STUDENT AND STUDENT ADVISER EXPECTATIONS OF THE BASIC COURSE IN PUBLIC SPEAKING AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Thesis for the Degree of Ph; D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JACK E. WILSON 1968 THESIS Lfl . ‘__ 't. -- _--.-, 1.1394," V T1 Michigan St EEC Un :Vcrsi ty This is to certify that the thesis entitled STUDENT AND STUDENT ADVISER EXPECTATIONS OF THE BASIC COURSE IN PUBLIC SPEAKING AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY presented by Jack E. Wilson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D . degree in Degartment of Speech and Theatre Da 0-169 I C r g amomc av IIUAII & SUNS' 800K BINDERY INC. ”Hm-v amocns I I I '1 '- N " “I‘m 11!. III I telegww. ”31.14%, BI: Twenfinuvlflfiunfllmfl Afl. ffiimi .n. 3.x. 35.3 w..NA.i.T.1¢...fr gin-mews}. $..biafllu’ik¢l4§li§lfll: I . .¢c,.. . « ... . ..~| I .. Eiura u. ...,. .r I 2“. . . .. I q ..I.....flo I. . . ... u. . II§4 .e. J}. 4.. q 1,: I . I I . .:.| 1 I , 4 , II n .rr' .. ¢ Twig“ \Nlll ‘ ABSTRACT STUDENT AND STUDENT ADVISER EXPECTATIONS OF THE BASIC COURSE IN PUBLIC SPEAKING AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY by Jack E. Wilson A student's self-concept of his speaking ability and his expectations of a public speaking course play a significant role in preparing him to modify and improve his speaking behavior. If an instructor can identify the expectations of the student,he will be in a much better position to help him achieve his goals or at least point out to the student that certain goals and expectations are unrealistic. In addition to being aware of the expectations of students teachers of public speaking would do well to be sensitive to the expectations of administrators and ad- visers who send students into their classes. Such an aware- ness could serve to make teachers of speech more objective in planning and conducting speech courses in that they would have a greater appreciation of the role speech can play in the various vocations for which students prepare. The purposes of this study were: 1) to identify and describe the expectations of students relative to Jack E. Wilson Speech 101 at Michigan State University and to determine to what extend these expectations are being fulfilled by the course. 2) To identify and describe the expectations of advisers and administrators who send students into Speech 101 and to get a general perspective of the image of the course from their points of view. Pretest and posttest questionnaires provided the data on student expectations of Speech 101 at Michigan State University. Data relating to administrators and advisers of students taking Speech 101 were secured through interviews. Some of the more important findings relating to students enrolled in Speech 101 are as follows: 1) There is no apparent correlation between a student's grade- point average, the grade he expects to receive in Speech 101, and the grade he actually receives in the course. 2) Students who enroll in Speech 101 are very much con- cerned about stagefright; pretest responses regarding stagefright appear inconsistent.but students become more realistic about stagefright as the term progresses. 3) Students in the study perceived that they gained more of the principles of public speaking, which they labeled "theory," from the lectures and their speaking exper- ience than they gained from the textbook. 4) Students are preoccupied with the delivery dimension of public speaking. 5) Students expect Speech 101 to help them Jack E. Wilson in their immediate tasks within the university as well as in their future vocations. 6) The majority of the stu— dents in Speech lOl liked peer—grouping. Some of the more important findings relating to advisers of students who take Speech 101 are: l) Advisers tend to be preoccupied with the skills dimension of Speech 101 and have little concern for the content di- mension. 2) Most advisers know very little about the logistics of Speech 101. 3) Many advisers want their students to have an impromptu speech included as one of the assignments in Speech 101. 4) Most advisers fail to see any carry-over of skill from public speaking to conversational speaking. STUDENT AND STUDENT ADVISER EXPECTATIONS OF THE BASIC COURSE IN PUBLIC SPEAKING AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . - b a . l . Jack E} Wilson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Speech and Theatre 1968 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Speech and Theatre, College of Communication Arts, Michi— gan State University in partial fulfillment of the re- quirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. mum II. OILIIWI Director of Thesis o . . , D , r . Guidance Committee: LLQIAIAIIQ- JIAIAUAL, , Co-Chairman . A) . . I? .p.' 4. ~. 7, - (il- l ’1 ’1‘: f“ I"; l} ' £10 {lily/I1". L1_ /\ \ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer is indebted to many individuals who have provided knowledge and inspiration in the preparation and completion of this study. I am especially grateful to Dr. David C. Ralph, Chairman of Speech 101 at Michigan State University, who provided the initial inspiration for this study and whose suggestions have been a constant guide during its completion. I owe a great debt to Dr. William B. Lashbrook for the loan of his knowledge in the early stages of the study and for his valuable counsel and assistance throughout the past months. The writer is grateful to his wife, Barbara, for her assistance in preparing materials for the computer and for her patience and understanding during the long months when this study was being conducted and written. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III 0 IV. V. VI. GENERAL INTRODUCTION . . . . . . PROCEDURES USED IN THIS STUDY . ANEYS IS OF DATA 0 O O O O O O 0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O BIBLIOGMPHY O O O O O O O O 0 iv Page iii viii 16 25 115 156 131 Table l. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. LIST OF TABLES Opening Fall Enrollment of Degree-Credit Students Reasons Students Take Speech 101 . . . . . . . Speech lOl Enrollment for Fall, 1960 to Fall, 1966 I O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 Student Responses From Information Form . . . Student's Major Reason For Taking Speech lOl . I Students Who Had Taken A Speech Course Previously . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sex Of Students In The Study . . . . . . . . . Classification Of Students In The Study . . . Students' Accumulated Grade Point Averages . . Student Expectation of His Grade in Speech lOl Actual Grades Received By Students in Speech 101 . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . Students Expecting Class To Be Boring . . . . Stagefright Is A Problem For Me . . . . . . . Knowledge Of The Basic Principles Of Speaking Speaking Experience In Class . . . . . . . . . Previous Ability In Organizing Materials . . . Experience As A Public Speaker . . . . . . . . Speech 101 And The Student's Vocation . . . . Speech 101 And Future College Courses . . . . Help In Speaking More Fluently . . . . . . . . Page 2 18 26 28 30 30 31 32 34 35 37 39 4O 41 42 42 43 45 Table 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Practice In Public Speaking . . . . . . . . . . . Training In Speech An Asset To Conversation . . . Help In Overcoming Stagefright . . . . . . . . . Theory Of Public Speaking . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of Student's Speaking By Other Students An "Above Average" Speaker . . . . . . . . . . . . Acquainted With Principles of Speaking . . . . . . Speech 101 And Confidence in Students . . . . . Ability To Organize Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . Speaking Characteristic Students Desire To Improve Most . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examinations in Speech lOl . . . . . . . . . . . . Necessity Of A Speech Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . Peer-Grouping As A Teaching Method . . . . . . . . Student Impression of Speech 101 . . . . . . . . . Anticipation of Nervousness By Students . . . . . Increased Ability As A Speaker . . . . . . . . . . Students With A Stuttering Problem . . . . . . . Speech 101 And Closed-Circuit Television . . . . . Extemporaneous Method of Preparation . . . . . . . Difficulty For Students to Deliver A Speech Before The Class . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . Speech Plans And The Student's Grade . . . . . . Speeches And The Student's Grade . . . . . . . . Feeling At Ease Before An Audience . . . . . . . . Way To Overcome Stagefright . . . . . . . . . . . Competence As A Public Speaker . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 46 47 48 49 52 53 54 56 57 58 6O 61 62 66 67 68 70 71 74 76 78 79 80 81 82 Table Page 46. Expressing Thoughts More Coherently . . . . . . . 83 47. Positions Held By Interviewees . . . . . . . . . . 86 48. Speech 101 And Departmental Policies . . . . . . . 87 49. Number of Students Taking Speech 101 . . . . . . . 88 50. How Speech 101 Is Related To Student's Major . . . 89 51. Students With Prior Training . . . . . . . . . . . 90 52. General Reaction Of Students To Speech 101 . . . . 91 53. Interest Appeal of Speech 101 . . . . . . . . . . 92 54. Classification of Students Entering Speech 101 . . 93 55. Difficulty of Speech 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 56. Difficulty For Students Before The Class . . . . . 95 57. Student Problems in Speech 101 . . . . . . . . . . 95 58. Amount of Work Anticipated By Students . . . . . . 96 59. Content of Speech 101 As Perceived By Advisers . . 97 60. Competence of Students As Perceived By Advisers . 100 61. Speaking Experience of Students . . . . . . . . . 101 62. Number of Speeches Given By Students . . . . . . . 102 63. Need For Good Conversational Ability . . . . . . . 102 64. Speech 101 And Conversational Ability . . . . . . 103 65. Effect of Speech 101 On Student's Subsequent Work. 104 66. Student's Concern About Nervousness . . . . . . . 105 67. Speech 101 And Its Effect On Stagefright . . . . . 106 68. Effect of Speech 101 On Student's Self-Confidence. 107 69. Students With Stuttering Problem . . . . . . . . . 109 70. Type of Speaking Students Should Learn In Speech 101 According To Advisers . . . . . . . 110 vii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Instructor's Manual for Speech 101 . . . . . . . . 156 B. Syllabus for Speech lOl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 C. Pretest Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 D. Posttest Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 E. Interview Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 F. Letter to Advisers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 viii CHAPTER I GENERAL INTRODUCTION The basic course in public speaking has commanded the attention and energies of innumerable teachers and administrators in the field of speech. A myriad of ap- proaches to content, methodology and pedagogy have been employed with varying degrees of success. A variety of classroom activities, extending from drill in providing each word with the proper intonation and inflection to study of the most efficient manner of discovering and structuring ideas, are all identified as speech education and taught in the basic course in public speaking. Crit— icism and praise had been heaped upon the basic course in public speaking and its virtues and vices extolled. When praised, teachers of speech receive a sense of satis- faction and accomplishment. When criticised, teachers of speech may receive some consolation from the fact that such has been the case since the time of Plato. Today teachers of speech can also take some com- fort from the fact that in many colleges and universities the basic course in public speaking is enjoying ever in- creasing enrollments. Part of this increase is due simply to the fact that there are most students in college than 1 ever before. This can be seen in Table 1 below which shows enrollment increases over the ten year period from 1955 to 1965 in various institutions of Higher Education in the United States. TABLE 1 OPENING FALL ENROLLMENT OF DEGREE-CREDIT STUDENTS Type of YEARS Institutions 1955 1960 1965 4 Year Inst. 2,370,000 3,156,000 4,725,000 Universities 1,241,000 1,551,000 2,304,000 Liberal Arts 709,000 1,028,000 1,554,000 Teachers Colleges 245,000 359,000 572,000 Theological 34,000 42,000 50,000 In many institutions the increasing number of students in the basic speech course appears to be due to factors other than increasing enrollment. First, a number of students, for some reason or other, have decided they would benefit from a course in public speaking. This trend can be seen, for example, in the response of students at Michigan State University when they were asked their major reason for taking Speech 101, 1Edwin D. Goldfield, ed., Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1967 (Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1967), p. 133. Students were allowed to choose two options on the item shown in Table 2 below. Only a small percentage of the students in the study indicated both a first and second choice on the item. Therefore, the percentages in the second column in the table below are based on a rel- atively small percentage of the total number of students who participated in the study. Among the respondents who indicated a first choice on the item mentioned above TABLE 2 REASONS STUDENTS TAKE SPEECH 101 PERCENTAGES Speech 101 was: First Choice Second Choice A free elective 15.15 12.34 Recommended by my adviser 21.21 7.79 Closely related to my major field 6.06 10.71 A part of my major or re- quired in my curriculum 57.58 40.91 Required for Certifi- cation2 0.00 27.60 2Certification refers to speech proficiency necessary for a teaching certificate at Michigan State University. 3This material taken from item 1 on the pretest questionnaire. approximately 15 percent of the students stated they took Speech 101 because it served as an elective course. Some students indicated they took the course because it was "Closely related to my major field" or was "recommended by my adviser." A majority of the students in the study (almost 58 percent indicating a first choice), gave as their reason for taking the basic course in public speak- ing at Michigan State University, it is "a part of my major or required in my curriculum." The data above tend to show that reasons other than increasing enrollment are in part responsible for the number of students en- rolled in Speech 101 at Michigan State University. In view of the fact that it is the students who must fulfill the requirements of Speech 101 upon enrolling in the course, and the fact that approximately 15 percent of these students elect to take the course, one may well ask, what benefits do students expect to receive when they enroll in a basic course in public speaking? What motivates the student to desire such a course? What ap- prehensions, if any, are present when students anticipate a course in speech? I Likewise, the fact that many administrators and advisers are either recommending or requiring their stu- dents to take Speech 101 at Michigan State University prompts additional questions. Why do administrators and advisers recommend or require their students to take a course in public speaking? What particular benefits do administrators and advisers expect to accrue when their students take a course in public speaking? Any competent teacher of speech could present a rationale describing the benefits a student should receive from a course in public speaking. In effect many teachers present something of a rationale in their syllabi when they list the aims or goals of a particular course in public speaking. However, it is altogether possible that the academician who sits in his proverbial ivory tower and declares, "this is what I feel the student should get out of this or that course of study" is somewhat analogous to the mother who requires her child to don his sweater be- cause she feels a chill. What does the student feel he should get out of a course in public speaking? What do advisers in Elementary Education, Packaging, and Police Administration4 expect their students to receive from a basic course in public speaking? In short, a student's self-concept of his speaking ability and his expectations of a public Speaking course play a significant role in preparing him to modify and improve his speaking behavior. If an instructor can identify the expectations of the students he will be in 4At the time this study was conducted these de- partments at Michigan State University were among those which required Speech 101 of their students. a much better position to help him achieve his goals or at least point out to the student that certain goals and expectations are unrealistic. Weaver, Borchers and Smith have stated this principle in effect when they write: Students do not make optimum improvement in speaking skill merely by participating in speaking activities, even when the student has every reason to wish to speak well. Students improve when they wish to mod- ify their speaking behavior in specific ways which they can identify and understand, and when they can define the changes which they want to make, and the ways and means of securing these changes. In addition to being aware of the expectations of the students, we would do well to be sensitive to the ex- pectations of administrators and advisers who send students into our classes. Such an awareness could serve to make teachers of speech more objective in planning and con- ducting speech courses in that they would have a greater appreciation of the role speech can play in the various vocations for which students prepare. A desire to explore the foregoing areas prompted the author to do this study. Specifically, the purposes of this study were: 1) To identify and describe the expectations of students relative to Speech 101 at Mich- igan State University and to determine to what extent these expectations are being fuifilled by the course. 2) To identify and describe the expectations of advisers and administrators who send students into Speech 101 and R 5Andrew T. Weaver, Gladys L. Borchers, Donald K. Smith, The Teaching of Speech (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1956) I p. 96. to ascertain the image of the course from their points of view. I. Speech 101 at Michigan State University Because of the nature of Speech 101 at Michigan State University it is necessary to briefly review its history and to summarize some of the innovations relating to this course. Speech 101 has a large enrollment of students each term. Registration figures presented in Table 3 on the following page show the increase in student enrollment for Speech 101 since its inception in the Fall of 1960 to the Fall of 1966. Dr. William B. Lashbrook and Dr. David C. Ralph are quick to admit that it was this increasing enrollment in the course which prompted much of the research and subsequently led to the adoption of many of the innovations in Speech 101. In their own words: In a sense, it was the desire to meet the problems of an increasing enrollment that compelled attention to new techniques of peer-grouping, centralized grade processing, computerized test construction and evalu- ation, and rating scale development.6 A detailed treatment of the innovations in Speech 101 may be found in the Speech Communication Research Laboratory 6William B. Lashbrook and David C. Ralph, Innova- ations in the Operation of a Large Enrollment Basic Course in Public Speaking (Speech Communication Research Laboratory, Department of Speech, Michigan State University, December, 1966), P. 89. report cited on this page. Our purpose in this chapter will be served by presenting a brief overview of some of the innovations mentioned in this report. TABLE 3 SPEECH 101 ENROLLMENT FOR FALL, 1960 TO FALL, 1966 Year Fall Winter Spring Summer Total 1960-61 363 334 280 90 1067 1961-62 525 367 320 102 1314 1962-63 562 417 323 128 1430 1963-64 642 513 437 148 1740 1964-65 742 770 530 145 2187 1965-66 840 840 586 169 2435 1966-67 901 One of the first innovations in Speech 101 was the "mass" lecture. This method was chosen for presentation of lectures because of the nature of the staff available to teach the numerous sections of the course. The "mass" lecture appeared to be the only lecture method by which content material could be controlled, in a course with many teachers, most of them rela- tively inexperienced graduate assistants and assistant instructors, deriving their knowledge of the principles of public speaking from many sources. 7Ibid., p. 3. 8Ibid., p. 12. The lectures in Speech 101 are delivered by the Chairman of the course, Dr. David C. Ralph. Students view the lec- tures via closed-circuit television over receivers located at strategic points on campus. Recitation sections are taught by instructors, composed primarily of graduate assistants, whose main function is to hear and evaluate speeches. The syllabus provided for the students in Speech 101 is quite detailed and immediately suggests a highly structured course. The syllabus contains a detailed treatment of the goals of the course, information relat- ing to teaching methods, organization of the course, ex- amination and grading procedures etc. Separate pages are devoted to the giving of specific instructions for each of six speeches required of a student during the term. These instructions include materials relating to reading assignments, the purpose of each speech, oral and written work, and time limits for each of the six speeches. Also a complete speech plan, which serves as a model for writ- ten assignments handed in by students, is included in the syllabus. Additional hand-outs provided for students in Speech 101 include an information sheet (to be completed and returned to the instructor), a sheet of instructions which outlines the duties of the chairman, time-keeper, and evaluators; a lecture schedule and a speaking schedule.9 9The speaking schedule allows the student to know what he is to do for each class session during the entire term. See Appendix B, page 175. 10 Another innovation in Speech 101 at Michigan State University is peer—grouping. Peer-grouping, introduced into Speech 101 in the Winter Term of 1962, allows an in- structor to meet two sections of Speech 101 at the same hour. Each section contains a maximum of 25 students. The peer—group arrangement calls for adjoining rooms to accommodate the two sections. For example, while the in- structor hears and evaluates student speakers in Group A in Room 110, Group B is in session in an adjoining room, say Room 112. The student speakers in Group B are being eval- uated by six of their fellow students, their peers. The in- structor alternates between Sections A and B after each round of speeches has been completed. Therefore, the in- structor evaluates three of the speeches presented by each student in Group A and B, and the other three speeches in each section are evaluated by students.10 In addition to the mass lecture, the syllabus and materials, and the concept of peer-grouping described above, a common speech evaluation form was develOped for use in Speech 101. This form employs a seven point scale which serves as an instrument for the evaluation of ten differ- ent elements of the student speaker's performance.11 10For a more detailed explanation of peer-grouping see Appendix A, page 156. . 11For additional information relating to the evalu- ation form mentioned here see Appendix B, page 175. Also pages 46 f.f. of Lashbrook and Ralph's work cited previously. 11 The foregoing description of some of the innovations in Speech 101 at Michigan State University will serve as an overview of this course and provide a background for this study. For a detailed coverage of the logistics of Speech 101 see Appendix A "The Instructor's Manual for Speech 101" and Appendix B, "Syllabus for Speech 101" included in this study. II. Sensitivity to Students It is to the credit of administrators and teachers in the field of speech that much of the research relating to the basic speech course indicates a sensitivity to the opinions, attitudes, and needs of students. Dedmon and Rayborn were sensitive to "student attitudes" in their work relating to the use of "Closed-Circuit T.V. in the First 12 "Student attitudes changed positively Course in Speech." toward speaking after a minimum of training" reports Cath- cart in his study of "The Effect of Course Length on Student Improvement in the Basic Speech Course."l3 Ellis concluded that a student's speaking ability is most related to: 1) his interest in speech; 2) the amount of speech work he 12Donald N. Dedmon and David W. Rayborn, "Closed- Circuit Television and the 'Required' First Course in Speech," Speech Teacher, Vol. 14, No. 4 (November, 1965), p. 295. 13Robert S. Cathcart, "A Study of the Effect of Course Length on Student Improvement in the Basic Speech Course," Southern Speech Journal, 25, No. 1 (Fall, 1959). 12 has done previously; and 3) his self-rating of his speaking ability.14 The works cited above are indicative of an awareness of the importance of considering the student in teaching the basic course in public speaking. Knower tested an interesting hypothesis, which he reports in his article "The College Student Image of Speech Communication and Speech Instruction." Knower's hypothesis states: "the student's image of speech as he comes to the course in speech may influence learning in such courses." Knower relates three conclusions in the article cited above which are important for us to note: 1) Student images indicate a rational understanding of many principles and processes operating in speech. 2) College students show serious inadequacies of under- standing some principles and processes of speech behavior. 3) Better student speakers have a significantly better image of the nature of speech behavior than do poorer speakers. If Knower is correct in his conclusions, then one could assume that student expectations of the basic course in public speaking are of significance, since they already have a rational understanding of many of the principles of 14Dean S. Ellis, "A University Speech Placement Test for Entering Freshmen," Speech Teacher, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 158-164. 15Franklin H. Knower, "The College Student Image of Speech Communication and Speech Instruction," Speech Teacher, Vol. 15, No. 2, p. 108. 16Ibid., pp. 108-112. l3 speech. On the other hand, if the "serious inadequacies" mentioned by Knower exist in our students, we would do well to identify and assess his expectations and apply corrective measures when necessary. Since, according to Knower, a positive image of speech behavior appears to be correlated with the better student speakers it seems logi- cal that teachers of speech should attempt to determine existing expectations and attitudes held by students in order to foster a more positive image of the process of acquiring prOper speech behavior. III. Sensitivity to Students in Speech 101 Upon reading the report of Doctors Lashbrook and Ralph, in which they outline the innovations in Speech 101, one gains the distinct impression that student opinion, attitudes, and expectations have influenced the structure of the course quite heavily. "The major objective," they say, "of Speech 101 is to train students to be more pro- ficient agents of change in public speaking situations."17 In attempting to discover any bias which students may have developed against lecture by television in Speech 101 "a series of Opinion questionnaires was administered by stu- 18 dents in the television lectures." When the television l7Lashbrook and Ralph, op. cit., p. 85. 18Ibid., p. 15. 14 lectures were changed from live to video taped lectures "an attempt was made to check to determine if the use of video taped lectures in the course had a noticeable ef- fect on either student lecture attendance or morale."19 In determining the best conditions for video taping lec- tures the convenience of students enrolled in Speech 101 was considered: . . . . the presence of a live audience during the taping of the lecture resulted in better timing by the lecturer--more time for the students to copy defin- itions, more Opportunity for the lecturer to observe feedback from his listeners and thus repeat obscure points, strike out unnecessary examples, and make other on—the-spot modifications.20 Likewise in determining the merit of peer-grouping in Speech 101 consideration of the students is apparent. “Encouraged by the results of the first two terms of peer- group teaching and with no evidence to suggest that peer- grouping in Speech 101 recitation sections had a signifi- cant effect on student performances, a decision was made to convert the course to this new concept . . . ."21 Finally, the problem of developing a new Speech lOl rating scale was attacked from the point of view of student use, that is, from the basis of what students them- selves considered to be important items in the evaluation of public speaking.22 19Ibid., p. 16. 20lbid., p. 17. ZlIbid., p. 23. 22Ibid., p. 55. 15 From the foregoing discussion it is apparent that the innovations in Speech 101 at Michigan State University have been made with a concern for the attitudes, expec- tations, and opinions of the students involved in the course. Yet, no specific research had been conducted to discover the expectations of students enrolled in Speech 101 nor had research been done to determine whether the course was satisfactorily fulfilling student expectations. In keeping with the spirit of previous research relating to Speech 101 the author went to the students enrolled in this course to discover what their expectations of the course were and the extent to which the course was fulfilling these expectations. CHAPTER II PROCEDURES USED IN THIS STUDY The purpose of this chapter is to explain the pro- cedures used while conducting this study. These proce- dures will be discussed under three headings: 1) The Pilot Project; 2) The Student Questionnaire; and 3) The Adviser Interviews. I. The Pilot Project After the decision was made to begin this study, the first order of business was to construct appropriate measurement instruments. In order to accomplish this task a pilot project was begun. At the conclusion of Spring Term, 1966, during the final examination session in Speech 101, each student was asked to fill out an information form before he began his examination. On this form the student was requested to indicate his name, student number, the college in which he was presently enrolled, and the name of his adviser. Each student was also asked to indicate why he had enrolled in Speech 101 by checking one of the following Options: Speech 101 is required on my program. My adviser suggested I take Speech lOl. I decided to take Speech 101 on my own. (Other) . 16 17 Finally, each student was asked to "briefly describe your expectations concerning Speech 101 (i.e., when you en- rolled in the course what did you expect to get out of it?)" Four hundred and seventy-one (471) students took the final examination mentioned above. Four hundred and sixty-five (465) students completed the pilot project information form. Although the information gained was ex_post facto, in that students had all but completed the course when they respon- ded to the information form, it served several purposes. First, we were able to ascertain the number of students from each college within the university who were taking Speech 101 that particular term as well as receiving an indication of why they were taking this course. This information was used later in the construction of intro- ductory questions to be used in the student questionnaire. Table 4 on the following page shows some of the material Obtained from the information form, e.g., the number of students from each college and the responses to the ques- tions asking why students had taken the course. Second, we were able to learn the names of a num- ber of advisers at Michigan State University who were either sending students into Speech 101 or allowing them to take the course as a part of their program. These names were used later as a basis for selecting advisers to be inter- viewed as a part of this study. Two hundred and twenty (220) different advisers TABLE 4 RESPONSES FROM INFORMATION FORM PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSES COLLEGE NO' Required Took on Adviser my own Suggested .Agriculture 67 80.5 ---- -——- Communications 23 43.0 17.0 17.0 Arts and Letters 62 58.0 13.0 ---- Natural Science 21 52.4 43.0 ---- Home Economics 21 90.5 -—-- ---- Education 109 90.0 ---- --—- Univ. College 32 19.0 59.0 15.0 Business 22 82.0 13.5 ---- Soc. Science 50 62.0 34.0 ---- Nursing 2 100.0 --—— ---- Non Preference 24 12.5 75.0 ---- Other 20 25.0 55.0 10.0 were listed by the four hundred and twenty (420) students who responded to this question. This figure represents approximately one adviser for every two students who were enrolled in Speech 101 at the time of the pilot project. The third and most important body of information secured through the information form was the student respon- Ses to the Open-ended question regarding their expectations 18 19 of Speech 101 upon enrolling in the course. It should be noted again that these responses were e§_post facto for the same reason listed previously. However, the informa- tion secured in this manner served at least two purposes. First, the writer gained a knowledge of the terminology employed by students in describing their expectations Of the course. This information was vital in constructing a questionnaire employing language meaningful to students. Second, an analysis of students' responses relating to their expectation of the course revealed the emergence of five categories of expectation into which all responses ap- peared to fall. These categories included items relating to: 1) Confidence 2) Experience in speaking 3) Improved speaking ability 4) Understanding principles of public speaking 5) More effective communication Since the above categories represented the areas of ex- pectation most frequently mentioned by students in the pilot project,they served as a basis for questions used in the student questionnaire. It was assumed that these categories, secured by analyzing the responses Of 465 students in the pilot project, would be representative of other students who would be enrolled in Speech 101 at a later time. 20 Using the information obtained in the pilot pro- ject, i.e., language employed by students in describing their expectations of Speech 101 and the five categories mentioned above, the writer set out to construct a ques- tionnaire which could measure student expectations of this course. A typical statement in the questionnaire might read; Examinations will be very difficult in Speech 101.23 Students were asked to respond to the statement by circling the number of one of five options: 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree During the Winter Term, 1966, the questionnaire was administered to 152 students enrolled in Speech 101. The purpose of this "trial run" was to determine if the instrument was capable of measuring what is was intended to measure. The responses from the questionnaires were recorded on Fortran Forms, punched on IBM Cards and sub- mitted to the Michigan State University CDC 3600 Computer for analysis. The results of the analysis cited above showed that the instrument appeared to be capable of secur- ing a pattern of student response for the items included in the questionnaire. Submitting the responses to the 23In the posttest the tense Of statements was changed. For example, Examinations have been difficult in Speech 101. 21 computer allowed us to obtain a percentage of the total num- ber of students who reSponded to each Option for each of the questions on the questionnaire. II. The Student Questionnaire A few changes were made in the wording of the questions used in the "trial run" mentioned above. The pretest COpy of the student questionnaire was prepared and administered during either the first or second day of the orientation sessions24 in Speech 101 during the Spring Term, 1967. A copy of the pretest questionnaire is included as a part of this study in Appendix C. Near the end of the term the posttest questionnaire was administered to the same students. Four hundred and forty- One (441) students had completed the pretest questionnaire. Three hundred and eleven (311) students completed the post- test questionnaire. During the intervening weeks of the term between the pretest and the posttest situations some of the students who had originally enrolled in Speech 101 had dropped the course, others had withdrawn from the university, or were absent the day the posttest questionnaire was administered, etc. The purpose of the posttest questionnaire was to determine the degree to which student expectations had been fulfilled by the course. A OOpy of the posttest questionniare is included as a part of this study in Appendix D. The results of the responses to items on both pretest and posttest copies of the questionnaire 21The first two days of the term in Speech 101 are de- voted to orientation in order that students may become familiar with the logistics of the course. 22 were prepared for the computer and.submitted for analysis. The next chapter will explain the results of that analysis. III. The Adviser Interviews In order to obtain responses from advisers of stu- dents enrolling in Speech 101, and to get their general impression of the course, an interview schedule was pre- pared. Questions included in the interview schedule were based on the same five categories of expectation used in preparing the student questionnaires. This procedure al- lowed a certain amount of comparison between the expec- tations of students and the expectations of advisers re- garding Speech 101. A copy of the interview schedule is included in this study as Appendix E. The original plan for selecting advisers to be interviewed was to secure two advisers from each college or area within.the university. The basis for their se- lection was to be the frequency by which advisers were named by students who were enrolled in Speech 101 at the time of the pilot project. This plan had to be modified to some extent when the time came to actually begin .scheduling interviews. The main difficulty was that some Of the individuals originally selected as prospects to be interviewed were no longer at the university. During the interim from Spring Term of 1966 to Spring Term of 1967 some persons had left Michigan State University to teach 23 at other colleges or universities; others were on leaves of absence, or for other reasons were unavailable for in- terviewing. Advisers were selected, however, to represent the ten colleges within the university as originally plan- ned. Eighteen persons were selected to be interviewed.25 The following procedure was used to schedule in- terviews. First, a letter was sent out over the signature of the Chairman of Speech 101, Dr. David C. Ralph. The letter briefly explained the purpose of the study and urged the cooperation of the adviser when he was contacted by phone to arrange a time for the interview. A COpy of the letter mentioned above is included as a part of this study in Appendix F. Within a week after the letters were mailed to the selected advisers the writer began calling the individual advisers by phone to arrange a time for an interview. Every effort was made to arrange the interview at the con- venience Of the adviser. With few exceptions the persons contacted were extremely cooperative and willing to par- ticipate in the study. It was decided that information from advisers could best be Obtained by tape-recorded interviews. While conducting the interviews the interviewer attempted to make the proceedings as relaxed as possible. Most of the 5Acting on the suggestion of the adviser originally contacted in Elementary and Special Education a group of seven ladies, whose primary duty is that of advisement, was interviewed in a.single session. All other interviews were conducted on an individual basis. 24 questions on the interview schedule called for a definite response, but additional probing was done when it was felt that the response was vague or when additional in- formation could be gleaned through this procedure. After all eighteen interviews were completed, the tapes were played back and each response was recorded on a form prepared for this purpose. The responses were tabulated and analyzed. The results of these interviews are summarized in the next chapter of this study. CHAPTER III ANALYSIS OF DATA The purpose of this chapter is to present a de- scriptive analysis of data relating to the previously mentioned student questionnaire and adviser interviews. 1.. Method of Description The procedure for presenting an analysis of the data from student questionnaires will be as follows: 1) a table will be constructed based on each item contained in the student questionnaire. This table will show the number of students who responded to each option on items contained in the questionnaire as well as the percentage represented by this number; 2) the exact statement or question.for each item included in the pretest and post— test copies Of the questionnaire will serve as a heading for the tables mentioned above; 3) such inferences will be drawn as the data appear to support. The procedure employed in analyzing and reporting the data from adviser interviews will be as follows: 1) responses from advisers, which lend themselves to such treatment, will be presented in the form of tables; 2) other data, not included in the form of tables, will be 25 26 summarized; 3) inferences will be drawn from the data presented in the manner described above. The author has drawn inferences which appear to be apparent from the data as presented in the study. Such inferences are sug— gestive and not necessarily exhaustive. II. Results of Student Questionnaire In order to learn something of the backgrounds of the students who participated in the study, certain demographic items were included in the pretest question— naire. Questions relating to demographic materials were not repeated in the posttest questionnaire since no ad- ditional information would have resulted from such a procedure. TABLE 5 . MY MAJOR REASONS FOR TAKING THIS COURSE ARE THAT IT WAS: STUDENT RESPONSES PERCENTAGES Speech 101 was: lst Option 2nd Option A Free Elective 15.15 12.34 Recommended by my Adviser 21.21 7.79 Closely Related to my Major 6.06 10.71 A Part of my Major or Re— quired in my Curriculum 57.58 40.91 Required for Certification 0.00 27.60 Totals 100.00 99.35 27 Students were permitted to check more than one Option on this item which related to their reasons for taking Speech 101. However, only a small percentage of the students participating in the study took advantage of the opportunity to check more than one option on this particular item in the questionnaire. Therefore, the per- centages listed under Option two in the table on the pre- ceding page represent a small portion of the total number of students in the study. As shown in Table 5, the majority of the students, 57.58 percent by the first option and 40.91 percent by the second option, stated their reason for taking Speech 101 as, "it was a part of my major or required in my curriculum." One can also note in the table mentioned above that no student selected as his first Option, that Speech 101 was taken because it was required for certification.26 Speech 101 is but one of a number of courses at Michigan State University which will satisfy certification requirements. Some advisers did report, however, that they often recommended Speech 101 to students instead of Speech 108 (Voice and Articulation) or Speech 116 (Group Discussion). The fact that some advisers suggest this particular course may explain why no student indicated that certification was his primary reason for taking Speech 101. ‘ 26As stated previously, certification is the process 0f proving competence in oral communication by students at MichiganState University who desire to enter the teaching profession. 28 TABLE 6 I HAVE HAD A SPEECH COURSE PREVIOUSLY STUDENT RESPONSES PERCENTAGE In High School 38.39 In College 8.38 No Speech Course Previously 53.23 Total 100.00 The purpose of the question cited above was to determine the percentage of students enrolled in Speech 101 at the time of this study who had taken a speech course previously. Also, if students had taken a speech course prior to enrolling in Speech 101, whether such a course was at the high school or the college level. It can be seen from the responses indicated in the table above that over half of the students in this study had taken no speech course prior to enrolling in Speech 101. Approximately 47 percent of the students participating in the study had previous speech training in high school or in college. A brief survey of students enrolled in Speech 110 at Morehead State University shows that a Similar percentage of students had taken a speech course Prior to enrolling in the basic course in public speaking. 29 Forty-three percent of the students at Morehead State University had some formal speech training in High School. Approximately 55 percent of the students indicated that they had no previous training in speech before enrolling in the basic speech course at Morehead State University.27 There is some evidence to suggest that students with previous training in public speaking have an advan- tage over students without such training when they enroll in a basic speech course. In their article "Effects of Previous Training on Achievement in the College Course in Public Speaking" Thomas, Thurber and Gruner state; students who have had previous training in speech on the high school or college level before enrolling in a beginning course in public speaking on the college level are more effective in the beginning course in public speaking as indicated by their speech perform- ance grades and their final grades.28 If the conclusion presented above is correct, approximately half of the students in Speech 101 at the time of this study had an advantage over fellow students in that they had previous training in public speaking either on the high school or the college level. 27This survey was conducted by the author during the 1967-68 Fall and Spring Semesters at Morehead State University and is based on the response of 181 students enrolled in Speech 110. 28Gordon L. Thomas, John H. Thurber and Charles 8. Gruner, "Effects of Previous Training on Achievement in the College Course in Public Speaking," Speech Teacher, Vol. 14, No. 4, (November, 1965), p. 329. 30 TABLE 7 SEX OF STUDENTS IN THE STUDY SEX NUMBER PERCENTAGE Males 176 56.8 Females 134 43.2 Males enrolled in Speech 101 at the time of this study outnumbered females by about 14 percent. Several explanations are possible in this connection: 1) males outnumbered females in the total enrollment at Michigan State University during the term in which this study was conducted; 2) males are more occupation oriented than are females and thus more male students elect to take Speech 101; 3) advisers may require more male students to take the course. For example, Packaging and Police Adminis- tration, two departments at Michigan State University which require Speech 101 of their students, are composed primarily of male students. TABLE 8 CLASSIFICATION OF STUDENTS IN THE STUDY CLASSIFICATION NUMBER PERCENTAGE 'Freshman 110 35.7 Sophomore 76 24.7 Junior 74 24.0 Senior 48 15.6 31 It is interesting to note that while Speech 101 is a Freshman level course, 64.3 percent Of the students enrolled in the course during the Spring Term of 1967 were other than Freshmen. It should be pointed out, how- ever, that non-freshman enrollment is normally higher in the Spring Term than in the Winter Term and the non-fresh- man enrollment in the Winter Term is in turn higher than in the Fall Term. TABLE 9 STUDENTS' ACCUMULATED GRADE POINT AVERAGES29 PRETEST POSTTEST RANGES 0F G.P.A. No. Percent No. Percent Below 2.0 32 10.3 23 7.4 Between 2.0 - 2.49 138 44.5 146 47.1 Between 2.5 - 2.99 77 24.8 71 22.9 Between 3.0 - 3.5 46 14.8 46 14.8 Above 3.5 8 2.6 7 2.3 G.P.A. not established 9 2.9 17 5.5 Note: 4 = A; 3 = B; 2 = C, etc. 29The grade point averages in the table were in- dicated by students and in some cases may represent in- telligent guesses. 32 Some of the differences between pretest grade point averages and posttest grade point averages noted in Table 9 are probably due to the fact that some students were not sure of their grade point average when the pretest was administered. Also, some of the averages given by students during the posttest may reflect how students felt a given grade point average would change due to their performance during the term just completed. TABLE 10 STUDENT EXPECTATION OF HIS GRADE IN SPEECH 101 3. PRETEST POSTTEST GRADE EXPECTED No. Percent No. Percent 1. F 0 0.0 0 0.0 2. D l 0.3 1 0.3 3. C 26 8.4 115 37.1 4. B 148 47.7 127 41.0 5. A 41 13.2 21 6.8 6. Don't Know 94 30.3 46 14.8 Totals 310 99.9 310 100.0 That there is no correlation between the student grade point averages presented in Table 9, page 31, student 33 expectation of his grade presented in Table 10, page 32, and the actual grades students received, shown in Table 11, page 34, can be seen by comparing the information summarized in these tables. For example, in the pretest approximately 39 percent of the students indicated a grade point average which would fall in the "B" grade range. Approximately 48 percent of the students in the pretest expected to receive a "B" grade in the course. Only 19 percent of the students in Speech 101 during the study actually received a "B" grade in the course. No student in either the pretest or the posttest ex- pected to fail Speech 101. Seventeen students, or 4 percent of those enrolled in Speech 101 at the time of the study, did fail the course. The greatest shift in expectation re- garding grades occurred in those students who expected to receive a "C" grade in the course. This number rose sharply from 26 students (8.4 percent), in the pretest, to 115 students (37.1 percent), in the posttest. Such a shift may indicate that students had found the course to be more dif- ficult than they had anticipated or else it was more dif- ficult to obtain a particular grade in Speech 101 than they had imagined. Table 11 on the following page shows the actual grades students received during the term in which the study Was conducted. It can be recalled that we had indicated earlier in the study that approximately 47 percent of the 34 students enrolled in Speech 101 at the time of the study had previous training in Speech, and that Thomas, Thurber and Gruneth d stated, based on the grades students re- ceived in Speech 101 at Michigan State University, "stu- dents with previous training in public speaking were more effective in the course."30 TABLE 11 ACTUAL GRADES RECEIVED BY STUDENTS IN THE STUDY GRADES RECEIVED* NUMBER PERCENTAGE 1. F 17 4.0 2. 0 38 7.0 3. c 268 _ 56.0 4. B 92 19.0 5. A 66 ’ 14.0 *Grades taken from official records According to the table above, only 33 percent of the stu- dents received either an "A" or a "B" grade in the course. Therefore, it would appear that some of the students with Previous training in speech, who according to Thomas, Thur- her, and Gruner should be more effective in the beginning ‘ course in public speaking, received a final grade of "C" 30See page 29 of this study for complete quotation. 35 or below. This fact would suggest that variables other than those studies by Thomas, Thurber and Gruner should be investigated if the role of previous training in speech is to be proPerly evaluated. TABLE 12 PRETEST (Question 5) I EXPECT THIS CLASS TO BE RATHER BORING. POSTTEST (Question 13) THIS CLASS HAS BEEN BORING. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent NO. Percent Strongly Agree 5 1.6 12 3.9 Agree 15 4.8 33 10.6 Don't Know 119 38.4 10 3.2 Disagree 145 46.8 193 62.3 Strongly Disagree 26 8.4 62 20.0 In all items from the student questionnaire which employ the five options seen in Table 12 above, it will be assumed that the pretest responses represent the students expectations of Speech 101. The differential between the pretest percentages and the posttest percentages on each of the five Options represents the amount of shift of opin- ion which has taken place while students were completing 36 Speech 101. No attempt will be made to determine how in— dividuals shifted in their responses from pretest to post- test.situations. Our concern will be to identify signifi- cant shifts of Opinion on a given Option which indicate whether or not the expectations of the students have been fulfilled by taking the course. Inferences which the data appear to substantiate will be drawn from the materials presented in the various tables. By combining the "Disagree" and "Strongly Disagree" responses in Table 12, one can note that approximately 55 percent of the students enrolled in the course did not ex- pect Speech 101 to be a boring class. In the posttest sit— uation the percentage of students who indicated the course had not been boring was approximately 82 percent. If we can assume that the students who indicated "Strongly Agree" in Table 13 on the following page, were students who expected to experience extreme stage-fright in Speech 101 (which may or may not be true), then the data would suggest that the course substantially reduced the number of students who were most concerned with this problem. One can also note in Table 13 that the number of students who "Agree" that stagefright would be a problem for them, actually increased in the posttest. Students who felt stagefright would be and was a problem for them when they spoke before a group remained almost identical from pretest to posttest. Those who disagreed with the proposal mentioned above rose from 30.3 percent in the pretest to 37.5 percent in the posttest. It might also be profitable, in this connection, to test the hypothesis that instead of reducfng stagefright for the student, a 37 TABLE 13 PRETEST (Question 6) STAGEFRIGHT IS A PROBLEM FOR ME EACH TIME I GIVE A SPEECH BEFORE A GROUP OF PEOPLE. POSTTEST (Question 28) STAGEFRIGHT REMAINS A PROBLEM FOR ME EACH TIME I SPEAK BEFORE A GROUP OF PEOPLE. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 51 16.5 21 6.8 Agree 128 41.3 155 50.0 Don't Know 37 11.9 18 5.8 Disagree 84 27.1 109 35.2 Strongly Disagree 10 3.2 7 2.3 course in public speaking may actually increase the amount of stagefright he experiences. It may be that increased knowledge of what one should do in the speaking situation, plus the pressure of speaking to a critical audience, serves to increase rather than diminish the amount of stagefright a student experiences. It might be argued that students who had just enrolled in a course in public speaking, as was the case in this study, do not possess a knowledge of the phenomenon we label stagefright, and thus there would naturally be an increase in the number of students who felt stagefright to be a problem after they 38 had completed the course. This explanation is unlikely since over 43 percent of the students expected stage- fright to be a problem upon enrolling in the course, which would indicate they had knowledge of what stagefright is. Also, it should be remembered that some 47 percent of the students in this study already had speech training at either the high school or the college level and would, there- fore, know about stagefright. By combining the percentages of responses in the "Strongly Agree" and "Agree" Options in Table 14 on the following page one can see that over 92 percent of the students in the pretest expected Speech 101 to provide them with a knowledge of the basic principles of public speaking. By repeating the above procedure in the "Disagree" and "Strongly Disagree" Options one can note that 91 percent of the students in the posttest indicated that this expec- tation had been fulfilled. In the posttest situation stu- dents apparently felt less intensely about the proposition stated in this item since 10 percent fewer students respon- ded in the "Strongly Agree" category. An overwhelming majority of the students felt, both before and after taking the course, that speaking ex- perience is more valuable to a speech student than reading a speech textbook. The data recorded in Table 15 on page 40 may suggest that students do not equate learning the principles of public speaking with reading a speech textbook 39 TABLE 14 PRETEST (Question 7) I EXPECT THIS COURSE TO PROVIDE ME WITH A KNOWLEDGE OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC SPEAKING. POSTTEST (Question 31) THIS COURSE HAS PROVIDED ME WITH A KNOWLEDGE OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC SPEAKING. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent NO. Percent Strongly Agree 76 24.5 45 14.5 Agree 210 67.7 238 76.8 Don't Know 21 6.8 13 4.2 Disagree 2 0.6 14 4.5 Strongly Disagree 1 0.3 0 0.0 or hearing their speech teacher present a lecture. This explanation appears likely since the majority of the stu- dents indicated in a previous question that they had learned the basic principles of public speaking in Speech 101. To the contrary, students may feel that the prin- ciples of public speaking can best be learned through practice of the principles of speaking rather than a study of theory relating to Speaking. A hypothesis based on the possibilities presented above may be worthy of study. 40 TABLE 15 PRETEST (Question 8) SPEAKING EXPERIENCE IN CLASS IS MORE VALUABLE TO THE SPEECH STUDENT THAN READING SPEECH TEXTBOOKS. POSTTEST (Question 26) SPEAKING EXPERIENCE IS MORE VALUABLE TO THE SPEECH STUDENT THAN READING SPEECH TEXTBOOKS. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 128 41.3 155 50.0 Agree 135 43.5 127 41.0 Don't Know 38 12.3 17 5.5 Disagree 9 2.9 10 3.2 Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 1 0.3 The material presented in Table 16 on the follow- ing page suggests that some students, after completing the course, had second thoughts about their perceived ability to organize a speech. In the "Agree" Option in the pre- test, for example, over 47 percent of the students felt speeches they had given prior to taking the course were well organized. A downward shift of approximately 17 per- cent can be noted in this particular Option in the posttest. The data in Table 16 would suggest that the student's self- perception of his ability to organize a speech had under- gone a degree of change after he had taken Speech 101. 41 TABLE 16 PRETEST (Question 9) IN SPEECHES I HAD GIVEN PRIOR TO TAK- ING THIS COURSE THE MATERIAL WAS WELL ORGANIZED. POSTTEST (Question 17) SPEECHES I HAD GIVEN PRIOR TO TAK- ING THIS COURSE WERE WELL ORGANIZED. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 15 4.8 11 3.5 Agree 148 47.7 95 30.6 Don't Know 95 30.6 98 31.6 Disagree 49 15.8 91 29.4 Strongly Disagree 3 1.0 15 4.8 Because of this fact one can assume that students had be- come more proficient in their organizational skills after taking Speech 101. The data in Table 17 provide a view of the stu- dents' self-perception regarding their experience as pub— lic speakers. While the majority of the students in the study disagree with the proposition that they are exper- ienced speakers in both the pretest and the posttest, one can note that after taking the course fewer students were willing to indicate inadequacy in this respect. It is in— teresting that the entire range of percentages shifted upward in the posttest on this particular item. Such a 42 TABLE 17 PRETEST (Question 10) I AM EXPERIENCED AS A PUBLIC SPEAKER. POSTTEST (Question 20) I AM EXPERIENCED AS A PUBLIC SPEAKER. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 1 0.3 6 1.9 Agree 31 10.0 65 21.0 Didn't Know 44 14.2 53 17.1 Disagree 156 50.3 167 53.9 Strongly Disagree 78 25.2 19 6.1 TABLE 18 PRETEST (Question 11) THIS SPEECH COURSE WILL NOT HELP ME IN MY CHOSEN VOCATION. POSTTEST (Question 14) THIS SPEECH COURSE WILL NOT PROVE HELPFUL TO ME IN MY CHOSEN VOCATION. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS NO. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 15 4.8 10 3.2 Agree 22 7.1 19 6.1 Don't Know 39 12.6 34 11.0 Disagree 122 39.4 145 46.9 Strongly Disagree 112 36.1 101 32.7 43 shift would be indicative of the fact that the self-per- ception Of most students had been altered by taking the course. In Table 18 one can note that there was little shift in the percentage of students who felt that the course would not help them in their chosen vocation. One can also see that the percentage of students in the study who felt the course would not help them in their vocation represents a distinct minority of the total number of re- Sponses. That most students in Speech 101 feel the course will prove beneficial in assisting them in their vocational ambitions is encouraging. TABLE 19 PRETEST (Question 12) THIS COURSE WILL NOT HELP ME DO BETTER WORK IN MY OTHER COLLEGE COURSES. POSTTEST (Question 23) THIS COURSE WILL NOT HELP ME DO BETTER WORK IN FUTURE COLLEGE COURSES. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS NO. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 9 2.9 6 1.9 Agree 38 12.3 47 15.2 Don't Know 105 33.9 74 23.9 Disagree 123 39.7 157 50.6 Strongly Disagree 35 11.3 26 8.4 44 The majority of the students represented in this study expected Speech 101 to assist them in doing better work in other courses. This fact can be seen by combin- ing the "Disagree" and "Strongly Disagree" percentages in Table 19 which shows that 51 percent of the students in the pretest indicated such a response. After the stu- dents had completed the course an additional 8 percent, or 59 percent of the students felt Speech 101 would help them do better work in future college courses. It would be helpful to know how students feel Speech 101 will help them in future college courses. It may be that students anticipate speaking Opportunities in other courses and thus see a direct benefit resulting from having taken a course in public speaking. Perhaps some students feel that skills learned in Speech 101, such as that of analysis and synthesis of materials, will serve them in subsequent courses at the university. Further study is needed to explore the reasoning behind the student responses on this item. From the evidence presented in Table 20 on the following page it appears that the majority Of the stu- dents expected Speech 101 to help them speak more fluently, and that this expectation was fulfilled. Perhaps the reason a relatively large percentage of the students, 31.3 percent, responded in the "Don't Know" category in the pretest was because they did not have a referent for 45 TABLE 20 PRETEST (Question 13) THIS COURSE WILL HELP ME SPEAK MORE FLUENTLY. POSTTEST (question 29) THIS COURSE HAS HELPED ME BECOME MORE FLUENT IN MY SPEECH. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 29 9.4 15 4.8 Agree 167 53.9 182 58.7 Don't Know 97 31.3 55 17.7 Disagree 17 5.5 57 18.4 Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 1 0.3 the term "fluent." If this was the case, then the use of this term represents a poor choice of words. This particular term was chosen, however, because it was the word employed by a number of students in the Pilot Pro- ject. In the posttest approximately 40 additional stu- dents, representing a 13 percent increase over pretest expectation, responded that the course had not helped them to speak more fluently. In the pretest the majority of the students felt that what they needed most was practice in public speak- ing. This number increased significantly in the posttest. 46 TABLE 21 PRETEST (Question 14) WHAT I NEED MOST IS PRACTICE IN PUBLIC SPEAKING. POSTTEST (Question 7) WHAT I NEED MOST IS PRACTICE IN PUBLIC SPEAKING. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 55 17.7 56 18.1 Agree 177 57.1 207 66.8 Don't Know 58 18.7 22 7.1 Disagree 18 5.8 22 7.1 Strongly Disagree 2 0.6 3 0.8 The percentage of students who strongly disagreed with the proposal that practice was that which they needed most was negligible. It is apparent that students place a substantial degree of emphasis on practice in public speaking. Even after taking the course a majority of the students still felt the need for more practice in public Speaking. The fact that students felt the need for further practice may have resulted from comments by instructors to this effect, or the students themselves may have concluded, after taking the course, that further Opportunity to utilize the principles learned in the course was desirable. 47 TABLE 22 PRETEST (Question 15) TRAINING IN PUBLIC SPEAKING IS AN INVALUABLE ASSET TO CONVERSATIONAL ABILITY. POSTTEST (Question 25) TRAINING IN PUBLIC SPEAKING IS AN INVALUABLE ASSET TO CONVERSATIONAL ABILITY. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 59 19.0 50 16.1 Agree 165 53.2 188 60.6 Don't Know 40 12.9 26 8.4 Disagree 36 11.6 39 12.6 Strongly Disagree 10 3.2 7 2.3 The data contained in Table 22 above relate to determining whether or not students feel training in pub- lic speaking is an asset to conversational ability. In the pretest situation over 72 percent of the students in the study felt that training in public speaking was an invaluable asset to conversational ability. In the post- test 76.7 percent of the students expressed the same Opinion. No attempt was made in this study to discover how students feel the carry-over between public speaking and conversational ability is accomplished. It may be that students feel such skills as style, organization, etc., learned in a course in public speaking, can serve equally 48 well in casual conversation. Further exploration of this area is needed before Specific conclusions can be drawn. TABLE 23 PRETEST (Question 16) THIS COURSE WILL HELP ME OVERCOME STAGEFRIGHT. POSTTEST (Question 32) THIS COURSE HAS HELPED ME OVERCOME STAGEFRIGHT. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 17 5.5 14 4.5 Agree 116 37.4 137 44.2 Don't Know 146 47.1 61 19.7 Disagree 28 9.0 87 28.1 Strongly Disagree 3 1.0 11 3.5 The data in Table 23 above deal with a most com- plicated phenomenon, that Of stagefright. Approximately 43 percent of the students enrolled in Speech 101 at the time of the study expected the course to help them over- come stagefright. Of this number 5.5 percent of the stu- dents expressed strong feeling that such a benefit would accrue. In the posttest the percentage of students who felt that the course had helped them to realize a reduc- tion in stagefright rose by 5.8 percent over the pretest 49 percentage. Note that the large number of students who responded in the "Don't Know" category in the pretest (47.1 percent), diminished in the posttest to 19.7 per- cent. At the same time there was a sizable increase in the students who felt the course had not helped them to overcome stagefright. The increase mentioned above does not necessarily suggest that student expectations of Speech 101 regarding stagefright were not fulfilled. Ad- ditional data and a summary of findings relating to stage- fright will appear in later sections of this study. TABLE 24 PRETEST (Question 17) A GOOD PUBLIC SPEAKER DOES NOT NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE THEORY OF PUBLIC SPEAKING. POSTTEST (Question 2) A GOOD PUBLIC SPEAKER DOES NOT NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE THEORY OF PUBLIC SPEAKING. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS ‘— No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 4 1.3 4 1.3 Agree 9 2.9 28 9.0 Don't Know 57 18.4 20 6.5 Disagree 192 61.9 190 61.3 Strongly Disagree 48 15.5 68 21.9 50 It comes as a surprise that a minority of students, who “Agreed" that a good speaker does not need to under- stand the theory Of public speaking, increased in number from 9 in the pretest to 28 in the posttest. Parenthe- tically one can note that the number of students who "Dis- agreed Strongly" in the pretest with the above suggestion increased substantially in the posttest. When the data in Table 24 are compared with data in Table 15 and Table 21, it appears that students are inconsistent in their responses. The majority Of the students who participated in the study expressed the feeling that what they needed most was practice in public speaking.31 In Table 24 on the preceding page over 77 percent of the students in the pre- test and more than 83 percent of the students in the post- test felt that a good public Speaker needs to understand the "theory" of public speaking. In Table 15 of this study it can be seen that more than 80 percent of the stu— dents in the pretest and over 90 percent of the students in the posttest felt that speaking experience is more valuable to the student in Speech 101 than reading a Speech textbook.32 What are Some possible explanations for this appar- ent inconsistency? Students may tend to interpret the 3lSee Table 21, page 46. 32See Table 15, page 40. 51 "theory" of public speaking as only that material which is contained in the textbook. If this be true, the stu- dents who participated in this study are probably imply- ing, "I consider practice in public speaking as more valuable to me than reading the textbook." This would appear to be the case since more than 80 percent of the students in both the pretest and the posttest indicated such a response to a previous item.33 On the other hand, if students feel that practice in speaking is more valu- able than possessing a knowledge of the basic principles, i.e., the theory of Speaking, then a serious weakness exists in the students' perception of public speaking. If the possibility described above is true, it may well represent one of the "serious inadequacies" mentioned by Knower and discussed in the beginning chapter of this study.34 Such an inadequacy would merit the immediate attention of those who are responsible for teaching basic courses in public speaking. In any event, the foregoing possibilities warrant further study. The data summarized in Table 25 on the following page are the result of a question designed to determine the reactions of students to having their speaking per- formances evaluated by other students in the class. Most of the students in the study had an opinion on this item. 33See Table 15, page 40. 34For a discussion of this point see page 12 and following in this study. 52 TABLE 25 PRETEST (Question 18) I WILL NOT BENEFIT FROM HEARING OTHER STUDENTS IN THE COURSE EVALUATE MY SPEAKING PERFORMANCE. POSTTEST (Question 8) I HAVE NOT BENEFITED FROM HEARING OTHER STUDENTS IN THIS COURSE EVALUATE MY SPEAKING PERFORMANCE. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 1 0.3 7 2.3 Agree 6 1.9 35 11.3 Don't Know 34 11.0 19 6.1 Disagree 200 64.5 176 56.8 Strongly Disagree 69 22.3 73 23.5 Only 11 percent of the students in the pretest and slightly more than 6 percent in the posttest responded to this item in the "Don't Know" category. The number of students who did not expect to benefit from hearing other students evaluate their speaking performances increased by several percentage points in the posttest. The majority of the students in the pretest (86.8 percent), and the posttest (80.3 percent), felt they would or did benefit from hear- ing other students in the course evaluate their speaking performances. However, the number of students who felt they had not benefited from evaluations by other students 53 increased in the posttest. In other words, an additional 11.4 percent of the students in the posttest, students who had completed the course, felt they had not benefited from hearing other students in the course evaluate their speaking performances. A large percentage Of the students in the study appeared uncertain or hesitant about either agreeing or disagreeing that they were "above average" public speakers. TABLE 26 PRETEST (Question 19) AFTER TAKING THIS COURSE I WILL BE AN ABOVE AVERAGE SPEAKER. POSTTEST (Question 18) AFTER TAKING THIS COURSE I FEEL I AM AN ABOVE AVERAGE SPEAKER. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent NO. Percent Strongly Agree 5 1.6 13 4.2 Agree 43 13.9 99 31.9 Don't Know 238 76.8 123 39.7 Disagree 22 7.1 72 23.2 Strongly Disagree 2 0.6 3 1.0 In Table 26 above one can note the extremely high percen- tage, 76.8 percent, who responded in the "Don't Know" category in the pretest. Only 39.7 percent of the students 54 remained in the "Don't Know" category in the posttest. There was a significant increase in both the number of students who felt the course had assisted them in becom— ing "above average" speakers and those who felt after taking the course they were not "above average" speakers. It is possible that some students are being "obviously humble" in their response to this particular item. Such humility would naturally be reflected in a large number of "Don't Know" responses. It is equally likely that students are unable to be as objective in rating them- selves as they are in rating their fellow students. TABLE 27 PRETEST (Question 20) I FEEL I AM WELL ACQUAINTED WITH THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC SPEAKING. POSTTEST (Question 5) I FEEL I AM WELL ACQUAINTED WITH THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC SPEAKING. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS NO. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 3 1.0 23 7.4 Agree 41 13.2 245 79.0 Don't Know 80 25.8 27 8.7 Disagree 156 50.3 14 4.5 Strongly Disagree 30 9.7 l 0.3 55 The data gathered on the item presented in Table 27 above appear quite conclusive. In the pretest approx- imately 60 percent of the students in the study stated they did not feel they were well acquainted with the basic principles of public speaking.35 In the posttest situation a substantially greater number of students, approximately 86 percent, felt after taking the course that they were well acquainted with the basic principles of public speaking. In view of the findings cited above and the data summarized in Table 24, page 49 of this study, e.g. student Opinion on “theory" vs. "performance," it might be profitable to determine whether students feel they gain more knowledge of the basic principles of public Speaking from: 1) the lectures; 2) the textbook; 3) comments by their instructor; 4) written assignments; 5) their own speaking; 6) peer evaluations; 7) etc. The majority of the students (57.4 percent), en- rolled in Speech 101 at the time of the study expected the course to help them gain self-confidence. The data suggest that approximately 69 percent of the students felt their self-confidence was increased after taking the course. In a study relating to confidence which resulted from training in speech, Paulson concluded that both men 35Results obtained by combining "Disagree" and "Strongly Disagree" percentages in Table 27. 56 TABLE 28 PRETEST (Question 21) THIS COURSE WILL HELP ME GAIN SELF- CONFIDENCE. POSTTEST (Question 27) THIS COURSE HAS HELPED ME GAIN SELF-CONFIDENCE. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 9 2.9 25 8.1 Agree 169 54.5 189 61.0 Don't Know 118 38.1 48 15.5 Disagree 12 3.9 46 14.8 Strongly Disagree 2 0.6 2 0.6 and women showed significant increase in confidence dur- ing ten weeks of speech training.36 It appears that Paul- son's findings imply, however, that not all students who received speech training showed significant increases in confidence. If this be the case then the findings in this study support Paulson's conclusion. The amount of confidence a student gains as a re- sult of taking a basic course in public speaking will 6Stanley F. Paulson, "Changes in Confidence Dur- ing a Period of Speech Training: Transfer of Training and Comparison of Improved and Non-Improved Groups on the Bell Adjustment Inventory," Speech Monographs, Vol. 18 (November, 1951), pp. 260-265. 57 depend, in part, on his emotional make-up when he enters the course. For example, if a student has a serious in- feriority complex when he enters the course it is doubt- ful that he will emerge from the course a paragon of self- confidence. TABLE 29 PRETEST (Question 22) ONE OF THE REASONS I AM TAKING THIS COURSE IS TO IMPROVE MY ABILITY TO ORGANIZE MY THOUGHTS. POSTTEST (Question 30) THIS COURSE HAS HELPED ME IMPROVE MY ABILITY TO ORGANIZE MY THOUGHTS. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 21 6.8 32 10.3 Agree 183 59.0 188 60.6 Don't Know 28 9.0 36 11.6 Disagree 71 22.9 52 16.8 Strongly Disagree 7 2.3 2 0.6 It appears to the writer that one of the more dif- ficult concepts for beginning students in public speaking is that of organization. The data in Table 29 above re- late tO this particular concept. The majority of the stu- dents in the study expected Speech 101 to improve their ability to organize their thoughts and evidently the course 58 accomplished this goal for most of the students. The posttest results would suggest that the course helped more students improve their ability to organize their thoughts than had expected this to be the case. A significant number of students responded in the "Disagree" and “Strongly Disagree” Options in both the pretest and the posttest, indicating that some students perceived themselves to possess a satisfactory degree of organiz- ational skill both prior to and after taking Speech 101. TABLE 30 PRETEST (Question 23) THE PERSONAL SPEAKING CHARACTERISTIC I WANT TO IMPROVE MOST IN THIS COURSE IS DELIVERY. POSTTEST (Question 15) THE SPEAKING CHARACTERISTIC I HAVE IMPROVED MOST IN THIS COURSE IS DELIVERY. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 23 7.4 29 9.4 Agree 174 56.1 141 45.5 Don't Know 98 31.6 83 26.8 Disagree 15 4.8 54 17.4 Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 3 1.0 The majority Of the students agreed, upon entering the course, that the speaking characteristic they wanted 59 to improve most was delivery. In the posttest one can note that the number of students who felt delivery was the Speaking characteristic which was actually improved the most by the course represented a decrease of approxi- mately 10 percent. There was an accompanying increase in the number of students who felt delivery was not the Speaking characteristic which they had improved most dur- ing the Speech 101 course. It should be remembered that the responses indicated above represent the self-percep- tion of the students and thus may not correspond to reality. When a majority of the students in the study agree with a proposal in the pretest and there is an accompany- ing decrease on the same options in the posttest, it can be assumed that the shift in opinion probably resulted from the experiences of the students while taking Speech 101. At any rate, the results contained in Table 30 are not entirely clear. It may be that student exPectations Of the course, regarding delivery, were not fulfilled. On the other hand, it may be that some other benefit which students received from the course, tended to overshadow that of improved delivery. The latter explanation would appear most likely since Speech 101 is oriented more toward the dimension of Speech content than it is toward the dimension of speech delivery. It should be noted that at the time the pretest 60 TABLE 31 PRETEST (Question 24) EXAMINATIONS IN THIS COURSE WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT. POSTTEST (Question 33) EXAMINATIONS IN THIS COURSE HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFICULT. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 7 2.3 41 .13 2 Agree 32 10.3 102 32.9 Don't Know 238 76.8 36 11.6 Disagree 32 10.3 126 40.6 Strongly Disagree 1 0.3 5 1.6 questionnaire was administered students had no way of knowing, except "through the grapevine," the difficulty of examinations in Speech 101. It is to be expected, then, that 76.8 percent of the students in the pretest would re- spond in the "Don't Know" category. While only 12.6 per- cent Of the students expected examinations to be very difficult, 46.1 percent of the students in the posttest reported that the examination they had taken was very dif- ficult. The posttest questionnaire was administered prior to the final examination in Speech 101; therefore, the re- Sponses of students on this item were based on their ex- periences in the mid-term examination only. It can also 61 be seen by comparing pretest and posttest results in the table on the preceding page that an increased percentage of students in the posttest felt that the mid-term exam- ination had not been difficult. TABLE 32 PRETEST (Question 25) PREPARATION OF A SPEECH PLAN IS A NECESSARY EXERCISE IN LEARNING HOW TO ORGANIZE A SPEECH. POSTTEST (Question 35) PREPARATION OF A SPEECH PLAN IS A NECESSARY EXERCISE IN LEARNING HOW TO ORGANIZE A SPEECH. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 42 13.5 37 11.9 Agree 211 68.1 174 56.1 Don't Know 42 13.5 21 6.8 Disagree 11 3.5 49 15.8 Strongly Disagree 4‘ 1.3 29 9.4 Based on the experience of the writer, it appears that students are unduly concerned about the Speech Plans 37 which are required in Speech 101. It is important to 37Speech Plans refer to the written assignments which students complete for the instructor. See Model Speech Plan included in the Syllabus, Appendix B of this study. 62 note that unless students had received information about speech plans prior to enrolling in the course, they had no way of knowing what was involved in composing a speech plan. In Spite of this fact a strong majority of the students in the pretest agreed that the speech plan was a necessary ex- ercise for learning how to organize a speech. There was a decrease in the number of students in the posttest who in- dicated speech plans were necessary for learning speech or- ganization. It is significant to note that 68 percent of the students in the posttest indicated speech plans were necessary for learning speech organization. The above findings would appear to indicate that the vociferous protest about speech plans in Speech 101 is coming from a small percentage of the students enrolled in the course. TABLE 33 PRETEST (Question 26) PEER-GROUPING IS A GOOD METHOD FOR TEACHING THIS COURSE. POSTTEST (Question 36) PEER-GROUPING IS A GOOD METHOD FOR TEACHING SPEECH 101. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent NO. Percent Strongly Agree 20 6.5 50 16.1 Agree 109 35.2 175 56.5 Don't Know 141 45.5 24 7.7 Disagree 36 11.6 38 12.3 Strongly Disagree 4 1.3 23 7.4 63 Students who enroll in Speech lOl probably receive their firstexposure to the concept of peer-grouping. The data in Table 33 show the results of an item on the ques- tionnaire designed to obtain the reaction of students re- garding peer-grouping. Circumstances may have taken place in some sections of Speech 101, in administering the pre- test questionnaire, which influenced the results of the data relating to peer-grouping. The instructors in Speech 101 were given copies of the pretest questionnaire and asked to have students in their sections complete them during either the first or second day of orientation. Students who did not complete the questionnaire until the second day of orientation may have received information from their instructors relating to peer-grouping. Had all students been introduced to the concept of peer-grouping prior to completing the pretest questionnaire the number of responses in the "Don't Know" category might have been substantially reduced. In any event the number of stu- dents who felt peer-grouping was a good teaching technique increased from 41.7 percent in the pretest to 72.6 per- cent in the posttest. Peer-grouping is still relatively new, although a number of schools have experimented with plans similar to that used at Michigan State University. One such school is Ohio University. Wiseman and Baker conducted a study at Ohio University relating to peer-grouping. In their 64 article, "Peer Group Instruction: What Is It?," they list the advantages and disadvantages of this method of instruc- tion. According to this report the advantages of peer- grouping are: 1) Development of leadership and responsi- bility among students; 2) Training and practice in eval- uation of communication; 3) Aid in adjusting to criticism from others and to criticism of others; 4) A saving in the number 0f teachers needed to teach a multiple section course.38 In the Instructor's Manual used in Speech 101 at Michigan State University the following statements de- scribe additional advantages Of peer-grouping: In a "participation" course such as Speech lOl peer- grouping encourages more and responsible participa- tion by the students which they seem to enjoy and re- spond to very maturely. By letting them share in the administration of the course, they feel more a part Of it and desire to make a worthwhile contribution toward its becoming the best educational experience possible for themselves and their classmates. This method of grouping further provides a unique Oppor- tunity and incentive for students to apply the know- ledge they gain as Speech critics in the constructive evaluation of their fellow students and interpersonal relations among peer equals gains added meaning for the student in a "real world" classroom situation. The disadvantages of peer-grouping according to Wiseman and Barker are: l) A reduction in contact between 38Gordon Wiseman and Larry Barker, "Peer Group In- struction: What IS It?," The §peech Teacher, Vol. 15, No. 3' pp. 220-2230 39Taken from the Instructor's Manual used by teachers of Speech 101 at Michigan State University. See Appendix A in this study. ‘ 65 teachers and students; 2) A need for more rigid organiza- tion than is necessary in a regular class; 3) An increased student load and accompanying clerical duties.40 It can be seen in the statement from the Instructor's Manual above that the clerical duties, etc., listed as a dis- advantage by Wiseman and Barker, are considered as advan- tages in Speech 101 since they allow students to contri- bute to the Operation Of the course. This writer would not agree that Wiseman and Barker's items 2, i.e., "A need for more rigid organization that is necessary in a regular class" is a disadvantage of the peer-grouping system. It has been my experience that students are de- lighted to find a course which is so constructed as to allow them to know in advance what is expected of them. The purpose of question 27 in the pretest (See Table.34 on the following page), was to determine the im- pression students had formed of Speech 101 upon entering the course. The accompanying question in the posttest (number 37), was designed to learn the impression students had of Speech 101 based on their own experiences in the course. Our purpose in this item was to determine if stu- dent impressions were favorable or unfavorable, but not why they had formed such impressions. If a student indic- ated that he had received an unfavorable impression of 40Wiseman and Barker, p. 220. 66 TABLE 34 PRETEST (Question 27) THE IMPRESSION OF THIS COURSE I HAVE RECEIVED FROM OTHER STUDENTS WITH WHOM I HAVE TALKED IS UNFAVORABLE. POSTTEST (Question 37) THE IMPRESSION OF THIS COURSE I HAVE BASED ON MY OWN EXPERIENCE IS UNFAVORABLE. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent NO. Percent Strongly Agree 18 5.8 7 2.3 Agree 82 26.5 49 15.8 Don't Know 79 25.5 34 11.0 Disagree 127 41.0 174 56.1 Strongly Disagree 4 1.3 46 14.8 Speech 101 from other students with whom he had communi- cated prior to taking the course, one could speculate that a number of factors might have been responsible for the development of such an attitude in former students. An unfavorable student impression in Speech 101 might be based on a negative experience with a particular instruc- tor; or a feeling that the course demands too much work; or that examinations were too detailed, etc. In any event approximately 32 percent of the students in the pre- test indicated that they had received an unfavorable im- pression of Speech 101 prior to enrolling in the course. 67 It is likely that the sources of some of these impressions were former students in Speech 101 who were now upper- classmen. In most cases freshmen would not have been ex- posed to a great deal of "grapevine communication" at the university. It should be remembered, however, that fresh- men constituted a minority of the Speech 101 enrollment during the term in which this study was conducted. Near the end of the term only about 18 percent of the students had an unfavorable impression of the course, based on their own experiences. The fact that approximately 71 TABLE 35 PRETEST (Question 28) TAKING THIS COURSE WILL NOT SUB- STANTIALLY REDUCE MY NERVOUSNESS IN SPEAKING BE- FORE A GROUP. POSTTEST (Question 21) TAKING THIS COURSE HAS NOT SUB- STANTIALLY REDUCED MY NERVOUSNESS IN SPEAKING BEFORE A GROUP. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 2 0.6 9 2.9 Agree 36 11.6 68 21.9 Don't Know 162 52.3 22 7.1 Disagree ‘ 103 33.2 190 61.3 Strongly Disagree 7 2.3 21 6.8 68 percent Of the students had a favorable impression Of the course in the posttest would suggest that impressions of an unfavorable nature seem to dissipate for many students after they have themselves taken Speech 101. Students responding to the above item in the pre- test indicated uncertainty as to whether or not the course could reduce their nervousness when speaking before a group. This fact is reflected in the 52.3 percent of the students who responded in the "Don't Know" category. After. completing the course mOre than 68 percent of the stu- dents indicated the course had served to reduce their feelings Of nervousness when speaking before a group Of TABLE 36 PRETEST (Question 29) THIS COURSE WILL INCREASE MY ABILITY AS A PUBLIC SPEAKER. POSTTEST (Question 3) THIS COURSE HAS INCREASED MY ABILITY AS A PUBLIC SPEAKER. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS ~e No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 14 4.5 65 21.0 Agree 171 55.2 202 65.2 Don't Know 121 39.0 30 9.7 Disagree 3 1.0 10 3.2 Strongly Disagree 1 0.3 3 1.0 69 peOple. The data in Table 35 may be compared with data in Table 13, page 37, and Table 23, page 48 in this study. A summary of findings regarding stagefright will be in- cluded in the final chapter of this study. A substantial percentage of the students, 39 per— cent, initially responded to the item in Table 36 in the "Don't Know" category. Approximately 60 percent of the students expected the course to increase their ability in public speaking, and near the end of the term approxi- mately 86 percent of the students felt the course had ac- tually accomplished this benefit for them. One can note that posttest results show only a small percentage (ap- proximately 4 percent), of the students in the study who felt that the course had not increased their ability as public speakers. The fact that such a high percentage of the students (over 86 percent), felt the course had in- creased their abilities as speakers does not necessarily suggest that these students were completely satisfied with the course. It is likely that such a response in- dicates that some students, who did not "like" certain parts of the course, still felt they received some bene- fit from the course. Such a possibility is not without foundation since only about 4 percent of the students in the posttest indicated the course had not helped them increase their ability as public speakers and yet more 70 TABLE 37 PRETEST (Question 30) STUDENTS WHO HAVE A STUTTERING PROB- LEM SHOULD ENROLL IN THIS COURSE. POSTTEST (Question 24) STUDENTS WHO HAVE A STUTTERING PROBLEM SHOULD ENROLL IN THIS COURSE. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 3 1.0 7 2.3 Agree 55 17.7 50 16.1 Don't Know 159 51.3 114 36.8 Disagree 71 22.9 101 32.6 Strongly Disagree 22 7.1 38 12.3 than 27 percent of the students in the posttest had an unfavorable impression of the course.41 The data presented in Table 37 above were gathered in order to determine why a number of students with speech defects were finding their way into Speech 101 each term. Part of the cause for this problem lies with advisers and will be taken up later in the study. The posttest re- sults from this item in the student questionnaire are a bit surprising. In the posttest approximately 18 percent of the students still felt a student with a stuttering 41See Table 34, page 66 of this study. 71 problem should enroll in Speech 101. Perhaps students felt that a person with a stuttering problem could be referred to someone who could help him if he enrolled in Speech 101. An additional 36.8 percent of the students were still unde- cided about whether or not a stutterer should enroll in this course. One cannot expect students and laymen to demonstrate expertise in identifying speech defects and determining what needs to be done in each case. However, it should have been obvious to students who had completed the course that Speech 101 was not designed to handle problems of this type. TABLE 38 PRETEST (Question 31) SPEECH COURSE LECTURES SHOULD BE TAUGHT BY CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION. POSTTEST (Question 9) SPEECH 101 LECTURES SHOULD BE TAUGHT BY CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 0 0.0 11 3.5 .Agree 30 9.7 96 31.0 Donft Know 116 37.4 84 27.1 Disagree 93 30.0 69 22.3 Strongly Disagree 71 22 . 9 50 16 . 1 Various views have been stated about the use of CflJDsed-circuit television in teaching speech courses sim- ilar to Speech 101. Holm es stated in 1962 that television 72 does best in the sciences and poorest in the humanities, English and Speech.42 Holmes further concluded that it is doubtful if television can be used effectively as the exclusive medium of instruction in the first course in speech.43 One can agree with both of the contentions above and still believe that, if prOperly used, television is an effective tool for instructional purposes in a basic speech course. One of the more prominent objections to the use of television in teaching is the loss of contact between teachers and students. However, in 1963 Becker stated: One must conclude from an examination of the total group of studies that a teacher's proximity to the students during a lecture has little if any effect on the student's performance. In 1962 Broadrick, McIntyre and Moren reported a pilot study in the use of closed-circuit television in the public speaking course at the University of Illinois. Among their conclusions was the following: Careful analysis of final speech and examination grades, and of student attitudes about public speaking shows that T.V. students did not differ significantly from non—T.V. students in gaining knowledge about theory and 42Presley D. Holmes, Jr., "Television As An Instruc- tional Medium," Televised Instruction, ed., Lee S. Dreyfus and Wallace M. Bradley (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1962), p. 58. 43Ibid. 44Samuel L. Becker, "Research on Speech Pedagogy," Dimensions of Rhetorical Scholarship, (Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1963), p. 34. 73 practice of public speaking, in attaining the ability to speak or in developing confidence in their ability.4 The data in Table 38 on page 71 would suggest that, in the pretest, some students at Michigan State University displayed a negative attitude toward the use of closed- circuit television in speech classes. Approximately 53 percent of the students in the pretest expressed such an attitude. In the posttest, however, the number of stu- dents who opposed the use of television in Speech 101 had declined to approximately 38 percent. It can also be seen in Table 38 that students were about equally divided in their opinions relating to the use of closed-circuit television in the posttest. Approximately 27 percent of the students in the study remained undecided about the use of television in this course after they had completed Speech 101. Therefore, one can conclude that while there is ample evidence to suggest that closed-circuit television can be used effectively in teaching speech courses, a significant number of students taking Speech 101 at Michi— gan State University, at the time of this study, are either apprehensive about its use or are still undecided after taking the course. 45King Broadrick, Charley J. McIntyre and Richard Moren, "T.V. Teachers Report," Speech Teacher, Vol. 2, No. 74 TABLE 39 PRETEST (Question 32) THE BEST METHOD OF SPEECH PREPARA- TION IS THE EXTEMPORANEOUS METHOD (i.e., a pre- pared outline). POSTTEST (Question 19) THE BEST METHOD OF SPEECH PREPAR- ATION IS EXTEMPORANEOUS. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 20 6.5 50 16.1 Agree 135 43.5 174 56.1 Don't Know 127 41.0 53 17.0 Disagree 25 8.1 28 9.0 Strongly Disagree 3 1.0 5 1.6 Again it should be pointed out that the results obtained on the questionnaire data in Table 39 above may have been affected by the time when the pretest was ad- ministered. Some instructors, who waited until the second day of orientation to administer the pretest questionnaire, may have informed students of the requirement that all speeches delivered in Speech 101 were to be delivered ex- temporaneously. That some students had such information is indicated by the 43.5 percent in the pretest who felt the extemporaneous method was the best method of speech preparation. It is doubtful that this percentage of 75 students would have responded in the manner described above unless they had received information relating to the extemporaneous method of speaking. On the other hand, it can be recalled that approximately 45 percent of the students in the study had previous training in speech and therefore may have understood the concept of extemporaneous Speaking. The 41 percent of the students who responded in the "Don't Know" category probably re- presents those students who had no previous training in speech and who had not been exposed to the concept of extemporaneous speaking prior to completing the pretest questionnaire. Regardless of the reasons for the pretest results described above, it can be seen in Table 39 that after completing the course approximately 72 percent of the students in the study felt the extemporaneous method of speech preparation was the superior method. It could be argued that students had been conditioned toward such a response since all Speeches in the course required the use of the extemporaneous method. If an impromptu speech or a manuscript speech had been assigned during the term, for example, the results on this item may have been dif- ferent. It is interesting to note in this connection that Rosenfeld has stated, "probably the most neglected unit in the first course in speech is one devoted to 76 impromptu speaking."46 Finally, it can be seen in Table 39 that 17 percent of the students in the posttest respon- ded in the "Don't Know" category. It is likely that this "Don't Know" response is indicative of the feeling, "I haven't tried any other method of speech preparation, so I don't know if this one is best or not." TABLE 40 PRETEST (Question 33) IT WILL NOT BE DIFFICULT FOR ME TO DELIVER A SPEECH BEFORE THE SPEECH CLASS. POSTTEST (Question 34) IT HAS NOT BEEN DIFFICULT FOR ME TO DELIVER A SPEECH BEFORE THE CLASS IN THIS COURSE. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 2 0.6 6 1.9 Agree 55 17.7 107 34.5 Don't Know 89 28.7 14 5.5 Disagree 117 37.7 148 47.7 Strongly Disagree 47 15.2 35 11.3 Approximately 53 percent of the students in this study felt, upon entering the Speech 101 course, that it would be difficult for them to deliver a speech before the class. Approximately 59 percent of the students in 6Laurence B. Rosenfeld, "Teaching Impromptu Speak- ing," The Speech Teacher, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 232-234. 77 posttest reported it had indeed been difficult for them to speak before the class. The number of students who did not expect difficulty in speaking before the class accounted for 18 percent of the students in the pretest. In the posttest those who reported it had not been dif- ficult for them to speak before the class rose to slightly more than 36 percent of the students. Only 4.5 percent of the students engaged in the study responded in the "Don't Know" category in the posttest. Therefore, most students expressed a definite attitude on this item after complet- ing the course. The most significant factor resident in the data presented above appears to be the fact that more than half of the students who participated in this study reported that it had been difficult for them to deliver a speech before their peers. Further exploration of this area may prove fruitful. For example, what variables ac- count for the "difficulty" students experienced in deliv- ering a speech before their peers and the instructor? How much of this "felt difficulty" can be attributed to stagefright or tension and how much can be attributed to other factors such as personality traits, the student's perceived competence, and similar variables? Students in the pretest in Table 41 on the follow- ing page had no way of knowing what was involved in the preparation of speech plans required of all student speeches in Speech 101. This fact may have contributed 78 TABLE 41 PRETEST (Question 34) SPEECH PLANS SHOULD BE GRADED CARE- FULLY AND CONTRIBUTE TOWARD A STUDENT'S FINAL GRADE. POSTTEST (Question 4) SPEECH PLANS SHOULD BE GRADED CARE- FULLY AND CONTRIBUTE TOWARD A STUDENT'S FINAL GRADE. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 18 5.8 17 5.5 Agree 140 45.2 87 28.1 Don't Know 70 22.6 23 7.4 Disagree 63 20.3 123 39.7 Strongly Disagree 19 6.1 60 19.4 to the large number of students (approximately 51 percent), who responded positively to the item in the pretest as Shown in Table 41 above. It has been the experience of the writer, in teaching Speech 101 at Michigan State Uni- versity, that in this area, more than any other, students complain about the logistics of the course. Students do not like to have points deducted from their speaking scores because of deficiencies in their speech plans. The fact that the number of students who disliked the idea of having speech plans contribute toward the student's final grade 79 increased from 26.4 percent in the pretest to 59.1 percent in the posttest would appear to support the observation reported above. Further evidence in support of the above can be seen by comparing the data in Table 41 with those in Table 32, page 61 of this study which shows that 68 percent of the students who had completed Speech 101 felt that speech plans were a necessary exercise in learning how to organize a speech. A comparison of these two sets of data appears to indicate that a majority of the stu— dents felt speech plans are necessary for learning speech organization but were unhappy with the manner in which speech plans affect a student's grade in the course. TABLE 42 PRETEST (Question 35) EACH CONSECUTIVE SPEECH SHOULD COUNT MORE THAN THE LAST IN COMPUTING THE STUDENT'S FINAL GRADE IN THIS COURSE. POSTTEST (Question 6) EACH CONSECUTIVE SPEECH SHOULD COUNT MORE IN COMPUTING THE STUDENT'S FINAL GRADE IN THIS COURSE. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 14 4.5 41 13.3 Agree 106 34.3 174 56.3 Don't Know 77 24.9 30 9.7 Disagree 96 31.1 57 18.4 Strongly Disagree 16 5.2 7 2.3 80 It is the practice in Speech 101 for each consec- utive student speech to be assigned a weighting factor in determining how much that speech will contribute toward a student's final grade. For example, speech number 1 may be assigned a weighting factor of 2; speech number 2 a weighting factor of 3, etc. About an equal number of stu- dents "agreed" and "disagreed" with the procedure mentioned above in the pretest. In the posttest, however, more than 69 percent of the students favored the grading procedure described above. The table containing a summary of the data described above can be seen on the preceding page. TABLE 43 PRETEST (Question 36) I WOULD LIKE TO FEEL MORE AT EASE WHEN I SPEAK BEFORE AN AUDIENCE. POSTTEST (Question 16) I WOULD LIKE TO FEEL MORE AT EASE WHEN I SPEAK BEFORE AN AUDIENCE. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 140 45.3 74 23.9 Agree 159 51.5 200 64.5 Don't Know 5 1.6 13 4.2 Disagree 4 1.3 22 7.1 Strongly Disagree 1 0.3 l 0.3 81 No response pattern in this study is more emphatic and so nearly unanimous as that shown in Table 43 on the preceding page. Approximately 97 percent of the students in the pretest stated that they would like to feel more at ease when speaking before an audience. The data mentioned above do not cast a reflection on Speech 101. The fact that students want to feel more at ease after taking the course, does not suggest that the course has not helped them in this respect. To the contrary, students may have been inspired by the course to secure additional benefits from learning and applying the principles of public speaking. TABLE 44 PRETEST (Question 37) THE BEST WAY TO OVERCOME STAGEFRIGHT IS TO LET YOUR INSTRUCTOR TELL YOU HOW TO CONTROL IT. POSTTEST (Question 10) THE BEST WAY TO OVERCOME STAGE- FRIGHT IS TO LET YOUR INSTRUCTOR TELL YOU HOW TO CONTROL IT. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 4 1.3 1 0.3 Agree 58 18.8 32 10.3 Don't Know 106 34.3 42 13.5 Disagree 122 39.5 184 59.4 Strongly Disagree 19 6.1 51 16.5 82 It would be quite easy to read more into the in— terpretation of the data in Table 44 than is warranted. One could safely conclude that the majority of the stu- dents in the posttest felt that "asking your instructor how to control stagefright" was definitely not the way to overcome stagefright. The above data in no way suggest that students know, or for that matter than the instructor knows, the best way to overcome stagefright. The data do tend to indicate that, after taking the course, students become more realistic in their attitudes toward the phe- nomenon we call stagefright. TABLE 45 PRETEST (Question 39) I CONSIDER MYSELF TO BE A COMPETENT PUBLIC SPEAKER. POSTTEST (Question 1) I CONSIDER MYSELF TO BE A COMPETENT PUBLIC SPEAKER. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 0 0.0 10 3.2 Agree 39 12.6 142 45.8 Don't Know 87 28.2 96 31.0 Disagree 144 46.6 58 18.7 Strongly Disagree 39 12.6 4 1.3 83 The data in Table 45 would suggest that the ma- jority of the students, at the beginning of the course, felt they were not competent public speakers. After com- pleting the course approximately 50 percent of the stu- dents felt they were competent speakers. Also the data in Table 45 show a total upward shift; that is, in both opitons in the "Agree" category the number of students who considered themselves to be competent public speakers had increased from 12.6 percent in the pretest to 49.0 percent in the posttest. In the "Disagree" Options there is an accompanying decrease in the number of students who did not feel they were competent public speakers. TABLE 46 PRETEST (Question 39) THIS COURSE WILL NOT HELP ME EXPRESS MY THOUGHTS MORE COHERENTLY. POSTTEST (Question 22) THIS COURSE HAS NOT HELPED ME EX- PRESS MY THOUGHTS MORE COHERENTLY. PRETEST POSTTEST OPTIONS No. Percent No. Percent Strongly Agree 5 1.6 7 2.3 Agree 41 13.3 51 16.5 Don't Know 95 30.7 29 9.4 Disagree 133 43.0 191 61.6 Strongly Disagree 35 11.3 32 10.3 84 About the only notable change in the data above from the pretest to the posttest, is in the "Disagree" and "Don't Know" categories. A majority Of the students expected the course to help them express their thoughts more coherently. The posttest data show an increased percentage of students who felt the benefit of expressing themselves more coherently had been realized after they had taken the course. III. The Results of Adviser Interviews The second major portion of this study deals with the interview responses of advisers at Michigan State Uni- versity. These advisers represent departments in the uni- versity which either require, encourage or permit students to take Speech 101 as a part of their program of study. Interviews were obtained from advisers represent- ing the following colleges within Michigan State University: Social Science, Agriculture, University College, Communi- cation Arts, Natural Science, Education, Home Economics, Business, and Arts and Letters. More specifically the divisions of the colleges named above include: Packaging; Police Administration; Zoology; Elementary and Special Education; Textiles, Clothing and Related Art; Business Law; Agriculture Business; Nursing; Theatre; Communication; Mathematics; and English. It cannot be established, nor was it intended, that 85 the persons interviewed would be representative of all ad- visers within the university. The advisers chosen for interview purposes in this study were selected on the basis of frequency of mention by students in the Pilot Project described earlier in the study. Thus, the advisers who were interviewed represent faculty members in the uni— versity who had advised a large portion of the students enrolled in Speech 101 at the time of this study. As related earlier in the study, the interviews conducted for our study were tape recorded. The responses from the adviser interviews were classified in the follow- ing manner: 1) After all of the interviews had been taped the recordings were replayed. 2) The responses of the advisers to each item in the interview schedule were re- corded as given. 3) After all responses had been recorded on paper the writer compiled the information for each item and fashioned categories which would accommodate the data from the interviews. 4) This being done, tables were con- structed in order to present a visual summary of the re- sponses of the interviewees on each item. The tables included in this portion of the study contain two figures. The first column of figures in each table represents the number of advisers who responded in each respective category of the item and the second col- umn represents the corresponding percentage of responses in each respective category. 86 As can be seen in Table 47 below the rank of the individuals interviewed for this study ran the gamut from Head of a School (School of Nursing), to personnel whose sole function was advisement. The latter group was com- posed of seven ladies whose primary responsibility was to TABLE 47 POSITIONS HELD BY INTERVIEWEES WITHIN THE RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY RANK OR TITLE NUMBER PERCENT Head (School of Nursing 1 4.17 Director 2 8.77 Assistant Director 1 4.17 Coordinator of Student Programs 1 4.17 Professor 3 12.50 Associate Professor 3 12.50 Assistant Professor 4 16.66 Instructor 2 8.77 Advisers (Elementary and Special Education) 7 29.16 25 100.8 47 advise students majoring in elementary or special education. 47When the person interviewed had some title it was used in lieu of his rank in the table. Percentages were rounded off and do not total 100 percent. 87 Interviewees were asked the question,"Does the de- partment in which you serve as adviser require or encourage students to take Speech 101?" The responses of advisers to this item are included in the categories listed in Table 48 below. TABLE 48 IS SPEECH 101 REQUIRED OR ENCOURAGED FOR STUDENTS IN YOUR DEPARTMENT? ADVISER RESPONSES NUMBER PERCENT Required 4 17.26 We re uire Speech 101 or Speech 116.4 1 4.35 Speech 101 is one of a number of courses students can take in speech. 1 4.35 Speech 101 is required for some students. 4 17.26 Students themselves choose to take Speech 101. 4 17.26 Speech 101 is used for Certifi- cation. 4 17.26 Speech 101 is a part of the student's minor 2 8.70 Table 49 on the following page contains the results of adviser responses when they were asked to estimate the 48Speech 116 is the beginning Group Discussion Course at Michigan State University. 88 TABLE 49 NUMBER OF STUDENTS FROM YOUR AREA WHO TAKE SPEECH 101 EACH YEAR ADVISER ESTIMATES NUMBER PERCENT Less than 25 students 3 16.66 Between 25 and 50 students 2 11.11 Between 50 and 75 students 5 27.77 Between 75 and 100 students 2 11.11 Over 100 students 1 22.22 Over 200 students 1 5.55 No Response 1 5.55 number of students from their area who enroll in Speech 101 each year. It was quite Obvious during the inter- views that these figures represented only intelligent guesses, and that advisers had no accurate idea of the number of students within their area who take the course each year. An Open-end question regarding the relationship of Speech 101 to the major of students resulted in respon- ses that are somewhat vague. From these data, recorded in Table 50 on the following page, one can see that as far as advisers are able to ascertain, the majority of the students who enroll in Speech 101 find it a tool which 89 TABLE 50 IS SPEECH 101 RELATED TO THE MAJOR OF THE STUDENTS YOU ADVISE? IF SO, HOW? ADVISER RESPONSES NUMBER PERCENT Shy retiring type students need Speech 101. l 4.54 Speech 101 is a tool for the student's vocation. 13 59.09 Speech lOl fulfills a social need for students. 1 4.54 Speech 101 is required so they take it. . 2 9.09 Speech 101 is used for Certifi- cation. 2 9.09 Students feel Speech 101 serves some need. . 2 9.09 Speaking ability contributes to good citizenship. l 4.54 will be useful to them in their chosen vocations. This Opinion is consistent with that expressed by the students themselves in Table 18, page 42 of this study, in which approximately 75 percent of the students in the pretest and 80 percent of the students in the posttest felt Speech 101 would help them in their chosen vocations: According to the data in Table 51 on the following page, if students have had a speech course previously, the majority do not mention this fact to their advisers. The 90 TABLE 51 HOW MANY STUDENTS WHOM YOU ADVISE SAY THEY HAVE HAD A SPEECH COURSE PREVIOUSLY? ADVISER RESPONSES NUMBER PERCENT The majority have had a speech course previously. 2 11.11 Quite a few say they have had a speech course previously. 2 11.11 Not many say they have had a speech course previously. 8 44.44 If they have had a course pre- viously, I don't encourage Speech 101. l 5.55 No response. 1 5.55 responses above are fairly consistent with student respon- ses reported in Table 6, page 28 of this study, which shows that slightly more than 50 percent of the students enrolling in Speech 101 had no prior speech training. The purpose of the question in Table 52 on the following page was to determine if there was a noticeable pattern Of response indicative of a particular apprehen- sion on the part of students who are faced with the pros— pect of taking Speech 101. The variety of responses to this item and the accompanying percentages in Table 52 indicate that no such pattern of apprehension existed. 91 TABLE 52 WHAT IS THE GENERAL REACTION OF STUDENTS WHEN THEY ARE ASKED OR TOLD TO TAKE SPEECH 101? ADVISER RESPONSES NUMBER PERCENT Students feel the course is worthwhile but requires a lot of work. 1 5.99 Students want to take the course. 3 17.64 Students are resigned ("I have to take it"). 2 11.97 Reticent (shy) students choose Speech 116 instead. 1 5.99 Students don't reSpond until later. 2 11.97 Students are indifferent. 2 11.97 Students are favorable. 2 11.97 Students dislike the idea. 1 5.99 Students panic. 3 17.64 From the data in Table 53 on the following page it would appear that the interest appeal of Speech 101 for students covers a relatively broad range of responses. One cannot measure the "halo effect" which may have been Operative when the interviewees answered in a manner which would please the interviewer. However, the larger percentage of the responses shown in Table 53 indicate 92 TABLE 53 HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE INTEREST APPEAL OF SPEECH 101 FOR STUDENTS WHEN COMPARED WITH OTHER COURSES ON THE SAME LEVEL? ADVISER RESPONSES NUMBER PERCENT Students are interested in Speech 101 but feel it requires too much work 2 12.50 Students are interested in and challenged by Speech 101. 5 31.25 Students are apprehensive about taking Speech 101. 3 18.75 Speech 101 has an average inter- est appeal for students. 2 12.50 Students are apathetic about tak— ing Speech 101. 2 12.50 Students feel Speech 101 is not a worthwhile course. 2 12.50 fifi that students appear to be challenged by Speech 101, although some of these students were apprehensive about the amount of work involved in the course. The adviser responses summarized in Table 54 on the following page are very similar to the responses of students on this item in Table 8, page 30 of this study. The majority of students who take Speech 101 are Fresh- men or SOphomores. One can note, however, that advisers' estimates of the percentage of Juniors and Seniors who take Speech 101 are low. In the student questionnaires, 93 TABLE 54 AT WHAT LEVEL DO MOST OF THE STUDENTS WHOM YOU ADVISE TAKE SPEECH 101? ADVISER RESPONSES NUMBER PERCENT Freshman 3 16.66 Freshman or Sophomore 7 38.88 Sophomore 2 11.11 Sophomore or Junior 2 11.11 Junior 1 5.55 Junior or Senior 1 5.55 Senior 2 11.11 TABLE 55 HOW DIFFICULT DO STUDENTS EXPECT SPEECH 101 TO BE? ADVISER RESPONSES NUMBER PERCENT ¥ Students feel Speech 101 is an easy course. 5 27.77 Students expect Speech 101 to be of average difficulty. 6 33.33 Students don't know what to eXpect of Speech 101. 3 16.66 Students expect a lot of hard Work in Speech 101. 3 16.66 students are afraid of Speech 01. 2 11.11 x 94 which are assumed to be relatively accurate in this re- spect, 39.6 percent of the students indicated they were either Juniors or Seniors. In the adviser interviews slightly more than 22 percent of the interviewees indic- ated that most of the students whom they advised took Speech 101 at the Junior or Senior level. It will be recalled that students expected Speech 101 to be easier upon first entering the course than they found it to be upon completing the course. This fact may be a partial explanation for the number of "drops" in Speech 101. The number of students who drop and those who add the course, after the official drop and add period at Michigan State University, is estimated to be about 10 percent of the total enrollment for a given term.49 The responses of advisers, shown in Table 55 on the pre— ceding page, would indicate that the majority of the students expect the course to be of no more than average difficulty and approximately 28 percent of the respon— master sheet schedule which you will hand out. Inisummary of the operation, then, the classes work as fifllows; you will be with Group A, for Topic I, III, and VI; with Group B for Topics II, IV, and VI. Fer other Topics students will be on their own. Re- cord your grades in blue, student grades in red on your master grade sheet. THIS MUST BE DONE BEFORE YOU ADJOURN THE ORIENTATION SESSIONS A. Go over TOpic I in the syllabus. (Speaking will begin next class meeting. The related readings in the text will make Topic I much clearer for them.) Select several students and have a "dummy" class meeting, letting the students run the class as if in the peer-grouping situation. Make sure that they understand the operational details, since half of the class will be on its own for the next week or so. Make sure that there are no unanswered questions as to course operation or requirements. Be sure that all students have copies of the schedule, the syllabus, and the other hand-out materials, and that they understand that it is their respon- sibility to know what they are to be doing, and when. THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT! APPENDIX B Michigan State University Department of Speech Syllabus for Speech 101 Public Speaking r Lecture: SectiOn Room Day & Time : Recitation: : : : Section No. Group Room & Bldg. Day & Time Recitation Instructor Speaking Number: 175 7"“ _ INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION This Syllabus for Public Speaking 101 has been prepared for you in order that you may learn at the outset what you need to know about the operation of the course. Please read it carefully and immediately. IT IS ASSUMED THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE MATERIAL IN THIS SYLLABUS. The Distinction Between Your Recitation Instructor and l. the Speech 101 Lecturer: The Lecturer and course chairman for Speech 101 is Dr. David Ralph. The name of your particular recitation instructor will depend upon the meeting time of your recitation section. Occasionally during the term you will be asked to name your Speech 101 instructor (at examination time for example). Your response Should be the name of your recitation instructor. At the first meeting of your recitation section, please obtain the name, address, extension number, and office hours of your recitation instructor. Your recitation Instructor: The General Goal of Public Speaking 101: To assist students, through knowledge of and experience in the principles and methods of speaking, to operate more effectively as agents of change in speaking sit- uations. Specific Goals of Public Speaking 101: To help you understand and make effective use of a. the materials of speaking -- materials of develop- ment, personal proof, and materials of experience. b. To help you learn and put into practice the principles of good Speaking -- discovering or limiting the topic; 176 IMMfl‘L- ‘é;:5'. . f. 177 adapting to the audience; organizing and outlining the speech; deveIOping and using language for speak- ing; practicing and presenting the speech. To help you feel more secure in the speaking sit- uation by assisting you in a personal adjustment to your role as a speaker. To help you understand and accept the responsibility of the speaker to society. To help you understand the role of speaking in our society. To help you develop the ability to analyze, criticize, and pass judgment on the speaking of others. Teaching Methods of Public Speaking 101: a. b. Study of the principles of speaking through careful reading of the text. Presentation of additional information through lec- tures. Preparation of written assignments to aid you in increasing your ability to select and adapt topics, discover and interpret evidence, use reasoning, organize and outline speeches, adapt to your audience and speaking occasion, and employ effective language. Investigation of specific subjects of value and in- terest to you and your classmates for development into worthwhile speeches. Preparation and delivery of various types of speeches in which you demonstrate your grasp of the principles of speaking. Criticism and evaluation of your speeches by sec- tion instructors and your classmates. Experience in evaluating and criticizing the speak- ing of others. Examinations on principles of speaking. Experience in conducting and participating in peer groups. 178 Organization of the Course: Ewflistudent is required to enroll in and attend one oftfluee lecture section meetings held at 10:20 a.m. or 3MM)p.m. or 9:00 p.m. on each Monday of the term. Each student is also required to enroll in and attend a recitation section. The recitation sections are scheduled so as not to conflict with an available lecture period. All recitation sections follow either a Monday-Wednesday-Friday or a Tuesday-Thursday meet- ing pattern. (Students in some dormitory sections nmy'follow a special lecture-recitation pattern. See time schedule of courses for particular term in which you are enrolled.) Attendance: The official University policy with respect to absences is that "the student is expected to attend all class This policy is strictly enforced by the staff of Speech 101. Any absence, no matter what the cause, will work against you. If you are absent from your recitation section for an acceptable reason you ma be allowed to make up work you have missed. The ecision as to what constitutes an "acceptable reason" for an absence is left to the judgment of your recita- tion instructor. There are no excused absences in Speech 101; there are only acceptable reasons for allow- ing you to make up work you have missed. With respect to absences because of illness the policy is rigid. Ill- ness will constitute an acceptable reason for allowing you to make up work you have missed only if you present to your recitation instructor a written note from the Student Health Center. If you are absent and do not have an acceptable reason, you will receive an "F" grade for all work missed. It is obviously impossible to make up work missed at the lecture sessions. Questions with respect to attendance in both lecture and recitation should be directed to your recitation instructor. periods." Work Schedule: All assignments -- reading, oral, written -- are listed under the appropriate tOpic. In order to keep up with the work of the course, it will be necessary for you to study these assignments in advance of the time when the tOpic is under consideration. You will want to read ahead in your textbook and work ahead on oral and written assignments. QM”!!— ‘ 4 10. 179 Textbook: The textbook for Speech 101 is PRINCIPLES OF SPEAKING, by Kenneth G. Hance, David C. Ralph, and Milton J. VHksell, published in 1962 by Wadsworth. You are re- quested to purchase a copy of the text. The textbook guovides the major statements of theory in the course mmiis to be thoroughly mastered. Approximately 65% of theiexamination questions are drawn from the text- book. Lectures: DWUJe the textbook presents the basic theory of Speech 101, the lecturers will present material which is both supplementary and complementary to that suggested by Hance, Ralph, and Wiksell. The lecture will often present a different approach to many of the problems of public speaking. As a student of Speech 101 you are held responsible for the materials presented by the textbook and by your lecturer. Approximately 35% of the examination questions are drawn from the lectures. Speeches: PhilOSOphy - This course is based upon the phil- OSOphy that public speaking includes not only "stand up" Speaking with a formal audience, but remarks in reply to speeches of others, committee reports, short statements, and all the many informal public speaking situations that daily confront us. Some Opportunity will be given to you, therefore, to speak informally as well as formally in the classroom. Every student should take the utmost advantage of all the Opportunities to speak which Speech 101 will offer. a. 1). Choice of Subjects - At times your syllabus will limit your choice of subjects for a speech; at other times the choice will be yours. In every case you should treat your subject so that it is *worthy of your audience's attention. Research is required upon all six Speeches. A rehash of a single periodical article does not constitute ade- not permit preparation will force you to speak impromptu. But, when you are given time to pre- pare, you will use the extemporaneous mode most often, and every Speech assignment in this syllabus carries with it the requirement that you speak ex- temporaneously. (We use the term "extemporaneous" to mean that you will select or limit your topic, do research to equip yourself with the necessary knowledge, carefully outline and organize your thoughts, memorize "the pattern of thought", but select the wording of the ideas at the moment you fact your audience.) The above statement should constitute a sufficient warning to those students who feel they must read or memorize their speeches. At no time will the requirements outlines in this syllabus be satis- fied by either of these two modes of delivery. Evaluation - One of the most important teaching devices in any public speaking course is the ex- perience of listening to the Speeches of others, evaluating them, hearing the instructor's evalu- ation, and then profiting from what you have learned. This is one of the major reasons for the rigid requirements of attendance in Speech 101. Your own speeches, too, will be evaluated, orally and in writing, by your recitation instructor. This is your Opportunity to receive expert advise concerning your Speaking at a relatively small cost. Learn everything you can from your instruc- tor. He is a key figure in this course. 'You will also be evaluated by your fellow students. 'Your peer groups are important because they re- ‘ ;present a life-like sampling of a real audience. 1%“; criticisms and the reactions of the group xvill be only as valuable as the use you make of them. {Dime Limits - You will note that each speech as- saignnent carries with it an established time limit. ZKLthough these limits may be increased or decreased by your instructor, depending upon the enrollment cxf your particular recitation section, when they art; definitely set they must be rigidly adhered to. r:_‘ 1.. 1‘ 11. 12. 13. 181 Speaking overtime steals time from another student; speaking under-time cheats yourself. f. Your Responsibility as a Speaker - To expedite scheduling, your instructor will assign a recita- tion number to you which will be yours throughout the term. He will also give you a schedule which lists, by recitation numbers, all student perform- ance obligations for the term. Circle your reci- tation number wherever it appears on this schedule. You and you alone are responsible for seeing to it that you are properly assigned and for being pre- sent and prepared to speak at the prOper time. For classes with maximum or near maximum enrollments no time is available for make-up speeches. Unless you can satisfy your instructor with an "acceptable" reason for allowing you to make up work missed, your grade for that work will be 0. If your rea- son is "acceptable", you will simply miss the speech and no grade will be recorded. (Note that this applies only in those cases where it is impossible to make up work missed.) If the instructor and the class members permit, a special make-up period may be arranged for those who have missed a speech date for reasons which are "acceptable" to the instructor. (See attendance section on page 2) Written Assignments: Speech Plans are an integral part of the course. They should be the best work of which you are capable and must be submitted when due. Late papers will be pen- alized. Additional Assignments: Additional assignments, reading, oral, or written, may be made at the discretion of your instructor. Examinations: There will be two major examinations in Speech 101: a mid-term and a final examination. The mid-term ex- amination is scheduled for the fifth lecture period of the term. The lecturer and your instructor will tell you the time and place of the midterm. The schedule of the final examination may be found in the TIME SCHEDULE FOR CLASSES. The mid-term examin- .ation will cover text and lecture assignments through tOpic III. The final examination covers the entire course, with emphasis on tOpics IV through VI. r M): mm 14. 15. 16. “77‘Tiymw5 . .. - .‘4 182 Notebooks: Youaue requested to maintain a standard sized note- bodk:h1which you are to keep the following material. This "Syllabus" with notes as to the dates on which you are to speak. b. lecture notes. These notes will be more useful to you if you take them in outline form and then type them. Any notes you take while reading the textbook or a. 0. other material. d. Speech outlines which have been graded and returned to you. e. Your instructor's evaluation of your speaking. f. Your evaluations of your own and'your classmates' speaking. 9. Your classmates' evaluation of your speaking. h. Your written assignments which have been graded and returned to you. Your instructor mgy ask you to hand in your notebook at any time during the term. Conferences: Your instructor is available by appointment to aid in the solution of any problems which may arise. In ad- ditirni, most instructors are available for a few min- utes before and after the class hour. If you have clifficulties, your instructor is available and willing. Grades: Speeches, including speech plans and other written re- quirements associated with the preparation and delivery of speeches, will count approximately sixty percent of your total grade. Examinations, other written assign- ments, attendance, and your general classroom attitude will count approximately forty percent. You must achieve a passing grade in both the speech work and examinations in order to pass the course. Your recitation instructor may penalize you for failure to submit any required work. 17. 183 4. v‘ Youvfill note that as the term progresses you will re— ceive number-scores rather than letter-grades for the qufletion of your assignments. This scoring system makes it difficult for your recitation instructor to give you a specific letter grade at any given moment. Your final grade in Speech 101 will be determined on ‘Umabasis of the cumulative number of points you re- ceive for all assignments and examinations, and will run:be determined until all information is available (this means until after your instructor has received your score on the final examination.) At no time in the course should your recitation instructor be asked to commit himself to a letter grade based on incomplete information. Students are warned not to make the transpositiOn of number-score to letter-grade them- selves since such action would be little better than a guess and could lead to much disappointment. The student may want to ask the instructor for a relative standing within his particular class. This is in no way telling him what his grade will be. The student may find where he stands in the course after the mid- term and after the final. Speech ProficiencypEvaluation for Students Desiring a Teaching Certificate ' Each student seeking certification for teaching will be required to present evidences of his speech pro- ficiency. "Proficiency" may be defined as (1) creative and coherent development of thought (analysis, selec- tion, and organization of speech materials); (2) oral language skills (pronunciation, grammar, style, phy- sical activity, vocal intelligibility and variability, self-assurance); and (3) general effectiveness. General Procedures for Speech Certification 1. With the adviser's assistance the student will select and enroll in a speech course (usually Speech 101, 108, or 401 or when appropriate, 116, 242, 260, 309, or 305.) 2. lMid-way through the course, the instructor will give those students desiring certification a form vdnich will be completed and returned to the in- structor. 3. thter the final examination period, the instructor xwill submit a rating form for each candidate to 'the All-University Speech Evaluation Committee showing whether or not the student has demonstrated speech proficiency . 184 4. Ifcmrtification is recommended, the student be- comes eligible to student teach. 5. Lfthe recommendation is that certification be vnthheld, the Secretary of the All-University Speech Evaluation Committee will prOpose proce- ‘w ' L TWT Pattern, Group A Schedule for Speech lOl--Fall 1966 Chair- Time- Date Period ActiVity Speakers Evaluators man keeper T 9/29 1 Orientation to Speech 101 M710/3 Lecture l—-Evaluation and Peer Group Explanation T 10/4 2 Orientation to Speech 101 W I0/5 3 Topic I 1-6 Instructor 12 22 T 10/6 4 Topic I 7-12 Instructor 6 1 M 10/10 Lecture 2--Materials of Development: Evidence and Reasoning T 10/11 5 Topic I 13-18 Instructor ll 5 W 10/12 6 TOpic I 19-25 Instructor l4 7 T 10/13 7 Topic II 7-12 13-18 3 4 M10/17 Lecture 3--Organization and Outlining T 10/18 8 Topic II l3-18 1-6 8 9 W 10719 9 Topic II 19-25 7—12 18 17 T 10/20 10 Topic II 1-6 19-25 13 14 M 10/24 Lecture 4--Materials of Experience: AttentiOn T 10/25 11 Topic III 7,9,11,13,15,17 Instructor 19 23 W 10/26 12 Topic III l,3,l9,21,23,25 Instructor 24 10 T 10/27 13 Topic III 5,6,8,10,I2,14,l6 Instructor 72 20 M 10/31 Leoture 5--Mid-Term Examination T 11/1 14 Topic III 2,4,18,20,22,24 Instructor 7 15 W 11/2 15 Topic IV 13-18 19-25 1 2 T 11/3 16 Demonstration--Mid-Term Review M 1177 Lecture 6--Materials of Experience: Application and Motivation T 11/8 17 Topic IV 19-25 1-6 17 12 W 11/9 18 TOpic IV 1-6 7-12 21 24 T 11/10 19 Topic IV 7-12 13-18 22 25 M 11/14 Lecture 7--Materials of Experience: Suggestion T 11/15 20 Topic VI* 13,16,19,22,25 Instructor 10 6 W7ll/16 21 Topic VIw 1,4,7,10,23 Instructor 20 13 T ll/17 22 Topic VI* 8,11,14,17,20 Instructor 5 19 M 11/21 Lecture 8--The Domain of Public Speaking T 11/21 23 Topic VI* 2,5,18,21,24 Instructor 23 16 W 11723 24 Topic VI* 3,6,9,12,15 Instructor 25 21 M 11728 Lecture 9—-Personal Proof and the Ethics of Speaking T 11/29 25 TOpic V 21-25 2-6 1 18 W i1/30 26 TOpic V 1-5 11-15 9 8 T 12/1 27 Topic V 6-10 l8-22 16 17 M 12/5 Lecture lO--Rehtoric and Public Address T7I2/6 28 Topic V 11-15 l,8,9,lO,l7 4 5 W 12-7 29 Topic V 16-20 6,7,23,24,25 15 ll T 12/8 30 Open Period *Note-—Topic VI will be given before Topic V. 209 I" .159 ..flc—u-‘n "I . u" - TWT Pattern, Group B Schedule for Speech 101--Fa11 1966 ‘--. T“ —~' r“ Chair- Time- Date Period ActiVity Speakers Evaluators man keeper 9/29 1 Orientation to Speech 101 10/3 Lecture l--Evaluation and Peer GroupiExplanation 10/4 2 Orientation to Speech 101 10/5 3 Topic I 26-31 32-37 38 39 10/6 4 Topic I 32—37 38-43 46 50 107i0 Lecture 2--Materials of Development: Evidence and Reasoning I0/ll 5 TopiE I 38-43 44-50 33 34 107i2 6 TOpic I 44-50 26-31 43 40 10/13 7 Topic II 32-37 Instructor 26 27 10/17 Lecture 3--OrganizatiOn and Outlining 10/18 8 Topic II 38-43 Instructor 29 31 10719 9 Topic II 44—50 Instructor 32 42 10720 10 Topic II 26-31 Instructor 41 49 10/24 Lecture 4-—Materials of Experience: Attention 710/25 11 Topic III 32,34,36,38,40,42 33,35,37,39,4l, 43 30 44 10726 12 Topic III 26,28,44,46,48, 27,29,31,45, 50 47,49 34 43 10/27 13 Topic III 30,31,33,35,37, 32,34,36,38, 39 40,50 44 45 10/31 Lecture 5--Mid-Term ExaminatiOn 11/1 14 Topic III 27,29,41,43,45, 26,28,30,42, 47,49 44,46,48 31 32 11/2 15 TOpic IV 35-40 Instructor 49 28 11/3 16 Demonstration--Mid-Term Review 11/7 Lecture 6--Materials of Experience: Application and Motivation 11/8 17 TopicIV 41-47 Instructor 35 36 11/9 18 Topic IV 26,27,28,48,49,50 Instructor 37 38 11/10 19 Topic IV 29-34 Instructor 39 41 11/14 Lecture 7--Materials of Experience: Suggestion 11/15 20 Topic V 38,41,44,47,50 26,39,42,45,48 40 46 11/16 21 Topic V 26,29,32,35,48 27,30,33,36,49 42 37 11/17 22 Topic V 33,36,39,42,45 34,37,40,43,46 47 35 11/21 Lecture 8--The Domain of Public Speaking 11/22 23 TOpic V 27,30,43,46,49 28,31,44,47,50 36 33 11/23 24 Topic V 28,31,34,37,40 29,32,35,38,4l 45 48 11/28 Lecture 9--Personal Proof and the Ethics of Speaking 11/29 25 TOpic VI 46-50 Instructor 27 26 11/30 26 Topic VI 26-30 Instructor 46 47 12/1 27 Topic VI 31-35 Instructor 48 29 12/5 Lecture 10--Rhetoric and Public Address 12/6 28 Topic VI 36-40 Instructor 50 27 12/7 29 Topic VI 41—45 Instructor 28 30 +3EiHIZtiztiBUSPSZFdESHI§t32*3 :ZFBS EH3 a 21 P33*353H23tizfidfiiaisfiizti 12/8 30 Open Period 210 ITS—"'17” 1 . . ' APPENDIX C Pretest Questionnaire Name Student Number Campus Address Campus Phone Date Sex Classification (Freshman, Soph., etc.) Instructions By answering this questionnaire you will be helping the staff of Speech 101 to anticipate the general expect- ation of students taking this course. Your instructor will not see your responses and your grade will in no way be affected. Your careful consideration will help the department improve instruction methods used in this course in the future. .Please respond to the statements in the questionnaire by circling the number of the response which best describes your reaction to the statement. Please circle only ono response for each question but make sure you answer all questions. If your response to the question is neither in the agree or disagree category, you will, of course, choose option three - - "Don't Know". Below are some examples. 1. I expect this course to be among the most interesting I have taken. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree Don't Know . Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 2. A good student should always attend lecture sessions. ® Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 211 212 l. Dhrnmjor reasons for taking this course are that it was: A free elective Recommended by my adviser Closely related to my major field. . A part of my major or required in my curriculum. Required for certification U'IubUJNH O O O O 2. I have had a Speech course previously. 1. In high school 2. In college 3. I have had no speech course previously 3. My accumulated grade point average is Below 2.0 . Between 2.0 and 2.49 Between 2.5 and 2.99 . Between 3.0 and 3.5 Above 3.5 G.P.A. not established mU'lowai-J 4. I expect my grade in this course to be ONU'IbOJNI-J F D C B A D on't Know A .‘ 213 c“... _ ;f.~—c 5. I expect this class to be rather boring. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 6. Stagefright is a problem for me each time I give a speech before a group of peOple. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5 . Strongly Disagree 7. I expect this course to provide me with a knowledge of the basic principles of public speaking. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 8. Speaking experience in class is more valuable to the speech student than reading speech textbooks. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 9. In speeches I had given prior to taking this course the material was well organized. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 10. II am experienced as a public speaker l. Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Don't Know 4. Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 214 L! This speech course will not help me in my chosen vocation. 1. U14>UJN Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree This course will not help me do better work in my other college courses. UiiwaI-J Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree This course will help me speak more fluently. mprH ... Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree What I need most is practice in public speaking. U1J>UJNH O. Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree Training in public speaking is an invaluable asset to conversational ability. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree This course will help me overcome stagefright. WDWNH o o o o Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 215 r— “mp-m A . Y- -'...,._ Ikgood public Speaker does not need to understand the theory of public speaking. 1. 'Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree I will not benefit from hearing other students in this course evaluate my speaking performance. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree After taking this course I will be an above average speaker. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree I feel I am well acquainted with the basic principles of public speaking. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree This course will help me gain self-confidence. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree One of the reasons I am taking this course is to improve my ability to organize my thoughts. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5 . Strongly Disagree 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 216 The personal speaking characteristic I want to improve most in this course is delivery. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree Examinations in this course will be very difficult. I. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree Preparation of a speech plan is a necessary exercise in learning how to organize a speech. . Strongly Agree . Agree . Don't Know . Disagree . Strongly Disagree U'lnwal-J Peer-grouping is a good method for teaching this speech course. . Strongly Agree . Agree . Don't Know . Disagree . Strongly Disagree U'IuwaH The impression of this course I have received from other students with whom I have talked is unfavorable. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree Taking this course will not substantially reduce my nervousness in speaking before a group. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 217 This course will increase my ability as a public speaker. Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know . Disagree . Strongly Disagree U'lubUJNH Students who have a stuttering problem should enroll in this course. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree Speech course lectures should be taught by closed- circuit television. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5 . Strongly Disagree The best method of speech preparation is the extem- poraneous method (i.e., a prepared outline). Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know . Disagree . Strongly Disagree UlobWNH It will not be difficult for me to deliver a speech before the speech class. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree Speech plans should be graded carefully and contribute toward a student's final grade. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree ‘1 rA-‘F—u all f. 4 I . . _ ‘zi’A; . ‘ 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 218 Each consecutive speech should count more than the last in computing the students' final grade in this course. Strongly Agree . Agree Don't Know Disagree . Strongly Disagree (Dub-WNW O O O I would like to feel more at ease when I speak before an audience. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree The best way to overcome stagefright is to let your instructor tell you how to control it. . Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know . Disagree . Strongly Disagree U'lnb-wNH I consider myself to be a competent public Speaker. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree This course will not help me express my thoughts more coherently. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree muffins; ‘v. .. APPENDIX D Posttest Questionnaire Student Number Name Campus Phone Campus Address Date Sex Classification (Freshman, Soph., etc.) Name of Adviser (Last Name) College Major ********************************** Instructions Now that you are nearing the end of the Speech 101 course we again call upon you to assist us with your evaluation of the course. Your sincere and honest responses to the items on the questionnaire will be used to attempt to improve this course. Please respond to the statements in the questionnaire by circling the number of the response which best describes your reaction to the statement. Please circle only one response per statement but reppond to each statement. Your grade will not be affected by your responses. Below are some examples which have already been marked: 1. Students in Speech 101 should have more freedom in choosing subjects for speeches. . Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree . Strongly Disagree WNH U1 2. This course was not as difficult as I expected it to be. 1. Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree . Strongly Disagree (new 219 1. 220 I consider myself to be a competent public speaker. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree A good public speaker does not need to understand the theory of public speaking. U'lubWNI-J O O Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree This course has increased by ability as a public speaker. U'IwaH o 0 on o Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree Speech plans should be graded carefully and contribute toward the student's final grade. Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree I feel I am well acquainted with the basic principles of public speaking. UlrwaH Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree Each consecutive Speech Should count more than the last in computing the student's grade in this course. 01wa%- o o o o o Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree 221 7. What I need most is practice in public speaking. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5 . Strongly Disagree 8. I have not benefited from hearing other students in this course evaluate my Speaking performance. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5 . Strongly Disagree 9. Speech 101 lectures should be taught by closed- circuit television. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 10. The best way to overcome stagefright is to let your instructor tell you how to control it. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree 11. My accumulated grade point average is . Below 2.0 Between 2.0 and 2.49 Between 2.5 and 2.99 Between 3.0 and 3.5 Above 3.5 G.P.A. not established. O‘U'IthJNH 12. I expect my grade in this course to be ONU'luwal-J F D C B A D on't Know 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 222 This class has been boring magnet—- O O Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree This speech course will not prove helpful to me in my chosen vocation. U'l-bUJNI-J Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree The speaking characteristic I have improved most in this course is delivery. UlrwaH C. O Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree I would like to feel more at ease when I speak before an audience. mwaI—a o o o. o Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree Speeches I had given prior to taking this course were well organized. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree After taking this course I feel I am an above average speaker. 1. Strongly Agree U'lngN O O 0 Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 223 E The best method of Speech preparation is extemporaneous. Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree UlubUJNH O. I am experienced as a public speaker. Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree UlthJNH O O 0 Taking this course has not substantially reduced my nervousness in speaking before a group. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree This course has not helped me express my thoughts more coherently. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree This course will not help me do better work in future college courses. 1. Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know . Disagree . Strongly Disagree U1th 0 0 Students who have a stuttering problem should enroll in this course. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 224 Training in public Speaking is an invaluable asset to conversational ability. Wye-MN?“ ... Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree Speaking experience is more valuable to the speech student than reading speech textbooks. mwaH coco. Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree This course has helped me gain self-confidence. wit-LUMP o o o no Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree Stagefright remains a problem for me each time I speak before a group of peOple. U'lubOJNl-J Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree This course has helped me become more fluent in my Speech. mwai-l This course has helped me improve my ability to organize Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree my thoughts. UlerNI-J Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Stronly Disagree H 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 225 This course has provided me with a knowledge of the basic principles of public speaking. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree This course has helped me overcome stagefright. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree Examinations in this course have been very difficult. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree It has not been difficult for me to deliver a speech before the class in this course. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree Preparation of a speech plan is a necessary exercise in learning how to organize a speech. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree Peer grouping is a good method for teaching Speech 101. l. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 226 37. The impression of this course I have based on my own experience is unfavorable. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Don't Know 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree I. ‘9'“. nihilism - “ “a! '5 APPENDIX E Interview Schedule Introductory Remarks: A. My name is Jack Wilson. B. I am presently engaged in doing a study relating to the basic course in public speaking at Michi- gan State University. C. You were selected to be interviewed because your name appeared repeatedly as adviser to students who have been enrolled in Speech 101 during the past year. D. Etc. In your capacity as adviser to students: A. What college within the University do you represent? B. What is the proper title of the department you serve? C. What is your position within the department? Does the department in which you serve require or encourage students to take Speech 101? Approximately how many students do you send into the Speech 101 class each year? Is Speech 101 related to the major of the students you advise? If so, how? What percentage of the students you advise say they have had a speech course previously? A. Less than 10 percent B. Between 10 - 25 percent C. Between 25 - 50 percent D. More than 50 percent What is the general reaction of students when they are asked or told to take Speech 101? 227 100 ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. ...-ennui: 228 How would you rate the interest appeal of Speech 101, as far as students are concerned, when com- pared with other courses on the same level? At what level do most of the students whom you advise take Speech 101? How difficult do the majority of the students whom you advise expect this course to be? Do you feel it will be difficult for students whom you advise to get up and deliver a speech before the class? If a student experiences difficulty in Speech 101 at what point during the term would you expect such a difficulty to appear? How much work do students anticipate in Speech 101 in such areas as research, written assignments, etc.? AS an adviser in the department what basic knowledge and/or skill wouid you expect a student to receive in the Speech 101 course? How would this knowledge or skill relate to his chosen vocation? Would you expect Speech 101 to include units of instruction in such areas as discussion, oral interpretation, or theatre? How competent are students from your department as public speakers prior to taking Speech 101? How many speeches should a student enrolled in Speech 101 deliver during the ten weeks term? How much actual public Speaking experience have most of your students had prior to enrolling in this course? Is good conversational ability a necessity for most of the students whom you advise? 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 229 2» Int-63.? is; {F.V 3 What effect, if any, do you expect the Speech 101 course to have on a student's conversational ability? Will the information and/or Skill gained in Speech 101 have any effect on a student's subsequent work in the University? If so, what? Do students express any concern over feeling nervous or ill at ease when they get up before a group? What effect, if any, do you expect Speech 101 to have on Stagefright? Will this course have any effect on the self- confidence of the student? If so, what? What one speaking characteristic needs to be most improved in the students whom you advise? A. Logical Reasoning F. Attitude B. Evidence G. Facial Expression C. Organization H. Enthusiasm D. Preparation I. Eye Contact E. Poise J. Others Should a student who has a stuttering problem or other obvious speech defect enroll in Speech 101? Which of the following types of delivery would you hope a student learns in Speech 101? A. Reading from manuscript B. Impromptu C. Extemporaneous (from outline or notes) IS the type of speaking (delivery) indicated above the type that students will use most often in their chosen vocation? Please indicate any feedback (negative or positive) which you have heard from students relative to Speech 101. What suggestions would you make as an adviser (etc.) for improving the basic speech course at Michigan State University? - ‘zy-r Ivar . . \~ APPENDIX F April 21, 1967 Mr. Norman A. Brown Coordinator of Student Programs College of Agriculture 121 Agriculture Hall Michigan State University Dr. Mr. Brown: At some time during the past year your name had been listed as an adviser for a number of students who have enrolled in the basic speech course at Michigan State University. Since its beginning in 1960 Speech 101 has grown steadily, under the constant scrutiny of various rev search projects, to its present size of nearly 2500 students per year. Because of the position you occupy as an adviser to students who take Speech 101, we feel you can assist us in further evaluation and improvement of this course. Within a few days you will be contacted by Mr. Jack Wilson who is currently doing a research project de- signed to evaluate the Speech 101 course. You will be asked to give approximately fifty minutes of time, at your convenience, to supply us with some valuable information. As chairman of the Speech 101 course I heartily recom- mend your cooperation in this project if it is at all possible for you to do so. Yours very truly, David C. Ralph Professor Chairman, Speech 101 DCdeb BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Auer, J. Jeffrey. An Introduction to Rosearch in Speech. New York: Harper and Bros., Pub., 1959. Backstrom, Charles H. Survey Research. Northwestern University Press, 1963. Borg, Walter R. Educational Research: An Introduction. New York: David McKay Co. Inc., 1963. Edwards, Allen L. Techniques of Attitude Scale Con- struction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957. Hance, Kenneth G., David C. Ralph and Milton J. Wiksell. Principles of Speaking. Belmont, California: WadSworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1962. Selltiz, Claire, Johoda, Deutsch and Cook. Research Methods in Social Relations. New York: Henry Hold and Co., Inc., 1959. Weaver, Andrew Thomas, Gladys L. Borchers and Donald K. Smith. The Teaching of Speech. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1956. Articles Becker, Samuel L. and Gary L. Cronkite, "Reliability As A Function of Utilizing Scale Steps," S eech Teacher, 14, No. 4 (November, 1965), pp. 291-293. Broadrick, King, Charles J. McIntyre and Richard Moren, "TV Teacher's Report," opeech Teacher, 11, No. 2, (March, 1962), pp. 153-157. Broadrick, King and Theodore Clevenger, Jr., "Rotational Instruction In the Public Speaking Course," Speech Teacher, 14, No. 3, (September, 1965), pp. 200-206. 231 232 l Cathcart, Robert S., "A Study of the Effect of Course Length on Student Improvement in the Basic Speech Course," Southern Speech Journal, 25, No. 1 (Fall, 1959i. Davis, Robert H. and F. Craig Johnson, "An Evaluation of Regular Classroom Lectures Distributed by C.C.T.V. to Campus and Dormitory Classrooms," E.D.P., Michigan State University, January, 1966. Dedmon, Donald N. and David W. Rayborn, "Closed-Circuit Television and the 'Required' First Course in Speech," Speech Teacher, 14, No. 4, (November, 1965), pp. 294-298. Ellis, Dean A., "A University Speech Placement Test For Entering Freshmen," Speech Teacher, 15, NO. 2’ pp. 158-1640 Holtzman, Paul D., "Speech Criticism and Evaluation As Communication," Speech Teacher, 9, No. 1, (January, 1960), pp. 1-7. Knower, Franklin H., "The College Student Image of Speech Communication and Speech Instruction," Speech Teacher, 15, No. 2, pp. 108-112. Knower, Franklin H., "Studies of the Organization of Speech Materials I," Journal of Educational Research, 39 (November, 1945), pp. 220-225. Lashbrook, William B. and David C. Ralph, "Innovations in the Operation of a Large Enrollment Basic Course in Public Speaking," (Speech Communi- cation Research Laboratory, Department of Speech, Michigan State University, December, 1966). Martin, Charles K. and Daniel I. Munger, "Team Teaching in a Course in Fundamentals of Speech," Speech Teacher, 14, No. 4, (November, 1965), pp. 331— 333. Oliver, Robert T., "The Eternal (And Infernal) Problem of Grades," Speech Teacher, 9, No. 1 (January, 1960). pp. 8-11. Paulson, Stanley P., "Changes in Confidence During A Period of Speech Training: Transfer of Train- ing and Comparison of Improved and Non-Improved Groups on the Bell Adjustment Inventory," Speech Monographs, 18 (November, 1951), pp. 260-265. 233 Robison, Edward Ray, "An Experimental Investigation of Certain Commonly Suggested Teaching Methods for the Development of Confidence in Beginning Students of Public Speaking," Speech Monographs, 23, (June, 1956), pp. 97-98. Rosenfeld, Lawrence B. "Teaching Impromptu Speaking," Tiemens, Robert K., "Validation of Informative Speech Ratings by Retention Tests," Speech Teacher, 16, No. 3 (September, 1965), pp. 211-215. Thomas, Gordon L., John H. Thurber and Charles R. Gruner, "Effects of Previous Training on Achievement in the College Course in Public Speaking," Speech Teacher, 14, No. 4 (Nov- ember, 1965), pp. 327-330. Wiseman, Gordon and Larry Barker, "Peer Group In- struction: What Is It?" Speech Teacher, 15, No. 3, pp. 220-223. Unpublished Materials Britton, Wayne L. "An Analytical Study of the Abilities of a Group of University of Iowa Freshmen in Certain Selected Aspects of the Organization of Ideas and Materials for Communication," unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1948. Patton, Bobby Ray, "An Experimental Study of the Effects of the Beginning Speech Course at the University of Kansas," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1966.