—-_ _-.__ THE ENFLUENSE %? READii‘éG Aglfi‘fl’ ARE SDECQF§CEFY '3'? QBiECTWES 6N ENTERTiQfifii AM} éNfiEEEfiNTAL LEARNERS 530%? ESSAYS EN CBLEEGE ENGUSH Dissertatisn for the Degree'of Ph. D. MiGHéGAfé STATE UNEVERSITY DENNES REéB ‘EMMP’SGN 1976 Ililililiiilifliifiliimfliilliiifliflil L- 3 1293 01004 5205 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE INFLUENCE OF READING ABILITY AND SPECIFICITY OF OVJECTIVES 0N ENTENTIONAL AND INCIDENTAL LEARNING FROM ESSAYS IN COLLEGE ENGLISH presented by Dennis Reid Thompson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Mminislnation and Higher Education Major professor Date July 27. 1926 0-7639 Imomo IY IMO & SOIS' BOOK BINDEIY “ MIRA; , BINDER: 3'” " ' Inn ABSTRACT THE INFLUENCE OF READING ABILITY AND SPECIFICITY OF OBJECTIVES ON INTENTIONAL AND INCIDENTAL LEARNING FROM ESSAYS IN COLLEGE ENGLISH By Dennis Reid Thompson Purpose of the Study A decline in the language ability of high school grad- uates and the democratization of higher education have created large numbers of college students unable to read college level texts. This study looked at one effort to help sudh students understand difficult prose material. Its purpose was to investigate the effects of reading ability and specificity of objectives on intentional and incidental learning from two essays in college English classes. Procedures Nine freshman English classes consisting of 226 students at Macomb County Community College (Michigan) were blocked by a standardized reading test into high, medium, and low reading groups. Each of these groups was divided into four treatment groups based on the specificity of verbs and objects in the objectives they received prior to reading an essay. The four groups were as follows: (1) vague verbs - vague objectives, (2) vague verbs - specific objects, Dennis Reid Thompson (3) specific verbs - vague objects, and (4) specific verbs - specific objects. After reading the first essay, which dealt with women's liberation, students were given a multiple choice, true-false test which included both intentional and incidental items. One week later a retention test was given and the study was replicated with the second essay, a selection from Walden. Major Findings of the Study A multivariate analysis of variance showed the follow- ing results: 1. Reading ability had a significantly positive effect (p < .05) on intentional and incidental learning from both essays. 2. Specificity of verbs had no effect on either type of learning from either essay. 3. Specificity of objects had a strong, positive effect (p < .005) on immediate, intentional learning and a lesser but still positive effect on retention of intentional learn- ing (p < .071). However, these effects just pertained to the second essay. 4. Immediate incidental learning was unaffected by specificity of verbs or specificity of objects. 5. There was a significant interaction between reading ability and specificity of objects for incidental learning on a repeated measures analysis of the second essay. Students Dennis Reid Thompson with low reading ability who received specific objects were aided on the retention test, whereas students with medium and high reading ability were slightly hindered by specific objects. THE INFLUENCE OF READING ABILITY AND SPECIFICITY OF OBJECTIVES ON INTENTIONAL AND INCIDENTAL LEARNING FROM ESSAYS IN COLLEGE ENGLISH By Dennis Reid Thompson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1976 C9 Copyright by DENNIS REID THOMPSON 1976 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study would never have been completed without the combined efforts of several people. The following words of thanks only skim the surface of my appreciation for their help. Dr. James Nelson, as chairman of my committee, provided invaluable advice and encouragement throughout my program. Through his assistance I was able to tap the resources of the university to meet my needs. Dr. William Schmidt and Dr. Mary Ellen McSweeney, professors of my statistics courses, kindled the interest in experimental research which led to this study. Thanks is also due to Dr. Stephen Yelon, director of this dissertation, whose positive, enthusiastic attitude is directly responsible for the combination of my interests in experimental research, behavioral objectives, and methods of helping students with academic difficulties. In addition, I am thankful to those who helped with computer programming and data analysis. Dr. Verda Scheifley of my committee and Nancy Martin and Judith Taylor of the Office of Research Consultation contributed greatly to this study by their positive approach and their technical expertise. iii Doris Kintzer, my typist, deserves mention for spending many late nights transforming my sloppy penmanship into beautiful manuscript form. Her speedy fingers and sharp eye for minor errors are much appreciated. Mbst important, I wish to acknowledge with much love all the support, understanding and patience given by my wife, Nancy, and our children, Steve and Susan. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I. II. III. IV. THE PROBLEM Need . . . Significiance. of the Problem . Purpose of the Study . Overview . . . A REVIEW OF RELEVANT THEORIES AND LITERATURE . . . . Behavioral Objectives as Aids to Learning . Aptitude by Treatment Interactions Gaps in Reported Research . . DESIGN . Overview . Population . Sample . . . The Essays Variables Research Design . Procedures for Analyzing the Data. Methodology . . . . . Hypotheses ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Women's Lib Essay Walden Essay . Summary Page vii ix U1U'IPH |-" DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . Discussion of Possible Weaknesses in the Study . . Conclusions and Implications for Teaching . Implications for Further Research APPENDICES CD’TJNUO H. Women's Lib Essay . Objectives for the WOmen's Lib Essay . Test on the WOmen's Lib Essay . Walden Essay Objectives for the Walden Essay . Test on the walden Essay Cell Sizes, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Wbmen's Lib Tests Cell SiZes, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Walden Tests BIBLIOGRAPHY vi Page 65 65 67 7O 72 78 83 87 93 97 101 102 103 LIST OF TABLES Readability of Essays . Reading Ability Groups Number of Test Items at Different Cognitive Levels . . . . Experimental Design . Results of the MANOVA for the Immediate Test on the WOmen's Lib Essay . Results of the‘MANOVA for the Retention Test on the Women's Lib Essay . Cell Sizes, Means, and Standard Deviations Showing Effect of Reading Ability on the Intentional Items of the WOmen's Lib Immediate Test Cell Sizes, Means, and Standard Deviations Showing Effect of Reading Ability on the Incidental Items of the WOmen's Lib Immediate Test Cell Sizes, Means, and Standard . Deviations Showing Effect of Reading Ability on the Intentional Items of the Women's Lib Retention Test Cell Sizes, Means, and Standard Deviations Showing Effect of Reading Ability on the Incidental Items of the WOmen's Lib Retention Test Results of the MANOVA Repeated Measures for the Women' s Lib Essay . Results of the MANOVA for the Immediate Test on the Walden Essay . Results of the MANOVA for the Retention Test on the Walden Essay vii Page 23 24 26 28 35 36 38 39 40 41 44 47 48 Table 4.10. Cell Sizes, Means, and Standard Devi- ations Showing the Effect of Reading Ability on the Intentional Items of the Walden Immediate Test . . Cell Sizes, Means, and Standard Devi- ations Showing the Effect of Reading Ability on the Incidental Items of the Walden Immediate:TEst . . Cell Sizes, Means, and Standard Devi- ations Showing the Effect of Reading Ability on the Intentional Items of the Walden RetentiEnPTest . . Cell Sizes, Means, and Standard Devi- ations Showing the Effect of Reading Ability on the Incidental Items of the Walden Retention Test . . Cell Sizes, Means, and Standard Devi- ations Showing the Effect of Object Specificity on the Intentional Items of the Walden ImmediatePTest Cell Sizes, Means, and Standard Devi- ations Showing the Effect of Object Specificity on the Intentional Items of the Walden RetentiOngTest Results of the MANOVA Repeated Measures for the WOmen's Lib Essay . . . Combined Means Showing Interaction Effect of Reading Ability and Specificity of Objects for Incidental Learning on Walden Difference Scores. viii Page 49 50 51 52 54 56 58 59 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4.1. Interaction Effect of Reading Ability and Specificity of Objects for Incidental Learning on Walden Difference Scores . . . . . . . . . . 60 ix CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM This chapter contains a general introduction to the study and includes need, significance of the problem, pur- pose of the study, and an overview of the dissertation. Need The need for this study begins with two significant changes in American education in the past fifteen years: (1) a general decline in the academic abilities of high school graduates and (2) the democratization of higher education. The first has been the subject of numerous recent articles in the popular media, such as "Reading Deficiencies 'Nationwide Problem'" (Polker, 1975), and the following facts provide evidence of the decline. One is the sharp drop in scores on the Scholastic Aptitute Test (SAT), a reliable indicator of how well students will do in college. The mean score of this test has fallen from 500 to 430 in the last few years (Rodin, 1975). Another indicator of the decline in academic ability is the fact that one third of all high school graduates cannot read at the sixth grade level (Roueche, 1975). In addition, the recently completed National Assessment tests show a 2 reduction in language abilities of high school students (Beshoar, 1976). The second change in American education which relates to this study is the democratic movement in higher educa- tion, a process which has allowed many "non-traditional” students (Cross, 1968) to enter college who would previously have been denied admittance because they were "not college material" (i.e., they had low high school GPA's and low standardized test scores). Public two year colleges have been leaders in this movement with their "open door" policy, which as John Roueche states, "implies acceptance of the concept of universal higher education" (1968, p. vii). Many senior institutions have joined the movement as politi- cal pressure from minority groups and economic pressure from declining enrollments (McCann, 1974) caused them to lower their admissions standards. Although this movement has its good points, such as giving new career opportunities to many people, it, together with the decline in student ability, has created a serious problem: many students lack the basic stills necessary to succeed in college. Of particular importance to this study are language skills, and there is considerable evidence to show that too many beginning college students are inade- quately prepared in this area. Remedial reading is now the second most offered course on college campuses today (Roueche, 1975), and both two year and senior institutions are faced with large numbers of students in need of extra help. The problem is particularly severe at two year insti- tutions, where many educationally disadvantaged students enroll. Medsker and Tillery estimate that 30 to 50 percent of students in these colleges are in need of basic skills required for study when they enter (1971, p. 65). Particu- larly shocking was a study which found that almost 70 percent of the freshmen entering California's public junior colleges in 1965 failed the qualifying exam for regular English (Roueche, 1968, p. 13)! Many senior institutions are also having difficulty. For example, 16 percent of CUNY's 1970 freshmen were deficient in English skills (Lederman, 1973), as were 15 percent of MSU's 1973 class (Juola, 1974). Incredibly, over 45 percent of the students at the university of California are taking remedial English ("College Texts," 1974)! Jack Shingleton, MSU's placement bureau director, sums up the situation for senior institutions rather bluntly: "We're not educating the elite any more. We're educating the masses" (in MeCann, p. 10). In light of the above figures, it is understandable why textbook publishers are reporting a big demand for simpler college texts ("College Tests," 1975). Paul Panes, chairman of the department of basic educational skills at Queensborough Community College, notes that "it is not uncommon for a significant percentage of entering City University (CUNY) students to be reading on a junior high 4 level, while traditionally most college textbooks are pre- pared on a readability level of upper senior high school level (in "College Texts," 1974). Publishers are trying hard to meet this demand, as evidenced by the fact that books currently marketed for freshman courses have an eighth grade readability level (Rodin, 1975). Thus, one solution to the problem of poor readers is to provide them with easier reading material. An alternative solution to the problem of poor readers is to provide extra help for them» Such help can come from reading skills courses, tutors, and various methods used by content teachers to aid students in understanding what they read. It is the last approach with which this study is concerned. Significance of the Problem In this age of television and other electronic media, one sometimes hears people say, "Reading is no longer important, so don't worry if students can't read well.” Sudh an attitude, however, limits the education of future generations to the electronic media and simplified text- books and eliminates whatever benefits might be gained from reading what serious writers have said. If we take a different approach and seek ways to help students under- stand difficult prose material, a large number of non-tra- ditional students will be helped. Moreover, teachers will 5 be able to expose students to important writing rather than turning to publishers for simplified texts or relying pri- marily on electronic media to convey information and concepts. This study also has importance because of the gaps it attempts to fill in current research on learning from prose material (see p. 18). Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to investigate the influ- ence of (l) Macomb County Community College freshmen's reading abilities and (2) the specificity of objectives given to them before reading assignments on their inten- tional and incidental learning from.those assignments. Intentional learning is the learning of material under the direction of definite instructions, whereas incidental learning is the learning of material in the absence of instructions directing that it is to be learned (Kessler and Loyd, 1970). The study involves 182 freshman English students at the Center Campus of Macomb County Community College using two essays by professional writers. Overview Chapter II reviews the theories and literature related to this study. Chapter III contains descriptions of the population, sample, essays, variables, research design, procedures used in analyzing the data, and methodology. It 6 also presents the hypotheses to be tested. Chapter IV con- tains the analysis of data as it relates to the hypotheses. Chapter V includes a summary, discussion of the results, and recommendations for further study. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF RELEVANT THEORIES AND LITERATURE At the most general level this study is based on Bloom's theory that "most students [perhaps over 90 percent] can master what we have to teach them, and it is the task of instruction to find the means which will enable our stu- dents to master the subject under consideration" (1968). If this view is correct, individual teachers should be eager to experiment with various methods of instruction to deter- mine which ones work best with which students. Admittedly, Bloom restricts his theory to "closed" subject matter, but the minimum learning students should gain from.reading an essay can be considered in this category. At a more specific level, this study is based on theory and research in two areas: (1) behavioral objectives as aids to learning. which is subdivided into all types of learning and learning from prose material, and (2) learner aptitude by treatment interactions with regard to learning from prose materials. The first area has received more publicity and research than the second, but little of it relates to reading college level essays. All studies cited in this chapter involve students in or above the seventh grade and learning demonstrated on posttests as the depen- dent variable. Following discussions of these two areas 8 will be an analysis of gaps in the research which this study helps fill. Behavioral Objectives as Aids to Learning All types of learning Theory regarding the use of specific learning objec- tives has been an important subject in education for many years (e.g., Tyler, 1951; Bloom, 1956), with its main popularity and application attributable to Mager's Preparinngnstructional Objectives in 1962. Early writing centered on the importance of teachers defining their objectives, whereas more recent writing has emphasized that making students aware of the objectives can act as an aid to learning. (Mager, 1962; Cohen, 1969; Gagne, 1970; Kibler, Barker and Miles, 1970; and Roueche and Pitman, 1973). Simply stated, basic theory on behavioral objectives says that students receiving such stimuli should learn more than students we do not receive them. This view is sometimes accepted as fact, but it has by no means been proven true. For example, in Duchastel and Merrill's review of the effects of behavioral objectives on learning (1973), ten studies found no significant differ- ences between groups receiving objectives and those who did not (Smith, 1967; Bishop, 1969; Blaney and McKie, 1969; Boardman, 1970; Brown, 1970; Oswald and Fletcher, 1970; Stedman, 1970; Weinberg, 1970; Jenkins and Deno, 1971; and Olson, 1971); five studies showed a significant positive 9 advantage for behavioral objectives (Doty, 1968; Engel, 1968; Tieman, 1968; Dalis, 1970; and Lawrence, 1970; and one showed a negative influence of objectives (Yelon and Schmidt, 1971). Duchastel and Merrill's conclusion is that "no simple answer can be provided" to the key question: "Does communicating behavioral objectives to students have a facilitative effect on their learning?" (p. 54). In con- trast, Rothkopf offers a more optimistic conclusion of their review, noting that "objectives sometimes help and are almost never harmful." (in Duchastel and.Merrill, 1973; p. 63). Other recent studies not covered in Duchastel and Merrill's review are more positive. Sixteen show statis- tically significant results in favor of behavioral objec- tives (Cook, 1969;* Kessler and Loyd, 1970; Rothkopf and Kaplan, 1972; Booth, 1973; Glowatski, 1973; Huck and Long, 1973; Kaplan and Burgin, 1973; Kaplan and Rothkopf, 1973; Olsen, 1973; Sheldon and Miller, 1973; Snider, 1973; Sulzon, 1973; Taylor, 1973; Martin, 1974; Edwin Anderson, 1975; and Elaine Anderson, 1975). In contrast, only four show no significant differences (Cook, 1969;* Payne, 1972; Shields, 1972; and Coleman and Fowler, 1973), and only one reports a statistical difference in favor of the control group (Meody, 1975). * Cook's study showed no significant differences on an immediate posttest but a significant difference in favor of the group receiving objectives on a retention test. 10 Learning fromgprose material One problem with trying to generalize about the effect of objectives on learning is the wide difference between the studies. In some the learning task is a game; in others a whole semester course is involved; while in still others a single lecture, movie, or reading assignment is the focus. This study deals with the last type, so a discussion of theory and research on the effect of behavioral Objectives on learning from.prose material will be presented next. It ‘will be divided into three somewhat overlapping categories: the effect of objectives on intentional learning, the effect of objectives on incidental learning, and the effect of specificity of objectives on both types of learning. 1. Intentional Learning With regard to learning from.prose material, Rothkopf (1970) has coined the term "mathemagenic behaviors" to signify the covert and overt activities of a student that occur in an instructional situation and affect the learning consequences of that situation. He and others (e.g., Frase and Kaplan) group behavioral objectives, questions, advanced organizers and instructions in the category of stimulants for mathemagenic behavior directed toward learning from prose material. Reading specialists such as Strang, McCullough and Traxler (1967), while not specifically referring to behavioral objectives, agree with this theory in their comments on learning from.reading assignments: 11 "alert attention is prerequisite to learning” (p. 213) and "Learning occurs when there is a need to know, a problem to be solved" (p. 214). In other words, objectives, questions and other learning stimuli can help alert the reader's attention by creating a "mind-set to read in a thoughtful, purposeful way" (p. 274). Others in agreement are Bader (1974) and Sanders (1974), who recommend that content teachers give students guides to improve their reading comprehension. If we select from the research mentioned earlier only those studies involving the effect of objectives on inten- tional learning from prose material, the results strongly favor the use of objectives. Thirteen studies ShOW’StatiS- tically significant results in favor of subjects receiving objectives as compared with subjects not receiving objectives (Doty, 1968; Engel, 1968; Cook, 1969;* Dalis, 1970; Kessler and Loyd, 1970; Rothkopf and Kaplan, 1972; Booth, 1973; Kaplan and Burgin, 1974; Kaplin and Rothkopf, 1973; Sulzon, 1973; Kaplan, 1974; Edwin Anderson, 1975; and Elaine Anderson, 1975), whereas only five show no significant dif- ferences (Smith, 1967; Cook, 1969;* Oswald and Fletcher, 1970; Stedman, 1970; and Olson, 1971) and only one (Moody, 1975) shows a negative effect for objectives. *See note on p. 9 12 It is interesting to note that semi- or fully pro- grammed texts were used in three of the five studies showing no significant differences (Smith, 1967; Cook, 1969;* and Stedman, 1970) but only in three of the thirteen studies showing significant results (Engel, 1968; Cook, 1969;* and Sulzan, 1973). Jenkins and Deno (1971) and Cook (1971) suggest that students may not need objectives for such clearly written, well organized, and self-instructional prose material as muCh as they may need them for more abstract material. Their recommendations are taken into account in this study, which involves fairly difficult essays rather than programmed texts as the reading material. 2. Incidental Learning The second category of theory and research on behav- ioral objectives and reading concerns incidental learning, which was defined previously as the learning of material in the absence of instructions directing that it is to be learned (Kessler and Loyd, 1970). Some educators criticize the use of behavioral objectives as a learning aid, claim- ing that such objectives decrease incidental learning which may be very important in the long run. Atkin (1968), for example, warns that emphasizing certain objectives (for intentional learning) will cause other, unstated objectives to atrophy. Another who shares this view is MacDonald (1970). *See note on p. 9 13 In contrast, Rothkopf (1970) hypothesizes that specific objectives can increase incidental learning as well as inten- tional learning by inducing "positive mathemagenic effects." In other words, the objectives, by stimulating a better "mind set" for learning certain points, may also indirectly stimulate better reading in general and therefore more learning of other, incidental points as well. Postman (1954) supports this hypothesis with his con- tention that the difference between intentional and incidental learning "refers to the degree to which the instruction stimulus prepares the S for the test of per- formance" (p. 146). Agreeing with McLaughlin (1965) on the similarity between intentional and incidental learning, he says the two are not a dichotomy but "extremes of a dimension," because "set to learn may vary continuously in degree as a function of the instruction stiumlus" (p. 146). He also cites research by Bromer (1942) and Mechanic (1962) showing that "the difference between incidental and inten- tional learners is smaller when meaningfulness is high than when it is low" (p. 191). However, Postman still thinks it is useful to distinguish between these types of learning in research (such as this study) which tests the effectiveness of instructional stimuli (p. 185). Although research in this area "shows with almost com- plete if not with complete unanimity [that] 33 do not recall material as well under incidental [no objectives or instructions] as under intentional instructions" (Deese, 14 1964: p. 203), it also lends some support to Rothkopf's view that incidental learning can be improved by the presence of behavioral objectives, specific questions, or specific instructions for intentional learning.* Six studies show significant increases in incidental learning for subjects receiving such learning stimuli compared with those not receiving them (Bruning, 1968; Frase, 1967; Kaplan and Rothkopf, 1974; Rothkopf, 1966; Rothkopf and Bisbicos, 1967; and Rothkopf and Kaplan, 1972); one showed mixed results for different parts of the study--increases for some and no significant differences for others (Kaplan, 1974); two showed no significant differences (Kessler and Loyd, 1970; and Olson, 1971); and four showed a negative influence of stimuli on incidental learning (Frase, 1967, 1968a, 1968b; Rothkopf, 1966). In spite of these last four studies, Rothkopf and Kaplan conclude that "carefully specified objectives will not interfere with the serendip- itous discovery of information not directly relevant to instruction" (1972, p. 92). Interestingly, the studies showing no significant differences can.be considered as support for his view, since they show that specific learn- ing stimuli do not interfere with incidental learning. *These three types of stimuli are grouped here because of their specificity and their applicability to the defini- tion of incidental learning. All studies using any of these stimuli measure incidental learning as posttest ques- tions no; included in the learning stimuli. The control groups received either a general instruction to "read and understand the material" or just "read the material." 15 3. Specificity of Objectives The third category of theory and research on specific instructions and reading is the specificity of the objec- tives. Standard behavioral objective guidelines such as Mager (1962) stress the need for specific language. This is true for both Eggbs (e.g., "write" or "list" vs. "know" or "understand") and objects (e.g., "the first three Presidents" vs. "the important material"). In other words, the more specific an objective is, the better it will be for helping students learn. On the other hand, emphasizing specificity might have a deleterious effect on learning. For example, a long read- ing assignment might call for a long list of objectives, and the size of this list alone might interfere with learning by scaring, confusing, or irritating students. Another criticism of overly specific objectives comes from the relatively new domain-referenced testing movement, which attempts "to find a reasonable compromise between vagueness and over-precision" (Baker, 1974, p. 11). Baker criticizes those who overemphasize phrasing teaching objectives in "the much exalted formula: 'Given . . . the student will be able to . . .'" (p. 11). Continuing this criticism, Baker notes sarcastically that "as long as a 'behavioral' verb has been supplied, many consultants and supervisors have little to criticize" (p. 11). Although domain-referenced testing applies more to course objectives rather than to objectives for reading an l6 essay, which this study involves, it relates to this study because two independent variables (See Chapter III, FL 20) are the specificity of verbs and objects. Is it really necessary to be extremely specific in writing objectives to aid in reading comprehension? This study seeks to answer that question. Research on this issue has generally contrasted the effect of general vs. specific objectives as aids to learn- ing. Unfortunately, as Duchastel and Merrill point out (1973, p. 54), the distinctions between types of objectives are often not clear. Some studies, for example, do not give examples of their objectives. For those studies which can be grouped together, results favor the more specific objectives. With regard to intentional learning, five show significant results in favor of specific objectives (Tiemann, 1968; Blaney and McKee, 1969; Dalis, 1970; Rothkopf and Kaplan, 1972; and Kaplan and Rothkopf, 1974) while two show no significant differences between groups receiving specific and general objectives (Jenkins and Deno, 1971; and Kaplan, 1974). Moreover, it is worth noting that while the verbs in Jenkins and Deno's study were very different (e.g., "learn" vs. "list"), the objects were not. For example, directing students "to learn what common pitfalls in social science research must be avoided" -- an example of a vague objective -- seems to provide a fairly clear task, certainly more clear than directing them to learn "the main points about social science research." Their specific objectives 17 were different mainly because they added Maeger style con- ditions and verbs, and they also included sample test items. Very little research has been done involving specifi- city of objectives and incidental learning. The two studies that have been reported (Rothkopf and Kaplan, 1972; and Kaplan, 1974) showed that incidental learning was not affected by specificity of objectives. Aptitude byiTreatment Interactions As mentioned previously, this area has received less research than the effect of behavioral objectives on learn- ing. This is ironic in light of the fact that educators have long assumed that different types of students benefit from having instruction tailored to their needs. So many variables (e.g., student attitude and aptitude, media, type of class, type of learning, teacher personality, etc.) are involved, however, that it is difficult to generalize about what types of instruction work best for which students unless the generalization is very limited. One such gen- eralization is that slower students benefit the most from specific instructions or objectives. Unfortunately, there are few studies closely related to this one which test this assumption. Duchastel and Merrill's review (1973) reports no studies involving behavioral objectives that blocked students on reading ability. The closest is a study which blocked students on vocabulary scores (Shavelson and 18 Berliner, 1974). Results suggested that students with high scores should read the text with no study questions and answers, whereas students with low scores should receive questions and answers after the text. However, giving stu- dents questions and correct answers may be a substitute for learning from the text itself. Students in this study may have been able to answer posttest questions (dependent vari- able) solely from studying the questions and answers after the text . Several other studies involving behavioral objectives or specific questions blocked students on general cognitive ability tests (Berliner, 1971; Hollen, 1971; Merrill, 1970, 1971). In the first two, memory ability inversely corre- lated with questions -- i.e., slower students benefited the ‘most from specific learning stimuli. In both of Merrill's studies, the presence of objectives and/or rules reduced the importance of reasoning ability in learning an imaginary science through computer assisted instruction. Gaps in Reported Research This study attempts to fill four gaps in the above research. For one, very little work has been done with intentional or incidental learning from prose essays. Most studies on learning from prose use very clearly written prose (e.g., Kaplan and Rothkopf use Bell training manuals) and several use programmed texts. Only one study (Kessler l9 and Loyd, 1970) used an abstract essay of the type fre- quently found in freshman English classes, and this one did not use specificity of objectives as a variable. Secondly, no studies testing the effectiveness of objectives as aids to learning from prose material have blocked students on reading ability, as this one will do. Third, no studies involving learning from prose material and specificity of objectives have controlled for both specificity of verbs and specificity of objects. In other words, if specific objectives really are better than general ones, what are the essential aspects of the objective which must be specific? This study investigates that question. Finally, many of the studies stated above using prose material are laboratory studies using paid volunteers as subjects. Even if they are in-class projects, they often use prose material irrelevant to the course. This study is a field study using students in freshman English classes and regular course material. CHAPTER III DESIGN This chapter contains an overview, description of the population, sample, essays, variables, research design, pro- cedures used in analyzing the data, and methodology. as well as the hypotheses tested in the experiment. Overview Students in nine freshman English classes at Macomb County Community College (MCCC) were blocked according to reading ability into high, medium, and low groups. Members of each group were then randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups according to the specificity of objectives used as instructions for reading an essay. After reading the essay, all students took a posttest containing inten- tional and incidental items. One week later a retention test was given. This procedure was then replicated with another essay, posttest, and retention test. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to interpret the data, first looking at the immediate and retention tests separately and then as repeated measures. Data from each essay was handled separately. 20 21 Population The Center Campus of Macomb County Community College is a comprehensive community college located twelve miles north of Detroit. Enrollment in the 1975 Fall Semester was 6208 head count and 4356 full time equated.* Most of these students come from nearby suburbs, although some are from farming areas and a few are from Detroit. Most specifically, the population to which this study will be generalized is white, suburban, middle class (family income approx. $9,000- 20,000) community college freshmen (male or female) between the ages of 17 and 25, whose reading ability falls below the 85th percentile on the Diagnostic Reading Test (1967) or a similar, standardized reading test. Sample The sample for this study was 182 students in nine freshman English classes during the Fall, 1975 semester. Four classes were the experimenter's, four were taught by a second teacher, and one was taught by a third teacher. The teacher was not a planned or confounding variable because of the methodology used. Of these 182 students, 145 were present for both immediate and retention tests on one essay, and 120 were present for both tests on the other essay. *Full time equated = # credit hours/12 22 The Essays The actual experiment consisted of two main parts. The first involved an essay by Gloria Steinem entitled "What It WOuld Be Like If WOmen Win" (1970; see Appendix A.), hereafter referred to as ”Women's Lib." The second involved a selection from Walden by Henry David Thoreau (1966; see Appendix D.), hereafter referred to as "Walden." The latter is not a self-contained essay, but with the brief introduction added it can stand quite effectively as a separate piece and is called an essay in this paper for the sake of convenience. Both essays are between 2000 and 2500 words in length and are typical of reading assignments in college freshman English classes: WOmen's Lib is representative of current issue readings and Walden is a good example of assignments in the classics. In terms of readability formulas the two are fairly similar, as seen in Table 3.1. However, Walden is probably more difficult than WOmen's Lib in ways unaccounted for in these readability formulas. In partic- ular, Walden contains considerable figurative imagery while WOmen's Lib has little, and Walden, originally published in 1854, has several archaic words (e.g., "trumpery") in con- trast with the modern style of WOmen's Lib. On the other hand, an important similarity is that both have many words which would be familiar to most good readers but unfamiliar to most poor readers (e.g., "machismo" and "reactionary" 23 in Steinem's essay and "abstain" and ”malefactors" in Thoreau's). TABLE 3.1 READABILITY OF ESSAYS (expressed in grade levels) Formula WOmen's Lib Walden Dale-Chall (1948)* 11.3 11.1 SMOG (McClaughlin, 1964) 13.0 13.0 Variables Independent Variables Three independent variables were involved in this study: (1) reading ability, (2) specificity of verbs, and (3) specificity of objects. To block students on reading abil- ity, all 226 students in the nine English classes were given Form D of the Diagnostic Reading Test, Survey Section: Upper Level (l967).** Although an explanation of the test * The simplified form of the Dale-Chall formula devel- oped by Charles R. Goltz (1962) was used to calculate these grade levels. ** The experimenter administered all tests, both to his classes and classes taught by the other instructors, who introduced him as a friend and fellow English teacher. In these classes the approach was one of togetherness: two instructors working together to see hOW‘Well students read at MCCC. This was done both to relax the students and to make the experimenter's presence seem as natural as possible. 24 results was not a factor in the experiment, the experi- menter explained them a few weeks later to satisfy student curiosity, to provide a reason for the test gphgg than its use as a blocking variable (students were not told about this use until later), and to strengthen his relationship with classes taught by the other instructors. The raw total scores from this test were ranged from highest to lowest and arbitrarily divided into high, medium and low reading ability groups of approximately equal size. The actual sizes and national percentile ranges are shown in Table 3.2. TABLE 3.2 READING ABILITY GROUPS ‘Raw Score Percentile Range Range Ability (Max. = 100) (National Norms) N** High 73 - 95 41 - 98* 70 Medium 62 - 72 17 - 40 74 Low 28 - 61 1 - 16 j 82 Median = 66 * The percentile range is somewhat misleading for the High group, because only three students scored above the 85th percentile. In contrast, nine students in the Low group had extremely low scores (first or second percentile). ** In order to make the group sizes more equal, the dividing points would have separated students with identi- cal scores. 25 The two other independent variables, specificity of verbs and objects, involved the instructions students were given prior to reading the essay. Each variable had two levels: vague and specific. The two vague verbs used were "understand" and "know,' which contrast with a specific verb like "choose.” In addition, objectives with specific verbs included Mager (1962) style conditions (e.g., "Given groups of four statements, choose the one from each group that best explains . . ."). An example of a vague object is "Thoreau's views," as in "Understand Thoreau's views" (vague verb - vague object). An example of a specific object is "Thoreau's attitudes toward owning furniture,‘ as in ”Given a statement, deter— mine if it is true or false regarding Thoreau's attitude toward owning furniture" (specific verb - specific object). See Appendices B and E for copies of all objectives used. To manipulate these last two variables, each of the three reading groups was divided by a simple, random pro— cedure into four nearly equal subgroups.* The four sub- * The first number between one and four that appeared in a table of random numbers was used to determine a start- ing point from the top of the list of reading scores. The student at this point was assigned to group one, the next student to group two, the next student to group three, and so on down the list. The actual sizes generated by this process were Group One = 57, Group Two = 57, Group Three = 57, and Group Four = 55. 26 groups were (1) vague verbs - vague objects, (2) vague verbs - specific objects, (3) specific verbs - vague objects, and (4) specific verbs - specific objects. Dependent Variables The two main dependent variables, intentional and incidental learning, were measured by twenty-five question comprehension tests given immediately and one week after reading the essays. The tests used a combination of multiple choice and true-false items (See Appendices C and F) and contained fifteen intentional questions (questions that related to a specific object in an instructional objective) and ten incidental questions (questions n35 related to a specific object in an instructional objective). Although the cognitive level of the test questions was not a variable, both tests contained items at the knowledge and comprehension levels, based on the Taxonomy gf_§duga- tional Objectives (Bloom, 1956), and the Walden test also had some items at the Application level. This information is shown in Table 3.3. TABLE 3.3 NUMBER OF TEST ITEMS AT DIFFERENT COGNITIVE LEVELS Number of Items Level Women's Lib Walden Knowledge 22 13 Comprehension 3 10 Application 0 2 27 The reliability of these tests was determined in two ways. Using the Kuder-Richardson 21 formula the split half reliability is .585 for Women's Lib and .572 for Walden. Using the immediate and retention tests as a test-retest reliability measure, the correlations are .814 for WOmen's Lib and .694 for Walden. A third dependent variable was the difference between scores on the immediate posttest and the retention test given one week later. Research Design These three independent and dependent variables combined to form the 2x2x3 design shown in Table 3.4. 28 TABLE 3.4 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Independent Variables Dependent VariabIes Immediate Retention ‘Inten- InCiF Inten- Inci— Reading Verb Object tional dental tional dental Vague Vague High Specific Spe- Vague cific Specific Vague Vague iMedium Specific Spe- Vague cific Specific Vague Vague Low Specific Spe- Vague cific Specific 29 Procedures for Analyzing the Data The data was analyzed by the Michigan State University Computer Center using Jeremy Finn's (1967) Multivariate Analysis of Variance program (MANOVA). The immediate and retention scores were treated separately on the first run and as a repeated measures analysis on the second. All probabilities from the F tests are rounded to three decimal places. Those falling below .10 are noted as guidelines for future research, but the .05 alpha level is the crite- rion for all hypothesis tests. Methodology The actual experiment started about the middle of the 1975 Fall Semester. In the students' regular classroom at the regularly scheduled times,* and again working c00pera- tively with the other teachers when with their classes, the experimenter gave a manila envelope bearing the student's name to each student. Each envelope contained one of the four sets of objectives (see Appendix B) and the WOmen's Lib essay. In addition to the written directions and objec- tives, students were Epld that the envelopes contained directions and an essay to read, that they would be tested * The nine classes covered all parts of the day, from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. , but time was not considered to be a confounding variable since each class contained students in each of the treatment groups. Temperature and lighting in all classrooms was normal at all times. 30 on the essay when they were through reading it, and that they would be discussing the essay at a later date. Possi- ble Hawthorne effects were minimized by the fact that stu- dents were already familiar with the experimenter from.his administering the Diagnostic Reading Test and discussing the results with thema In addition, it is common in many classes to hand out reading material on which students will later be tested and/or expected to discuss. The envelopes ‘were admittedly an unusual factor but they were explained by saying they were needed because several other classes were being tested and.we wanted to keep each student's work separate for later discussion. In short, every effort was 'made to make the experiment as natural as possible. When each student finished reading the essay and reviewing the objectives, he put the essay and directions back in the envelope, brought the envelope to the desk, and picked up a test (hereafter referred to as the "Immediate" test). There were no time constraints, and all students finished.within forty-five minutes. One week later the students were given the same test again (hereafter referred to as the "Retention" test). Following this test, in the same class period, the experi- ment was replicated with the Walden essay. One week after that, the Walden retention test was given. Finally, at 'various times in the next few weeks the experimenter returned the scored tests and led discussion in each class about the articles, objectives, tests, and the variables 31 involved in the experiment. This discussion was not a factor in the experiment but was well received by the stu- dents. Until this time students did not know what group they were in or even that they had been assigned to differ- ent groups. Only a few students said they thought there were different sets of directions, but no one said he knew what directions other students were using. Hypotheses The first seven hypotheses below relate to the imme- diate and retention tests taken separately. All are stated in the null form, and following each hypothesis is the anticipated result (i.e., whether the null will be retained or rejected). Hypothesis 1: There will be no significant difference in intentional or incidental learning on the immediate or retention tests between stu- dents of different reading abilities. Expected result: the null will be rejected because better readers should be able to score higher on reading tests. Hypothesis 2: There will be no significant difference in intentional or incidental learning on the immediate or retention tests between stu- dents receiving objectives with vague verbs and those receiving objectives with specific verbs. Expected result: the null will be retained. Hypothesis 3: There will be no significant difference in intentional or incidental learning on the immediate or retention tests between stu- dents receiving objectives with vague objects and those receiving objectives with specific objects. Hypothesis 4: Hypothesis 5: Hypothesis 6: Hypothesis 7: 32 Expected result: the null will be rejected. This prediction is based on the assumption that the object portion of an objective, rather than the verb portion, is the essen- tial part for inducing ”positive mathemagenic effect" (see pp. 10-11). There will be no significant reading X verb interaction effect for intentional or inci- dental learning on the immediate or reten- tion tests. Expected result: the null will be retained. There will be no significant reading X object interaction effect for intentional or incidental learning on the immediate or retention tests. Expected result: the null will be rejected. This prediction is based on the assumption that students with low reading ability will benefit more from specific objectives than will students with high reading ability. There will be no significant verb X object interaction effect for intentional or inci- dental learning on the immediate or reten- tion tests. Expected result: the null will be retained. There will be no significant reading X verb X object interaction effect for intentional or incidental learning on the immediate or retention tests. Expected result: the null will be retained. The next seven hypotheses relate to the difference scores between the immediate and retention tests (i.e., immediate score - retention score = difference score). Like the first seven, these are also stated in the null form. The anticipated result for each is that the null 'will be retained because there is no reason to expect that relationships between group scores should change over time. Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis 8: 9: 10: ll: 12: 13: 14: 33 There will be no significant difference in intentional or incidental learning between difference scores of students with different reading abilities. There will be no significant difference in intentional or incidental learning between difference scores of students receiving objectives with vague verbs and those receiving objectives with specific verbs. There will be no significant difference in intentional or incidental learning between difference scores of students receiving objectives with vague objects and those receiving objectives with specific objects. There will be no significant reading X verb interaction effect of difference scores for intentional or incidental learning. There will be no significant reading X object interaction effect of difference scores for intentional or incidental learning. There will be no significant verb X object interaction effect of difference scores for intentional or incidental learning. There will be no significant reading X verb X object interaction effect of difference scores for intentional or incidental learn- ing. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS This chapter analyzes the data as it applies to the fourteen hypotheses listed in Chapter III. The results for each essay are discussed separately, and Tables showing cell sizes, means, and standard deviations are presented only when they help illustrate F tests near or below the .05 level. However, tables showing all cell sizes, means, and standard deviations are presented in Appendices G and H. Women's Lib Essay Immediate and Retention Tests Uncombined Hypothesis 1: There will be no significant difference in intentional or incidental learning on the immediate or retention tests between stu- dents of different reading abilities. This hypothesis was rejected beyond the .05 level of significance for both intentional and incidental learning on both the immediate and retention tests, as can be seen in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Note that these differences are significant for both the multivariate (Immediate Test, p < .0001; Retention Test, p.< .004) and univariate F tests. 34 35 ooGoHHm> mo mwmhama< oumwum>auaaz u <>oz x waHemmm one. Hm. mam. nooo. HmuameHocH mes. um. HmcoHuaoucH H Humane x Hsm> mHH. «Hm. mme. ow. HmuameHoaH «mm. HH. HmcoHuamuaH N Humane x waHemmm Nam. OH. new. Hm.H HmucmeHoeH Hoe. Hm. HmcoHucmucH N Hsm> x wcHemmm man. em. com. we. HmucmeHoaH cow. mo. HmcoHucouaH H humane wee. am. new. mH. HmucmeHocH ass. mm. HmaoHuamueH H HHm> Hooo. No.a moo. He.o HmucmeHocH Hooo. oH.HH HmaoHuamucH N wcstmm m1. m m h oaomfium> mo mouoom mummum>muadzi mumwum>wcb >oz x waHemmm can. mm. one. NH. HmueooHoeH man. He. Hm:0HucouoH H uoonno x nuo> awn. om. mum. em. HmuamoHocH mom. on. HmGOHucmucH N uoomno x wcHomom onm. NH.H «we. as. HmucmoHocH moH. om.H HocOHucoucH N num> x maHommm Hmn. mm. 5mm. mm. HmuaooHoaH mmw. No. HNSOHuaoucH H uomhno «mm. mm. HHm. «a. HmucooHocH «om. om. HmGOHuaouoH H cuo> eoo. Ho.¢ moo. NH.o HansooHocH HHo. mc.¢ HmsowucmuaH N onommm m. m m m oHanHm> mo mousom oumHumpmquz mumHum>HcD wOz<2 mmH ho mHHDmmm N.¢ mHm Medium > Low. 38 moH u z HouOH Nm.N Hm.0H 0H em.~ mH.HH mH om.H n~.HH NH «N.N om.OH mH 30H mu.H om.HH NH wH.N n¢.NH NH OH.N nw.NH mH mm.H mm.NH mH BSHomz m¢.H mw.NH NH H¢.H oo.~H m mn.H oo.NH HH NN.~ mm.NH mH szm Hm m a .a.m M a a.m. m a 5...... m a DHHHQ uom.no UHMHoomm uomnoo oawo> poofioo oHMHoomw» uoofioo mswm> wcHomom Hum> UHMHooam. numb ommHoomm imam> oswmp nuo> onwm> AmH n ouoom EaameEv Emma mHma nm uoomno UHMHoomw uoomno onwo> wcHomom num>.oHMHoomm Huo>,oHMHooam Huo> onwmbi, puo> onwm>. AOH u whoom EDEHRQZM Emmy mamo nm oMMHooom Hum>,onHomam nuo> oawm> A one? mswm> No.N mN.0H oH mo.H 0N.0H oH No.H om.HH 0H o¢.H NN.OH HH 30H NN.H Nm.0H «H H¢.H om.HH 0H No.N oo.NH mH o¢.H mo.HH mH EDHooz mo.H NN.NH HH mm. oo.NH N HN.H NN.HH HH on.H m¢.HH HH anm .a.m m a .a.m Am a .n.m m c .n.m m e HHHHHH< uoomno UHMHomnm uoofioo onwo> uoo.no UHMHoomm uoofioo oawm> wcHomom AmH u whoom abfiwwozv HmmH onHZMHmm mHH m.zmzoz mmH mo mzmHH Hmo nm woo.no UHMHoomm uoomno o5wm> wcHomom ouo> onHoomm numb UHMHoomm .muobionwm>. pum> comebi AOH u whoom EDEHNMEM HmMH ZOHHZMHmm mHH m.szOB mmfi mo mZMHH HmQ Qm¢nz x maHemmm mom. «H. NNo. «N. HmucmeHoaH HNN. no. HmaoHucmucH H Humane x Hum> NNN. 0N.H NNo. Ne. HmuameHoaH HNH. mH.N HmcoHuamucH N “compo x wcHemme omN. we. HNN. «N. HmucmeHoeH Nae. NN. HmcoHucmuaH N Hum> x mcHemme oNN. «N. eoN. mo. HmuaoeHocH NNm. He. HmaoHuawucH H Homnno coo. Hm. NNe. mo. kucmeHoaH non. me. HmcoHuamuaH H Hum> ONH. No.H NmN. NN.H HmucmeHoeH oeH. om.H HmaOHucmueH N waHemmm m. h m m oHnoHHm> mo mousom oumHHmpwprE mummmm>mca A.mmuoom SOHuaouou one one oumHoanH ecu coo3uon moaoHoMMHo mnu mH oHomHHw> uaoonomoo oSHv wOz<2 mmh ho mHHDwmm N.¢ mqm<fi 45 Hypothesis 9: There will be no significant difference in intentional or incidental learning between difference scores of students receiving objectives with vague verbs and those receiving objectives with specific verbs. As can be seen from Table 4.7 (p. 44), the expected retention of the null was correct for both the multivariate and univariate F. Tests. Hypothesis 10: There will be no significant difference in intentional or incidental learning between difference scores of students receiving objectives with vague objects and those receiving objectives with specific objects. The anticipated result was again correct as neither the multivariate nor the univariate F tests were significant at the .05 level. See Table 4.7 (p. 44). Hypothesis 11: There will be no significant reading X verb interaction effect of difference scores for intentional or incidental learning. As expected, the null was retained for both the multi- variate and univariate F Tests. See Table 4.7 (p. 44). Hypothesis 12: There will be no significant reading X object interaction effect of difference scores for intentional or incidental learning. The anticipated retention of the null held true, as can be seen by the multivariate and univariate F tests in Table 4.7 (p. 44). Hypothesis 13: There will be no significant verb X object interaction effect of difference scores for intentional or incidental learning. Neither the multivariate nor the univariate F tests were significant at the .05 level, so the null was not rejected. See Table 4.7 (p. 44). 46 Hypothesis 14: There will be no significant reading X verb X object interaction effect of difference scores for intentional or incidental learn- ing. As expected, the null was retained, since the multi- variate and univariate F tests were not significant at the .05 level. See Table 4.7 (p. 44). Walden Essay Immediate and Retention Tests Uncombined Hypothesis 1: There will be no significant difference in intentional or incidental learning on the immediate or retention tests between stu- dents of different reading abilities. This hypothesis was rejected beyond the .05 level of significance for the multivariate (Immediate Test, p < .0001; Retention Test, p < .006) and univariate F tests. These results are shown in Tables 4.8 and 4.9, and the cell sizes, means, and standard deviations are shown in Tables 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13. Note that, with few exceptions, the pattern is High > Medium > Low. 47 woo. «H. «Hm. mo. HmucooHoeH moN. NN. HchHucoucH N uomnno x num> x wcHooom oNN. om.H wwN. «H.H HouaooHooH NmH. om.N HocOHucoucH H uoonno x nuo> mNm. mN. «mm. em. HmucooHocH mmm. mH. HchHuooucH N uoonoo x wcHommm mmo. Nm. one. Ne. HmucooHocH wmo. we. HoaOHDCouaH N nuo> N waHomom moo. mo.m NON. «o.H HmuemoHocH mHo. mo.o HwGOHucoucH H uomnno oNN. mN. Noe. NN. HmucooHoaH mNN. mo. HMGOHuGoucH H nuo> Hooo. mo.N oHo. 0N.¢ HmucooHocH Hooo. ON.¢H HmCOHuCoucH N wcHomom a m .\m mHannm> mp oouoom oumHum>HuHsz oumHuwpwoD woz<2 mmH mo mHHDmmm w.¢ mqm x waHemmm ooo. moo. coo. oH. HoodooHocH ooN. mo. HmGOHucoucH H oommoo x oum> oeH. NN.H oNH. HH.N HmucooHocH NHm. mH.H HchHuooucH N “compo x onommm one. no. one. mN. HmucmoHucH mHn. No. HmGOHuaouaH N oum> x wcHommm moo. H¢.N moo. oo. HmuemoHoaH HNo. Nm.m HoaOHuaoucH H Hoonoo omm. mo. New. qo. HmucmoHoeH cow. No. HmaoHucwuaH, H Hows ooo. NN.N moo. oo.o HmHCooHoaH coo. Hm.m HonOHucoucH N onomom m. m a m mHooHum> mo oousom oummum>Hquz oUMHHm>HcD wOz uom.oo UHMHoomm uoomoo onwm> wcHomoM num> oHMHoomm Huo> onHoomm Hmo> onwm> pho> onwm> an u ouoom adSmezv Bmmfl mHmn Qm uoo.no oHMHoomm econoo mdwm> onomom Home, UHMHoomm 98> UHMHoomm Hum; mdwmb 93> osmm> 2: u Emma. MHfingH zmQH<3 man. ho mZMHH mucom EHHBHNMZV HmQ Qm uom.no OHMHoomm uoonoo osww> wcHomom num> onmooam 1mmo> UMMHooam nuo> oswmb 0Mo> oswm> AmH u ouoom abewxmzv Hmmm onHzmHmm zmnH<3 may mo mSMHH Hmn Qm onHomam Huo> UMMHomam .mmo> oowm> 0Mo> onmmb oNH z Hmooe 00.H N0.N HH N0.N 00.0 HH 0H.H oo.N N ON.H 0N.0 m 30H mm.H oo.N NH 0H.H H¢.m NH «H.N. Nm.N mH Nm.H oo.N 0H BsHooz Hm.H N0.N N w¢.H oN.o oH No. oo.N N No. oo.o, N anm .o.m m a o.m m a. .o.m m :. .o.m m a NoHHHH< poo.no oHMHoomm uoufioo onwo> uoo.no oHMHoomw uooono osww> wcHommm AOH u ouoom BDBHHMZV Hmflh onHszmm zmnH<3 was me mZmHH Hmn nm .Q.m m C .Q.m mm C .Q.m .vln d— .Q.m mm H.— .Q.m .uln G .Q.m uln. C UUOHB g 80 0533 Sam: 053m 0 H0 g SH 0:830 .53 30.800 E N530 03> 336.80 03> 000008? 08> 300080 03> «mg 05> 80m , 03> was, 188.0. AmH u oucom EsBmezV IE mafia—EH zmais may no mZMHH ionHzmHzH mm“. zo NHHUHhHommm Humomo ...Ho Hommhm may. mzH3omm monHmE $972.90 oz< .mz do m a .00 m_ a .00 m a. 0.0 a a.m. m a .00. m. a 883 . . , _ _ . . . _ . 41 mo 888m 33 0.88m 88% g 030 308m 33. g 98“.: $88 _ .088 009 omwoam 08>] omega n08> 3088.0 08> «may 08> 88> 08> 8H5 08% AmH u ouoom EHBHRMZV Emma onHzmHmm zmnH<3 mmH mo mZNHH Hma nm 0 0:0omo0 H00. 00. 0N0. no. Houcmo0ocH .0000 000. om. H0000008000 .0000 H oomn0o 0 008> ooo. 00.0 moo. 0N.o H00000000H .0000 000. NN. Hmco0008000 .0000 N oomn0o 0 0c0omm0 000. mm. H00. Ne. Hmucmo0oaH .0000 omN. oN. H00o0008000 .0000 N 00m> 0 0000000 NoN. 0N. NNN. 0H. Houemo0000 .0000 000. N0. H00o0008000 .0000 H Homn0o 000. 00. 0H0. no. Hooemo0000 .0000 o0o. on. H00o0008000 .0000 H 000> 000. 0o.H 00H. 00.0 HmoeooHUcH .0000 ooo. No. Hmco0ucmueH .0000 N 0000080 a m a. m oHanum> mo mouoom ouMHumemuHmz oumwnm>HoD A.000000 GOHuamuoH on» pom 000000880 050 aoo3uon mucouommHo onu 00 oHomHum> unoonoaoo mnav 00000 000 0.202o3 000 0o0 00000002 00000000 <>oz Which of the following ways of earning a living did Thoreau feel gave him the most independence? School keeping Doing day labor Picking huckleberries writing books U0w> APPENDIX F TEST ON THE WALDEN ESSAY 10. ll. 12. 98 What two examples does Thoreau give of people who periodically (once every so many months or years) burned their worn out clothes and other possessions? A. An Indian tribe and the Mexicans B. Philosophers and school keepers C. Deacons and school keepers D. An Indian tribe and day-laborers When a young man says he would live like Thoreau if he had the means, Thoreau says A. the man should copy his way of living even if he doesn't have the means. B people should first earn some money, and then live like he does. C. if the young man didn't have so much furniture, he could afford to live the right way. D each person would live his own way rather than copy someone else's way. Complete the following statement by Thoreau: "It was not necessary that a man should earn his living by the sweat of his brow," A. because work is basically a waste of one's time. B. but he should do this if his day ends with the going down of the sun. C. unless he wants to pursue his own way of life. D. unless he sweats easier than I do. How long did Thoreau find he needed to work to meet all the expenses of living? A. One week B. One month C. Six weeks D. Six months Thoreau feels furniture is like a A. trap. B. fox. C. pumpkin. D. paw. With regard to owning furniture, Thoreau believed that A. many people have too muCh. B. the more you have, the poorer you are. C. both of the above answers. D. neither of the above answers. Which of the following statements best summarizes Thoreau's attitude toward how hard a person should work? A. Hard work never hurt anyone. B. Whatever work you choose to do, work hard at it by doing the best you can. C. It's better to be an employer than an employee, l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. True 18. 19. 20. 99 because you won't have to work as hard. D. You don't have to work hard to support yourself. The item used in this selection to mean "feast of first fruits" is A. wen B. busk C. spaulding D. trumpery Which of the following items was NOT in Thoreau's house? A. lamp B. curtains C. desk D. looking glass When Thoreau says the little true cooperation that exists is "a harmony inaudible to men,” he means true cooperation A. is like listening to a good concert. B. is not noticed by other people. C. sounds good but really isn't. D. sounds good only to those who understand it. What did Thoreau feel should have been done with the possessions of the deacon when he died? A. Give it away. B. Sell it. C. Burn it. D. None of the above. In one paragraph Thoreau quotes William Bartram, who was an early American A. expert on Mexico. B. furniture expert. C. minister. D. botanist. - False (On your answer sheet, use "a" for TRUE and "b" for FALSE.) Thoreau believed we would be better off sitting on pumpkins instead of wasting money buying chairs. Thoreau decided against picking huckleberries for a living because it was too exhausting. Thoreau felt sorry for immigrants carrying all their possessions because it showed how little they owned. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. NOTE: 100 Thoreau would probably be against the saying, "do your own thing." If Thoreau.were alive today, he would probably criti- cize peOple who like to buy things at flea markets and garage sales. According to Thoreau, one advantage of traveling with someone is that you can help each other when the problems arise. Thoreau didn't want to be an employer, because he felt employers get no rest. Thoreau was critical of doing day labor because it made him work too hard for what it was worth. (Incidental questions are: l, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, l3, l4, l7, and 21.) APPENDIX C CELL SIZES, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE WOMEN'S LIB TESTS 101 o: no: rz :89: ” mw.: oo.w: mm.~ mN.o: o: ~o.~ m~.w Nm.N :m.o: c: omm:owam w a. 86 mg 8.3 o: 3.: was an: 2.: m: «.me 0:3QO a G: 8: N: 8.3 S 3.: $6 R: m: : aimemm. 33 r 02 3.... 8.: :22 : 3.: m: a: 8.2 m: > 8mg m: mm: 32 a :: is: m: .5: D fifioomm 3.: N: «.3. 9...: S 3.: «2 3:6. 3.: S > 058% mm: mm.» m: 8.: m: B: m: 3:. 5.: m: 3:08 5:5: a: R: 3.: 8.: m: 3.: m: R: 8.: n Swami 8mg 8: SH .3: R: : 8: sum 3.: mm: 3 Emma: mm. H: 8.: 8.: a 8. N3 3.: 8.: a > 338% s: 8: 8.: B: : :N: m: m: 8.: : oflflommw swam on: m: m: 3.: : 3.: R: NN.N mm: m: 83> mawg 9m m 9m m a .o.m m A; m a “8.88 we ems mo 3:5. 39865 Etoflfiufi 3638: gufiufi 33:60am bfiflflomam 38m sowucwuom euMmeEEH mmaamfium> unmocomoa moanmwum> Dammcomoch mom monHmn Qm 3308: ::.: 8.: :0: 00.: : ::.: 8.: ::.: .3: : 38% E: 0:: :5: 8.: 8.: m 8. 8.: :0: ::.: :: > 38> mm: 8.: 8.: 8.: :: 8.: 8.: 8.: 8.0 s: 013:0 3.: 3.: 3.: :08: :: 8.: 8.: 8.: 8.: :: > 338:: 3.: 8.: 0:. .: m: .: 8.: m: 8.0: :: 3m : 5:03 ::.: 8.: 8.: :.: 3 8.: 8.: ::.: 8.: .0: > 9:8 :m: :3 8.: 8.:: : :0: 8.: ::.: 8.:: 0: 3% 8.: 0:: ::.: 0:: o: 8. 0:: 8.: 0:: 0: > 3:08: 8. 8.: 3.: 8.: n .: 8.: :0: :H: : warumm. 5:8 8. 8.: 8.: 8.: : 8.: 8.: 8.: 8.0: :: > 88> 8.: m 8.: m a .9: m .9: m a 88:8 :0 33 mo 8:8: 58328 88:89: :8838: «E152: 8:33:68: 8:08:88: :388: cowucmumm oumwvoEEH moHnMHHm> ucmpcomoa memeum> ucmvco ovcH mHmMH zmnd<3 mmh mom monHmQ QM