~~ ,* : NNNNNT NNNFESS NNNL NNNNNLS ZIN ENNNNNNN NN NNESNNNN NN ON THE CHARANTERIS‘HCS. Dissertaimn fer the fgree of Ph D MECHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PAULA R. KNEPPER x i Li B it: F Him“ 3a Ni: )5”:th - if? ‘ U 2.31 3153‘? g... r. .'_ g, ‘w. This is to certify- that the thesis entitled An Investigation of the Characteristics of Current Professional Journals in Education presented by Paula R . Knepper has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Measurement, Evaluation and Research Design C. mmmomm W. $UO€QJYJLU N CIh’ajor professor K Date November 15, 1974 0-7639 (223 I ' «.11! . 1 R; 11:14 ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CURRENT PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS IN EDUCATION BY Paula R. Knepper This study investigated the relationship between certain groups of characteristics of current professional journals in education in an effort to determine the extent to which these journals are fulfilling the role of informa— tion disseminator to all levels of professionals in education. Data was acquired from the editors of randomly selected journals concerning intended readership and cer— tain publication policies. Data was also collected directly from an investigation of the journal articles themselves concerning type of article, topic, and in the case of articles reporting research, the research method- ology reported and adequacy of the report. Two primary variables were investigated: intended readership and adequacy of research reports. These were related to publication policies, journal characteristics, topic, data collection procedures, and statistics reported. The primary method of analysis utilized was canonical Paula R. Knepper correlations as interest was in the relationship between two sets of variables. This technique is robust to viola— tions of the assumptions of normality and hence useful in analyzing variables which are not normally distributed. A limitation is that when the number of variables entered in a set is large compared to the number of subjects, an inflated amount of variance accounted for by the canonical variates may occur. The results of this study indicate that the pro— fessional journals in education are not fulfilling their entrusted role as research disseminator equally to all levels of readers. Teachers at the elementary and secondary levels, though the largest group of readers, are of least interest to the journals. College teachers are the most important group of readers with researchers as readers of not much more importance than public school teachers. The journals most interested in teachers at the lower level are those which have been in existence longest. These journals pub- lish very few research articles. The journals primarily interested in researchers are newer and are published less frequently but contain more adequately written research reports. Those journals intended primarily for the col— lege teacher have many research articles but they tend to be of lower quality. i! .lPP..F.F{ ltlplhlpnlny EEEFLl’ Paula R. Knepper Asia result, it was suggested that effort should be put forth on the parts of both readers and journal staff to have the quality as Well as quantity of reports of research raised for all levels of readers of the profes— sional journals. AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CURRENT PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS IN EDUCATION BY 93‘“ Paula R. Knepper A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology 1974 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the faculty at Michigan State University for making my education possible. I would par— ticularly like to thank my committee, especially the chairman, Dr. Maryellen McSweeney, for their guidance in making this research possible. I would like to thank Bonnie J. Steller for her moral support, encouragement, and advice, as it has been essential in the completion of my work. Special thanks go to the typists who were so cooperative. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . v LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . ix Chapter I. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . 1 Background of the Problem . . . . . . 3 Rationale for the Study . . . . . . . 9 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . 11 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . 15 Research Funds . . . . . . . 15 Role of Professional Journals . . . . . 20 Readership . . . . . . . . . . 25 Publication Policies . . . . . . 3O Adequacy of Research Reports . . . . . 35 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . 46 Population and Sample . .' . 46 Data Collection and Instrumentation . . . 49 Design . . . . . . . . . 57 Analysis Methodology . . . . . . . . 60 Overview . . . . . . . . . . 62 IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE STUDY . . 64 Statistical Methodology . . . . . . . 64 Statistical Findings . . . . . . . 68 Canonical Correlation Analysis . . . . 68 Summary Information . . . . . . . 121 Summary of Findings 122 Overview . . . . 127 Chapter V. RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY, METHODOLOGY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . . . . Rationale for the Study Methodology . . . . . . Objectives . . . . . . . Sample . . . . . . . . Data Collection . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . Conclusions Recommendations for Further Study APPENDICES BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . Page 128 128 129 130 131 132 133 133 135 141 143 159 Table LIST OF TABLES Federal Budget Outlays for Education and Manpower Functions, 1965 to 1973 (in billions of dollars) . . . . . . List of Useful Journals . . . . . . . Review Process for Articles . Weaknesses in Manuscripts Sent for Revision Versus Those Rejected . . . . . . The Distribution of Population and Sample According to Stratum . . . . . . . Categorical Procedures Used in Research Reports . . . . . . . . . . . Categorical Statistics Reported in Research Reports . . . . Set of Topics Included in Analysis . Distribution of Responses by Editors From Original and Follow—Up Letters . . . . . Distribution of Response and Non— Response of Journal Editors to Questionnaire . Distribution of Sampled Articles in Stratum I, Stratum II, and Total Response . . . . . . . Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Intended Readership Between the Strata . . . . . . .. . . Intended Readership . . . . Intercorrelation Matrix for Intended Readership . . . . . . . . . . Page 19 31 33 34 48 55 55 57 58 58 60 61 69 '69 J Journal Characteristics Intracorrelation Matrix for Journal Characteristics Intercorrelation Matrix for Journal Characteristics and Intended Readership . . . . . . . . . . Canonical Weights for Journal Character- istics and Intended Readership . Topic . . . . . . . . . . . . Intracorrelation Matrix for Topic Intercorrelation Matrix for Topic and Intended Readership . . . . . . . . Canonical Weights for Topic and Intended Readership . . . . . . . . . . . Type of Article . . . . . . . . . . Intracorrelation Matrix for Type of Article . . . . . . . Intercorrelation for Type of Article and Intended Readership . . . . . . Canonical Weights for Type of Article and Intended Readership . . . . . . . . Intercorrelation Matrix for Adequacy of Research Reports and Intended Readership . . . . . . . . . Canonical Weights for Adequacy of Research Reports and Intended Readership . Data Collection Procedures Intracorrelation Matrix for Data Collec— tion Procedures . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelation Matrix for Data Collec— tion Procedures and Intended Readership . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 71 72 73 74 77 78 79 81 84 85 85 86 88 88 9O 91 92 able 4.20. 4.24. .25. .26. 4.27. 4.28. 4.29. 4 4. .30. .31. 32. 4.33. 1 .34. Canonical Weights for Data Collection Procedures and Intended Readership . . . Statistical Techniques Reported . . . . Intracorrelation Matrix for Statistical Methods Reported . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelation Matrix for Statistical Methods Reported and Intended Readership . . . . . . . . . Canonical Weights for Statistical Methods Reported and Intended Readership . . Publication Policies . . . . . . . . Intracorrelation Matrix for Publication Policies . . . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelation Matrix for Publication Policies and Intended Readership . . . Canonical Weights for Publication Policies and Intended Readership . . Intercorrelation Matrix for Journal Characteristics and Adequacy of Research Reports . . . . . Canonical Weights for Journal Charac— teristics and Adequacy of Research Reports . . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelation Matrix for Topic and Adequacy of Research Reports . . . . Canonical Weights for Topic and Adequacy of Research Reports . . . . Intercorrelation Matrix for Data Collection Procedures and Adequacy of Research Reports . . . . . . . . . . . Canonical Weights for Data Collection Procedures and Adequacy of Research Reports . . . . . . . . . Page 93 96 97 99 104 105 106 107 110 111 112 113 115 4.35. 4.36. 4.37. Intercorrelation Matrix for statistical Techniques Reported and Adequacy of Research Reports . . . . . . . Canonical Weights for Statistical Tech— niques Reported and Adequacy of Research Reports . . . Intercorrelation Matrix for Publication Policies and Adequacy of Research Reports . . . . . . . Canonical Weights for Publication Policies and Adequacy of Research Reports . . Relative Importance of Classes of Readers viii Page . 117 . 118 . 119 . 120 . 121 LIST Ippendix A. Questionnaire . B. Adequacy Checklist C. Article Checklist D. Letters . . E. Journals Sampled OF APPENDICES Page 144 149 151 154 157 CHAPTER I BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM During recent years, the growing concern on the of educators, legislators, and others, concerning status of American education, has undoubtedly been an rtant contributor to the increased number of educa- al research studies conducted and the increased funding lable for such studies. It was anticipated by the ral government, researchers, and all others having a in the education of children that by directing arch efforts toward experimentation in the identifica— of improved educational methodologies, solutions to problems facing educators would be discovered. However, for the most part, those teachers and istrators who have been involved directly in the $5 of educating children have claimed that research ot provided solutions to their practical, everyday ems. Instead, they have insisted that research deals theoretical issues rather than practical problems therefore, provides little information that is directly cable. Researchers, on the other hand, have reported more theoretical research is needed before a founda- can be established from which to develop solutions to 1 2 problems facing other types of educators, and that in 1y cases the results of their research are applicable. One question that should be raised in regard to ase allegations concerns the availability of appropriate search reports to the interested groups of individuals. Less the research materials which reach various groups a relevant to their particular needs, the group's conclu- >n will be that their needs are not being met by the iilable materials. If their needs are not being met by 2 available materials, they are, for practical purposes, : being met at all. One limitation associated with the availability of .evant research material is the fact that although ;earchers tend to circulate information privately among :ir close associates, they must depend basically upon [temporary publications as a mode of communication to 1h the practically minded educator and to other the— Ltically minded, but not closely associated, counterparts. this reason, professional journals are placed in the cariOus position of attempting to satisfy a continuum diversified needs. Individuals for whom the prime interest rests with oretical issues frequently depend upon informal commu— ation channels to acquire the latest information on vant issues. These informalchannelstend to link those sons having similar interests and often represent many itutions. Persons not closely associated with a wide e of other educators having similar interests must rely the numerous professional journals, not only for arch reports, but also for other relevant information. this latter category frequently fall public school nnel. Therefore, it is important to determine for the professional journals in education are primarily ded, what types of articles are being published and hom, what characteristics of journals and articles are ed to what types of reader, and, ultimately, whether rofessional journals in education are fulfilling their cted roles. Background of the Problem One of the most important factors influencing the ars' attitudes toward the information gained through :ssional educational journals is the type of position . they occupy within the profession. The strongest of distinctions differentiates teachers from researchers. though many individuals hold positions which involve of these aspects, one position is usually found to be ant and is, therefore, assigned the higher priority.1 From the point of view of the researcher, there is nediate need for access to the most recent discoveries 1formation. A researcher achieves fame by being the 1Robert K. Merton and Richard Lewis, "The Competi— ’ressures (l): The Race for Priority," Impact of :e on Society, XXI, 2 (1971), 151-161. t to present a new idea prior to its discovery by one else. Therefore, he must keep abreast of new rmation.2 On the other hand, the teacher is more dependent tested ideas than upon the latest new information. 1 a concept has been tried under real-life conditions, 8 usually considered by teachers to be theoretical doubtful application.3 The nature of the professional journals should them particularly well suited to the needs of the archer. They can present new information frequently, aby keeping him well informed. Books and other less lent publications seem to be better able to meet the 5 of teachers, who have no urgent need for information 2w theories that are being tested for the first time. .nformation is more valuable to the teacher after it >een tested several times in varying situations. 'er, it seems on the surface that the majority of pro— onal journals are aimed primarily toward teachers r then researchers. 2Robert K. Merton, "Priorities in Scientific very: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science," can Sociological Review, XXII, 6 (1957), 655—659. 3Maurico B. Line, Michael J. Brittain, and A. Carnmer, "Information Requirements of College of :ion Lecturers and School Teachers," ERIC No. ED 049 Pebruary 1971). Nevertheless, the professional journal remains the st widely utilized tool for information dissemination by th teachers and researchers. As a result, editors and lishers of journals devote a great deal of time and ergy to problems associated with upgrading quality, pub- cation lag, and content organization. Brown, Pierce, d Traub proposed solutions to many of these problems.4 Questions regarding the specific informational eds of the different classifications of educators have t to date been adequately answered. Therefore, until ntradictory evidence is available, the assumption is de that educators are similar to other social scientists d technicians in their use of professional journals and eir informational requirements. A series of studies for the American Psychological sociation conducted under the direction of William D. rvey and Belver C. Griffith indicated that the area of ecialization and educational level of the readership fferentiated the regular readers of different journals. of these studies, a survey of the readership, dealt h article content. When readers were asked what kinds articles were most frequently read, those concerning cry and the review of other materials were reported 4W. S. Brown, V. R. Pierce, and J. F. Traub, "The 57), 1153—1159. st frequently. In addition, 26 percent of the respondents ture of Scientific Journals," Science, CLVIII (December 1, ported that the most useful parts of published articles re the theory, method, and resultant data. However, the jority of readers reported that the most often used rtion was the conclusion.5 In a study of psychology faculty and graduate stu— nts, it was found that professional journals were more eful to the faculty,as 80 percent chose journals as the urce of most useful ideas, while books were more useful graduate students. The faculty also favored professional etings more often than did the graduate students, who lied primarily upon textbooks and interpersonal channels I information. It can then be assumed that an inverse lationship exists between the usefulness of journal ticles and the existence of an available interpersonal twork.6 Menzel, in a study designed to evaluate the formation attainment methods of scientists, found that searchers use articles 25 percent of the time, books percent, and colleagues 15 percent for deliberate arches. For brushing up on a topic, articles were used percent of the time and ex—colleagues 10 percent. In 5American Psychological Association, Reports of the rican Psychological Association's Project on Scientific ormation Exchange in Psychology, Volume 1 (Washington, .: The Association, 1963). 6Johns Hopkins University, SoGSIP Study Group, ne Preliminary Results from a Survey of Graduate Students Psychology (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological sociation, Office of Communications, 1971). ddition, accidental acquisition of useful information rom articles occurred 45 percent of the time.7 Mosely, in a study of teachers enrolled in a summer ducation course, found that 84 percent of those studied ept abreast of current developments in education by read- ng professional journals. Eighteen percent of the espondents claimed that the changes they made in their eaching practices had been suggested solely by this source f literature. Research should be primarily disseminated Lrough journals and research quarterlies according to 8 percent of the teachers, while 42 percent reported that esearch articles are generally in understandable form. nother 38 percent stated that published research is in a arm that is applicable to the classroom. However, Singer disagreed, pointing out that while everal significant published research findings are not tilized, other studies showing insufficient evidence have een applied regardless of their obvious shortcomings. lese errors occurred because of the ideological resistance ? findings contrary to "conventional wisdom," acceptance only those findings that were in agreement with the 7Herbert Menzel, Formal and Informal Satisfaction quirements of Chemists (New York: Columbia University, reau of Applied Social Research, and New York University, partment of Sociology, June, 1970). 8Aubrey Howard Mosely, "A Study of Teacher Percep- n of Factors Related to Educational Research" (unpublished .D. dissertation, University of Alabama, 1966), pp. 110— 5 irrent bias, susceptibility of decision makers to prOpa— nda, and variance in the adequacy of dissemination.9 In an attempt to better serve the differences readership needs there has been a widespread end toward the division of broad coverage journals into veral specialized journals. However, this can result in e proliferation of new journals which are even more frag— -nted and unconnected than before.10 Thus, it appears that professional journals are pended upon for information by a variety of readers with variety of needs. The.availability<3f information suitable meet those needs varies with the type of position held d interest of the readers. Both researchers and those groups of educators who a1 directly with students claim that their needs are not ing met. Researchers, rather than placing reliance upon ofessional journals to provide the latest up-to-date formation regarding their particular area of interest, stead seek out both colleagues and ex—colleagues who 1 nprise their own particular "invisible college.“ On the Her hand, teachers do not agree regarding the degree to 9Harry Singer, "Research That Should Have Made a ference," Elementary English, XLVII (January 1970), 34. 10K. K. Gannett, "Technical Journals and the ormation Explosion," International Technical Communica— >ns Conference, 14th, Chicago, May 1967, Proceedings [shington, D.C., 1967), Paper 8. which professional journals satisfy their practical needs. While some teachers depend upon this source for new inno- vative procedures, others claim that neither the topic areas covered by articles within journals nor the format of these articles are appropriate to their problems. Yet, because of the nature and responsiblities of this group of educators, other sources of information such as researchers' "invisible colleges" are not available. In the past, little attention has been directed to the question of the role of the professional journals from the point of view of the journals themselves. This self-perceived role may not be in agreement with the role assigned by the readers. If this were, in fact, the situ— ation, the procedures adopted by the journals regarding selection and publication policies would be a possible :ause of the journals' failure to meet the needs of the readers. Rationale for the Study The intent of this study was to assess the degree ,0 which the current professional journals in education ‘ulfill their role as information disseminator to both esearchers and practitioners. This study included the investigation of the ournals' intended readership; the journals' overall char— cteristics, such as format and publication policies; ,1 10 the articles' characteristics, such as type of article and topic; and the adequacy of the research reports. The information provided by this study will be useful to editors and business managers as well as to readers of educational journals. Readers will be able to match their needs with what is offered in the various types of journal in order to find those which are most appropriate. Editors and others responsible for the pub- lication of professional journals will be forced to evaluate their own position with regard to their goals and accomplishments. By seeing the entire situation and the existing relationships, they will be better able to evaluate their position as to whether they are doing the job they were intending to do. It is also hoped that they will be encouraged to better evaluate articles for ‘publication and require greater excellence than mere existence as a criterion for publication. This study will address the following question concerning one of the many roles that professional jour- nals in education are required to fill, that of information and research dissemination. Are current professional journals in educa~ tion fulfilling their role as information disseminators to both researchers and prac— titioners in the field of education? This will be accomplished by a specific investigation of the following questions which are basic to the problem. 11 For what types of readers are professional journals in education intended? What journal characteristics are signifi— cantly related to intended readership? What topics are significantly related to intended readership? Is there a relationship between type<1farti— ale and intended readership? Is there a relationship between intended leadership and adequacy of research reports? What data collection procedures are signifi- cantly related to intended readership? What statistical methods reported are sig- nificantly related to intended readership? What publication policies are significantly related to intended readership? What journal characteristics are signifi— cantly related to adequacy of research reports? What topics are significantly related to ade- quacy of research reports? What data collection procedures are signifi— cantly related to adequacy of research reports? What statistical methods reported are signifi- cantly related to adequacy of research reports? 'What publication policies are significantly related to adequacy of research reports? Definition of Terms Adequacy of research reports: The adequacy of search reports was rated with standard expectations {arding the completeness of the problem definition, 12 e sample selection methodology reported, the appropri- eness of the reported data collection, methods of alysis, the reported acknowledgment of a control or mpling error and/or bias, and the appropriateness of e conclusions generated. Current journal: For this study, current journals e those issues of the professional journals in educa- on having publication dates between January 1, 1970, and cember 31, 1972, inclusive. Intended readership: Intended readership is the pe of reader for whom any particular journal asserts or plies that it attempts to publish articles. Journal characteristics: Journal characteristics e those characteristics related to degree of contact th readers. They include the 1972 average monthly rculation, frequency of publication, average number of ticles per issue, number of years of publication, and thod of availability. Type of article: Type of article refers to whether article is primarily a(n) (1) research report——one which the primary purpose is to report the results of articular study or set of studies, (2) review of litera— e--one for which the primary purpose is to review the erature pertaining to a particular problem with the clusions resulting from the review, or (3) expository icle—-one for which the primary purpose is to state 13 author's view with reference to past research or erature only of incidental or supportive importance. Methodf research articles. A summary of the literature con— :ludes this chapter. As was mentioned earlier, little research has dealt exclusively with professional journals .n education. Therefore, the assumption was made that :ducators are similar to other social scientists in .heir use of journals. Research Funds A hierarchy of motives for research has been eveloped by John Carroll. Curiosity has been defined as 15 16 the simplest and primary purpose for engaging in research. The second reason was considered to be the search for a better understanding of natural phenomena. Both of these motives are concerned with the advancement of knowledge for its own sake. Research directed toward the satisfac— tion of these motives is referred to as basic research. The remaining two reasons deal, on the other hand, with applied research. These utilitarian aims may be associ— ated with either general, undefined intentions or with clearly defined practical goals. However, such precise differences are not always apparent under real life condi- tions.1 The Cooperative Research Program in 1957 devoted approximately $1 million for basic research in education. In 1958, this allocation was raised to $2.3 million and 3y 1962 to $3.4 million. In order to benefit from these increased expenditures, the Office of Education assumed a role in the development of seminars designed to assist researchers in the identification of areas for research and the refinement of research designs. Claims were repeatedly made that research and development would 1John P. Carroll, "Basic and Applied Research in Education, Definitions, Distinctions and Implications“ {arvard Educational Review , XXXVIII (Spring 1968), 263~276. l7 rovide a ready, available means for improving the quality f the schools.2 Corey reported the criteria that were established n regard to the type of surveys which were eligible for unding under Public Law 83-531. This law was approved y the 83rd Congress in 1957. It also provided the irst federal support for educational surveys. l. The study must be expected to have a demon— strable value to education within a reasonable time period. 2. The study must be concerned with a problem on which progress had been delayed because of wide gaps in existing knowledge. 3. The study must have significance for the country as a whole. 4. Preference will be given to new projects or to those in which duplication will be desir— able as a scientific check on earlier conclusions. 5. The consideration of each individual project was concerned with: a. the competency of the individual desig— nated as project director, b. the research resources of the institution under whose auspices the project will be directed, c. the scientific merit of the project, d. the extent to which the project will serve to develop research personnel, and 2Lindley J. Stiles, "The Cooperative Research 'ogram Contributions and Next Step," Phi Delta Kappan, 'III (March 1962), 231-236. 18 e. the need for research in the area pro— posed as compared to the total educational research picture. Not only have research expenditures been 'ncreased since 1957, but also the total federal budget llocations for all educational and manpower activities. able 2.1 demonstrates precisely the continuing extent of hese latter increases. The evidence presented here indicates that, if a ositive relationship is assumed between the amount of unds allotted to education and educational research and nterest in these activities, then interest should have early doubled during the recent decade. At the same time, lowever, Stiles contends that the total expenditures for 'esearch in education are not sufficient. Less than one— .alf of one percent of the total operating budget for ducation in the United States is stipulated for research. n the other hand, industry reports that approximately 5 percent of their respective budgets must be directed oward research in order to merely maintain their position. he additional funds needed for educational research must ome from federal and state governments, as well as from utside philanthropical foundations and individual school istricts.4 3Stephen M. Corey, "The Support of Research in ducation," Teachers College Record, LIX (December 1957), 29-136. 4Stiles, op. cit. .mw tam mm .mm ..U.Q .coumcflnmmz .wofluuo mcflucfihm ufiofiaum>ow .m.D .vhma waw Hmomflm "Mwflum CH ummvsm mmflmum DOHNGD mg? "wUHDOm .CONDmHMCN How Umpmsflom uoc mum mwusmfim .COHDSDHUmcfl HMCOfiumospw um pmuodpcoo unmEQOHw>mU can nonmwmwn How mhmHuDO Hmumpww Amv H0 “pwapfiucw on wwE mEMHmOHm mcwcflmuu Ho coanmowpm :fl quMQNONuHmm AUHQB on wusofihwm mpwquon .mcmnopw> so wuflssoom Hmfioom Hem mpcsm Hmuwcmw.AHv wtflaocfl won on Mw3omsmfi was GONUMOSUm Mom manaudo Hmumpmm powuflo so mossmfiw mmwnfi "opoz 11I|IIIlllllllllllllllllillllll m. m. v. m. m. m. N. H. H. :oHumosno anneaumoo> m.H ¢.H v.H v.H N.H ¢.H N.H h. v. Goauwospm Honmflm . . . . . . . . . coaumospw M N m m m N N m N m N o N a N w H w sumwcooom 6cm. $3553 . . . . . . . . . w0fl>swm pcmshoamaw m m m N o N m H w H m H N H o H m tam mqflcflmuu HoSOQdmz HmaoQGME N.OH w.m N.m m.b m.© h.m m.m m.v m.m ppm Godunosto Hmuoa m.wvm m.Hmm v.HHN o.©ma m.vma m.mha m.mmH n.mva v.mHH wmmHudo Hmuoa mnma thH HhmH OhmH mama mama hwma mood mmmfi .AmHMHHOU mo mGOflHHHQ GHV mnma 0» mmma .mcofluocsm umzomdmz paw coaumodcm How mmmeso Dmmtsm HmumprI1.H.m mamma 20 Nevertheless, regardless of the budget intended for educational research, unless the pertinent information .5 available to those individuals responsible for the ,mplementation of change in the schools, the new knowledge .oes not provide for improvement in education. Role of Professional Journals The professional journal is the most available tool or the destribution of information with the possible xception of professional meetings. The researchers' fforts are also directed into the processes that are ssociated with the publication and distribution of pro— essional journals. The researchers' responsibilities nclude writing papers, reviewing manuscripts, editing , ournals, purchasing journals, sending out reprints, equesting reprints, and reading journals. Kessler described the journal as "the most success— ul and ubiquitous carrier of scientific information in he entire history of science." The scientific paper was escribed as so useful that it is frequently taken for ranted and its form and structure forgotten.5 A study completed at Johns Hopkins University by rvey and his associates dealt with the process of dis- mination of information from the area of research to its 5M. M. Kessler, "Some Very General Design Consid— ations," TIP System Report (Massachusetts Institute of chnology: October 1967). 21 ers of the new ideas. While natural scientists most ten disseminate their research first at colloquies and preprints, then at professional meetings, all prior to alication, social scientists frequently depend solely 3n journals. Garvey summed up the differences as fol— as: The physical scientist seems to do the most inten- sive dissemination of information in the shortest period of time and in the most effective manner for assimilation; the social scientists dissemi— nate more diffusely, over a longer period of time, and in a manner less conducive to successful assimilation. was also found that the time interval between the suc— ssful completion of research to its presentation in Dfessional literature is longer in the social sciences an in the natural sciences. Marquis and Allen also argued that differences can found between scientists and applied technologists in yard to communication patterns. Applied technologists id to keep new information within their own organization :ause it most frequently is not general enough for pub— scientists seek to communicate :ation. On the other hand, 6Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research in entific Communication, Production, Exchange, and Dissemi— .ion of Information in Journal Articles on Sociology, JHU- C Report No. 17 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, Janu- , 1971). 7William D. Garvey, Nan Lin, and Carnot E. Nelson, mmunication in the Physical and Social Sciences," ence, CLXX (December 1970), 1165-1173. 22 ew information to other scientists.8 Menzel reported hat this scientific communication is carried on primarily hrough personal contacts due to a lack of confidence in he printed work.9 It has been pointed out, however, that the role f the professional journal as the disseminator of informa— ion may at times be a difficult one. Not only do the eeds of the readership differ, but also numerous decisions 1st be made regarding the publication of each article ubmitted. Wright has ascribed to editors and editorial Dard members a leadership position in the field of educa- ion to which he gives the title of gatekeeper. He claims hat this group plays an important, but often unrecognized ole in deciding the "what and how of knowledge and com— nication dissemination." Editors and journals influence ducation through their goals and objectives, the content 1d approaches of scholarly work, the methodologies con- Ldered appropriate, as well as the level of scholarship 8Donald E. Marquis and Thomas J. Allen, "Communi— itions Patterns in Applied Technology," American Psycholo- I lit, XXI (November 1966), 1052-1062. 5 9Herbert Menzel, "Scientific Communications: ve Themes from Social Science Research," American f ychologist, XXL (November 1966), 999-1004. / 23 considered worthy of publication. Journals also influence education through their rejection policies.10 In support of the ideas expressed by Wright, Silverman argued that educational journals must accept the responsibility for developing an awareness and capability among their readership that will effectively link the scholars and practitioners. The increased awareness and :apability should improve both the use made of journals and the contributions made to them.11 Regardless a) > Z 14‘. 21 Z ‘2 *Significant at d = .05 level. **Significant at d = .01 level. Table 4.5 presents the intercorrelation matrix between journal characteristics and intended readership. It is of interest to note that researcher as intended reader is negatively correlated to all characteristics except average number of articles and then only somewhat positively. Teachers are highly positively related to number of years published, indicating that the older journals are intended more for teachers while the newer ones tend to be addressing the researcher more. 73 TABLE 4.5.--Intercorrelation Matrix for Journal Charac- teristics and Intended Readership. Number of years -.4 * . . -. . * -. published 75 056 282 062 390 033 Avefage mOEthly -.347 1178 .116 —.093 .212 .197 Circulation Method of —. . . . 5 . . distribution 201 053 316 30 002 105 Number Of Issues —.548** .358 .113 —.085 .249 .267 per year Average Em‘ber .250 -.l74 —.169 .043 .164 -.140 of articles in] O .U H (U (D H H H .13 (1) JJ 0 O (D .C'. U) H H H U) U -r-| (D (D (U (D (0 K: (I) .1: H 8 ":1 3 '"‘ 5 53: ‘” 0) O "E O (D :5 01 U 6‘: U E-1 0 *Significant at d = .05 level. **Significant at d = .01 level. Table 4.6 presents the first and second sets of canonical weights. The first set again separates researcher and counselor from other types of readers, but primarily researcher against college teacher and administrator. The primary journal characteristic leading to this distinction is number of issues. These findings apparently are a result of journals being intended primarily for researchers being published less frequently than those intended for college teachers or administrators. Those journals having 74 TABLE 4.6.——Canonical Weights for Journal Characteristics and Intended Readership. First Second Canonical Canonical Weight Weight Intended Readership Researcher .708 .092 College teacher —.442 —.451 Administrator -.366 .592 Counselor .112 .329 Teacher -.l36 .591 Other -.015 —.469 Journal Characteristics Number of years _ 1 published '311 '9 3 Average monthly 049 -.481 circulation ' Method Of _ 304 .695 distribution ' Number of issues _ 775 -.280 per year Average number .256 .912 of articles Canonical R .787 .657 Canonical R2 ~6l9 '432 a high interest in both college teachers and administrators appear to be influenced by their longer professional com— mitment throughout the years. This set of weights has a canonical R of .79 and a canonical R2 of .62 indicating 62 percent of the variance has been accounted for. The second set of canonical weights differentiates College teacher and other from the remaining types of 75 readers with almost no emphasis on researchers. The primary characteristics leading to this distinction are number of years published and average number of articles. This find- ing appears to separate public school personnel from college personnel, with the public school personnel being addressed through older journals having more articles and the college personnel being addressed primarily through newer journals having fewer articles. The canonical R for this set is .66 and the canonical R2 is .43. Question 3: What topics are significantly rela- ted to intended readership? Findings.-—Topics included the relative weights of the occurrence of 18 mutually exclusive and exhaustive topics of the articles investigated for each journal. As with type of article, each article was allowed to fall under only one topic. Although there are two topics which appear to have a name similar to the variables of type of article, they are not the same. These articles which were categorized as review of literature articles under type of article were placed in appropriate content cate— gories for topic. Those articles which fell into the review category were reviews of books, articles, and other publications, many of which had been classified as exposi— tory articles. Those articles falling under the topic research methodologies were not most often research 76 articles, but expository articles suggesting the use of a tool or method for research or evaluation purposes. The resulting weights for topic were derived as defined in Chapter III through the use of the following formula: 2 n hk wk = Ik so that Wk = 10 (wk) where nhk = the number of articles per topic within journals based on nh > .03N where N = the total number of articles investigated, I = the number of issues investigated within journals, w = the topic weight by journal, and W = the resulting topic weight by journal as used for further calculations. As with type of article, the number of articles published by a journal was not directly limited, so that this set of variables also, while not being completely independent, were not dependent and were therefore appropriately ana- lyzed by this method. Table 4.7 shows the range, mean, and standard deviation for each of the variables of topic. Table 4.8 shows the intracorrelation matrix for topic. It is of interest to note that only 10 of the 171 correlations are significant. Table 4.9 shows the inter— correlations matrix for topic and intended readership. TABLE 4.7.--Topic. 77 Research methodologies 0—18 2.3 3.9 Teacher education 0-25 3.6 5.5 Cultural influences 0-30 5.5 7.3 Business and finance 0-20 1.5 4.1 Philosophy 0—40 2.9 7.7 Legal areas 0-23 2.2 4.6 Review 0-10 1.7 2.9 Tangible materials 0—15 3.3 4.4 Personnel 0—9 1.7 2.9 Learning and development 0—123 5.9 23.1 Counseling methodologies 0—47 2.0 9.0 Teaching——affective 0—9 2.8 2.8 Teaching——cognitive 0-38 6.6 9.9 Administrative policies 0—16 3.5 4.5 College curriculum 0—13 2.4 3.4 Public school curriculum 0—17 3.3 5.1 Faculty role 0-10 1.9 3.1 Miscellaneous 0-16 4.0 4.5 78 .Au>wA Ho. n c ya unauducham.. .Au>wa mo. n a an unmuMuacosm. snowman-m are: Ramon unrnaxxzna IOOQDE OTand an. VNA. 8531103 unrnatziua anxaexzsruxmpv Mao. ~mo.l ONA. Nmn. oo.A anrnruboa --5u1qoeaL annv. Awn. cimvw. wAA.I Ohm.l oo.A BAIQOBJJE _-6u1qoeal om~.I omo.| tmvv. sexfiotopoqzam buttesunoa vmo.l VAw. AmA.l hQA.I mMA.| mmA.| wnA.I 1 d L H 1 d E D L a a a e a o q n n a a P E 1 u u A 6 T 3 s Y.I a E m s a 1 s E 5 I. e I x.1. u 3 P o a a A u o 3 1. a I o u u 3 n n U 3 E s K. u a q M s n e I I 3 a q 1 I u u 1 I 9 o s n E a z W 3 o 5 a 1.9 1 d o s a T 3 Q d I e a q a u 1 c m w T 9 K E 3 c T a s s u a u o u D P s 6 1 T a s wmA. Nmo.l CON.I OMN. n0~.| 5A0. m>m.n Aoo. o~o.: on. maowcmAAwUmAx wmA.u wmA.v AAA.I NAN. 0AA.| hmA.1 NqA.| 550.: th. «00v. UAOu >uAaumm ~MA.I mv~.4 mv~. «can. wmA.l mmo.l wwA.| WAo.| Nmo. 0AA.I EsAsuAuuau Aoozum UAAnnn mmA.) AAN. AOA.| mmo.u mmo.1 mmo.: FAA. hmo.1 «cowv. mmN.1 EbAsoAuuau wmwAAcU mhA.I acwom. AbA.| mVA. hmo. 5A0. mMA. AmA. wmo. AmA.I 0>AumuumACAEU< va.| 0mm.| MAM. 00m. ANM.I mmA.| mmA.| men.l wmo.l NmA.I w>AvAzuou|lch£0moH mmA. mAN.I veo. pmA. AmA.I mNA. NmN.I ANA. mAA.| mmo.| 0>AuumMMMIlch£ummfi owo.| mmA.1 mvo.1 mmA.I ome.» mmo.» omo.l mwo.l moN. cumom. moAmvoconqu m:AAmwcdoo oo.A hAA.I va.A «AA.I mvo. mmo.v Amo. «em. AAA.I AMA. u:wEmko>wc can wEACMMOA oo.A hVA. mmo. «mow. mwo.| moo. OFA. NmA.I how.l AmCCOmumm oo.A nAA.I Mmm.| «no.1 ooA.| >m~.1 wAN.| mmA.I mAMAkumE mADAmcma oo.A mom.1 ANA. 00A.| Amv. ANA. Amo. 30a>w¢ oo.A mmo.| mmo. mmo.l eve. mmA.I mmoum Ammuq oo.A Ano.u NmA.I wmA.I oMA.I >5mOmOAALm oo.A NmA.I mmA.I omA.I wucchw can mmwcAmsm oo.A mNA. «hhm. mwucmschA AmusuAau oo.A va. coAuuusvw uwcumme oo.A moAmvouozumE nuumuwwm .UMQOB MOM Xflhvmz C0MUNHOHAOUUHUCHII.$.7 Mdmafi 79 TABLE 4.9.—-Intercorre1ation Matrix for Topic and Intended Readership. Research methodologies .588** .190 .064 .676** —.215 —.179 Teacher education —.l35 .029 —.015 .190 .028 —.141 Cultural influences .423* -.265 .017 -.057 -.222 —.054 Business and finance -.241 .214 —.064 —.074 —.193 -.058 Philosophy —.096 —.O4l —.079 —.131 .110 —.042 Legal areas —.151 —.284 .312 —.100 —.236 .159 Review —.006 -.330 -.072 -.O90 .356 -.008 Tangible materials -.075 .488** -.l67 —.107 .243 .107 Personnel —.309 -.197 .653** .023 -.246 .395* Learning and development .379* -.233 —.l33 —.087 —.l44 -.O92 Counseling methodologies .344 .327 .164 .877** -.121 —.O94 Teaching-—affective —.008 .157 -.245 —.209 .239 -.005 Teaching-—cognitive —.436* .105 —.403* —.218 .756** -.O45 Administrative —.230 -.273 .388* —.026 -.l92 .158 College curriculum —.380* .026 .290 .001 -.085 .114 Public school curriculum —.227 -.105 -.240 —.180 .669** -.200 Faculty role .112 .053 «.036 .400* .223 -.114 Miscellaneous -.028 -.357 —.319 -.l33 .440* -.313 H 2 H o o 0 3‘3 ‘6 2 44 s s o a) U) r—4 H H w -H m o m m c m c H q) .A «r-l C O (D . .. 6 a a s {(111) 8 FE U B O ________________________________________—————— *Significant at a = .05 level. **Significant at a = .01 level. 80 This table shows that journals attributing more importance to researcher as the type of reader for whom they attempt to publish articles will be most likely to publish articles concerning research methodologies, cultural influences, and learning and development, and least likely to publish articles concerning teaching methodologies in the cogni— tive areas and college curriculum. The college teacher is most likely to see articles concerning new materials to use in his teaching. The administrator is expected to need articles on personnel and administrative policies and not to need articles concerning teaching methodologies in the cognitive areas. The counselor is most likely to have articles on counseling methodologies and research methodologies as well as faculty role. Teachers are most likely to have articles on teaching methodologies in the cognitive areas, public school curriculum, and miscellane— ous. The primary type of topic included for "other" is personnel. Table 4.10 presents the first four sets of canonical weights for topic and intended readership. The first set tends to differentiate college teachers and counselors from other types of readers, although primarily from adminis— trators and researchers. The tOpic contributing most to this differentiation is counseling methodologies. Teach- ing methodologies for cognitive areas, business and finance, teacher education, and faculty role are also primary 81 TABLE 4.lO.--Canonica1 Weights for Topic and Intended Readership. First Second Third Fourth Canonical Canonical Canonical Canonical Weights Weights Weights Weights Intended Readership Researcher —.392 .533 .680 .557 College teacher .570 —.275 -.l34 .661 Administrator —.560 .172 -.499 .013 Counselor .761 .511 .111 -.763 Teacher —.145 —.261 .811 -.282 Other -.012 —.129 .209 -.036 Topic Research methodologies -.069 .244 —.818 .901 Teacher education .472 —.256 -.139 .058 Cultural influences .020 -.361 ..490 -.032 Business and finance .506 —.352 -.225 .287 Philosophy .050 —.368 -.023 —.056 Legal areas —.237 —.077 —.O62 -.032 Review -.191 .389 .232 -.300 Tangible materials .194 —.205 .127 .593 Personnel .221 «.150 -.602 —.227 Learning and development -.153 .105 .051 —.l72 Counseling methodologies 1.030 .340 .636 -l.239 Teaching-—affective .329 .064 —.210 .517 Teaching-~cognitive .547 —l.027 —.123 —.699 Administrative —.112 —.049 -.271 -.192 College curriculum —.l4O .018 -.023 —.023 Public school curriculum —.219 .110 .221 —.218 Faculty role - —.521 —.089 .066 .181 Miscellaneous -.005 .080 .373 .119 Canonical R .989 .976 .939 .855 2 Canonical R .978 .953 .882 .731 82 contributors. Counselors and college teachers are thus perceived to be interested in articles concerning coun— seling methodologies, teaching methods in cognitive areas, business and finance, and teacher education. Administra- tors and researchers are seen as interested in faculty role. This set of weights has a canonical R of .99 and a canonical R2 of .98. The second set of canonical weights separates researcher and counselor from other types of readers with no particular importance being given to the other types. The topic contributing most to this differ- entiation is teaching methodologies in cognitive areas, with a sign opposite that of researcher and counselor, indicating that this topic would most likely be lacking in journals intended primarily for these two types of reader. This set of weights has a canonical R of .98 and a canonical R2 of .95. The third set of weights differen— tiates researchers and teachers from administrators through heavy weightings for research methodologies, personnel, and counseling methodologies indicating a high mutual interest by researchers and teachers in research and counseling methodologies, as Opposed to administrators who have a .high interest in. personnel. This set of weights has a canonical R of .94 and a canonical R2 of .88. The fourth set of canonical weights differentiates reseachers and college teachers from counselors primarily through high weightings on counseling methodologies, research 83 methodologies, teaching methodologies in cognitive areas, tangible materials, and teaching methodologies in affective areas. It indicates a high mutual interest in research methodologies, tangible materials, and teaching methodolo- gies in affective areas for the researcher and the college teacher, probably all related to an increased interest in the affective areas. Counselors, on the other hand, are seen as being interested in the more concrete areas such as counseling methodologies and teaching methodologies in the cognitive areas. This set of weights has a canonical R of .86 and a canonical R2 of .73. Question 4: Is there a relationship between type of articles and intended readership? Findings.-~Type of article includes the relative weights of the occurrence of three mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories of articles. These weights were derived as defined in Chapter III through the use of the following formula: 2 n hk wk = Ik so that Wk = 10 (wk) where nhk = the number of articles per type within journals based on nh > .03N where N = the total number of articles investigated, I = the number of issues investigatedwithinjournals, 84 w = the type weight by journal, and Wk = the resulting type weight by journal as used for further calculations. As the number of articles published by a journal per issue is not directly limited, these variables are not dependent, although there is also not complete independence. Table 4.11 shows the range, mean, and standard deviations of the resulting weights. TABLE 4.1l.——Type of Article. Standard Range Mean Deviation Research 0—153 18.0 31.9 Review of literature 0—10 2.3 3.2 Expository 0—90 38.7 23.7 The correlation matrix presented in Table 4.12 shows the intercorrelation between types of articles, while the correlation matrix in Table 4.13 indicates the rela— tionship between type of article and intended readership. It is of interest to note in this table that a high inverse relationship exists between review articles and college teachers. The degree to which public school teachers were the intended readership is highly correlated with number of expository articles, while those most interested in research— ers have more research and less expository articles. 85 TABLE 4.12.--Intracorrelation Matrix for Type of Article. Research 1.00 Review of literature -.l99 1.00 Exposition —.480** .074 1.00 literature Research Review of Exposition **Significant at d = .01 level. TABLE 4.13.-—Intercorrelation Matrix for Type of Article and Intended Readership. Research .630** -.120 —.145 .258 —.261 —.201 Review of literature .159 —.386* —.l45 —.l77 .190 -.181 Expository —.548** .007 .087 -.256 .496** .157 H m J: H o o m u H w m o u M H .C.‘ JJ 0 o m m A H 8 8 '8 8 2 m A A c o 3 8 '6‘ 5 8 8 .8 (:4 U I03 U E-0 0 *Significant at d = .05 level. **Significant at a = .01 level. 86 Table 4.14 shows the first and second sets of canonical weights derived for these two sets of variables with canonical R's of .82 and 158, and canonical Rz's of .67 and .34, respectively. The first set of weights tends to differentiate the researcher weightings, from other types of readers although primarily from college teachers, in terms of number of research articles, an indication of the quantity of research reports desired by each of the different types of reader. The second set of weights tends to differentiate counselors and college teachers from other readers, although TABLE 4.14.—-Canonica1 Weights for Type of Article and Intended Readership. First Second Canonical Canonical Weights Weights Intended Readership Researcher —.683 —.502 College teacher .382 .417 Administrator .290 —.283 Counselor -.324 y .423 Teacher .165 —.982 Other .109 -.l40 Type of Article Research —.711 —.401 Review of literature -.452 —.769 Expository .408 -.759 Canonical R .816 .584 Canonical R2 ' .666 .341 87 primarily from teachers and researchers, in terms of review of literature and expository articles. This indi- cates that many of the non—research articles which are primarily of interest to teachers are also perceived as being of interest to some researchers, probably those who are most interested in the problems of the classroom teacher. All three types of articles are related to intended readership such that lack of one type of article is not compensated for by another. Question 5: Is there a relationship between intended readership and adequacy of research reports? Findings.——Table 4.15 reports the intercorrelation matrix between adequacy of research reports and intended readership. A high positive correlation exists between the adequacy of research reports published and the impor- tance of intended readers who are researchers. It is also of interest to note the medium negative correlation between adequacy of research reports and college teachers, indi— cating that a journal primarily interested in college teachers as its readership tends to publish less rigorous research reports. Table 4.16 presents the set of canonical weights that were derived from the preceding correlation matrices. The set of first canonical weights indicates a canonical R of .593 between adequacy of research reports and intended 88 TABLE 4.15.——Intercorrelation Matrix for Adequacy of Research Reports and Intended Readership. Adequacy of research reports .468* —.300 —.119 .153 —.l41 -.261 )4 w J: H O O a # H m m o u H H .1: JJ 0 o m m A H u m A m w m 0 c m n u 0 H 8 c o m U] H 5 :1 ru 42' w o o m u 04 0 ¢ U B 0 *Significant at d = .05 level. TABLE 4.16.——Canonical Weights for Adequacy of Research Reports and Intended Readership. First Canonical Weights Intended Readership \ Researcher .530 ‘ College teacher —.588 1 Administrator -.218 i Counselor .402 3 Teacher -.117 1 Other -.248 Adequacy of research reports 1.000 Canonical R .593 Canonical R2 .352 89 2 of .352, indicating that readership, and a canonical R 35 percent of the variance in one weighted set of vari- ables is accounted for by the other. An inspection of the weights indicates that the only positive loadings resulted for researcher and coun— selor, while a slightly higher negative loading was obtained for college teachers. ‘It would appear that journals which are interested in researchers and counselors as intended readers tend to publish more rigorous research reports than those intended for other types of readers. These two types of reader must, therefore, be expected to make use of the results of the research based on the cir- cumstances under which they were derived. College teachers are expected to be interested only in broad generalities rather than specifics. It appears that there is no set expectation of the needs of other types of readers regard- ing the rigor required or desired in reports of research. Question 6: What data collection procedures are significantly related to intended readership? Findings.—-Data collection procedures included the relative weights of seven methods of collecting data reported in research reports. As more than one method was used in any one study, the seven resulting variables were not mutually exclusive, but were exhaustive. These weights were derived as defined in Chapter III by the application of the following formula: where nhk Z nh Ik k so that the number of cedure within where N the reported, the number of journal, the procedure the resulting 90 W k = 10 (wk) articles reporting that pro- journals based on nh > .03 N total number of procedures issues investigated within the weight by journal, and procedure weight by journal as used for further calculations. These variables, although basically independent, were slightly dependent in the respect that some procedures lend themselves to being used in conjunction with certain procedures more than others. ence did not affect the analysis used. However, this slight depend- Table 4.17 shows the range, mean, and standard deviation of each of the variables within data collection procedures. TABLE 4.17.—-Data Collection Procedures. Range Mean Standard Dev1ation Standardized test 0-50 6.4 14.3 Questionnaire 0-40 6.9 9.5 Interview 0—25 2.9 5.4 Observation 0—103 4.6 19.4 Pre-existing records 0-12 1.6 3.2 Experimental design 0-103 6.2 20.0 Other 0-12 2.3 3.7 91 Table 4.18 presents the intracorrelation matrix for data collection procedures. It is of interest to note that the only correlations not significant are between observation and questionnaire, between observation and other, and between observation and pre-existing records. Apparently, when observation is used as a data collection procedure, it is not often used in conjunction with these other methods. TABLE 4.18.-—Intracorrelation Matrix for Data Collection Procedures. Standardized tests 1.00 Questionnaire .692** 1.00 Interview .829** .672** 1.00 Observation .631** —.040 .380* 1.00 Pre-existing records .801** .804** .751** .233 1.00 Experimental design .802** .195 .572** .962** .435* 1.00 Other .807** .735** .684** .358 .700 .521** 1.00 m “U C.‘ m H m p o -H m o m m o m .p (D H '0 p H m A <1) --I C :1 M N w o -a u -H c 3 -H u q “S 8 3 *6 3’. 2 (U 'r-l > > X -r-i "d +1 H H (D H 3.. c m w m I w o rt! (1) U U) CD 9.. g 4.) :3 :1 .0 H N 4J m 01 H o m m o *Significant at a = .05 level. **Significant at d = .01 level. 92 Table 4.19 presents the intercorrelation matrix for data collection procedures reported and intended readership. It is of interest to note here that researcher is highly correlated with all procedures and counselor is highly correlated with standardized tests, questionnaire use, pre-existing records, and other. There are no other sig- nificant correlations, although 22 of the remaining 28 correlations are in the negative direction. TABLE 4.19.-—Intercorrelation Matrix for Data Collection Procedures and Intended Readership. Standardized tests .648** .049 —.122 .424* -.248 -.l77 Questionnaire .479** .170 —.012 .585** -.157 —.232 Interview .705** —.063 -.230 .149 —.265 —.l97 Observation .408* —.238 —.159 —.058 -.182 -.091 Pre—existing records .682** .027 -.O76 .509** —.198 -.186 Experimental design .551** —.151 —.156 .110 —.224 —.128 Other .567** .004 -.035 .420* -.l79 —.231 H m .12 H 0 o m A H m m m u H H 5 JJ 0 o m m A H H m A m w m o c m a H m A A c 0 o 8 8 8 8 8 fi 06 U Fl 0 B 0 *Significant at a = .05 level. **Significant at d = .01 level. ‘ 93 Table 4.20 presents the first two sets of canoni— cal weights for data collection procedures. The first set of weights tends to differentiate counselor from all other types of reader, with the remaining types having only very small weights. This differentiation is made by observa- tion and interview having equal, but opposite weights of experimental design and standardized tests. This indi- cates that counselors are seen as primarily interested in research employing more rigorous or at least more controlled TABLE 4.20.——Canonica1 Weights for Data Collection Proce- dures and Intended Readership. First Second Canonical Canonical Weights Weights Intended Readership Researcher —.029 -.891 College teacher -.234 .330 Administrator .221 .112 Counselor —.972 077 Teacher .019 .055 Other .031 -.006 Data Collection Procedures Standardized tests -.986 2.427 Questionnaire .030 -.103 Interview 1.274 -.904 Observation 3.614 .228 Pre—existing records -.l36 —.902 Experimental design -3.531 —1.683 Other .053 -.402 Canonical R .908 .857 Canonical R2 . .824 .734 94 studies while those employing less control such as inter— view and observation are seen as being of interest to administrators. In the second set of weights, researcher is differentiated by standardized tests in opposition to experimental design, interview, and pre—existing records. This indicates that most research studies in journals with interest in researchers as opposed to other types of readers tend to report research which has taken place in a controlled situation, experimental design, but that does not necessarily lend itself to using controlled instruments for measurement such as standardized tests, probably because of the uniqueness of the situations studied. The first set of canonical weights yielded a canonical R of .91 and the second set a canonical R of .86, with canonical R2's of .82 and .73,respectively. Question 7: What statistical methods are sig- nificantly related to intended readership? Findings.——Statistical methods reported included the relative weights of 17 types of statistical analysis reported in research reports. As more than one type of analysis was used in any one study, the 17 resulting vari— ables were not mutually exclusive but were exhaustive. These weights were derived as defined in Chapter III by the application of the following formula: 95 Z nhk wk = Ik so that Wk = 10 (wk) where nhk = the number of articles reporting that sta— tistic within journals based on nh > .03 N where N = the total number of statistics reported, Ik = the number of issues investigated within the journal, wk = the statistic weight by journal, and Wk = the resulting statistic weight by journal as used for further calculations. These variables, although basically independent, were slightly dependent in the respect that some methods of analysis lent themselves to being used in conjunction with certain methods more than others. However, this slight possible dependence in no way affected the analysis of the study. Table 4.21 shows the range, mean, and standard deviation of each of the variables within statistical methods. Table 4.22 shows the intracorrelation matrix for statistical methods reported. The frequent high intra— correlations show that most types of analysis are not reported separately but in conjunction with several dif— ferent measures. It is of interest to note that factor analysis is the only statistical method reported which TABLE 4.21.--Statistical Techniques Reported. 96 [:—————Am 1... Range Mean Standard DeV1ation None 0—13 .6 2.5 Raw scores 0—5 1.0 1.6 Percent 0—23 4.1 5.2 Mean 0—20 2.4 4.8 Standard deviations 0—12 1.3 2.7 Other descriptive 0-20 2.2 4.3 Pearson correlations 0-43 4.4 11.0 Other correlations 0—23 2.4 5.7 T-test 0-40 3.8 8.8 Anaysis of variance 0-103 7.2 20.8 Analysis of covariance 0—13 1.5 3.5 Post hoc procedures 0—30 2.9 7.5 Factor analysis 0-22 1.5 4.3 Other analytic 0—28 2.7 6.5 Chi square 0—15 1.9 3.9 Other non-parametric 0—43 2.8 8.4 Reliability 0—28 3.0 7.0 97 KQIIIQV113! zeuao azenbs yup OFQKIEUR 13810 oyzzamsxad-uou OO.A «cmom. unamm. «cmwh. OO.H .Covm. camvm. OO.H Comom. oo.A {sue xoaoea stsK .H0>UH H ooq 1904 saznpaoozd achnm. «cNmm. aamvm. acAvm. acmmv. oo.A aoustxsnoa go srsxteuv cummh. «womb. «.mmm. «aAmh. mAm. «400m. oo.A m UCMUHMACUAM¢C EDWYJEA ;o sysfireuv agmAm. ucNmm. «cvmm. aaowm. Ann. tumnm. acdvm. oo.A 3533-1 «amnm. acmmm. .«wAm. ctvwm. yva. «anhm. acmww. ixmnm. oo.A 13930 suoraeielzoa «cmmh. acNAm. cummm. «nova. AmN. niomm. «45mm. «comm. acmmm. oo.A uosxead uorqetazxoo uavom. ugmvm. cammm. tuOAm. wmm. iuwvm. chmm. «nmhm. utOmm. gaAcm. DO.A .A0>MA mo. H JSQQO aAquIZSSep «shah. «awmm. «ammm. tthw. NwN. «comm. «ath. «cNAm. «comm. sthm. kumhw. oo.A uoruerAap PIPPHPJS tummm. cmmv. symmh. uwnv. 4«Amm. «uhmh. «uAhm. ouvow. «ummw. acmmm. «amAw. «IAwm. OO.A aimvm. «rmmm. «awmm. «achh. «amhm. «aNmm. uaAmm. «*aAm. «nmmm. «Iwmm. «IAhm. atmmw. ttmmm. oo.A squaozaa Iihhh. acmmh. «ammh. «aon. mmm. «*nmm. «chAm. aiAmh. «cvmh. chmm. «tomw. «cmmn. aammm. «ummh. oo. .pmuuommm mUObuwz AMUAumAumum now u um usaUAwAcmAma H N u m a s 3 0 I O s atomv. mmo.h NNM. mmo.l «*mmv. mmo.l «@W¢. Om0.l owA. amo.l ukmAm. mOH.I cammm. VAH.I acme. wmo.l aimmm. OHA.| a«mmm. moA.l «qmvm. wOA.I «mwv. hmo.l «Amm. who.1 uObv. AOA.| A «know. who. oo.A mNA.I Oo.A 3:36:65 0Auu058ummlco: uwauo vuwswm A50 uAuzAmcm nonuo mAmxAmnm uouomm mwhsvwooum 00: umom MUEMAumwoo we «AmwAms4 wocmAhm> no ”AmhAmnd waUIE mnoAumAmunoo umbuo COADMAwuuoo cemumwm m>AudAuommp umcuo coAumA>ww unaccmum cam: mucmuumm mwucUm 3mm 0:02 xAuumz coAuonuuoomuucHuu.mm.w mumme 98 is not highly correlated with other statistical methods while none, being the non-reporting of any kind of sta- tistic, also has no correlation with the statistical methods. Table 4.23 shows the intercorrelation matrix between statistical methods reported and intended readership. It is of interest to note that researcher is highly correlated with all types of statistical methods, but not with raw scores or none, and counselor is highly correlated with mean, standard deviation, reliability, and factor analysis. No other correlations are significant, although most of the remaining ones tend in a negative direction. Table 4.24 presents the first, second, and third sets of canonical weights, with canonical R's of .98, .97, and .75, respectively. This results in respective canoni— cal Rz's of .96, .95, and .57. The first set of canonical weights tends to set the researcher apart from the other 1 types of readers. This is accomplished by high weights for analysis of variance, chi square, and T-test, and high negative weights for reliability, other non-parametric techniques, post hoc techniques, and other analytic tech— niques, indicating a higher occurrence of the more complex techniques and a lower occurrence of the more common techniques. The second set of canonical weights tends to set off counselor from the other types of readers through large weights for analysis of variance, other correlations, TABLE 4.23.——Intercorrelation Matrix for Statistical Methods 99 Reported and Intended Readership. None Raw scores Percents Mean Standard deviation Other descriptive Pearson correlation Other correlations T—test Analysis of variance Analysis of covariance Post hoc procedures Factor analysis Other analytic Chi square Other non—parametric Reliability -.l32 .190 .389* .581** .529** .657** .657** .604** .596**' .583** .706** .688** .484** .634** .671** .565** .595** Researcher -.246 .063 —.213 -.016 .146 -.152 —.074 —.106 —.060 -.113 .038 .003 .193 -.240 -.002 4.190 .029 College teacher .320 —.222 -.168 -.O79 .007 -.129 -.219 -.l90 —.l82 -.159 -.157 -.l4O .092 —.276 -.l63 -.223 —.109 Administrator .030 .118 .166 .402* .693** .114 .086 .104 .243 .186 .177 .320 .820** .077 .274 .042 .455* Counselor -.096 .171 —.069 -.261 -.234 -.231 -.279 -.261 -.229 -.238 -.240 -.278 -.190 -.288 -.304 -.250 -.243 Teacher -.O38 -.183 -.221 -.184 -.191 -.l97 -.l67 -.l45 -.l7l -.l4l -.164 -.l63 —.124 -.l63 -.190 -.l36 -.l71 Other *Significant at 0 = .05 level. **Significant at a = .01 level. TABLE 4.24.——Canonical Weights for Statistical Methods Reported and Intended Readership. First Second Third Canonical Canonical Canonical Weights Weights Weights Intended Readership Researcher -.874 —.436 .758 College teacher .109 .028 .436 Administrator .313 -.266 .159 Counselor -.243 1.126 —.272 Teacher .043 -.078 1.005 Other -.113 —.024 .890 Statistical Techniques Reported None .064 -.009 -.957 Raw scores .100 .059 -.889 Percents —.339 .035 4.020 Mean -.727 —l.454 -3.323 Standard deviation —.914 1.451 -7.308 Other descriptive .638 —.646 —l.912 Pearson correlation .553 -.321 .676 Other correlation .738 1.514 4.128 T-test 2.692 -.643 3.318 Analysis of variance 5.645 5.737 16.604 Analysis of covariance -l.564 -.218 —3.323 Post hoc procedures -3.061 —.987 3.885 Factor analysis .100 .164 4.984 Other analytic -2.772 -l.6l3 —7.718 Chi square 4.146 1.093 14.196 Other non—parametric —3.344 —2.158 —lO.766 Reliability —3.362 —1.762 -l7.480 Canonical R .982 .972 .753 .964 .945 .567 Canonical R2 101 standard deviations, and chi square, and large negative weights for other non-parametric techniques, reliability, other analytic techniques, and means, indicating a higher reliance by teacher—oriented research on analysis of vari- ance and chi square probably because they are easily adaptable to that type of situation while being easy to compute and understand. On the other hand, little emphasis is placed on the other mentioned techniques, probably because they are thought by teachers to be irrelevant or difficult to understand. Question 8: What publication policies are sig— nificantly related to intended readership? Findings.--Publication policies included six con— tinuous variables, one ordinal variable, eight categorical variables which were treated as ordinal for purposes of analysis. The continuous variables were percent of arti— cles published, average time lag, average number of readers to accept a manuscript for publication, average number of readers to reject a manuscript for publication, percent rewritten for reasons other than length, and length restric- tions, each of which was taken directly from the editor responses to the questionnaire. Of the categorical vari- ables considered ordinal, editor able to accept, editor able to reject, use of evaluation guide, manuscript form required, page charge, and early publication fees were 102 obtained directly from the editor responses to the ques— tionnaire where the response required was of the yes—no type. As there were, therefore, only two levels for each of these variables, each was treated as ordinal for analy- sis purposes based on the assumption of no real difference resulting from a re—ordering of the levels, other than direction. Type reviewers, taken directly from the editor's response to the questionnaire, was treated as ordinal for the purposes of analysis based on the assumption of an underlying continuum of flexibility in the evaluation of submitted manuscript with the use of a review board being considered the least flexible and the use of neither a review board or group of expert consultants used exclu- sively as being the most flexible. Manuscript distribution basis, taken directly from the editor's response to the questionnaire and coded as described in Chapter III, was treated as ordinal for the purposes of analysis based on the assumption of an underlying continuum of evaluator competence in the topic of the manuscript being evaluated. It was assumed that evaluator interest in the topic would lead to greater general competence and other than the stated methods would result in less general competence. More than one of the above was then placed in the position indicating least expected competence as there appeared to be no pattern to the responses other than at least one of the multiple responses appearing in the lower competence 103 end of the continuum. Table 4.25 shows the range, mean, and standard deviation of each of the variables included in publication policies. Table 4.26 presents the intracorrelation matrix for publication policies. In this table are presented three extremely high correlations as follows: (1) between the editors' ability to accept or reject an article, (2) between the average number of reviewers to accept or reject an article, and (3) between early publication fees and page charge. Table 4.27 presents the intercorrelation matrix for publication policies and intended readership. It is of interest to note that for researcher the only policies which are highly related are the percent of articles requested to be rewritten, the reviewer's use of an evalu- ation form, and a specific manuscript form required. The only other high correlations were between college teachers and use of blind reviews, and between college teachers and manuscript form required. Table 4.28 presents the first, second, third, and fourth sets of canonical weights for publication policies and intended readership. The first set of weights tends to differentiate college teacher from both "other" and researcher through high positive weights for number of readers to accept, use of blind reviews, and page charge, and high negative weights for percent requested rewritten 104 TABLE 4.25.--Pub1ication Policies. Pegfigfisfiidartides 5-99 28 . 8 3o . 4 Average time lag 3-20 6.7 5.2 Editor able to accept 1-2 1.2 .5 Editor able to reject 1—2 1.1 .5 Type reviewers 1—3 2.0 1.2 Use of blind reviews 1-4 2.4 1.8 Average number of readers 1—15 2.9 2.7 to accept Aviga32j22mber of readers 1-15 2.8 2.8 Mag::§:ipt distribution l—7 4.0 2.9 Percent rewritten l-lOO 32.8 33.9 Use of evaluation guide 1—2 1.3 .6 Manuscript form required 1-2 1.2 .6 Length restrictions 0—50 10.0 12.5 Page charge 1—2 1.8 .5 Early publication fees 1—2 1.8 .6 105 .A0>0A Ao. u a un unmoAuAamAmu. .A0>0A mo. u a an unmofluwcmAm. 3 d U N 0 d . . .. .. _. a m M. M. 1.. 6 m s M. s. 3 I 5 u 1 U 5 3 I 3 1 8 I a 9 d I. T. a 9 I 9 I a 5 a n n 3 I.“ 3 I 9 1 3 3 3 I I 3 a K 3 m s t.o a o s 9 e 2 e o o o e 1 a .a m u L 4.. w us we 3 1 a .. .. s E . . a 3 3 A. n a a...“ m .. ms nu mu m m. m. w. .. no T. 5 5 Pl. 9 a SI. 7.. e T. .l . $3 I. a 3 T M T. 3 m 3 m U M a a m m u. .6. m u. sw 6.. 66 p n a a 3 o m 1 .3 s 1 x e 1 1 s m m T m I 1 I. 3 1 s a a e I O T. O a I [.0 O 0 A I 9 5 T .u M u u W W 3 h 3 M. a D S s n 3 3 m a. m w _ S D d p 3 3 oo.A «.mvm. «6A. ..sow. 44nAw. mum. NNN. How. FAN. «mow. «mmv. mmm. mom. mmm. msa. oo.A AmA. «.mow. .awom. pom. oom. mAN. mmm. .omv. .«omm. .«msw. «.omv. mmm. Hmm. oo.A NA0.- mvo. «.wam. .mmm. «.mso. «.vvw. mmo.- mmo.- mmm. mam. moH. oo~.| oo.A «.mAm. moo.| HHA. «ma. smA. .«Aao. «.smm. wwm. mmm. NoH.a Amm. oo.A 05A. nvo.n mmm. mam. .smm. Afim. .«mmq. .mmw. AAA. «awm. oo.A FON. «.mAm. «.msv. moA.: «mo.- aha. Hem. mam. mAH. oo.A .qu. .Amv. veA. cs”. Hem. ssm. 0AA. ova. oo.H ..msm. vmo.v who. ..smv. .sqv. mmo.- mmo. oo.A on.- mOA. «ammm. .«mmv. cmo.- voo. oo.A 44mqm. msA. 0AA. com. .qsm. oo.A mmm. mam. Hmo. smm. oo.A .«mmm. .amm. Hmm. oo.A «.mfim. mom. oo.A moA. oo.A 600w :oaumuAAnam sAumm wwnmco mmmm mGOADUANumwM cumcwq conAaku show umANUmscmz prdm :oAumsAm>o we on: C®UUHH30N UCOUHQQ mAmmn soAusnAuumAc umAuumccmz bomflmu cu mHmomwu mo “mass: mmfiuw>¢ ummoum ou muwpmwu mo H0355: mmmum>¢ m30A>0u pcAAn «0 mm: muozoA>vu mmxb uouflwu 0n 0Abm nouAcm udmoom on 0Anm nouAnm omA wEAu mmmnm>m nmnmaAnam monAuMm No ucmuuwm .monAAom :oAumuAAnsm MOM XAHumz coAUMAmnuoumuucAnl.wm.w mamms 106 TABLE 4.27.-—Intercorrelation Matrix for Publication Policies and Intended Readership. Percent Of arthleS —.364 —.140 -.038 —.222 .287 .045 published Average time lag .300 .177 -.282 .006 -.053 -.263 Editor able to accept .036 .176 ~.l49 -.033 .072 -.341 Editor able to reject -.O95 .168 —.097 -.003 .132 —.328 Type reviewers -.l78 .316 .121 —.192 -.057 -.014 Use of blind reviews -.321 .432 .134 -.218 .000 -.O45 Average number of readers .029 -.051 -.027 .069 -.l65 -.048 to accept Average.number °f readers 026 - 157 - 058 .060 —.125 -.032 to reject Manu58rlpt dlStrlbutlon .110 .065 .163 .322 -.199 .061 ba51s Percent rewritten .415* -.294 -.243 -.O94 -.171 -.033 Use of evaluation guide —.485** .032 —.148 -.l85 .306 -.281 Manuscript form required —.454* .395* —.O63 —.194 .143 .067 Length restrictions .282 -.171 .040 .144 —.325 .018 Page charge —.263 .286 —.226 -.018 .266 -.355 Early publication fees —.236 .348 -.249 —.038 .275 -.340 H o 4.) H m 0 H H H c 0 p o o 0 n m A H H m o -H m m m m m c w c H 0 A 0 -H s u 0 23 6'“ 6 8 3 a 9.1 0 KC 0 E4 8 *Significant at a = .05 level. **Significant at a = .01 level. 107 TABLE 4.28.—-Canonical Weights for Publication Policies and Intended Readership. First Second Third Fourth Canonical Canonical Canonical Canonical Weights Weights Weights Weights Intended Readership Researcher -.672 —.766 -.018 -.319 College teacher .599 -.817 -.295 .081 Administrator .340 -.393 1.049 -.263 Counselor —.244 .707 -.454 .902 Teacher —.044 .023 -.307 -.724 Other -.683 —.175 —.454 -.463 Publication Policies Percent of articles published -.066 .198 .155 —.269 Average time lag —.l74 —.427 -l.370 .390 Editor able to accept .030 -.053 2.319 .621 Editor able to reject .211 —.210 -2.319 -l.l33 Type reviews —.118 -.454 -.O9l -.341 Use of blind reviews .532 —.119 1.169 «.051 Average “umkier °f .792 -1.701 .312 2.055 readers to accept Average “Lumber 9f —.596 1.814 —1.170 -1.774 readers to reject Manuscript distribu— _ 234 .180 .340 .656 tion ba31s Percent rewritten —.500 —.230 .006 -.621 Use of evaluation guide .122 .692 .831 .401 Manuscript form required —.238 —.466 —l.159 -.292 Length restrictions —.220 -.097 .938 .344 Page charge .483 1.560 1.077 .679 Early publication fees .078 —1.114 —l.567 —.439 Canonical R .945 .915 .826 .608 Canonical R2 .893 .837 .682 .370 108 and number of readers to reject. This indicates that journals intended primarily for college teachers are more stringent in their immediate acceptance of an article than for researchers, but not often giving the option of rewriting the material. Those intended for researchers, however, though not put through quite so rigid a process on the initial submission, are more often requested instead to rewrite parts or all of the manuscript. The second set of weights tends to differentiate counselor from college teacher and researcher through high positive weights for number of readers to reject and page charges, and high negative weights for number of readers to accept and early publication fees. This indicates that those articles intended for counselors are likely to be re—read for content before they are rejected in order to avoid missing something which would contribute to the limited field of knowledge, while those intended for college teachers and researchers are re—read before acceptance to assure an actual contribution to the body of knowledge rather than merely repeating what has been said before. The third set of weights tends to differentiate adminis- trator from other readers through high positive weights for the editor being able to accept an article, the use of blind reviews, and page charge, and high negative weights for the editor being able to reject an article, early publication fees, time lag, number of readers to reject 109 an article, and manuscript form required. This indicates that editors of journals aimed primarily to administrators take a more active interest in shielding their readers from articles which are clearly inappropriate or are otherwise not likely to be of much interest to a "busy" person, at the same time not subjecting the readership to a poorly evaluated group of articles. The fourth set of weights tends to differentiate primarily counselor from teacher through high positive weights for number of readers to accept, page charge, manuscript distribution basis, and editor ability to accept, and high negative weights for number of readers to reject, editor ability to reject, and percent rewritten. This indicates that journals intended for counselors tend to be distributed more freely than those intended for teachers and tend to be rewritten less often. Editors are apparently aware of the shortage of information available to counselors as compared to teachers and that available is therefore made more easily available. Also, it would appear that those articles written for teachers are more carelessly developed and more plentiful. Therefore, editors are more likely to reject these or to have them rewritten before final acceptance. The canonical R's for these sets of weights were .95, .91, .83, and .61, respectively, with accompany Rz's of .89, .84, .68, and .37. 110 Question 9: What journal characteristics are significantly related to adequacy of research reports? Findings.--Tab1e 4.10 presents the intracorrelation matrix for journal characteristics. Table 4.29 presents the intercorrelation matrix for journal characteristics and adequacy of research reports. No correlations in this table were significant. Table 4.30 presents the first set of canonical weights for journal characteristics and adequacy of research reports. The highest weight among journal char— acteristics is for number of issues per year, indicating that those journals published less frequently tend to publish the most adequate research reports. The canonical R for this set of weights was .30, with an accompanying R2 of .09. TABLE 4.29.-—Intercorrelation Matrix for Journal Character— istics and Adequacy of Research Reports. Number of years published -.084 Average monthly circulation -.l60 Method of distribution -.097 Number of issues per year -.252 Average number of articles .097 w 03 o m eru o m H m 0 0 a m d @410 m H H p m 111 TABLE 4.30.—-Canonical Weights for Journal Characteristics and Adequacy of Research Reports. First Canonical Weights Adequacy of research reports 1.000 Journal Characteristics Number of years published .199 Average monthly circulation -.028 Method of distribution -.334 Number of issues per year -.993 Average number of articles .286 Canonical R .298 Canonical R2 .089 Question 10: What topics are significantly related to adequacy of research reports? Findings.—~Table 4.14 presents the intracorrelation matrix for topic. Table 4.31 presents the intercorrelation matrix for topic and adequacy of research reports. Mod- erate correlations were obtained for research methodologies, cultural influences, and teaching methodologies in the affective areas, although the latter was in a negative direction. Table 4.32 presents the first set of canonical weights for topic and adequacy of research reports. The highest weights were assigned to teaching—-affective, 112 TABLE 4.31.——Intercorre1ation Matrix for Topic and Ade- . quacy of Research Reports. Research methodologies .371 Teacher education .197 Cultural influences .334 Business and finance -.214 Philosophy -.255 Legal areas —.246 Review .015 Tangible materials —.076 Personnel -.l39 Learning and development .285 Counseling methodologies .230 Teaching—-affective -.357 Teaching-~cognitive -.268 Administrative .094 College curriculum -.138 , Public school curriculum -.053 Faculty role .085 Miscellaneous .130 m 4.) H o m m H \H 0.6. o >1H o m m 0 53(1) 010 0 H U m 113 TABLE 4.32.—-Canonica1 Weights for Topic and Adequacy of Research Reports. First Canonical Weights Adequacy of research reports 1.000 Topic Research methodologies —.243 Teacher education .268 Cultural influences .184 Business and finance —.373 Philosophy -.276 Legal areas -.473 Review -.083 Tangible materials -.055 Personnel -.203 Learning and development .300 Counseling methodologies .126 Teaching--affective -.688 Teaching--cognitive -.298 Administrative .316 College curriculum -.513 Public school curriculum .135 Faculty role .002 Miscellaneous .125 Canonical R .871 _ 1 Canonical R2 .759 College curriculum, and legal areas, all in a negative direction. This suggests that these areas are either less well researched than other areas or that these topics are of primary interest to readers who are not seen as The resulting requiring complete research reports. . 2 canonical R was .87, and the canonical R was .76. 114 Question 11: What data collection procedures are significantly related to ade- quacy of research reports? Findings.--Table 4.18 presents the intracorrelation matrix for data collection procedures. Table 4.33 presents the intercorrelation matrix for data collection procedures and adquacy of research reports. It is of interest to note that standardized tests and other procedures correlate most highly with adequacy of research reports, although all other data collection procedures are also moderately correlated. TABLE 4.33.-—Intercorre1ation Matrix for Data Collection Procedures and Adequacy of Research Reports. Standardized tests .390* Questionnaire .364 Interview .370 Observation .332 Pre—existing records .340 Experimental design .373 Other .417* u... or: o m ML4H 0¢6H mo1o smo. qum ®$4H t 4 . *Significant at a = .05 level. 115 Table 4.34 presents the canonical weights for data collection procedures and adequacy of research reports. High positive weights are given to observation and ques- tionnaire, while equally high but negative weights are given to standardized tests and experimental design. Those studies employing observation and/or questionnaires tend to report the study more completely than those using standard- ized tests and/or experimental design, an indication that perhaps strictness in the data collection procedure is being used in place of careful description of the exact procedures used. The resulting canonical R was .63 and the R2 was .40. TABLE 4.34.--Canonical Weights for Data Collection Pro- cedures and Adequacy of Research Reports. First Canonical Weights Adequacy of research reports 1.000 Data Collection Procedures Standardized tests -2.l77 Questionnaire 1.692 Interview .548 Observation 2.768 Pre—existing records .170 Experimental design —l.207 Other .319 Canonical R .629 Canonical R2 .396 116 Question 12: What statistical methods reported are significantly related to ade— quacy of research reports? Findings.——Table 4.22 presents the intracorrela- tion matrix for statistical methods reported. Table 4.35 presents the intercorrelation matrix for statistical methods reported and adequacy of research reports. It is of interest to note that the only statistics which are not correlated highly with adequacy of research reports are standard deviation, Pearson correlation, other corre- lations, factor analysis, and other analytic techniques, although eachluusa moderate correlation. Only none reported is not correlated with adequacy of research reports. Table 4.36 presents the set of canonical weights for statistical methods reported and adequacy of research reports. High positive weights were obtained for reli— ability, other non-parametric techniques, mean, and other analytic techniques, while high negative weights were obtained for analysis of variance, T-test, and chi square. This indicates that those studies which are statistically more descriptive of the results are also more descriptive of the study as a whole. The resulting canonical R was .92 and the R2 was .85. 117 TABLE 4. 35. ——Intercorrelation Matrix for Statistical Tech- niques Reported and Adequacy of Research Reports. None -.064 Raw scores .384* Percents .511** Mean .422* Standard deviation .360 Other descriptive .383* Pearson correlation .334 Other correlations .362 T—test .406* Analysis of variance .382* Analysis of covariance .373 Post hoc procedures .376* Factor analysis .320 Other analytic .372 Chi square .433* Other non—parametric .392* Reliability .430* m p H o 0.: o H w 0.2 o >«H o m m m 5 m 010 m H 'U «I: *Significant at a = .05 level. **Significant at d .01 level. 118 TABLE 4.36.—-Canonical Weights for Statistical Techniques Reported and Adequacy of Research Reports. First Canonical Weights Adequacy of research reports 1.000 Statistical.Techniques Reported None .155 Raw scores .853 Percents .492 Mean 5.859 Standard deviation —.531 Other descriptive —l.153 Pearson correlation 1.059 Other correlation .196 T-test -8.863 Analysis of variance -ll.687 Analysis of covariance 2.520 Post hoc procedures .652 Factor analysis -.282 Other analytic 3.460 Chi square —8.210 Other non-parametric 7.427 Reliability 10.264 Canonical R .923 Canonical R2 .852 Question 13: What publication policies are significantly related to adequacy of research reports? Findings.—-Table 4.26 presents the intracorrelation matrix for publication policies. Table 4.37 presents the intercorrelation matrix for publication policies and ade- quacy of research reports. The only high correlation here is between length restrictions and adequacy of research 119 TABLE 4.37.——Intercorre1ation Matrix for Publication Policies and Adequacy of Research Reports. Percent of articles published —.100 Average time lag .209 Editor able to accept -.Ol3 Editor able to reject —.016 Type reviewers -.371 Use of blind reviews -.181 Average number of readers to accept .240 Average number of readers to reject .325 Manuscript distribution basis .106 Percent rewritten .247 Use of evaluation guide —.l67 Manuscript form required -.319 Length restrictions .440* Page charge -.234 Early publication fees —.210 ‘H 0'86 %L4# 0 m H m 0 o s m m anm m H H n m *Significant at d = .05 level. reports, although a moderately high negative correlation was obtained between the type of reviewers and adequacy of research reports. Table 4.38 presents the set of canonical weights for publication policies and adequacy of research reports. The only high weights were associated with the average number of readers to reject an article, and in the negative 120 TABLE 4.38.—-Canonical Weights for Publication Policies and Adequacy of Research Reports. First Canonical Weights Adequacy of research reports 1.000 Publication Policies Percent of articles published -.109 Average time lag .445 Editor able to accept .184 Editor able to reject —.312 Type reviewers -.434 Use of blind reviews / .277 Average number of readers to accept -2.032 Average number of readers to reject 2.528 Manuscript distribution basis .024 Percent rewritten —.213 Use of evaluation guide -.O96 Manuscript form required .049 Length restrictions .351 Page charge -.388 Early publication fees .046 Canonical R .736 .542 Canonical R2 direction the average number of readers needed to accept an article, indicating a reluctance to reject a "good" research article and reluctance to accept a "poor" research article. The resulting canonical R was .74 and the R2 was .54. 121 Summary Information Question 1: For what type of readers are pro- fessional journals in education intended? Findings.——Table 4.39 presents the number of journals reporting that all of the articles published are intended for a particular group of readers, that over half of the articles published are intended for a particular group of readers, and none of the articles published are intended for a particular group of readers. It is clear that a majority of the journals are intended primarily for college teachers with researchers and administrators being next in importance. Only 18 percent of the journals TABLE 4.39.——Relative Importance of Classes of Readers. Over Under Total Half Half None Researcher 4 4 12 8 14% 14% 43% 29% College teacher 3 9 12 4 11% 32% 43% 14% Administrator 1 6 11 10 4% 21% 39% 36% Counselor 1 0 ll 16 4% 0% 39% 57% Teacher 2 3 13 10 7% 11% 46% 36% Other 1 3 3 21 11% 11% 75% 122 are primarily interested in the public school teacher while 36 percent have no interest at all in this type of reader. There is even less interest shown in counselors, with only 4 percent having them as a primary target and 57 percent having no interest at all. Summary of Findings The findings of this study have been summarized into the following statements. Journals having a strong interest in researchers as their intended readership also have a strong tendency to provide more adequate research reports while those having a strong interest in the college teacher as their intended readership have a tendency to provide less ade- quate research reports. Journals intended primarily for researchers contain primarily research articles while those intended primarily for teachers contain primarily expository articles. Journals intended primarily for college teachers are likely to have very few articles dealing with a review of the literature. Journals intended for researchers and counselors publish more rigorous research reports than those intended for other types of readers. Interest in the researcher as an important reader of professional journals in education has resulted in an increase in new journals intended primarily for the 123 researcher. However, these new journals tend to be pub— lished at less frequent intervals and in less quantity than their older counterparts, due primarily to their more specific nature and limited readership. Journals intended primarily for the college teacher tend to be published more frequently than those intended primarily for other types of readers. This is an indication that college teachers are perceived as having a more urgent need or desire for new information in order to keep abreast of new trends. Journals intended for researchers differ from those intended for public school personnel primarily with respect to length of publication and average number of articles, with those intended for the researcher being newer and shorter. The type of reader for whom a journal is intended greatly influences the topics covered by published arti— cles. The journal intended for the researcher contains more articles concerning research methodology, cultural influences, and learning and development. The journal intended for the college teacher contains more articles concerned with the tangible materials used in their teach- ing. The journal intended for the administrator contains more articles concerning personnel problems. The journal intended for the counselor contains more articles dealing with counseling methodologies and research methodologies. 124 The journal intended for the teacher contains more articles dealing with teaching methodologies in the cognitive areas and public school curriculum. It is also more likely to contain more miscellaneous, non—education type articles. Observation and interview as data collection methods reported in research articles occur more often in those journals intended primarily for counselors than in those intended for other types of readers, as does experi— mental design. However, in those intended for researchers, the occurrence of the use of standardized tests as a data collection technique is infrequent. Experimental design is much more important. Research for counselors tends to be more rigorous and controlled while that in areas of interest to adminis- trators employs less control in the data collection, often utilizing such methods as observation and interview. Research reported in journals intended primarily for researchers has been most often conducted under con— trolled situations, not teaching situations. In addition, the evaluation of such research is often conducted through the use of measurement instruments developed specifically for the situation. Research reports which are intended for teachers tend to analyze the data primarily through the use of analysis of variance and chi square tests, which can easily fit teaching situations. These techniques are 125 understandable and interpretable in a context relevant to the teacher. Research which is counseling oriented tends to follow the same pattern but also depends rather heavily on correlation techniques other than the Pearson. Research reports intended for researchers also tended to employ a wider variety of other techniques. Journals which are more interested in researchers tend to publish a smaller proportion of manuscripts sub— mitted than other journals, to require more of the manu- scripts submitted to be rewritten prior to publication, to use an evaluation form when reviewing the submitted manuscripts, and also to expect the manuscripts to be in a particular form. Journals intended primarily for college teachers are more likely to use blind reviews when evaluating manu- scripts submitted for publication and generally expect the manuscript to be in a particular form. The manuscripts are generally scrutinized more thoroughly on the initial acceptance readings and little chance is given for rewrit- ing. The publication policies most associated with differing between the administrator and other types of readers are the editor's ability to make the sole decision regarding the final disposition of a manuscript submitted for publication. 126 The publication policies most clearly related to differentiating between the counselor and teacher as the most important reader are the greater availability of those for the counselor and an apparently greater number of less well written articles for teachers. The frequency of occurrence of any topic within a journal appears to be unrelated to the adequacy of the research reports in that same journal. No journal characteristics appear to be related to the adequacy of the research reports published. Studies utilizing standardized tests and "other" data collection procedures in research tend to be published in those journals most adequately reporting research. I Studies utilizing Pearson correlations and factor analysis techniques tend to be in journals having less adequate research reports. The occurrence of analysis of variance, reli— ability, T—tests, chi square, other non-parametric techniques, and means contribute most toward an estimation of the adequacy of research reports. The less restrictions imposed on the length of an article by a journal, the more likely that journal is to have highly adequate research reports. Professional journals in education are primarily interested in the college teacher. 127 Less than one-third of the professional journals in education are primarily interested in the researcher. About one—sixth of the professional journals in education are primarily interested in the public school teacher. Overview This chapter contains a description of the analy- sis used and the findings of the study. Chapter V will present the conclusions reached and suggestions for further study derived from this study. CHAPTER V RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY, METHODOLOGY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY This chapter will provide an overall summary of the research study. The rationale for the study and the methodology utilized to investigate the topic of interest will be summarized in the first two sections. The third section will deal with the conclusions derived from the statistical analysis and, in conclusion, recommendations for further study of the tOpic will be presented. Rationale for the Study During the past two decades there has been an increase in the funding available for research in education. As a result there has been an equivalent increase in the number of research projects undertaken. In order for research to be utilized by other researchers for the expansion of knowledge in the field or by practitioners to improve the quality of the outcome of the educational process, the results of research must be available. Pre— vious research has indicated that both researchers and practitioners in education rely heavily upon professional 128 129 journals as a source of reports of the research recently completed. As the needs and expectations of the various types of educators differ vastly over the continuum of needs, the professional journal in education occupies the precari— ous position of seeking to satisfy the whole continuum of needs. This expanded role, however, is not necessarily of their own choosing. Methodology This study utilized a mailed survey to the editors of professional journals in education as well as a direct investigation of the journals surveyed to examine the question of whether or not current professional journals in education are fulfilling their role as information disseminator to both researchers and practitioners in the field of education. In order to accomplish this goal several types of characteristics of the professional journal were investi- gated, including intended readership; journal's physical characteristics, such as number of pages and number of years published; topics; type of articles, that is, whether it is a report of a research project, a review of previ— ously reported research, or an expository article; data collection procedures reported; statistical methods reported; and the completeness or adequacy of the research reports themselves. 130 Objectives The primary objective of this study was to answer the following question with regard to the field of educa- tion: Are the professional journals fulfilling their role as information disseminator to both researchers and practitioners? In order to answer this question, a synthesis of the answers to the following questions was made. For what types of readers are professional journals in education intended? What journal characteristics are signifi— cantly related to intended readership? What topics are significantly related to intended readership? Is there a relationship between type of article and intended readership? Is there a relationship between intended readership and adequacy of research reports? What data collection procedures are signifi— cantly related to intended readership? What statistical methods reported are sig- nificantly related to intended readership? What publication policies are significantly related to intended readership? What journal characteristics are signifi— cantly related to adequacy of research reports? What topics are significantly related to adequacy of research reports? What data collection procedures are signifi- cantly related to adequacy of research reports? 131 What statistical methods reported are sig- nificantly related to adequacy of research reports? What publication policies are significantly related to adequacy of research reports? Sample In order to accomplish the objectives, a sampling frame was selected which included journals that were selected for their exclusive devotion to education and which have earned a position of importance in the field. The resulting list of journals was then stratified on the basis of number of issues published per year and then ordered within each stratum according to average monthly circulation. Systematic sampling was utilized taking three random starts with each start selecting a one-ninth sample. The sample size was selected so that it was sufficiently large to indicate any characteristic occurring in at least 10 percent of the population with a standard error of less than .05 even considering non- response. This conclusion was arrived at through the use of the formula Eh W P (1 - P ) u , _ h h h = n n — ————?—3;7§~————— so that n 1_;_ET7N where Wh = the weight of the stratum in the population, P = the proportion to be detected within the stratum, 132 N = the number in the population, and n = the number to be sampled, which indicates the need for a sample of slightly more than 20 percent of the population. A sample of 37 professional journals resulted, 22 of which publish 2—6 issues per year and 15 of which publish 7-12 issues per year. A response rate of 76 percent was obtained to the question- naires sent to the editors, a response that was more than the 60 percent required for the minimum precision desired. Data Collection Two methods of data collection were utilized for the study. The first was a questionnaire mailed to the editors of the selected journals. This questionnaire dealt primarily with questions related to readership and publication policies. The second method was an intensive investigation of the contents of specific randomly selected issues of the sampled journals. This investigation dealt directly with the‘articles' characteristics of interest and the adequacy of the reported research as well as with the journal characteristics of interest. The selected issues and articles were objectively evaluated through the use of checklists that required specific counts or indi- cations of the presence or absence of the desired information. Topics, however, were subjectively divided into groups that appeared to be as similar as possible with regard to the content discussed within each. Data Analysis Canonical correlation analyses were employed to determine the maximum correlations which could be obtained between the sets of weighted values, thereby representing the relative importance of each of the elements within each group of characteristics, including journal charac- teristics, topics, data collection procedures, statistical methods, and publication policies, when compared to intended readership and adequacy of research reports. Canonical analyses also compared these two major variables. A summary table was utilized to answer the question of the readership for whom the journals were intended. Multivariate analysis of variance was utilized to determine differences between strata associated with the type of reader for whom the journal articles were intended. As the only difference was in the proportion of articles intended for researchers, all subsequent analyses were calculated on the total sample. Limitations The primary factor limiting the derivation of conclusions from this study is the exclusion of those professional journals for which the distribution is primarily localized within a state or region rather than on a national scale. These localized journals frequently are not referenced in the Education Index. However, even those which are referenced are not referenced 134 entirely; therefore, they were excluded from this study in order to also eliminate any journal that is not entirely related to education. These localized journals may be intended for a different type of readership than found in the sampled population. Format, coverage, pub- lication policies and other characteristics are also assumed to be different. Therefore, further study is needed to compare these professional journals not included in the sampling frame to those which were included. Another limitation was the small number of journals included in the analysis when compared to the number of variables within several of the groups of characteristics. This situation led to a very narrow range of weights for each of the variables, and therefore made it difficult to detect small differences. One is also falsely ledtxibelievelarge amounts of variance have been accounted for. A related problem results from non— homogeneity of the variables within sets resulting in unstable weights. These weights should thus be interpre- ted with reservation. A third limitation was the questionnaire used. As this was an investigative study for initial exploratory purposes, certain aspects of the questionnaire became redundant even though it had been pre~tested on several editors who were not included in the survey. 135 Conclusions Several conclusions were formulated from the results of the statistical analysis of this study. The evidence obtained from this study indicates that college teachers are the primary intended readers of educational professional journals, a finding that agreed with previous studies. College teachers are the intended readership for both new and old journals and for those published from two to twelve times per year. There is surprisingly little interest in the pre—college teacher although this is the largest group of readers. Only the older journals show an interest in this group, with the newer and less frequently published ones being interested primarily in the researcher. The journals primarily intended for the researcher also have highly adequate research reports. This is not surprising, but the fact that this is the only type of reader for which there is a significant correlation with adequacy should be of concern. Very few of the articles submitted to these research oriented journals must be re—written. Manuscripts for this group are frequently required to be in a specific form and evaluation guides are often used in the article evaluation process. It appears that researchers are as careful in their submis- sion of the report of their research as they are in their research. The same care is also most often utilized 136 in the acceptance policies of the journals to which they are submitted. Those journals intended primarily for researchers include primarily research articles that deal with topics related to cultural influences on education, learning and development, and college curriculum. These areas then appear to be the most thoroughly researched. There are also frequent articles, both reports of research and expository, dealing with research methodologies and practices. Very few articles deal with teaching topics, particularly in the cognitive areas, again an indication that the complaints of teachers regarding researched areas may be justified. The research reported in the journals with a high level of interest for the researcher tend to follow the traditional experimental designs with specified controls on error. They often include inter— i viewing or interacting with the subject as a data collec- tion technique, but seldom do they make use of standardized or previously tested instruments. The research is usually analysed by the more complex statistical approaches, with several types or levels of analysis being reported. As the measuring instrument is frequently ad hoc to the situation researched, there is little that is comparable to similar studies. Agreement or disagreement must then basically be assumed based upon the conclusions each researcher derives. 137 Those journals which are intended for college teachers are about equally divided in the types of articles published between reports of research and expository articles. However, those most interested in this group of readers are the least likely to publish highly adequate reports of research. A specific form for the submission of manuscripts is seldom required and evaluation forms are seldom used when the manuscripts are reviewed. Often articles are required to be re—written before they can be published, and are re—read by reviewers prior to acceptance. The topics available in journals for these readers are numerous, but currently tangible teaching aids and materials are frequently expected to be of great interest. Thus, the editorial policy toward articles for this group of readers tends to be much more subjective than objective. It is difficult to have a controversial article published by those journals because of the larger number of reviewers necessary for approval. There are few professional journals in education that have an interest in pre—college level teachers. Those that are intended for this type of reader include primarily expository articles concerning teaching method- ologies in the cognitive areas, public school curriculum, and miscellaneous. Such manuscripts are accepted for publication less readily than those intended for counselors. Thus there is little research done in the areas of major 138 interest to these readers. In fact, based upon what is published in these journals, there is little research at all carried out in the field of education which is con— sidered appropriate for their needs. Journals with a high interest in administrators as their intended readership have been in existence for a long time and are fairly easy to obtain. They typically include articles dealing with personnel, teaching method- ologies in the cognitive areas, faculty role, and other administrative areas. The editors of these journals tend more to shield their readership from what they.con— sider inappropriate material than do the editors of journals intended more for other types of readers. Those journals having an interest in counselors as their readership include many articles dealing with counseling methodologies. The articles included in these journals are often reports of research utilizing standard— ized tests, questionnaires, pre-existing records, or some of the less popular data collection methods. In general, the less complex statistics are described in these reports. Factor analysis is frequently employed. In order for a manuscript to be considered for publication in these journals it typically is reviewed by more people than are those intended for researchers or college teachers. However, they are accepted more readily than those intended for teachers. There is little written 139 for this group of readers and that which is, frequently is published, with little trouble and is distributed as conveniently as possible. Reports of research which are adequately described tend to appear in journals published only a few times per year, although not to a statistically significant degree when considered separately. There are also less restric- tions placed on the length of the article, thereby allowing a more thorough report. Certain topics appear to be researched more than others, although they may be only reported less adequately. However, since these include such areas as teaching methodologies in the affective areas, college curriculum and legal areas, the assumption may be made that they are less frequently researched. The adequate reports of research tend to utilize standard- ized tests or other not frequently used data collection techniques. A combination of observation and questionnaire as the techniques utilized are indicative of a well— reported study. On the other hand, a combination of standardized tests and experimental design is frequently less well reported. Those journals having the most ade— quately reported research tend to publish reports of studies utilizing a variety of complex analyses. The less adequately reported studies tend to utilize the less complex but basic design analyses such as analysis of variance, T—tests, and chi—square tests. 140 Thus it is indicated from the results of this study that the professional journals in education are not fulfilling their role as the as the information disseminator which is expected of them by all levels of educational professionals. Those who are responsible for teaching research methodologies, college teachers most often, are not exposed to adequate reports of research through the journals. If these people are, in fact, active researchers in addition and read the journals intended for researchers, their constant exposure is to a better model but they then have less time to keep up with the current issues in edu- cation. Those journals intended for pre—college teachers contain very few reports of research. As these journals are more easily available to the teacher than are those which contain reportscflfresearch, regardless of the quality of the report, this group of readers can be expected to feel that they are being ignored in research endeavors. It is apparent that researchers for many years have also been ignored by the professional journals. education and are now beginning to demand more considera— tion as shown by the recent increase in the number of journals intended primarily for this group of readers. However, researchers also have a responsibility, which so far has not been accepted—-that of seeing that knowledge of their research is available to the practitioners. 141 Many topics are being researched and reported which would be relevant to the teacher, but for all practical purposes the results of these studies are unavailable. Recommendations for Further Study This study was unable to provide information as to all the relationships between the various types of characteristics studied and their relationship to intended readership and adequacy of reports of research. There— fore, further study should be undertaken to obtain a clearer understanding of the total situation. This should include a study of the readership of the professional journals to determine whether they correspond to the editorial policy concerning intended readership. Another aspect of the readership study should include an investigation of what specific types of readers expect and/or would like to see in the journal articles. As this study was based on a small number of subjects and a comparatively large number of articles, a number of more narrowly defined studies should be under- taken in order to validate the results of this study. Similar studies or groups of studies carried out on the less nationally circulated professional journals in edu— cation would increase the knowledge to an area not covered by the present study. The information obtained from this and following studies should then be utilized in setting up a more 142 efficient system to disseminate the important information to all types of professional readers in a form most useful to them. APPENDICES 143 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE 144 145 QUESTIONNAIRE ANSWER ALL OF THE QUESTIONS AS COMPLETELY AS POSSIBLE. 1. What was the first year of publication of your journal (under this or another name)? 2. What was the 1972 average circulation per issue of this journal? 3. It is realized that most articles are of interest to many different kinds of readers. HOWever, would you please indicate what percent of the articles published in this journal would be primarily of interest to each of the following categories of peeple. Theoretical or applied researcher College or university educator primarily interested in teaching School or university adnunistrator School or university counselor Elementary or secondary teacher Other (please specify) Hill 4. Which of the following are most descriptive of the ways in which this journal is distributed regularly other than in libraries? If more than one applies, please indicate the approximate percent of total distribu- tion included in each. Accompanies membership in a parent organization——membership only through recommendation of current member Accompanies membership in a parent organization—~membership solicited Subscriptions available on request "Over—the-counter" sales FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS PLEASE ANSWER FOR BOTH REPORTS OF RESEARCH STUDIES AND ARTICLES NOT REPORTING RESEARCH STUDIES. IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE AVAILABLE AS POLICY STATEMENTS PLEASE FEEL FREE TO INCLUDE THOSE RATHER THAN RE-ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS, INDICATING THE QUESTIONS TO WHICH THEY CORRESPOND. Research Non- reports research 5. What proportion of articles submitted for publication are actually published? 6. For those articles accepted for publication, how long a period of time usually passes between the date an article is first received and the date of its actual publication? Minimum time in months: Maximum time in months: Average time in months: | 1 10. 11. 12. 146 Is the editor able to accept an article for publication without consultation with others? Yes No Is the editor able to reject an article without consultation with others? Yes No If an answer to either question 7 or 8 was yes, please outline briefly the basis on which these decisions are made. Is either a review board or group of expert consultants used as the exclusive reviewing group for-article evaluation? Review board Expert consultants Neither exclusively Are blind reviews used when prOSpective articles are sent to evaluators? Always, on all readings Always on the initial reading Sometimes Never Approximately how many people evaluate an article before it is accepted for publication? Minimum: Maximum: Average: Approximately how many people evaluate an article before it is rejected? Minimum: Maximum: Average: Research reports | 'Non- research . NR NR' NR NR HI NR NR | l3. 14. 15. 16. 147 On what basis are prospective articles distributed to evaluators? Evaluator interest in topic Topic assigned to evaluator Evaluator's choice of articles Random assignment All read by same evaluators Other (please explain briefly) What proportion of submitted articles are requested to be rewritten for reasons other than length reduction? Are there specific criteria or guidelines set up for article evaluation which must be met for publication acceptance? Yes No If yes; please outline briefly (or include a copy if available) the criteria to be met or considerations given for an article to be accepted for publication. If different for research and noneresearch articles, include both. Are manuscripts required to be in a specific form or particular format for acceptance for publication? Yes No If yes, what standard or format is preferred? If the format preferred is specific to this journal, please include a description. Research Non- reports research R NR R NR R NR R NR 148 Research Non? reports. research 17. What length restrictions, if any, are imposed on articles published? R NR ~18. Is there a page charge or other expense required of the author prior to publication of an accepted article? If yes, please desoribe briefly. R. NR Yes No _ ' 19. Can the anther obtain an earlier publication date through the payment of Special fees? If yes, please describe briefly. R NR Yes No ‘ What privileges are extended to authors‘of published articles such as 20. free reprints, etc.? Under what conditions would a list of subscribers be available for 21. further research? Additional relevant infermation you may wish to include: APPENDIX B ADEQUACY CHECKLIST 149 awsummm uonwruo 3 Zoom Iluwguo -3u9131JJ903 pouuomom mofiumfiumbm Mama—~95 vamp mwusvwoonm III! wwdofluud WC . OZ waufluur mo moss caduceawwmr Mona: mzdz IIIIIIIIIJIIIIIIIIIIIJmado 4 APPENDIX C ARTICLE CHECKLIST 151 APPENDIX C Research Articles Journal Name: Volume Issue Date Article No. Page No. 1. Problem Definition Was the problem of concern clearly indicated? was the hypothesis or question of interest logically constructed from some theoretical or practical basis? was a review of the literature present supporting a need for the study? was the procedure used to attack the problem clearly and completely described? 2. Sample Selection was the population of interest adequately described? was the sample selection method adequate? were possible sampling biases pointed out? If a non—random sample, was it adequately described? 3. Appropriateness of Analysis was the data obtained appropriate for the objectives? were appropriate statistical techniques used to analyze the data? 152 153 Were the results of the analysis clearly described? If a survey, was the response rate reported? If a survey, was an attempt made to analyze non-response? If a project, was formative evaluation included? If a project, was comparison data obtained? Control of Error Were probable sources of error or bias identified? Were these sources of error or bias controlled as efficiently as feasible? Was an adequate control group used when appropriate? Was lost data accounted for? Appropriateness of Conclusions Were the conclusions presented clearly? Were the conclusions supported by the data? Did the researcher refrain from overgeneralization of his findings? APPENDIX D LETTERS \ w 1 w 154 155 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN 48823 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION - ERICKSON HALL June 25, 1973 Dear Editor: A growing concern among professionals in education has involved the increasing awareness of communication problems within the field between the researcher and the practitioner. As a result of this concern, a carefully designed study is being carried out to investigate the char- acteristics of current professional journals in education and the rela- tionships between the characteristics and the intended readers of these journals. As the editor of one of the prominant professional journals in education, your help is being requested in the identification of the intended readers and the publication policies of this journal. Your responses will be held in strict confidence. Identification is being made only to place your responses with other information obtained from your journal. Please take the few minutes necessary to complete the enclosed question- naire and return it by July 11. As your responses will be combined with other information obtained directly from your journal, a broad background will be obtained in order to define existing relationships.. As the study cannot proceed until your responses are received, your immediate attention will be greatly appreciated. A self-addressed, stamped envelope has been enclosed for your convenience. If you would like a copy of the findings of this study, please include your name and the address to which you would like the materials sent; Thank you for your cooperation and promptness'in returning this information. Respectfully yours, Paula R. Knepper Project Director 464 Erickson Hall 156 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN 48823 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION - ERICKSON HALL July 16, 1973 Dear Editor: About June 27, you should have received a letter and questionnaire concerning the publication policies and intended readership for your journal. We have not yet received your reply. Perhaps your response is in the mail and we will soon receive it. Another copy of the questionnaire is enclosed for your con- venience in responding, if you have not already done so. In order to determine the characteristics of professional journals in educa- tion and their relationship to the types of intended readers, it is imperative that those journals selected for inclusion respond, so that the results will be truly representative of this important group of journals. Because your re- sponses will be analyzed in conjunction with information taken directly from your journal, completion of the study will be delayed until your response is received. Your return of the questionnaire prior to July 31 would be greatly appreciated as we plan to begin the analysis early in August. Therefore, please complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the stamped, self-addressed envelope that is enclosed with this letter. Thank you for your cooperation in returning this information. Respectfully yours, Paula R. Knepper Project Director 464 Erickson Hall APPENDIX E JOURNALS SAMPLED 157 APPENDIX E JOURNALS SAMPLED American Vocational Journal AV Communication Review Clearinghouse Child Development College and University Business College Composition and Communication Compact Comparative Education Review Counselor Education and Supervision Educational Forum English Journal Grade Teacher Harvard Educational Review History of Education Quarterly Journal of Aesthetic Education Journal of Business Education Journal of Counseling Psychology Journal of Creative Behavior Journal of Educational Psychology Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation Journal of Higher Education Journal of Industrial Teacher Education Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors Junior College Journal Merrill—Palmer Quarterly Modern Language Journal National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin Peabody Journal of Education Phi Delta Kappan Reading Horizons School Counselor School Science and Mathematics Science and Children Science Teacher Sociology of Education Teachers College Record Theory into Practice 158 BIBLIOGRAPHY 159 BIBLIOGRAPHY American Association of School Administrators. Adminis— trative Problems in Search of Researchers. Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1966. American Psychological Association. Reports of the American Psychological Association Project on Scientific Information Exchange in Psychology, Vol. 1. Wash-. ington, D.C.: The Association, December, 1963. Reports of the American Psychological Associ- ation Project on Scientific Information Exchange in Psychology, Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: The Associ- ation, December, 1965. Anderson, T. W. An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis. .New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958. Archibald, Kathleen. "Alternative Orientations to Social Science Utilization." Social Science Information 9 (July 1970): 7-34. Banghart, Frank W., ed. First Annual Phi Delta Kappa Symposium on Educational Research--l959. Blooming- ton, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., 1960. Bartlett, M. S. "The Statistical Significance of Canonical Correlations." Biometrika 32 (1941): 29-38. Becker, James W. "Incorporating the Products of Educational ' Development into Practice." Journal of Research and Development in Education 3 (Winter, 1970): 81-103. Bernard, Jessie; Shilling, Charles W.; and Tyson, Joe W. Informal Communication Among Scientists. Washing— ton, D.C. [George Washington University, 1964.] Binyon, Michael. "Most Research Unrelated to Work." The ’ Times Educational Supplement. London, May 22, 1970. Blackwell, Sara. "Action Research—-Its Promise and Prob— lems." American Vocational Journal 36 (January 1961): l6—l9. 160 161 Brown, Duane. "The Year of the Expert." Counselor Educa- tion and Supervision 9 (Winter 1970): 93-98. Brown, W. 8.; Pierce, J. R.; and Traub, J. F. "The Future of SCientific Journals." Science 158 (December 1, 1967): 1153-1159. Carroll, John B. "Basic and Applied Research in Education, Definitions, Distinctions and Implications." gazvard Educational Review 38 (Spring 1968): 263- "Neglected Areas in Educational Research." Phi Delta Kappan 42 (May 1961): 339-343. Caswell, Hollis L. "Great Challenges for Education." Teachers College Record 59 (November 1957): 69-75. Cochran, W. G., and Hopkins, C. R. "Some Classification Problems with Multivariate Qualitative Data." Biometrics 17 (1961): 10-32. Cole, Jonathan R. "Patterns of Intellectual Influence in Scientific Research." Sociology of Education 43 (Fall 1970): 377—403. , Cooley, William W., and Lohnes, Paul R. Multivariate Pro— cedures for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962. Corey, Stephen M. "The Support of Research in Education." Teachers College Record 59 (December 1957): 129- 136. Courtney, E. Wayne, ed. Applied Research in Education. Totowa, New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams, & Co., 1965. Crane, Diana. Invisible Colleges—-Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago: The Univer— sity of Chicago Press, 1972. "Social Structure in a Group of Scientists." American Sociological Review 34 (Spring 1969): 335—352. Davis, E. D. Educational Periodicals During the Nineteenth Century. Washington, D.C.: Bulletin No. 28, U.S. Office of Education, 1919. Davis, R. A., and Bailey, C. A. Bibliography of Use Studies. Philadelphia: Drexel Institute of Technology, March, 1964. 162 Deutsch, Karl W.; Platt, John; and Senghaas, Dieter. "Conditions Favoring Major Advances in Social Sci— ence." Soience 171 (February 1971): 450-459. Ebel, Robert L. "Some Limitations of Basic Research in Education." Phi Delta Kappan 49 (October 1967): 81—84. Fox, James Harold. "Criteria of Good Research." Phi Delta Kappan 39 (March 1958): 284—286. Gage, N. L. "Can Science Contribute to the Art of Teach- ing?" Phi Delta Kappan 49 (March 1968): 339-403. Gannett, K. K. "Technical Journals and the Information Explosion." International Technical Communica- tions Conference, 14th, Chicago, May 1967, Proceedings. Washington, D.C., 1967. Garvey, William D., and Griffith, Belver C. "Studies of Social Innovations in Scientific Communication in Psychology." American Psychologist 21 (November 1966): 1019—1036. Garverick, Charles M. "Preparation of Journal Articles by Educational Psychologists." Educational Psycholo- gist 5 (June 1968): 3—9. "Teacher Use of Educational Psychological Jour— nals." The Journal of Teacher Education 18 (Summer 1967): 192—194. Garvey, William D.; Lin, Nan; and Nelson, Carnot E. "Com- munication in the Physical and the Social Sciences." Science 170 (December 11, 1970): 1166-1173. Gephart, William Jay. "Development of an Instrument for Evaluating Reports of Educational Research." Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1965. Gephart, William J., and Ingle, Robert B. Educational Research, Selected Readings. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1969. Goldhammer, Keith, and Elom, Stanley, eds. Dissemination and Implementation, Third Annual Phi Delta Kappan Symposium on Educational Research. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., 1962. Griffith, Belver C.; Jahn, Marilyn J.; and Miller, A. James. "Informal Contacts in Science: A Probabilistic Model for Communcation Processes." Science 173 (July 1971): 164—165. 163 Hall, Douglas C. “Research Methodology of NDEA Title VII—A: A Descriptive and Critical Analysis." AV COmmuni- cation Review 20 (Summer 1972): 117-134. Hansen, Morris H.; Hurwitz, William N.; and Modow, William<3. Sample Survey Methods and Theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1953. Hilgard, Ernest R., ed. Theories of Learning and Instruc- tion. The sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Hotelling, H. "The Most Predictable Criterion." Journal of Educational Psychology 26 (1935): 139—142. Jensen, Arthur R. "The Improvement of Educational Research." Teachers College Record 4 (October 1962): 20-27. John Hopkins University, Center for Research in Scientific Communication. Production, Exchange, and Dissemina— tion of Information in Journal Articles on Sociology JHU—CRSC Report No. 17. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, January, 1971. Johns Hopkins University, SOGSIP Study Group. Some Prelimi- nary Results from a Survey of Graduate Students in Psychology. Washington, D.C.: American Psycho— logical Association, Office of Communications, 1971. Johnson, Granville B., Jr. "A Method for Evaluating Research Articles in Education." Journal of Edu- cational Research 51 (October 1957): 149—151. Kendall, M. G. A Course in Multivariate Analysis. London: Charles Griffin and Co., 1957. Kenefick, Barbara, and Paznik, Jane. "From Research to Development: Education Comes of Age." Urban Review 4 (May 1970), 24-28. Kessler, M. M. "Some Very General Design Considerations." TIP System Report, Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology, October, 1967. Kohr, Richard L., and Suydam, Marilyn N. "An Instrument for Evaluating Survey Research." Journal of Edu- cational Research 64 (October 1970): 78—85. Lahmann, M. "How to Identify the Reading Needs of Library Users." AHIL Quarterly 9 (Winter 1969): 40-46. 164 Lehmann, Irvin J., and Mehrens, William A., eds. Educa- tional Research: Readings in Focus. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1971. Licklider, J. C. R. "A Crux in Scientific and Technical Communication." American Psychologist 21 (November 1966): 1044—1051. Line, Maurico B; Brittain, Michael J.; and Carnmer, Frank A. "Information Requirements of College of Education Lecturers and Schol Teachers," ERK No. ED 049 773, February, 1971. Marquis, Donald B., and Allen, Thomas J. "Communications Patterns in Applied Technology.“ American Psycholo- gist 21 (November 1966):, 1052—1062. Martyn, John. Literature Searching by Research Scientists. London: Aslib Research Dept., 1964. Menzel, Herbert. Formal and Informal Satisfaction Require— ments of Chemists. New York: Columbia University, Bureau of Applied Social Rsearch, and New York University, Department of Sociology: June, 1970. . "Scientific Communications: Five Themes from Social Science Research." American Psychologist 21 (November 1966): 999-1004. Merton, Robert K. "Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science." American Sociological Review 22 (2, 1957): 655—659. Merton, Robert K., and Lewis, Richard. "The Competitive Pressures (I): The Race for Priority.“ Impact of Science on Society 21 (2, 1971): 151-161. Monroe, Walter S. "Literature of Education." In Enclo- pedia of Educational Research. New York: Macmillan, 1950. Monroe, Will S. Biography of Education. Appleton Press, 1897. Morrison, D. F. Multivariate Statistical Methods. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1967. Mosely, Aubrey Howard. "A Study of Teacher Perception of Factors Related to Educational Research." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alabama, 1966. 165 National Center for Educational Research and Development. Educational Research and Development in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education #OE-12049, December, 1969. Nelson, Carnot E., and Pollock, Donald K., eds. Communi— cation Among Scientists and Engineers. LeXington: Massachusetts: Heath Lexington Books, 1970. Oettinger, Anthony, and Marks, Sema. "Educational Tech- nology! New Myths and Old Realities." Harvard Educational Review 38 (Fall 1968): 697e717. Paisley, William J. The Flow of Behavioral Science Informa— tion-—A Review of the Research Literature. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1965. Perrucci, Robert, and Rothman, Robert A. "Obsolescence of Knowledge and the Professional Career." In The Engineers and the Social System. New York: _35hn Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969. Policy Briefs: A Bulletin of the Policy Analysis Service of the American Council on Education, Vol. I. Washington, D.C.: Policy Analysis Service, Ameri- can Council on Education, 1974. Raj, Des. The Design of Sample Surveys. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1972. Roe, Anne. "Patterns in Productivity of Scientists." Science 176 (May 1972): 940-941. Russell, David H. "The Prerequisite: Knowing How to Read Critically." Elementary English 40 (October 1963): 579-582, 597. Shaw, Ralph R. Pilot Study on the Use of Scientific Litera— ture by Scientists. Department of Library Science, Rutgers University, 1956. Shumsky, Abraham. The Action Research Way of Learning: An Approach to In—Service Education. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958. Silverman, Robert J. "Communication as the Basis for Dis- ciplinary and Professional Development in Higher Education." Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 10, January, 1973. 166 Silverman, Robert J. "The 'Gatekeeper' Role in Educa- tional Journal Publishing." Columbus, Ohio: College of Education, Ohio State University, 1973. (Mimeographed.) Singer, Harry. "Research that Should Have Made a Differ- ence." Elementary English 47 (January 1970): 27—34. Smith, Mary Neel. "We Improved Instruction by Means of Action Research." Journal of the National Educa— tion Association 44 (April 1955), 229-230. Stiles, Lindley. "The Cooperative Research Program Contri— butions and Next Step." Phi Delta Kappan 18 (March 1962): 231-236. Suydam, Marilyn N. "An Instrument for Evaluating Experi— mental Educational Research Reports." The Journal of Educational Research 61 (January 1968): 200-203. Swanson, Don R. "Scientific Journals and Information Services of the Future." American Psychologist 21 (November 1966): 1005-1010. Tagliacozzer, Renata; Kochn, Manfred; and Everett, William. "The Use of Information and Decision Makers in Public Service Organizations." In Communication for Decision Makers. Westport: Greenwood Pub— lishing Co., 1971. Turner, Richard L. "A Report from the Retiring Editor." American Educational Research Journal 10 (Winter 1973): 1-3. The United States Budget in Brief: Fiscal Year 1974. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. Williams, E. J. "The Analysis of Association Among Many Variates." Journal of the Royal Statistical Associ— ation, Series B, 29 (1967): 199—242. Wilson, John E., Jr. Better Written Journal Papers—-Who Wants Them?" Science 165 (September 5, 1969): 986—987. Zuckerman, Harriet, and Merton, Robert K. "Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalization, Struc- ture and Functions of the Referee System." Minerva 11 (January 1971): 66—100. -