. Waiving few or no courses at the waive only or special permission level 79. Having relatively poorer CQT score on the MSU Entrance Exam Comments: Question 35 had a number of unusual correlations. Agreement with Q35 seemed to be related to having less infor- mation about the independent evaluation program (013), erro- neously believing University College finals counted more, and learning about waiving and acceleration later in one's college career. Strangely enough, agreement with this restriction on 339 waiving also related to wanting course wide finals given in all courses. This phenomenon of wrong way correlations is discussed under the heading, "Question 37 and Wrong Way Correlations" in Chapter VII. Briefly, it seems that sup- porting restrictions on waiving may in some cases be related to a liking for the University College Which transfers to the course wide final, hence the anomalous correlations. 3110 36. Do you feel an "A" rather than a "B" should be required (FM) for successful acceleration? 1. ( ) Yes, require an "A" 2. ( ) No., a "B" is sufficient Means: Student h.65 (Std dev 1.1h) Faculty 3.53 Examiner Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 5 Number 5 23 25h Percentage 1.8 8.2 90.1 Basic Group None Other Groups II Feeling that an "A" rather than a "B" should be required for successful acceleration was associated with: 11. Personally preferring essay over multiple choice exams 39. Believing that acceleration is more a matter of new learning than demonstration of previous knowledge 73. Having relatively higher college than high school grades Comments: This question did not relate to the course wide final items. The relatively few correlations it had suggest that it may have gotten some agreement from students who did not have to worry about getting a "B" on an acceleration exam. Qll, preferring essay exams over multiple choice exams, was related to being less concerned about grades, and Q73 was an ability measure of sorts with students Who did better in college being of higher ability (see Q73). I am at a loss to explain the relation with Q39, and with all the correlations at the .05 level and no real pattern emerging, any interpretation must be largely speculation for all three correlations. 3A1 37. Should a student be required to enroll in at least one (F5) term of a University College course before comping any University College courses? 1. ( ) Yes 5. ( ) No Means: Student h.70 (Std dev 1.07) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 5 Number A 20 258 Percentage 1.5 7.1 91.5 Basic Group None Other Groups II Agreeing that a student should be required to enroll in at least one University College course before comping any University College courses was associated with: *w35. Favoring the requirememsof a 2.00 GPA for attempting waivers wwhl. Believing that students in Honors Sections should take the regular'course wide final w*h9. Disagreeing that course wide finals reward the con- forming and penalize the creative student w%52. Agreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU with sufficient enrollment for them w 55. Disagreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College Comments: The "w" in front of some of the correlations for Q37 indicates that these correlations were in the opposite direction from that predicted. In other words, favoring the restriction on acceleration suggested in Q37 was associated not with a dislike for the course wide final, but rather with liking the course wide final. These reverse correlations are discussed in a special section in Chapter VII entitled, "Question 37 and Wrong Way Correlations." 3H2 38. Do you think a student has a bad feeling toward a course (G1 which he attempts to waive, fails to waive, and is forced to take? 1. ( ) Yes S.()No Means: Student 2.66 (Std dev 1.98) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 Number 2h 150 108 Percentage 8.6 53.2 38.3 Basic Group III Feeling that a student has a bad feeling toward a course he is forced to take because of a failed waiver was associated with: 26. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are useful only as a way out of dull courses *%28. Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning *32. Agreeing that the purpose of waiving and accelera- tion would be better served by abandoning the University College .39. Believing acceleration is more a matter of demon- stration of previous knowledge rather than new learning hO. Preferring an Honors Program over waiving and acceleration *h9. Agreeing that course wide finals reward the con- forming and penalize the creative student 70. Enrolling in fewer University College courses Comments: I had predicted that students who reported a "bad feeling" would see waiving as an escape rather than as a learning opportunity, and this interpretation is amply supported by Q38's correlations. Note that students agree with Q38 by about a h:3 margin. 3143 39. Do you feel dist acceleration is more a matter of new (G2) learning or demonstration of previous knowledge? 1. ( ) New learning 5. ( ) Demonstration of previous knowledge Means: Student 3.61 (Std dev 1.91) Faculty 2.M7 Examiner 1 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 5 Number 39 8h 159 Percentage 13.9 29.8 56.h Basic Group None Other Groups III Believing that acceleration is more a matter of new learning was associated with: 12. 28. 36. 38. ."o—‘L I\ I\ . Having a favorable overall evaluation of the course wide final Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning Favoring the requirement of an "A" for successful acceleration ' Believing that a student does not have a bad feeling toward a course he is forced to enroll in because of a failed waiver Disagreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course Comments: Most of Q39's correlations indicate that feeling acceleration is a matter of new learning is associated with accepting the intrinsic benefits of independent evaluation. The only anomalous correlation here is Q36 which could be due to chance. (See Q36) Note that only 30% of the students were willing to see acceleration as primarily a matter of new learning. 3AA hO. The ATL Department has offered an extensive Honors Pro- (G5) gram as alternative to waiving and acceleration for better students. Do you think this should be encouraged in other Departments and waiving and acceleration discouraged? l. ( ) Yes 5. ( ) No Means: Student 3.18 (Std dev 2.00) Faculty 1.00 Examiner 5 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 5 Number 32 113 157 Percentage ll.h h0.l h .6 Basic Group II Agreeing that Honors Programs should be encouraged and waiving and acceleration discouraged was associated with: 10. Believing that essay exams are better evaluation devices than multiple choice tests 17. Believing that the instructor's percentage of the grade should be increased 25. Disagreeing that "waiving and acceleration are the greatest thing that's happened to me." 30. Agreeing that waiving is too easy *31. Agreeing that acceleration is too easy 38. Agreeing that a student has a bad feeling toward a course he is forced to enroll in because of a failed waiver M9. Agreeing that course wide finals reward the con- forming and penalize the creative student 52. Disagreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU with sufficient enrollment for them *5h. Disagreeing that course wide finals do a good job of letting a student see how well he can do without instructor bias **55. Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College 3A5 Comments: QhO was made into a forced choice question since almost everybody liked both the Honors Program and waiving and acceleration. A surprisingly large percentage of the students were willing to discourage waiving and acceleration. The question correlated well with the course wide final items. Finally, note the unanimity among faculty members. 3A6 Do you think that students in this Honors Program should cover similar materials and take the regular course wide final for ATL? 1. S. ( ) Yes ()No Means: Student 3.9M (Std dev 1.76) Faculty b.33 Examiner 1 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 5 Number 1h 70 198 Percentage 5.0 2h.9 70.3 Basic Group II Agreeing that students in Honors Programs should take the regular course wide final was associated with: 8. w*37. v ”ll D-- I\I\ E3. aux-5 2 . 6951+ . JLJL I‘ I\ . 59. 6h. Feeling that one did not learn most in one's hardest courses Having a favorable overall evaluation of the University College Agreeing that a student should be required to enroll in one University College course before comping any Agreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals Agreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU with sufficient enrollment for them Agreeing that course wide finals let a student see how well he can do without instructor bias Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students Being able to supply good uses for a course wide final Not wanting to have waived or accelerated more courses Comments: This question provided yet another measure of faith in the principles of independent evaluation, and once again faith was found wanting. Over 70% of the students thought that the regular course wide final should not be 3A7 given in the Honors Program. This may provide some ex- planation of the high percentage endorsing the honors program over waiving and acceleration (QhO). It may be that students see the honors program as a back door means of abandoning the University College. th related well to the course wide final items; the anomalous correlations with Q37 and Q @i are explained under those questions. 3148 M2. If comping became widespread in all courses at MSU, (G6) what effect do you think this would have on academic standards? 1. ( ) Widespread comping would definitely raise academic standards ( ) Widespread comping would probably raise academic standards . ( ) Widespread comping would have no effect on academic standards Widespread comping would probably lower academic standards Widespread comping would definitely lower academic standards U1 43' be N O 0 Means: Student 2.69 (Std dev 1.05) Faculty 2.95 Examiner 1 or 2 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 h 5 Number 11 2h 113 70 A9 15 Percentage 3.9 8.5 h0.l 2h.8 l7.h 5.3 Basic Group IV Agreeing that widespread comping would raise academic standards at MSU was associated with: h3. Having a favorable overall evaluation of the waiver program **hu. Having a favorable overall evaluation of the acceleration program %%60. Wanting to have a program set up to accelerate non- University College courses 6h. Wanting to have waived or accelerated more courses 65. Understanding why acceleration is largely confined to the University College Comments: Students were favorable to the idea of widespread acceleration; h9% thought it would raise academic standards, while only 23% thought it would lower them. Note that this question is not associated with the course wide final variables, instead it is part of the Waiving and Acceleration Group IV which was almost entirely independent of attitudes toward the course wide final. One interesting note, however, students who thought widespread waiving would raise academic standards were more likely to understand the role of the course wide final in acceleration. 3A9 3. How do you feel overall toward the waiver examination Hl) program of the University College? 1. ( ) Very favorable 2. ( ) Favorable 3. ( ) Indifferent h. ( ) Unfavorable . ( ) Very unfavorable Means: Student 1.66 (Std dev 0.78) Faculty 2.00 Examiner 1 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 h 5 Number 7 125 127 12 9 2 Percentage 2.5 hh.3 h5.0 M.3 3.2 0.7 Basic Group IV Having a favorable overall evaluation of the waiver program was associated with: 25. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration "are the greatest thing that's happened to me in college" a27. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration added flexi- bility to otherwise strict course requirements **30. Disagreeing that waiving is too easy h2. Believing that widespread acceleration would raise academic standards at MSU. %*hh. Having a favorable overall evaluation toward die acceleration program 60. Wanting to have a program set up to accelerate non- University College courses 78. Waiving and waiving with special permission more courses Comments: As noted in the Data Analysis Section, there was great enthusiasm for the waiver program and no relation be- tween it and the course wide final items. Note that there was also no relation between the overall evaluation of waiving and the waiving items which contained evaluations of the University College (See Q's 26, 32 and 33). Finally, note that there was only one demographic correlate with the overall evaluation of the waiver program. Still, even one correlate was better than most of the attitudinal questions managed to achieve. 350 AM. How do you feel overall toward the acceleration program (H2) of \Jl-FWNH the University College? Very favorable Favorable Indifferent Unfavorable Very unfavorable Means: Student 1.7h (Std dev 0.79) Faculty 1.90 Examiner 1 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 g 5 Number 7 115 127 23 Percentage 2.5 h0.8 h5.0 h.3 3.2 0.7 Basic Group IV Having a favorable overall evaluation of the acceleration program was associated with: 20. 28. Agreeing that University College grading is fairer than high school grading Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning Disagreeing that waiving is too easy Not wanting to require an "A" for successful acceleration Believing that widespread acceleration will raise academic standards at MSU Having a favorable overall evaluation of the waiver program Believing that acceleration is a more important privilege than waiving Wanting to have a program set up to accelerate non- University College courses Not waiving courses with special permission without choosing to accelerate them Comments: th was slightly related to the course wide final variables (Q's 20 and 28), but in general it displayed a correlation pattern similar to Qh3. th's only demographic correlate, Q68, is logical enough; students who didn't think 351 enough of acceleration to attempt it when they had the opportunity couldn't be expected to have a very favorable evaluation of acceleration. Note, however, that th did not correlate with fine number of successful accelerations (€69). 352 MS. Which privilege do you feel is the more important, (H3) waiving or acceleration? lo 20 30 LL. ( ) Waiving is definitely more important ( ) Waiving is probably more important ( ) Acceleration is probably more important ( ) Acceleration is definitely more important Means: Student 2.1h (Std dev 0.89) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 LL Number 13 67 115 66 21 Percentage h.7 23.8 no.8 23.h 7.u Basic Group VI Other Groups IV Feeling that waiving is a more important privilege than acceleration was associated with: ALL. 51. *52. 55. 66. %*68. ee-x-7O . 71. 78 c Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of acceleration Agreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course Disagreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU with sufficient enrollment for them Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students Attempting more waivers Waiving more courses with special permission while choosing not to attempt to accelerate them Enrolling in fewer University College courses Waiving more courses with special permission Waiving more courses at the waive only and the special permission levels Comments: QhS had an unusual and interesting set of correlations. Q's A3 and uh were able to relate to neither the demographic variable nor the course wide final items to any degree. QMS on the other hand, had a large number of demographic relations and a few course wide final items, too. In all cases a preference for acceleration was associated with favorableness toward the course wide final. This is quite congruent with findings suggesting that much of the liking for waiving is the result of seeing waiving as an escape rather than as a new means of learning. 351;— hé. Graduates of some Law Schools are not required to take (HS) the State Bar exam. Graduates of some other schools, for example correspondence schools, are not allowed to take the exam. Would it be better to require every graduate to take the exam and allow any graduate to take it to become a lawyer? I. ( ) Yes, allow everyone to take exam and require everyone to take it 5. ( ) No, present system is better Means: Student 1.52 (Std dev 1.33) Faculty 1.93 Examiner 1 Student Frequency Distribution MD I 5 Number 26 223 33 Percentage 9.3 79.2 11.6 Basic Group None Other Groups II Favoring allowing and requiring everyone to take the Bar exam was associated with: %25. Agreeing that "waiving and acceleration are the greatest thing that's happened to me in college." Comments: Favoring independent evaluation was in this case vastly more widely endorsed than any of the proposals to extend independent evaluation in the classroom. (See Q's 18 and 52) This endorsement was not related to any course wide final attitudes, however. Thus, it seems that this is a quite separate attitude. 355 M7. You are an admissions officer at a college with many (H6) more applicants than room. John and Robert are two applicants. John has high College Board scores but only so-so high school grades. Robert has only so-so College Board scores but excellent high school grades. Whom would you admit? l. ( ) Definitely John 2. ( ) Probably John 3. ( ) Probably Robert A. ( ) Definitely Robert Means: Student 2.M9 (Std dev 0.81) Faculty 2.15 Examiner l or 2 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 26 27 96 113 21 Percentage 9.3 9.6 3h.O 39.7 7.h Basic Group None Other Groups II Believing that John (the student with high College Board scores) should be admitted was associated with: w 11. Personally preferring essay exams over multiple choice %*23. Believing that one's MSU Entrance Exams provided a better measure of one's ability in college than one's high school grades w 51. Agreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course 77. Being a male Comments: I had hoped this question would relate to atti- tudes toward the course wide final. It was completely in- effective; its only relations Q's 11 and 51) were in the wrong direction and may be due to chance or some other hidden factor. It is possible in the case of Q11 that stu- dents who do better are less concerned about grades and thus may favor essay exams. I am at a loss to explain the "wrong way" relation with Q51. The relation with Q77 does make sense, however, since men do relatively better than women on standardized tests than they do in ordinary grading. A8. (11 ) Basic Agreei 356 The following are opinions various persons have ex- pressed about multiple choice Course Wide Finals such as those given in the University College. This heading applies through Q55. Course wide finals provide a fairer means of grading than ordinary finals. 1. ( ) Agree strongly 2. ( ) Agree 3. ( ) Disagree u. ( ) Disagree strongly Means: Student 2.h9 (Std dev 0.77) Faculty 2.M3 Examiner 1 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 10 19 122 109 22 Percentage 3.6 6.7 h3-3 38.7 7.8 Group II ng that course wide finals provide a fairer means of grading than ordinary finals was associated with: *%10. *%11. iH'lZ. aux-1L; . *15. .v u ln€22 . 26. Believing multiple Choice exams are better evaluation devices than essay exams Personally preferring multiple choice exams over essay exams Having a favorable overall evaluation of the course wide final Believing University College course wide finals are superior to multiple choice finals given in other courses Not wanting to offer regular introductory courses in place of University College courses Wanting to increase the weighting of the course wide final in the determination of students' grades Believing University College grading is fairer than high school grading Having a favorable overall evaluation of the University College Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration are useful only as a way out of dull courses 28. 9332. \I \I ---- \ "Lilo ez-ez-Li9 . 3%.". \ n . \I \I -‘O- n A ;2. suasu n n . eeeeESES . *5? . -::-::-59 . 77. 357 Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning Disagreeing that the purpose of waiving and accele- ration would be better served by abandoning the University College Agreeing that students in honors sections should take the regular course wide final Disagreeing that course wide finals reward the con- forming and penalize the creative student Disagreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course Agreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU with sufficient enrollment for them Agreeing that course wide finals let a student see how well he can do without instructor bias Disagreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College Believing that students' grades on the course wide final should be included in the evaluation of teachers Believing that a wide discrepancy between a student's instructor grade and course wide final grade is the result of instructor error Being able to supply good uses for a course wide final Being a male Comments: This question elicited quite a lot of agreement from the students. Apparently the word "fairer" is the key; course wide finals are seen as fairer but not better. Course wide finals are better than an unfair instructor but are not intrinsically better (See Q's M9 and 55). As one of the basic ten of Group II, Qh8 had a large number of correlates. u9. (Ilb) 358 Course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative stuient. 1. ( ) Agree strongly 2. ( ) Agree 3. ( ) Disagree A. ( ) Disagree strongly Means: Student 2.19 (Std dev 0.73) Faculty 2.55 Examiner A Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 6 A3 1A2 8A 7 Percentage 2.2 15.2 50.A 29.8 2.5 Basic Group II Agreeing that course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative student was associated with: %%11. ."..". l‘ I\ . 1A. 15. 1?. Agreeing that MSU is too impersonal and bureaucratized Believing that essay exams are better than multiple choice exams as evaluation devices Personally preferring essay exams over multiple choice exams Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the course wide final Believing University College course wide finals are inferior to multiple choice exams in other courses Wanting to substitute regular introductory courses for University College courses Wanting to increase the weighting of the instructor's portion of the student's grade in University College courses Believing that high school grading is fairer than University College grading Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the University College Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are useful only as a way out of dull courses Agreeing that waiving is too easy 33. w*37. *38. 67. 359 Agreeing that the purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College and offering more regular courses Agreeing that waiving and acceleration work only be- cause University College courses are so easy Disagreeing that students should be required to en- roll in one University College course before accelerating any Agreeing that a student has a bad feeling toward a course he is required to enroll in because of a failed waiver Preferring expanded honors program over waiving and acceleration Disagreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals Agreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course Disagreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU with sufficient enrollment for them Disagreeing that course wide finals let a student see how well he can do without instructor bias Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students Not being able to find good uses for a course wide final Failing waivers Comments: QA9 is a member of the basic ten of Group II. A discouraging 65% of the students endorse this very negative comment about course wide finals. Only 2.5% disagree strongly with this statement. Before beginning the research I would have guessed that 50%-75% of acceleration-eligible students would disagree strongly with QA9. 360 50. Course wide finals allow one to evaluate innovations in (II ) education such as programmed learning 1. ( ) Agree strongly 2. ( ) Agree 3. ( ) Disagree A. ( ) Disagree strongly Means: Student 2.22 (Std dev 0.58) Faculty 3.00 Examiner l or 2 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 20 10 191 52 9 Percentage 7.3 3.5 67.7 l8.A 3.2 Basic Group None Agreeing that course wide finals allow one to evaluate innovations in education such as programmed learning was associated with: 5. Agreeing that MSU's very size provided freedoms no smaller institution could offer 59. Being able to supply good uses for a course wide final 80. Having relatively higher MSU entrance exam scores than high school grades Comments: This is apparently considered an innocuous use of a course wide final, since only 21% of the students disagreed with it. The correlations Q50 did have made sense, but it is difficult to draw many conclusions from only three correlations, all at the .05 level. 51. 361 Course wide finals often bear little relation to the (Ild) material covered in the course. Basic Agreei l. ( ) Agree strongly 2. ( ) Agree 3. ( ) Disagree A. ( ) Disagree strongly Means: Student 2.18 (std dev 0.76) Faculty 3.20 Examiner A Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 10 18 7A. 152 27 Percentage 3.5 6.A 26.2 53.9 9.6 Group II ng that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course was associated with: *10. 15. -::-17 . **20. V v 7‘.'fl°22 . .‘LJ'. n n . \I \I - 3 2 , Believing essay exams are better evaluation devices than multiple choice exams Personally preferring essay exams over multiple choice exams Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the course wide final Believing that University College course wide finals are inferior to multiple choice tests given in other courses Wanting to have regular introductory courses sub- stituted for University College courses Wanting to increase the weighting of the instructor's portion of the grade in University College courses Believing high school grading is fairer than University College grading Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the course wide final Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are useful only as a way out of dull courses Agreeing that the purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College and offering more regular introductory courses 362 33. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration work only because University College courses are so easy M%39. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration is more a matter of demonstration of previous knowledge than new learning %*AS. Believing waiving is a more important privilege than acceleration w A7. Believing that a student with high College Board scores should be admitted to college in preference to a student with high high school grades %*A8. Disagreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals *A9. Agreeing that course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative student %%52. Disagreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses with sufficient enrollment for them **5A. Disagreeing that course wide finals do a good job of letting the student see how well he can do without instructor bias *w55. Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College *58. Having high high school grades 70. Enrolling in few University College courses Comments: A third of the students agreed with Q51. I am at something of a loss to see how they could do so. Course wide finals are specifically prepared to measure knowledge of the course and a great deal of time is spent to see that they provide an accurate sampling of the materials covered in the course. This is, indeed, one of the great strengths of course wide finals over instructor prepared tests. But here, as elsewhere, students were unable to appreciate the intrinsic merits of independent evaluation. 52. (Ile) 363 Course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU which have sufficient enrollment for them. ) Agree strongly ) Agree ) Disagree ) Disagree strongly Means: Student 3.11 (Std dev 0.87) Faculty 2.7A Examiner 1 Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 4 Number 10 8 59 97 108 Percentage 3.6 2.8 20.9 3A.A 38.3 Basic Group II Agreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU which.have sufficient enrollment for them was associated with: 8. 3%.". l\ . *11. -::-::-12. %%1A. *%17. aux-18 . 22. e328 . Not feeling that one learned most in one's hardest courses Believing multiple choice exams are better evaluation devices than essay exams Personally preferring multiple choice exams over essay exams Having a favorable overall evaluation of the course wide final Believing University College course wide finals are superior to multiple choice finals given in other courses Believing that the weighting of the course wide final should be increased in the determination of students' grades Agreeing that a good instructor can simply help his students learn and leave the testing to a special office Having a favorable overall evaluation of the University College Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning 36A 32. Disagreeing that the purpose of waiving and accele- ration would be better served by abandoning the University College and offering more regular courses 33. Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration work only because University College courses are so easy w*35. Favoring the requirement of a 2.00 GPA for attempting waivers w*37. Believing students should be required to enroll in one University College course before accelerating any AO. Not wanting to expand the honors program at the ex- pense of waiving and acceleration *aAl. Believing that students in honors *AS. Believing that acceleration is a more important privilege than waiving **A8. Agreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals *%A9. Disagreeing that course wide finals reward the con- forming and penalize the creative student %*51. Disagreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course *%5A. Agreeing that course wide finals do a good job of letting the student see how well he can do without instructor bias %%55. Disagreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College *57. Believing that a wide discrepancy between a stu- dent's instructor grade and course wide final grade is the result of instructor error **S9. Being able to supply good uses for a course wide final *77. Being a male Comments: Students were most unenthusiastic about expanding the offering of course wide finals. Only 2.8% agreed strongly with Q52 while 38.3% disagreed strongly. The correlations place this item in the Basic ten of Group II. Note that Q52 also had two "wrong way" correlations; these are discussed in Chapter VII under the heading "Q37 and the Wrong Way Correlations". / (11: E33 A?“ 3; Com Way c‘rH (D O 36S 53. Course wide finals make an instructor's job harder. (Ilf) l. ( ) Agree strongly 2. ( ) Agree 3. ( ) Disagree A. ( ) Disagree strongly Means: Student 2.73 (Std dev 0.77) Faculty 2.8 Examiner 3 or A Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 6 13 85 139 39 Percentage 2.2 A.6 30.1 A9.3 13.8 Basic Group None Agreeing that course wide finals make an instructor's job harder was associated with: 11. Personally preferring essay exams over multiple choice exams Comments: Q53 was not effective, and I am afraid the reason is faulty construction. The question is ambiguous four ways: 1. One could agree that course wide finals make an instructor's job harder in a bad way. They make him teach for the test and take away his rightful prerogative of grading. 2. One could agree that course wide finals make an instructor's job harder in a good way. They keep him on his toes, prevent him from wandering off on tangents and see to it that he is not given arbitrary control over student's grades. 3. One could disagree that course wide finals make an instructor's job harder and feel that this is a good thing. Course wide finals make an in- structor's job easier because they relieve him of the burdensome tasks of test construction and grading. A. One could disagree and still dislike course wide ‘finals. Course wide finals don't make an in- structor's job harder because they're meaningless guessing games which don't amount to anything. I only wish I had thought of these things before including the question in the questionnaire. Ba: 51 the Na: Na \I' 366 Course wide finals do a good job of letting the student see how well he can do without instructor bias. 1. 2. 3. A. ( ) Agree strongly ( ) Agree ( ) Disagree ( ) Disagree strongly Means: Student 2.28 (Std dev 0.7A) St Di Faculty 3.10 Examiner l udent Frequency stribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 9 28 155 7A 16 Percentage 3.2 9.9 55.0 26.2 5.7 Basic Group II Agreeing that course wide finals do a good job of letting the student see how well he can do without instructor bias was associated with: -::--::-10 . :z-e'cll . .‘L" N “'12 0 -::-1A . My. 17 I‘ 0‘ . -::--:z-18 . 20. 22. 28. 3914.0 0 Believing multiple choice exams are better evalu- ation devices than essay exams Personally preferring multiple choice exams over essay exams Having a favorable overall evaluation of the course wide final Believing University College course wide finals are superior to multiple choice finals given in other courses Wanting to increase the weighting of the course wide final in the determination of students' grades Agreeing that a good instructor can simply help his students learn and leave the testing to a special office Believing that University College grading is fairer than high school grading Having a favorable overall evaluation of the University College Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning Not wanting to expand the honors program at the expense of waiving and acceleration 367 *Al. Agreeing that students in honors sections should take the regular course wide final *%A8. Agreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals %A9. Disagreeing that course wide finals reward the con- forming and penalize the creative student **51. Disagreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course *a52. Agreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses whidh have sufficient enrollment for them **55. Disagreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College %*57. Believing that a wide discrepancy between a student's instructor grade and course wide final grade is the result of instructor error 58. Having low high school grades %%59. Being able to supply good uses for a course wide final Comments: Here we note that students were relatively more favorable toward the course wide final than in some other questions (Q's A9, 52 and 55). Course wide finals are ac- cepted as overcoming some of the problems of unfair instructors; they are not accepted as intrinsically better. Q5A was a member of the Basic ten of Group II. (11h) 368 Course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College. ) Agree strongly ) Agree ) Disagree ) Disagree strongly eans: Student 2.A3 (Std dev 0.89) Faculty 2.83 Examiner A Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 18 A6 80 11A 2A Percentage 6.l 16.3 28.A A0.A 8.5 Basic Group II Other Groups IIa, III Agreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College was associated with: :e-ze12. *alA. %20. Agreeing that MSU is too impersonal and bureaucratized Believing that one learns most in one's hardest courses Believing that essay exams are superior to multiple choice exams as evaluation devices Personally preferring essay exams over multiple choice exams Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the course wide final Believing that University College course wide finals are inferior to multiple choice exams given in other courses Wanting to offer more regular introductory courses in place of University College courses Favoring the "automatic waiver" Wanting to reduce the weighting of the course wide final in the determination of students' grades Opposing the giving of "Y" grades for anything except cheating Believing University College grading is inferior to high school grading 369 %*22. Having an unfavorable overall evaluation of the University College %*26. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are useful only as a way out of dull courses 30. Agreeing that waiving is too easy **32. Agreeing that the purpose of waiving and acceleration would be better served by abandoning the University College and offering more regular courses *a33. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration work only be- cause University College courses are so easy w 37. Believing that students should not be required to enroll in one University College course before accelerating any A0. Wanting to eXpand the honors program at the expense of waiving and acceleration *fiAl. Believing that students in honors section should not take the regular course wide final A5. Believing that waiving is a more important privilege than acceleration *%A8. Disagreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals **A9. Agreeing that course wide finals reward the conforming and penalize the creative student *%51. Agreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course %%52. Disagreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU which have sufficient enroll- ment for them %%5A. Disagreeing that course wide finals let a student see how well he can do without instructor bias **59. Not being able to supply good uses for a course wide final 6A. Wanting to have waived or accelerated more courses 70. Enrolling in few University College courses Comments: Q55 had more correlations than any other question. Because of this, it has its own special discussion section, "The Super Item", in Chapter VII. 370 56. Which of these methods do you feel is the best means of (C5) evaluation of instructors? l. ( ) Student grades on course wide final examination 5. ( ) Evaluation by Department Head and Dean ( ) Student Questionnaires ( ) Other (Please specify) A. A combination including grades on course wide final was coded 3, any other combination coded 5 Means: Student A.30 (Std dev 1.26) Faculty inapplicable Examiner inapplicable Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 3 5 Number 7 18 53 20A Percentage 2.5 6.A 19.5 72.A Basic Group None Other Groups None Believing that student grades on the course wide final should be involved in the evaluation of instructors was associated with: A8. Agreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals Comments: The performance of students on a common examination is potentially an excellent means of evaluating instructors. Students are likely to be arbitrary in their judgments, and Department Chairmen have little opportunity to observe the instructor's teaching. But if a teacher's students perform well on the course wide final, this is excellent indication of the instructor's ability. However, most students did not see this as a good use for the course wide final. 57. (c 6) instructor grade and course wide final grade in a 371 What do you think a wide discrepancy between a student's University College course indicates? This was an open ended question scored in terms of whether the respondent felt the discrepancy was due to instructor error or course wide final error. 1. Strong Instructor Error. e.g. Unfair instructor, personality conflict 2. Instructor Error. e.g. Instructor might have been a little easy 3. Ambivalent. e.g. Different testing methods, could mean almost anything A. CWF Error. e.g. Student might have felt poorly on exam day 5. Strong CWF Error. e.g. Student was a bad guesser, throw out final Means: Student 2.77 (Std dev 1.06) Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A 5 Number 22 31 6A 117 27 21 Percentage 7.8 11.0 22.7 A1.5 9.6 7.A Basic Group None Other Groups II Feeling that a discrepancy was the result of instructor error or bias was related to: 10. Believing multiple choice are better evaluation devices than essay exams *A8. Agreeing that course wide finals are fairer than regular finals *52. Agreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses with sufficient enrollment for them 4%5A. Agreeing that course wide finals let a student see how well he can do without instructor bias 65. Understanding why acceleration is confined to the University College 71. Waiving fewer courses with special permission Comments: While Q57 did not have a large number of corre- lations, all those it did have made good sense with the possible exception of Q71. Here it may be that students who are not able to waive so many courses with special 372 permission are more sensitive to unfair instructors, but the correlation may be just a chance occurrence, since it is only at the .05 level. The student mean indicates that students were slightly readier to see a discrepancy as the result of an unfair instructor rather than an unfair final. 373 58. What was your high school grade point average ? (C7) (Please specify if other than A.00 = A) This question was coded as follows: GPA recorded as “000 “ 3.80 l 2099 ’ 2.80 6 3.79 - 3.60 2 2.79 - 2.60 7 3.59 - 3.Ao 3 2.59 - 2.Ao 8 3.39 - 3.20 5 2.39 and below 9 3019 - 3000 ~ Other systems were coded as missing data Means: Student 2.70 (Std dev 1.95) Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A 5 Number 27 10A A0 33 31 21 Percentage 9.6 36.9 1A.2 11.7 11.0. 7.A 6 7 8 9 ll 8 6 l 309 2.8 2.1 Ooh Basic Group V Having high h1g1 school grades was associated with: 17. Wanting to increase the instructor's percentage of the grade in University College courses 23. Believing that one's high school grades provided a better measure of ability in college than did the MSU entrance exams *%2A. Learning about waiving and acceleration early in one's college career *51. Agreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course 5A. Disagreeing that course wide finals do a good job of letting the student see how well he can do without instructor bias 6A. Not wanting to have waived or accelerated more courses 68. Waiving more courses without special permission on which no acceleration attempt was made %%70. Enrolling in fewer University College courses *71. -::--:':7 2 . 8*73. *a76. an? ._ **79. gee-:98 O . 37A Waiving more courses with special permission Having high MSU grades Having relatively higher high school grades than MSU grades Having high grades in the University College courses Being a female Having high scores on the MSU entrance exams Having relatively higher high school grades than MSU entrance exam scores Comments: High school grade point average correlated well with the other ability measures. It also picked up three Group II correlates and had the interesting relation with Q77 (q.v.) Unfortunately, however, the student's high school grades were so much higher than their MSU grades that the differential ability comparison for Q73 was spoiled. (See Q73) AU‘L U0 42". (DAb) 375 Do you see any advantages to a course wide multiple choice final examination other than savings in instructor time? 1. ( ) Yes 5. ( ) No (If yes) Please list advantages (DA) and (DAb) were coded as one question. 1. Strong advantages e.g. Offers check on instructors, makes acceleration possible Provides better made test, gives wide range of abilities big number to set averages. Lets student see how well he can do independent of in- structor bias, evaluates instructor 2. Good advantages e.g. Better test covers whole course 3. Fair advantages e.g. Greater objectivity A. Weak e.g. Uniformity (very pOpular answer which probably should have been coded 5) 5. No advantages e.g. I see only disadvantages or "No" to (DA) Means: Student A.03 (Std dev 1.02) Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A 5 Number 2 6 1A. AS 108 107 Percentage 0.7 2.1 5.0 16 38.3 37.9 Basic Group II Being able to supply strong advantages for a course wide final was associated with: \I \I ---. ”10. 9312 0 *%1A. Believing multiple choice tests are better evaluation devices than essay tests Having a favorable overall evaluation of the course wide final Believing University College course wide finals are better than multiple choice finals given in oflier courses 376 17. Believing that the weighting of the course wide final should be increased in determining the student's grade in University College courses **20. Believing that University College grading is fairer than high school grading 28. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning Al. Feeling that students in honors sections should take the course wide final %%A8. Agreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals *A9. Disagreeing that course wide finals reward the con- forming and penalize the creative student 50. Agreeing that course wide finals are useful for evaluating innovations in education such as programmed learning %%52. Agreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses at MSU with sufficient enrollment for them. **5A. Agreeing that course wide finals let a student see how well he can do without instructor bias *%55. Disagreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College *61. Having a good idea of the changes that would be needed to have acceleration in non-University College courses *63. Having a good purpose for the year of college saved by comping all University College courses Comments: Fewer than 10% of the students were able to supply very good uses for the course wide final; this is shown in other informational questions, especially Q65 which asks why acceleration is confined to the University College. However, unlike the other informational questions, had a large number of Group II correlates. 377 60. Theoretically there is provision for credit by exami- (Fl) nation in all courses offered at MSU, in practice acceleration of non-University College courses is exceedingly rare. Would you like to have a program set up to more easily comp non-University College courses? (This question and the following ones refer to actual course credit, not simply advanced placement such as is offered by the mathematics and Foreign Languages Departments). l. ( ) Yes S.()No Means: Student 1.AA (Std dev 1.27) Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 5 Number 6 2A5 31 Percentage 2.2 86.9 11.0 Basic Group IV Wanting to have a program set up for accelerating non- University College courses was associated with: 7. Agreeing that getting along with one's teachers is important in getting good grades 16. Wanting an "automatic waiver" for University College courses *23. Believing that MSU entrance exams provided a better measure of one's ability in college than did one's high school grades %*A2. Believing that widespread comping at MSU would raise academic standards A3. Holding a favorable overall evaluation of the waiver program *AA. Holding a favorable overall evaluation of the acceleration program Comments: 87% of the students would like such a program set up, yet as Q61 shows, only 11% have any idea of what it would take to make such a program effective. The correlation pattern shows once again that liking for acceleration in the abstract is not associated with an appreciation of the course wide final. 61. (F1 ) Basic 378 Do you think any changes would have to be made in the evaluation or testing procedures of most non-University College courses in order to comp them? 1. ( ) Yes 5. ( ) No (If yes) Please specify This question was coded as one open end question. 1. Need course wide finals e.g. Would have to have separate finals for whole course like University College. Tests should be based on materials available to all. 2. Imply independent e.g. Would need better evaluation tests covering whole course not just par- ticular aspects em- phasized by one instructor. 3. Textual tests e.g. Would need tests based on text books, not lectures. A. Weak e.g. Tests should be fair. 5. Nething or bad e.g. No change needed "Should be essay, not multiple guess tests". Means: Student A.27 (Std dev 1.21) Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A 5 Number 7 l3 17 2A. A0 181 Percentage 2.5 A.6 6.0 8.5 1A.2 6A.2 Group None Other Groups VI Having a good idea of the changes that would be needed to set up a program to accelerate non-University College courses was associated with: *59 . *63. Being able to supply good uses for a course wide final Having a good use for the year of college saved by accelerating all University College courses 379 *65. Understanding why acceleration is confined to the University College Comments: Q61 shows, as did the other information questions, that students were not able to see the connection between acceleration and the course wide final. 380 62. Have you ever attempted to comp a non-University (Flc) College course? 1. ( ) Yes 5. ( ) No (If yes) What course (3) and were you successful? This question was coded by recording the number of courses listed. "No" was coded "zero". Means: Student 0.08 (Std dev 0.35) Student Frequency Distribution MD 0 1 2 3 Number 8 253 12 5 0 Percentage 2.9 89.7 A.3 1.8 0 Basic Group None Other Groups VI Not attempting to comp any non-University College courses was associated with: 25. Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration "are the greatest thing fliat's happened to me in college" Comments: Q62 had only one correlation, but the question was not really designed to correlate with others. Instead it is the mean for Q62 which is of interest. Students failed to see any connection between the course wide final and accele- ration, yet Q62 shows that acceleration is practically non- existent in non-University College courses. Only 6% of the students even attempted to accelerate a non-University College course. 381 63. Suppose you had been able to comp all A5 credits of (G3) University College courses, what would you do with the year of college thus saved? 1. Excellent use. Make it possible for me to attend graduate school 2. Good purpose. Graduate early 3. Fair purpose. Take other courses A. Poor purpose. Live it up at the Gables Means: Student 2.A5 (Std dev 0.80) Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A Number 6 36 86 1AA 10 Percentage 2.2 12.8 30.5 51.1 3.5 Basic Group None Having a good purpose for a year of college saved by accele- rating all A5 credits of University College courses was associated with: *59. Being able to supply good uses for a course wide final *61. Understanding what it would take to set up a pro- gram to accelerate non-University College courses *65. Understanding why acceleration is confined to the University College Comments: This was not a very successful question. I had hoped that being able to think of good uses for the year of college saved would be associated with a favorable at- titude toward the course wide final, but Q63 showed almost no relation to any of these variables. Basic 382 Are there any University College courses that you enrolled in that you would attempt to waive and/or comp if you had it to do over again? 1. ( ) Yes 5. ( ) No (If yes) Please specify course(s) and term(s) This question was coded by recording the number of courses listed; each term was counted separately; e.g. SS 231 and 232 were counted as 2; "No" was coded "0"; numbers of 8 or greater were coded 8. Means: Student 1.71 (Std dev 1.96) Student Frequency Distribution MD 0 l 2 3 A Number 8 9A 58 A5 A2 12 Percentage 2.9 33.3 20.6 16.0 1A.9 A.3 5 6 7 8 AA 8 2 9 1.1;. 2.8 0.7 3.2 Group None Other Groups II, V Not wanting to have waived or accelerated more University College courses was associated with: 5. 15. 2A. 32. \I \I --- M I‘LL]. . A2. 55. 58. Agreeing that MSU's size provided freedoms no smaller institution could offer Not wanting more regular introductory courses in place of University College courses Learning about waiving and acceleration early in one's college career Disagreeing that the purpose of waiving and accele- ration would be better served by abandoning the University College and offering more regular courses Agreeing that students in the honors sections should take the regular course wide final Believing that widespread comping at MSU would lower academic standards Disagreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students Having high high school grades 383 *72. Having high HSU overall grades 76. Having University College grades Comments: I was not precisely sure how C6A would relate to other questions. I thoudit that students who wished that they had waived or accelerated more courses might be more favorable to independent evaluation. Instead, the opposite is true and as is the case with many other questions, Q6A turns out to be a kind of measure of liking for the Univer- sity College. Students who wish that they had waived or accelerated more courses tend to dislike the University College and the course wide final. Interestingly enough, although Q6A correlated with Q2A, it was only at the .05 level. I had thought that when one learned about waiving and acceleration would be more closely related to Q6A. Also note that none of the waiving and acceleration demographic variables correlated with Q6A. Q6A is discussed in its own section in Chapter XI, "The Second Chance Question." 38A 65. Why do you think acceleration is largely confined to (HA) the University College? 1. Correct answer (because of e.0. The exam procedure the course wide final) is set up to allow it 2. Almost correct e.g. University College has procedure set up. Other colleges don't 3. Fair e.g. Other colleges don't allow it A. Weak e.g. University College courses are so easy. They're basic 5. Nothing e.g. Don't know. Shouldn't allow it Means: Student 3.73 (Std dev 1.09) Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 5 Number 16 13 21 A2 1A1 59 Percentage 5.7 A.6 7.A 1A.9 A6.S 20.9 Basic Group None Other Groups IV Understanding why acceleration is confined to the University College was associated with: A2. Believing that widespread comping would raise academic standards at MSU 57. Believing that a discrepancy between a student's instructor grade and course wide final grade is the result of instructor error %%61. Understanding what it would take to establish a pro- gram to accelerate non-University College courses *63. Having a good use for the year of college saved by accelerating all University College courses Comments: The frequency distribution for Q65 goes a long way toward explaining the lack of relation between the at- titudes toward waiving and acceleration and the attitudes toward the course wide final. Less than 5% of the sample had a really good idea of the role the course wide final played in waiving and acceleration. The answer in terms of the ease of University College courses was discouragingly frequent. 335 66. Number of waivers attempted. These data were obtained (OES) from OES records. Any number of waivers attenpted which was greater than 8 was still coded 8. Means: Student 3.Al (Std dev 2.13) Student Frequency Distribution MD 0 1 2 3 A Number 36 19 30 50 32 29 Percentage 12.8 6.7 10.6 17.7 11.3 10.3 5 6 7 8 Al 27 9 9 1A.S 9.6 3.2 3.2 Basic Group VI Attempting many waivers was associated with: 2A. Learning about the waiver and acceleration program early in one's college career *29. Disagreeing with the statement "waiving and accele- ration are not for me" %*3A. Disagreeing that students who waive with special permission should have to meet departmental standards for acceleration 35. Not wanting to require a 2.00 GPA for attempting waivers A5. Believing that waiving is more important than acceleration a*%67. Failing many waivers a*%68. Waiving many courses with special permission which the student chose not to attempt to accelerate a**69. Successfully accelerating many courses a%*70. Enrolling in few University College courses a**7l. Waiving many courses with special permission a**7A. Waiving many courses with the "waive only" level a**78. Waiving many courses at the waive only and special permission levels %*79. Having high MSU entrance exam scores 3% 80. Having relatively higher entrance exam scores than high school grades Comments: Q66 was rather more successful than some of the other demographic questions in relating to the attitudinal data. However, as with almost all the attitudinal- demographic correlates, these did not involve the basic course wide final items. 67. Number of waivers failed. These data were obtained (OES) from OES records. Means: Student o.A3 (Std dev 0.8A) Student Frequency Distribution MD 0 1 2 3 A 5 Number 39 175 A0 18 8 2 0 Percentage 13.8 62.1 1A.2 6.A 2.8 0.7 0.0 Basic Group V Other Groups VI Not failing any waivers was associated with: 3A. Believing that students who waive with special per- mission should still meet departmental standards for acceleration A9. Disagreeing that course wide finals reward the con- forming and penalize the creative student a*%66. Attempting few waivers 72. Having high MSU grades *73. Having relatively higher MSU grades than high school grades %%76. Having high University College grades 79. Having MSU entrance exam scores Comments: Q67 was artifactually correlated with some waiving variables but is better seen as a negative ability measure. Less than 25% of the students failed any waivers at all, and no student failed as many as five waivers. 68. (0E3) Basic 388 Number of University College courses waived with special permission which the student did not choose to attempt to accelerate. This category does not include acceleration exams which were failed. These data were obtained from OBS records and student transcripts. 0.63 (Std dev 1.17) Means: Student Student Frequency Distribution MD 0 l 2 3 A Number A0 153 SA 16 9 6 Percentage 1A.2 5A.3 19.1 5.7 3.2 2.1 5 6 7 8 2 l l 0 0.7 o.A 0.1; 0 Group VI Other Groups V Waiving courses with special permission and then choosing not to accelerate them was associated with: AA . -::-:eA 5 . 58. a*%66. a%*69. a %70. a-xnx-7 l . *72, *73. 7 6 . a-x-x-7 8 . %%79. 80. Disliking the acceleration program overall Believing that waiving is more important than acceleration Having high high school grades Attempting many waivers Not accelerating many courses Not enrolling in many University College courses Waiving many courses with special permission both with and without attempting acceleration Having high MSU grades Having relatively higher MSU grades than high school grades Having high grades in University College courses Waiving many courses at the waive only and the special permission levels Having high MSU entrance exam scores Having relatively higher entrance exam scores than high school grades Comments: Before beginning the study, I thought that students who waived with special permission and then chose not to accelerate would be very unusual. The student loses nothing by attempting acceleration, and because standards are higher for waiving with special permission than for successful acceleration, the student is almost sure to be successful. Yet over 30% of the students waived courses with special permission which they did not choose to accelerate! I had thought that these students might be especially unfavorable to acceleration since they chose not to attempt to accelerate even though they had already qualified for it. This hypothesis was supported in a small way; Q68 related to OAS in that those who waived courses with special permission without choosing to attempt to accelerate them were more likely to regard waiving as a more important privilege than acceleration. However, as with almost all of the demographic items, Q68 was not very successful in relating to the attitudinal data. 390 69. Number of successful accelerations. This figure is (OES) practically identical with acceleration exams attempted so that figure was not reported. Data were obtained from student transcripts and OBS records. Means: ‘tudent 1.18 (Std dev 1.27) Student Frequency Distribution MD 0 l 2 3 Number 38 83 85 A6 lA Percentage 13.5 29.A 30.1 16.3 5.0 A 5 6 8 7 l 2.8 2.5 O.A Basic Group VI Successfully accelerating many courses was associated with: a%%66. Attempting many waivers a%%68. Not waiving courses with special permission which the student chose not to accelerate a%%70. Enrolling in few University College courses a%%71. Waiving many courses with Special permission a *76. Having high University College grades a**78. Waiving many courses at both the waive only and special permission levels Comments: Q69 was especially weak in attitudinal correlates. It failed to correlate with a single attitudinal item. Note also that all the demographic correlates are to a greater or lesser degree artifactual. The means for Q69 are more interesting and are discussed in Group VI. There was no separate category for acceleration exams attempted, since there were very few failures, and attempts and successes are thus almost synonymous. 391 70. Number of University College courses enrolled in. (OES) These data were obtained from student transcripts. They were grouped as follows: Actual Number Recorded As O l-JxDNUleb-J I Ht—‘CDO‘F‘N O‘U‘l-F'WNI-‘O 0 2 1 - Previous categories were not grouped because there were so few categories over 8. Means: Student 3.A1 (Std dev 1.67) Student Frequency Distribution MD 0 l 2 3 Number 5A 8 18 A6 33 Percentage 19.2 2.8 6.A 16.3 11.7 i S 6 5 ’36 22 19.5 1 .3 7.8 Basic Group VI Other Groups II, V Enrolling in a large number of University College courses was associated with: 11. Personally preferring multiple choice over essay exams 29. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration "are not for me " 38. Disagreeing that a student has a bad feeling toward a course he is forced to enroll in because of a failed waiver %%A5. Agreeing that acceleration is a more important privilege than waiving 51. Disagreeing that course wide finals often bear little relation to the material covered in the course 55. Disagreeing that course wide finals should be abandoned for better students in the University College %%58. Having low high school grades 392 a%%66. Attempting few waivers a *68. Waiving few courses with special permission which the student chose not to accelerate a%%69. Accelerating few courses a%*71. Waiving few courses with special permission **72. Having low MSU grades 73. Having relatively lower MSU grades than high school grades a *7A. Waiving few courses at the waive only level a%%76. Having low University College grades a**78. Waiving few courses at either the waive only or special permission level **79. Having low entrance exam scores %%80. Having relatively lower MSU Entrance Exam scores than high.school grades Comments: This was one of the more interesting demographic items. Note the relatively few courses enrolled in; the number of waivers and accelerations does not cover this gap which is discussed in Group VI. Note also that Q70 is a negative ability measure. The attitudinal correlates for Q70 support the close connection between the University College and the course wide final; in every correlation enrollment in more University College courses increased the student's favorableness toward the course wide final. Once again we see that waiving is seen as an escape, not a vehicle for learning. ‘Q7O was the most successful of the demographic items in relating to course wide final items. 71. (OES) Basic 393 Number of University College courses waived with special permission both with and without attempting acceleration. These data were obtained from OES records and student transcripts. Means: Student 1.77 (Std dev 1.A9) Student Frequency Distribution MD 0 l 2 3 A Number A0 33 96 57 2o 20 Percentage lA.2 11.7 3A.0 20.2 7.1 7.1 5 6 7 ll 3 2 3.9 1.1 0.7 Group VI Other Groups V Waiving a large number of courses with special permission both with and without attempting acceleration was associated with: 29. 3A . A5 . 57 . *58. a-::-::-66 . a-x-ee68 . a-x-ox-6 9 . 931-637 0 . 9:72 . -::--::-76 . a::--::-7 8 . Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration "are not for me" Disagreeing that students who waive with special permission should be required to meet Departmental standards for acceleration Believing that waiving is more important than acceleration Believing that a discrepancy between a student's instructor grade and course wide final grade is the result of course wide final error Having high high school grades Attempting many waivers Waiving many courses with special permission which the student chose not to accelerate Accelerating many courses Enrolling in few University College courses Having high MSU grades Having high University College grades Waiving many courses at both the waive only and special permission levels n 30!“. 39A %*79. Having high MSU entrance exam scores 80. Having relatively higher MSU entrance exam scores than high school grades Comments: Q71 was another disappointment in terms of attitudinal correlates. Q7l's only course wide final correlate is with Q57, and here waiving with special per- mission is associated with dislike for the course wide final. This may, however, be the effect of the Q68 group which is automatically included in Q71. See Q68. Basic 5 39 Michigan State University overall grade point average. These data were obtained from student transcripts. They were grouped as follows: (4-000 "' 3.80 l 2099 "' 2080 6 3079 ' 3060 2 2.79 - 2.60 7 3.59 - 3.Ao 3 2.59 - 2.Ao 8 3.39 - 3.20 A 2.39 and below 9 3019 " 3000 5 Means: Student A.37 (Std dev 2.1A) Student Frequency , Distribution MD 1 2 3 5 Number A7 22 27 36 AA 32 Percentage 16.7 7.8 9.6 12.8 15.6 11.3 6 7 8 9 37 18 7 12 13.1 6.A 2.5 A.3 Group V Having a high MSU overall grade point average was associated with: *21. -::-2A . 28. 67. *68. **70. *71. \I ‘0 ---- \ I\ i ;. 7A. Feeling that it is important to get good grades Learning about waiving and acceleration early in one's college career Agreeing that waiving and acceleration are a new and valuable way of learning Having high high school grades Not wishing that one had waived or accelerated more University College courses Not failing any waivers Waiving many courses with special permission which the student chose not to attempt to accelerate Enrolling in few University College courses Waiving many courses with special permission both with and without attempting acceleration Having relatively higher MSU grades than high school grades Waiving few courses at the waive only level 396 a%%76. Having high University College grades *%79. Having high scores on the MSU entrance exams Comments: Q72 is another of the ability measures I employed. Once again the students for the sample reveal that they are a select group. Only 25% of them had grades below a "B" average. However, their MSU grades were not so high as their high school grades, and this created difficulties for Q73. See Q73. The attitudinal correlates for Q72 were few but were better than those for several of the other demographic items. Feeling that grades are important is a logical correlate for having good grades, and the correlation with Q28 indicates at least a slight tendency for those with high grades to be favorable to independent evaluation. 397 73. High school - college difference in Grade Point Average. (OES) The number recorded in column 72 (MSU grade point aVerage) was subtracted from the number recorded in column 58 (high school grade point average). +A or more 1 High MSU, low HS +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 -A or more 9 High HS, low MSU CO-\l O‘U‘l-F'WN Means: Student 6.A0 (Std dev 1.98) Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A 5 Number 66 5 2 9 9 Al Percentage 23.A 1.8 0.7 3.2 3.2 1A.5 6 7 8 9 36 A8 28 38 12.8 17.0 9.9 13.5 Basic Group V Having higher MSU grades than high school grades was associated with: *33. Agreeing that waiving and acceleration work only because University College courses are so easy *36. Believing an "A" rather than a "B" should be required for successful acceleration a *58. Having low high school grades *67. Not failing waivers 68. Waiving courses with special permission without choosing to accelerate them 70. Enrolling in few University College courses a%%72. Having MSU grades a *76. Having high University College grades 77. Being a male a%%80. Having relatively higaer entrance exam scores than high school grades 398 Comments: Item 73 was one (See also Q80) of the biggest disappointments on the questionnaire. I had thought that students who did relatively better on their college grades than on their high school grades would be more favorable toward independent evaluation. The thinking behind this hypothesis was that the problems of instructor centered grading are worse in the high.school than in college. I had hoped that this differential measure of ability would cor- relate more strongly with attitudinal items concerned with independent evaluation than simple measures of ability alone. Since the student who had done relatively poorly in high school but well in college would be the one who had benefitted from grading that was closer to independent evaluation. However, like the other demographic items, Q73 failed to relate significantly to the course wide final items. This appears to be so for two reasons: 1. Faulty construction: High school (Q58 and MSU grade point averages (Q72) were graded on the same scale (e.g. a GPA of from 3.59 - 3.AO was scored 3 on both the high school and MSU overall scales). This created a problem for the differential measure of Q73 because the high school grades were much higher on the whole than were the MSU grades. Therefore, instead of a mean of 5 for Q73 indicating equal high school and MSU grades, the mean was 6.AO because high school grades were so much higher than MSU grades. Because of this a student with very high MSU and high school grades who received a score of 5 would be relatively higher than the mean and would be scored as among those who did relatively better in college than in high school. Thus, Q73 becomes at least partially confounded as a simple ability measure. 2. General failure of demographic measures: While the faulty construction could have been corrected by recoding Q's 58, 72, and 73, I did not feel that the effort would have been justified in view of the inability of other demographic measures to relate to course wide final attitudinal items. For example, the number of successful accelerations (Q69) had absolutely no attitudinal correlates. 399 7A. Number of University College courses waived only does (OES) not include courses waived with special permission. These data were obtained from CBS records. Numbers of 8 and greater were recorded as 8. Means: Student 1.36 (Std dev 1.51) Student Frequency Distribution MD 0 l 2 3 A Number A1 86 63 A2 21 20 Percentage 1A.5 30.5 22.3 1A.9 7.A 7.1 5 6 7 8 or more 7 l O l 2.5 O.A 0.0 o.A Basic Group None Other Group VI Waiving a large number of University College courses at the waive only level was associated with: s20. Believing that high school grading is fairer than University College grading H 29. Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration are not for me" 3A. Disagreeing that students who waive with special permission should be required to meet departmental standards for acceleration 35. Disagreeing that a 2.00 GPA should be required for attempting waivers a**66. Attempting many waivers a *70. Enrolling in few University College courses 72. Having low MSU grades a 75. Being a senior or a graduate student a**78. Waiving many courses at both the waive only and the special permission levels s79. Having MSU entrance exam scores Comments: The "waive only's" represent an intermediate group in terms of ability. It is probable that the highest ability students among the respondents waived all their courses at the special permission level. Note that having a too number of "waive only's" was associated with low MSU grades but high entrance exam scores. The mean for Q7A shows that for this select group there were fewer "waive only's" per student than waivers with special permission (Q71). The opposite is, of course, true for students in general. L701 75. Year in college as of December 1966. These data were (OES) obtained from student transcripts. Means: Student 3.26 (Std dev 0.76) Student Frequency MD 1 2 3 A Distribution Frosh SOph Junior Senior Number 20 0 39 115 103 Percentage 7.1 O 13.8 A0.8 36.5 S Grad 5 1.8 Basic Group None Being a senior or graduate student was associated with: a 7A. Waiving many courses at the waive only level Comments: I included this item to see if there were any changes in attitudes toward the course wide final or acceleration for students who were well advanced in their college careers compared to those who were in the earlier stages of college. It is all too apparent that there were not, and the question was a failure. A02 76. University College courses Grade Point Average. These (OES) data were obtained from student transcripts and OES records. They were grouped as follows: (+000 "' 3. 80 l 2.99 "' 2.80 6 3079 "' 3. 60 2 2079 " 2060 7 3.59 - 3 A0 3 2.59 - 2.AO 8 3.39 - 3.2 A 2.39 and below 9 3019 ' 3O 5 Means: Student 2.90 (Std dev 1.9A) Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A 5 Number 58 68 A2 A2 3A 18 Percentage 20.6 2A.l 1A.9 1A.9 12.1 6.A 6 7 8 9 A 7 S A LA 2.5 1.8 l.A Basic Group V Having a high grade point average in one's University College courses was associated with: 2A. Learning about waiving and acceleration early in one's college career. *s58. Having high high school grades 6A. Not wishing that one had waived or accelerated more courses *w67. Not failing waivers 68. Waiving courses with special permission which the student chose not to accelerate a *69. Accelerating many courses a*%70. Enrolling in few University College courses *s7l. Waiving many courses with special permission both with and without acceleration a*%72. Having high MSU grades a *73. Having relatively higher MSU grades than high school grades 78. Waiving many courses at both the waive only and special permission levels A03 -%*79. Having high MSU entrance exam scores *80. Having relatively higher MSU entrance exam scores than high school grades Comments: Doing well in the University College was unrelated to feeling one way or the other about that institution. Note that only 7% of the students had grades below a "B" average, considerably higher than the overall MSU GPA's. For this reason, it would have been better to compare Q76 with Q58 rather than using Q72 for the differential measure of Q73. (See Q73). AOA Sex. 1. Male Female Means: Student 2.A6 (Std dev 1.93) Student Frequency Distribution MD* 1 5 Number 6 175 101 Percentage 2.2 62.0 35.8 %Students with ambiguous first names whose sex was not listed in the student directory. Basic Group V Being a male was associated with: A7. A8. Believing that a student with high College Board scores should be admitted to college in preference to a student with high high school grades Agreeing that course wide finals are fairer than ordinary finals Agreeing that course wide finals should be given in all courses with sufficient enrollment for them Having low high school grades Having relatively higher MSU grades than high school grades Having relatively higher MSU entrance exam scores than high school grades Comments: The correlations for Q77 support earlier findings which have shown that women do relatively better under instructor centered grading. Q77 is discussed in its own section, "Sex, Attitudes and Ability" in Chapter XI. 78. (OES) Basic A05 Number of University College courses both waived and waived with special permission. These data were ob- tained from OES records. Any number of 8 or greater was recorded as 8. Student Means: 2.91 (Std dev 2.02) Student Frequency Distribution MD 0 l 2 3 1; Number A1 23 A1 A7 A1 28 Percentage lA.5 8.2 lA.5 16.7 lA.5 9.9 5 6 7 8 33 17 8 3 11.7 6.0 2.8 1.1 Group VI Waiving a large number of University College courses at the waive -::-29 . 3A . 35 . A3 . ate-x66 . a*%68. a*%69. a%%70. a -:z-7l . a-::--::-7A . 76 . seq 9 . 80. only or special permission level was associated with: N Disagreeing that waiving and acceleration are not for me" Opposing the requirement of Departmental standards for acceleration for students who waive with special permission Disagreeing that a 2.00 GPA should be required for attempting waivers Having a favorable overall evaluation of the waiver program Attempting many waivers Waiving many courses with special permission which the student chose not to accelerate Accelerating many courses Enrolling in few University College courses Waiving many courses with special permission Waiving many courses at the waive only level Having high University College grades Having high MSU entrance exam scores Having relatively higher entrance exam scores than high school grades A06 Conmmnts: Less than 10% of the students waived no courses, and three of the students managed to waive more than eight courses. Q78's attitudinal correlates were with those questions which evaluated the waiver program per so. There were no correlates with questions concerned with the course wide final or the University College. A07 '79. Percentile ranking for the overall score on the (OES) College Qualification Test portion of the MSU entrance exam. These data were obtained from student tran- scripts and OES records. Percentile ranking Recorded 99 l 98 - 96 2 ~9S-93 3 92 - 90 A 89-86 S 85 - 81 6 80 - 76 7 75 - 70 8 69 and below 9 Means: Student 3.99 (Std dev 2.67) Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A 5 Number 26 A2 62 37 18 27 Percentage 9.2 1A.9 22.0 13.1 6.A 9.6 6 7 8 9 1A 17 8 31 5.0 6.0 2.8 11.0 Basic Group V Having a high percentile ranking on the overall score for the College Qualification Test was associated with: %*2A. Learning about waiving and acceleration early in one's college career 35. Opposing the requirement of a 2.00 GPA for attempting waivers **58. Having high high school grades %%66. Attempting many waivers 67. Not failing waivers %*68. Waiving many courses with special permission which the student chose not to accelerate %%70. Enrolling in few University College courses **7l. Waiving many courses with special permission both with and without attempting acceleration AO8 %%72. Having high MSU grades *7A. Waiving courses at the waive only level %%76. Having high University College grades %*78. Waiving courses at both the waive only and special permission levels a**80. Having relatively higher entrance exam scores than high school grades Comments: Although the MSU Entrance Exams are a measure of ability rather than achievement, they are, like the course wide final, a form of independent evaluation. There was some reason to believe then that good performance on this measure of ability would correlate with favorable attitudes toward the course wide final. As with the other demographic measures, however, Q79 was unable to relate to items con- cerned with independent evaluation. The ability of the acceleration eligible group is again shown in Q79; well over half of the sample scored at the ninetieth percentile and above. The grouping of the data for Q79 secured a reasonably even distribution, but once again did not place students as high as did the high school grade point averages and so some of the same problems were created for Q80 as had been created for Q73. (See Q's 73 and 80.) (OES) Basic A09 College Qualification Test High School Grade Point Difference Score. The number recorded in column 79 (CQT total score) was subtracted from the number recorded in column 58 (High school grade point average). +A or more 1 High CQT, low HS +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 (bx) O‘U‘L-F'WN -3 -A 9 Low CQT, high HS Means: Student 5.91 (Std dev 2.32) Student Frequency Distribution MD 1 2 3 A 5 Number 52 9 5 12 21 A2 Percentage 18.A 3.2 1.8 A.3 7.A 1A.9 6 7 8 9 51 27 15 A8 18.1 906 503 1700 Group V Having relatively higher CQT scores than high school grades was associated with: 50. a *58. 66. 68. -‘(--):-7 O . 71. a-::-::-7 3 . *76. *77 . Agreeing that course wide finals are useful in evaluating innovations in education such as programmed learning Having low high school grades Attempting many waivers Waiving courses with special permission without choosing to accelerate them Enrolling in few University College courses Waiving courses with special permission both with and without choosing to accelerate them Having relatively higher MSU grades than high school grades Having high University College grades Being a male A10 78. Waiving many courses at both the waive only and special permission levels a%%79. Having high MSU entrance exam scores Comments: I had hoped that students with relatively higher MSU entrance exam scores than high school grades would be favorable toward independent evaluation. But Q80 managed only one attitudinal correlate (Q50) and soproved a disappointment. The same construction problems which affected Q73 also affected Q80. There were more students with high high school grades (Q58) than students with high Entrance Exam scores (Q79). Thus Q80, like Q73, turned into a measure of straight ability as well as differential ability (See Q73). The scale could have been adjusted for Q79 to give Q80 a mean of 5 instead of the 5.91 it had, but once again the basic problem seemed to be the general weakness of the demographic items rather than the construction of Q80. (See Q's 58, 73, and 79).