V . v . ’5‘. ,5?! a; C; y 1 GT 3:: AQHLEV . o : z. El 9“: ‘ ERS .7 ‘36“? 1 "SF 15 E- gamma at; m M n‘ A.» if}: E” 349? 2 at me: 1M . J an .1: ... h... ‘ . -‘ . V V‘ ‘1 A I . . . ..l .amvk , .Ifzilr. .4}... wig gig. [#3 Pt , , A'mg K I .‘N 1 - i I'vuiC;H7FI-.léi ‘C’ This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECT OF PERCEIVED RELEVANCE ON ACHIEVEMENT IN A SELF-PACED PHYSICS COURSE presented by Howard Daniel Greenwood has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D . degree in Education Major professor Date February 21, 1975 0-7639 _ , I _ 2mm BMDERS H spamsrognhucmsgnjfl f O'Rv s‘d‘i st .. ‘3! ‘ in . 1L- pad “.5 ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF PERCEIVED RELEVANCE ON ACHIEVEMENT IN A SELF-PACED PHYSICS COURSE BY Howard Daniel Greenwood The goal of this study was to search for a rela- tionship between the career relevance of subject material in physics as perceived by the student and achievement in self-paced and traditionally taught sections of an under- graduate physics course. An exploration for relationships between selected individual variables and the correlation of perceived relevance with achievement was made. The tendency of some innovators to suggest that the individualization of instruction to fit instruction to students' individual purposes increases the effectiveness of instruction suggested an investigation of the relation- ship between perceived relevance and achievement in an individualized course. It was hypothesized that the correlation between perceived relevance and achievement would be positive in both the traditional and the self-paced methods of instruc- tion, and that the correlation would be greater in the Howard Daniel Greenwood self-paced than in the traditional method. It was further hypothesized that the students in the self-paced method would earn higher final grades than students in the tradi- tional method of instruction, and that there would be dif- ferences in final grades and in the correlation of per- ceived relevance with achievement among groups differen- tiated by sex, high and low dogmatism, high and low test anxiety, and high and low reading aptitude. The sample consisted of 126 students from 286 students in the traditional section and 35 of 104 students from the self-paced section of an undergraduate physics course. The sample was self-selected, consisting of stu- dents who completed and returned usable questionnaires. The questionnaire obtained demographic data, and contained the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, the Sarason True- False Test Anxiety Scale, and a relevance scale. Michigan State University Reading and Mathematics Test scores were obtained from the Office of Evaluation Services, Michigan State University. The hypothesis of the study were supported. The correlations of perceived relevance with achievement are generally positive and the correlations are generally more positive in the self-paced than in the traditional section. There are differences in final grades and in the correlation of perceived relevance with achievement between the groups. All Howard Daniel Greenwood Mean final grades are greater in the self-paced than in the traditional section in nearly every group. However, there are some groups for which the correlation of perceived relevance with achievement was negative. Recommendations for further research and for interim guidance practices were made. THE EFFECT OF PERCEIVED RELEVANCE ON ACHIEVEMENT IN A SELF-PACED PHYSICS COURSE BY Howard Daniel Greenwood A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1974 DEDICATION To my parents, \. and to HR. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to the doctoral committee--Drs. William Sweetland, Van C. Johnson, Julian Brandon, and Jules Kovacsj-for their guidance during the doctoral program. I am especially grateful to Dr. Sweetland for his help in developing the framework for my thesis and to Dr. Kovacs for his cooperation in the use of the Keller Plan section of Physics 288, created by him and Dr. Peter Signell, and to both gentlemen for directing my research. My sincerest thanks to Dr. Robert D. Spence for his cooperation in distributing questionnaires in his lecture and for making examination test item scores available in the traditional section of Physics 288, and to the faculty and graduate assistants who taught reci- tation sections of the traditional section of Physics 288 and lent their cooperation, Drs. Harold Forstat, Tjeerd Klassen, and Gerald L. Pollack, and Mr. Walter Becker, Shang—Fang Tsai, and Gregory C. Hamilton. I am grateful for the time and cooperation of the secretaries and programmers in the Physics Department who helped me gather data, for the aid of my typist in putting iii the thesis in proper form, and to Miss Yanee Sornchai for typing part of the first rough draft. A study of this design cannot succeed without the cooperation of the subjects. I am most grateful to the students who returned completed questionnaires. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Purpose of the Study . . . . . . 7 Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . 7 Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Summary and Preview. . . . . . . . . 11 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 13 Effects of Personality on Learning . 14 Anxiety. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Self-Concept . . . . . . . . . . 18 Psychological Inventory Measures of Personality. . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Cognitive Style. . . . . . . . . . . 22 Learner Control. . . . . . . . . . . 24 Relevance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Dogmatism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Goals and Proposals in Individualized Instruction. . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Programs to Individualize Instruction. . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Effects of Individualization on Achievement. . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . 59 The Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 The Traditional Section. . . . . . . 61 The Self—Paced Section . . . . . . . 61 Sample Population. . . . . . . . . . 64 Measures of Course Achievement . . . 68 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.) CHAPTER IV. Achievement in the Traditional Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Achievement in the Self—Paced Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aptitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. . . . . The Sarason True-False Test Anxiety Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . The Relevance Scale. . . . . . . . . . The Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Null Hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . The Within-Line Correlation. . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . Scattergrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation Coefficients . . . . . . . Total Correlations . . . . . . . . . . Sex Differences in Correlations. . . . Dogmatism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sex and Dogmatism. . . . . . . . . . . Test Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sex and Test Anxiety . . . . . . . . . Michigan State University Reading Score. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vMichigan State University Mathematics Score. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Low MSU Reading Score and Low MSU Mathematics Score. . . . . . . . . . High MSU Reading Score and High MS Mathematics Score. . . . . . . . . . Sex and MSU Mathematics Test Score . . Sex and MSU Reading Test Score . . . . Dogmatism and MSU Mathematic Test Score. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dogmatism and Michigan State University Reading Score . . . . . Test Anxiety and MSU Mathematics Test Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . Test Anxiety and MSU Reading Test Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dogmatism and Test Anxiety . . . . . . Groups Excluded Because of Low Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 69 7O 70 71 71 74 74 76 76 79 79 82 83 120 120 123 124 125 128 130 131 132 134 135 135 137 138 141 144 145 147 150 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.) CHAPTER V. Summary of Significant Correlation Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Course Correlation Coefficients. . . . . . . . . . . Topic Area Correlation Coefficients. . . . . . . . . . . Mean Within-Line Correlation. . . . Differences Among Final Course Grades. Final Course Grade Distribution in the'Self—Paced Section . . . . . . . SUMMARY, FINDINGS, OBSERVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Restatement of the Hypotheses. . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Observations on Student Choice and Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Observations on Group Correlations . . Summary of Observations. . . . . . . . Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0 APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 153 153 154 154 155 163 168 168 170 171 176 177 182 183 185 194 205 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 3.1. Demographic data. . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 3.2. The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale . . . . . . . 72 4.1A. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among all students. . . . . 84 4.1B. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among male students . . . . 85 4.1C. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among female students . . . 86 4.1D. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high reading aptitude female students. . . . . . . . 87 4.1B. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high math aptitude students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 4.1F. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low math aptitude stUdentSo O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O C 89 4.1G. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high reading aptitude students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 4.1H. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low reading aptitude students. 0 O O O O O O O C O O O C O O 91 4.11. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high test anxious students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 4.1J. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low test anxious students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 viii LIST OF TABLES (cont'd.) TABLE Page 4.1K. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high dogmatic students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 4.1L. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low dogmatic students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 4.1M. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high reading aptitude high math aptitude students . . . . . . 96 4.1N. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low reading aptitude low math aptitude students. . . . . . . 97 4.1P. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high math aptitude male students . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 4.1Q. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low math aptitude male students . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 4.1R. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high reading aptitude male students . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 4.18. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low reading aptitude male students . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 4.1T. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low test anxious male students . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 4.1U. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high test anxious male students . . . . . . . -.- . . . . 103 4.1V. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low dogmatic male Students. 0 O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 104 4.1W. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high dogmatic male students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 ix Me _- 6A.. ."'. L; I" '1... ‘1 1.; K.‘ 1.. ‘II‘ \1“ a a“ LIST OF TABLES (cont'd.) TABLE Page 4.1x. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low dogmatic high reading aptitude students . . . . . . . . 106 4.1Y. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high dogmatic low reading aptitude students . . . . . . . . 107 4.12. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low dogmatic high math aptitude students. . . . . . . . . . 108 4.1AA. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low dogmatic low math aptitude students. . . . . . . . . . 109 4.1AB. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high dogmatic low math aptitude students. . . . . . . . . . 110 4-1AC. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low test anxious high math aptitude students. . . . . . . . . . 111 4-1ALL Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low test anxious low math aptitude students. . . . . . . . . . 112 4~1AJE. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high test anxious low math aptitude students. . . . . . . . . . 113 4-LAJP. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low test anxious high reading aptitude students . . . . . . . . 114 4°1AG. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high test anxious low reading aptitude students . . . . . . . . 115 4'1Adi. Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low dogmatic low test anxious students. . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 4-1AJL Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among low dogmatic high test anxious students. . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 LIST OF TABLES (cont'd.) TABLE 4.1AJ. 4.1AK. 4.2A. 4.28. 4.2C. 4.2D. 4.2E. 4.2F‘. 4.2g, 4.2a, 4.2:, 4.2;r 4.3. 4.4zx. Page Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high dogmatic low test anxious students . . . . . . . . . 118 Scattergrams of perceived relevance with achievement among high dogmatic high test anxious students . . . . . . . . . 119 Correlation coefficients and mean final grades by group . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Correlations coefficients and mean final grades by group . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Correlation coefficients and mean final grades by group . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Correlation coefficients and mean final grades by group . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Correlation coefficients and mean final grades by group . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Correlation coefficients and mean final grades by group . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Correlation coefficients and mean final grades by group . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Correlation coefficients and mean final grades by group . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Correlation coefficients and mean final grades by group . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Correlation coefficients and mean final grades by group . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Analysis of variance for mean final grades among groups in the traditional section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Mean final grade differences between traditional and self-paced sections . . 158 xi LIST OF TABLES (cont'd.) TABLE 4.5. 4.6. 4.7A. 4.78. Page Differences within the traditional section 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 161 Final grade distribution among responding students in the self-paced section. . . 165 Correlations among all variables in the study subjects in the traditional section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Correlations among all variables in the study subjects in the self-paced section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 xii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to search for an association of the relevance of course material as per- ceived by the student, with student achievement in a self- paced course in physics. Secondary objectives of this study include a search for an association of perceived relevance with achievement in a traditionally taught course in physics and for interactive effects of perceived relevance and selected variables on both types of course. A comparison of the effects of perceived relevance in the two types of course will be attempted. The study is exploratory in nature and is correlational, not experimental. Need for the Study By what right do you intervene in another person's life by instructing him? James E. McClellan arrives at that question in his examination of the justifications for individualization of instruction offered in the sixty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE) and the 1964 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Cur- riculum Development (ASCD). He deduces two basically dif- ferent philosophies of education from the two yearbooks (McClellan, '72). The authors of the NSSE Yearbook, he says, find that Careful and methodical research will always reveal a range of variation much greater than we would have believed on the basis of casual observation alone . . . . The more carefully and methodically we carry on research, the more we are forced to recognize that school age children vary enormously on just about any scale we choose to apply, vary much more than we would have believed. The NSSE Yearbook authors are idealogically com- mitted to individualism but are aware that excessive vari- ations among students seriously disrupt effective instruc- tion under normal school procedures. McClellan notes that effective instruction should increase variation, since more able students are more able to benefit from instruction. The NSSE philosophy of individualization of instruction consists of searching for and using effective means to instruct each child in the skills chosen by the institu- tion. Since instruction is more effective with homogene— ous than with nonhomogeneous groups and groups do not stay homogeneous very long, individualization of instruction is implied. McClellan finds that the ASCD Yearbook is a hymnal praising the value of individuality. The ASCD authors are saying that the aim of instruction is the release of the full human potential of each individual child and youth. While the NSSE authors ask how far, how fast, and by what means can we move an individual down a chosen track, the ASCD authors ask what track the students want to follow. The ASCD authors are saying that the student has a right to demand, "By what right do you instruct me?" McClellan notes that we normally don't consider such questions because we consider the instruction to be benevolent. He finds two objections to this. Bringing flowers to a woman who has hay fever is not benevolent. In order to claim benevolence as a justification we have to know what is good for the student, not assume we know. But more importantly, even benevolence is simply not a sufficient condition for an actions' being exempt from the question: By what right do you do it? In the ASCD philoSOphy, the answer would be that the student has grounds to believe that the instruction is necessary to the achievement of his purpose and asks for it. In the NSSE sense, there is no more moral justification for individualization of instruc— tion than for any other sort of gratuitous intervention in the lives of others. This is not to say that instruction is not justifiable, only that it is no justification to say that it is individualized. In the ASCD sense, one ought not claim that instruction is technically effec- tive just because it is morally justified by appeal to student's purposes. It is a question to which research could make an important con- tribution by asking whether congruence with student's independent purposes makes instruc- tion more effective. One imagines that there are conditions under which student purposes do constitute an important variable in determining effectiveness of instruction and other condi- tions in which they are of little significance. These two philosophies have been observed by other writers. Charles Hensley writes that there are two view- points on the teachers role, one in which the teacher diagnoses and prescribes what each child should learn and another in which the learner selects his goals and directs his own learning, with the teacher acting as a consultant (Hensley, '71). Rita S. Dunn gives a classification scheme for instructional programs that range from semi-individualized to totally individualized. "Self-selection of goals," "Self-selection of materials," and "Self-selection of learning activities" appear in some of the types of indi- vidualized programs (Dunn, '73). The central determinant of strategy in individual- ized instruction, whether you individualize in the interests of the State or of the individual, is the fact that indi- viduals vary. They vary in age, IQ, sex, previous educa- tion, personality, and other variables. Many of these have been found to interact with achievement. A number of strategies for individualization of instruction have been proposed. One is the Keller Plan, created by Fred S. Keller of Arizona State University for use in his psychology course, with J. G. Sherman (Keller, '68). In the Keller Plan students work at their own pace with self-study materials. They may use up to two semesters to complete a one semester course, or they may complete the course in a fraction of a semester. Under- graduate tutors are available when needed, about ten students per tutor, with a faculty member supervising about ten tutors. The course is divided into 20 to 30 instructional modules, each module consisting of a list of behavioral objectives, a study guide with references to resource materials, assignments, and self-administered diagnostic tests. When the student feels he has mastered the objec- tives he obtains a mastery test for the unit. The test is evaluated immediately by a tutor, in the presence of the student. The student is either given an "excellent" on the test or is directed to further study before taking the test again. The student begins work on the next module after receiving an "excellent." His grade is determined by the number of modules he passes. Students in Keller Plan courses are required to "master" material. Their performance is improved since they cannot pass the course by doing well on some "required" parts and flunking other "required" parts of the course. They may restudy and retake an examination until they pass it. Most students will earn A's in Keller Plan courses if they spend enough time at it (Keller, '68). There is typically a larger fraction of A's in Keller Plan courses than in traditional courses (Green, '71). The professor sets the goals of the course, assembles the materials, writes the examination, super- vises the tutors, and gives an occasional lecture. His lectures contain no testable material. The student must win the privilege of attending a lecture by passing a specified number of modules. Summary The National Society for the Study of Education and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Devel- opment have both pointed out that students vary enormously on any variable we may choose, and that this variability adversely affects the effectiveness of instruction under normal school procedures. Individualization of instruction has been suggested as the only remedy for the adverse effects of student variability (McClellan, '72). However, James E. McClellan points out that the two organizations mentioned above have expressed two dif- ferent philosophies of individualization. The NSSE seeks the most effective methods of instruction for the purpose of teaching skills chosen by the institution. The ASCD seeks to help the student learn skills that the student has chosen to attempt to learn. A strategy for individualization of instruction has been developed by Fred S. Keller and J. G. Sherman. The strategy is in the NSSE philosophy. The instructor chooses the content of the course and the student pro- ceeds through the material at his own pace and with his own selection of study activities. However, some student selection of course content is included in many versions of the Keller Plan. McClellan seriously raises the question, "By what right do you intervene in another person's life by instructing him?" The NSSE answer--for the good of soci- ety-~makes the individualization of instruction merely convenient. The ASCD answer--that the student has grounds to believe that the instruction is necessary to the achievement of his purpose and asks for it--makes individ- ualization of instruction unavoidable. McClellan suggests that research could make an important contribution by asking whether congruence with student's independent purposes makes instruction more effective, since proponents of the idea that the aim of instruction is the release of the full human potential of each individual tend to claim that instruction aimed at that purpose is also more effective in improving the specific skills involved. There are no studies that have asked this question in physics. Two demands are becoming stronger in our society. One is the necessity that students learn more than they have ever learned before in schools (Flanagan, '67), and the other is the demand that they have a larger degree of choice in what they learn. Fallers suggests that the latter demand is partially a result of the former. Ameri- can cultural values stress individual choice. Now that we do not really have a choice about going to school, we insist on a choice of what we study in school (Fallers, '70). If granting choice to students makes instruction less efficient, contrary to the claims of some innova— tionists, or if congruence of instruction with student purposes makes instruction less efficient in individualized programs than in traditional programs, then the two demands are in conflict. Evidence that that is not true would be valuable. There is evidence that individualized instruction is more effective and efficient than traditional modes of instruction (Shavelson, '70). There is evidence that allowing students to select some of their subject material and study activities improves learning (Mathis, '70; Mager, '63). There is evidence that perceived relevance improves learning among culturally deprived students in traditional modes of instruction (O'Leary, '71). There is no evidence that perceived relevance improves learning even within an individualized program, to say nothing of making instruction at least as effective in individualized programs as in traditional programs. In this study an attempt is made to examine the relation- ships between perceived relevance and achievement in an individualized program. Hypothesis The first three of the following null hypotheses have been chosen to fulfill the primary and secondary purposes of this study. Hypotheses four and five are a check on work that has been done by many others. Hypoth- esis six checks to see if there are differences in abso- lute achievement as contrasted with the correlation of achievement with perceived relevance in various groups of the population. The method of correlation has been chosen in this study because of the nature of the available population. No experimental method could be employed because the choice of traditional or self-paced course was left to the students and the courses could not be tampered with. Each of the following hypothesis is treated in this study as a set of separate hypothesis, one for each subhgroup in the sample population: 1. The correlation between perceived relevance of the course and final course grade will be negative or zero, in each of the two methods of instruction, traditional and self-paced, and among sub-groups in each method of instruction differentiated by 10 sex, MSU reading score, test anxiety, and dog- matism. The correlation between the perceived relevance of subject material topics in physics, and scores on test items in each topic, will be negative or zero, in each subject matter topic and among sub- groups in each method of instruction differentiated by sex, MSU reading score, test anxiety, and dog- matism. The achievement score in the traditional section will be the mean of standard scores on exam questions in each topic. The achievement score in the self-paced section will be: (a) The number of modules passed beyond requirements in each topic, and (b) The negative of the number of "not yets" in required modules in each topic. The numbers obtained as the correlation coeffi- cients in the self-paced section will be less than or equal to the corresponding numbers in the tradi— tional section. The grade distribution in the self-paced section will not be skewed with the majority of students earning high grades. The mean grade in the self—paced section will be equal to or lower than the mean grade in the traditional section. 4“ f- \"I" *5- TY‘I" ”1“ c 'I ll 6. There will be no differences in final grades within sub—groups within each method of instruction differentiated by sex, MSU reading score, test anxiety, and dogmatism. Summary and Preview The call for individualization of instruction has been based on the claim that student variability makes the traditional methods of instruction ineffective. Individ— ualization of instruction is desired alternately as a means of more effectively teaching skills chosen by the institution and as a means of teaching the student what the student wants to know (McClellan, '72). It is claimed that teaching the student what he wants to know is more effective than teaching him some- thing he does not actively want to know. The purpose of this study is to search for an association of the relevance of course material as perceived by the student, with student achievement in a self-paced physics course. In Chapter Two of this study the literature for individualized instruction is reviewed. In Chapter Three the population and sample are described, followed by descriptions of the instruments and of the methods used in handling the data. In Chapter Four the calculated correlation coefficients, scatter diagrams, and mean course grades within each method of instruction and in sub—groups differentiated by sex, MSU reading scores, test 12 anxiety, and dogmatism are presented. Conclusions and recommendations are presented in Chapter Five. CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The individualization of instruction is prOposed as a response to the fact of individual differences. This review will deal with: studies of the effects of various individual differences on achievement, discussions of the need for or meaning of individualization of instruction, the description of or listing of several programs for individualization of instruction, and studies of the 'effects of some programs of individualized instruction on achievement. The fact that individuals differ is undisputed but typically ignored (Newsom, '72). Researchers generally ignore variations from the mean rather than search for a common factor. Studies of groups generally yield group data whose graph does not even remotely resemble the data for an individual. The intrinsic individual differences that are the root of this discrepancy include: response to type of learning (rote, conditioning, trial and error, concept), procedural variables (response interval, pacing, distribution of practice, intra-task similarity), and the content and modality of presentation (verbal, numerical, 13 l4 spatial). As these variables are manipulated the rank order of subject learning performance varies (Jensen, '67). Newsom et. al continues, briefly describing the results of several studies involving the physiology of the nervous system, the orienting response, extraversion- intraversion, cognitive structure, and attitude and belief systems (dogmatism). Their conclusion is that individual- ization of instruction based on a profile of tests of individual differences would be a superior method of instruction. Effects of Personality on Learning Anxiety: Kirkland reviewed the literature on the effects of tests on students and schools. She made several general- izations: l. A high level of anxiety generally causes impaired performance but occasionally causes improved performance. 2. Subjects react differently to anxiety; some anxious subjects exhibit mental alertness, others reduced functioning. 3. A critical factor is what the test situation means to a particular student in terms of his learned patterns of response to anxiety. If the test is considered important to the individual and if he 15 is anxious when taking tests, he is more likely to perform poorly on tests than one who is less anxious. There is a negative relationship between level of ability and level of test anxiety. Poorer students tend to be most anxious when facing a test. There is a positive correlation between level of anxiety and level of aspiration. Those who are least anxious when facing a test tend to be those who have the least need or desire to do well. Extreme degrees of anxiety are likely to interfere with test performance; mild degrees of anxiety facilitate test performance. The more familiar a student is with tests of a particular type, the less likely he is to suffer extreme anxiety. Test anxiety can enhance learning if it is dis- tributed at a relatively low level throughout a course of instruction rather than being concen- trated at a relatively high level just prior to and during a test. A high level of anxiety tends to be positively correlated with the following: Negroes, rural children, children with emotional problems, unpopularity with peers, and low socio-economic level. 16 10. There is no consistent relationship between the anxiety scores of students and anxiety as rated by teachers and psychologists. 11. There is generally no relationship between anxiety and sex at the elementary school level; however, junior high school girls score higher on anxiety measures than junior high school boys. 12. There are low to moderate negative relationships between measures of anxiety and performance on very complex tasks. This negative relationship tends to increase as the task becomes more test- like. 13. Test anxiety increases with grade level and appears to be long range rather than transitory. 14. Relationships between anxiety and personality variables can generally be found: (a) both active and passive forms of dependency are positively related to anxiety; (b) aggression is negatively related; (c) negative concepts of self and general behavior constriction are positively related (Kirkland, '71). Lin and McKeachie hypothesized that differences in (grade point averages of students differing in anxiety Inight be explained by differences in aptitude. They used the Alpert-Haber scales of debilitating and facilitating .anxiety, the College Entrance Examination Board Scholastic l7 Aptitude Test, and several other performance measures, including course grades, to verify their hypothesis. Per- formance does not vary significantly with test anxiety when college aptitude test scores are used as a covariant. However, college aptitude tests age tests. Student scores on college aptitude tests might be expected to vary with test anxiety, in which case Yin and McKeachie's results might have been anticipated (Lin, '70). Significant negative correlations have been found between test anxiety and task performance on the lowest levels of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, knowledge and comprehension, among college students (Carlson, '69). Marso investigated the effects of feedback imme- diately after tests, more frequent tests, and not grading mid-term tests, on performance on a comprehensive final exam. Aptitude determined by the Quick Word Test and achievement pretests and postests were used as covariants. Feedback, more frequent testing, and not grading mid- terms all increased student achievement on the final examination, but test anxiety had no effect. High test anxious students reported that they strongly preferred more frequent tests (Marso, '70). White, Gaier, and Cooley found that academic failure did not increase anxiety among adult evening college students (White, '66). 18 Receiving lower scores than expected increases test anxiety and test anxiety is negatively correlated with test-retest performance, using the Mandler-Sarason Test Anxiety Questionnaire (Cohen, '72). Lin and McKeachie review studies that are incon- clusive about the sex differences of test anxiety, and others that show sex differences in relationships between personality variables and test anxiety. They found that high test anxious individuals are poor in both intellectual and social competence (Lin, '71). Schultz and Dangel found that the performance of high test anxious students (debilitators on the Albert and Haber Achievement Anxiety Test) on a multiple choice test is inversely related to the number of responses they are required to make in recitations (Schultz, '72). There is no effect of general anxiety on GPA among women, but test anxiety (high DEB anxiety on the Albert-Haber AAT) is negatively correlated with GPA according to a study by Desiderato and Kaskinen. Study habits (good vs bad) were correlated with test anxiety. The authors suggest that repeated failures due to poor study habits produce test anxiety (Desiderato, '69). Self-Concept: Very high ability students who are highly moti- vated to avoid failure will take the easiest courses while low ability students motivated to avoid failure will 19 choose the most difficult courses, according to Isaacson. If a low ability high failure avoiding student succeeds in the first difficult course he chooses he will transfer to an easy course in the same area. If he succeeds too easily in an easy course he will transfer to a difficult series (Isaacson, '64). Koenig and McKeachie found that students who thought the instructor should be authoritarian tended to do poorly in independent study (Koenig, '59). Albott and Haney used the Leary '57 ICL and standardized performance tests to study interactions between sex, self-concept, and two study options: "independent" and "regular." They found no difference in study option for people with different self-concepts generally. However, males in the regular option held managerial autocratic self-concepts while managerial autocratic females prefer the independent study option. Performance was slightly better in the regular option, with highly dominant males doing better in independent study than in regular study, while highly dominant males and females did worse in both regular and independent study than low dominance males and females (Albott, '72). Binder, Jones, and Strowig studied the relation- ships among self—expectations (SE), self-concept (SCA), academic achievement (CPA), and ability (APT), among twelfth grade students. Two independent studies showed 20 essentially the same relationships among self-concept of ability, self expectations, aptitude, and grade point average. Correlations ranged from roughly .30 (SE-APT) to .60 (SCA-GPA, SCA-APT) (Binder, '70). Psychological Inventory Measures of Personality Bigelow, Gordon, and Egbert asked whether there existed personality differences, as measured by the California Psychological Inventory, among: (1) successful independent study and successful traditional study students, (2) successful independent study and unsuccess- ful independent study students, and (3) satisfied inde- pendent study and unsatisfied independent study students. With success defined as a course grade equal to or higher than past GPA and satisfaction indicated by a desire to take another independent study course, there were no significant differences between independent study and traditional study students. Among independent study students, successful students scored higher on Intel- lectual Efficiency and Responsibility. Successful and satisfied independent study students scored lower on Sociability and Socialization than successful but unsatis- fied independent study students (Bigelow, '68). The California Psychological Inventory has been used to add to a regression equation predicting freshman GPA. A multiple R of .52 was found for women using Math 21 and Verbal scores from the Scholastic Aptitude Tests and Socialization, Achievement via Conformity, and Flexibility scores from the CPI. A multiple R of .57 was obtained for men using Feminity in place of Achievement via Con- formity (Stroup, '70). Majer reviews studies of relationships between personality, performance, and modes of instruction. He reports studies by Hansen and Dick in which computer assisted instructed (CAI) systems show effectiveness equal to or greater than classroom instruction, and by Hansen, that shows that CIA plus multimedia produces higher per- formance than a traditional course. Majer also reports a study involving a CAI/ Multi-Media Introductory Physics Course. The course was altered from a completely self-paced computer managed format to one involving a recitation section with a professor. The participants were volunteers. The scales in the Omnibus Personality Inventory, the College Student Questionnaire, FACT questionnaire, math and science back- ground, and the Florida Twelfth Grade Achievement Test were used in a regression equation. When only the highest R scoring scales were retained in the equations, five scales were unique to each group, CAI/Media and Tradi- tional. There was consistency between the two groups in that successful students in both groups were skeptical nil q AN incl. EITA LG if .C v :tili run .0 a?! PA er“ ' Jul 713-6 a 22 and had liberal religious views. They had greater social inclination and were more emotional and trustful. They were not very diverse in artistic matters but were con- cerned about social injustice. Successful students in the traditional course were interested in science, were less sociable, were not likely to indulge in fantasies, were not interested in immediate utilitarian outcomes, and were politically, economically, and socially liberal, autonomous, and unconcerned about the appearance of their behavior. Majer concludes that "mature" students will do better in a traditional course while immature students do better in the CAI/Media course (Majer, '70). Kipnis, Lane, and Berger report a study of the influence of impulsiveness on achievement in mathematics and the physical sciences. Highly intelligent impulsive students do well in psychology but badly in mathematics. The drop out rate of highly impulsive students from engineering and the arts and sciences is very little dif— ferent from the drop out rate of the low impulsive stu- dents. Intelligence and impulsiveness are not related, either positively or negatively (Kipnis, '67). Cognitive Style Coop and Sigel suggest that the construct of cognitive style can contribute to the understanding of individual differences in the processing of information. 23 Many measures of cognitive style have been developed based on different conceptions of the term. Witkin writes about field independent (analytic) versus field dependent (global) cognitive styles, Broverman about conceptual versus perceptual dominance, Bruner of focusers and scanners, Kagan, Moss and Sigel of descriptive, relational, and categorical styles. There is great confusion in the literature, exemplified by Witkin's use of the word analy- tic for field independence versus Kagan et. al use of the term for pe0ple who categorize on the basis of parts rather than the whole in the environment (Coop, '71; Witkin, '62; Broverman, '60; Kagan, '60; '63). Witkin measures the ability of individuals to disengage a component from its surroundings. Bruner observes strategies of response that are used consistently in attaining concepts. Kagan, Moss, and Sigel ask sub- jects their preferences for grouping common environmental objects. Witkin, Bruner, and Kagan, Moss, and Sigel all defined aspects of individuals that are persistent and appear to have effects on the ability to learn various kinds of behaviors. The effects vary with age, some appearing among elementary school children but not among college students. The existing research in the area should sensitize teachers to different individual approaches adopted by the flu Plk s 9i~ \ LU 24 various students in their classes. Some students may be unable to break away from their preferred mode of percep- tion. Differences in the conceptual tempo of students, or the interaction of an impulsive teacher with a reflective student may produce serious effects (Coop, '71). Hester and Tagatz investigated the interaction of analytic and global cognitive styles determined by the Tagatz Information Processing Test (TIPT) with conservative or commonality instruction. The concept attainment task was finding an embedded figure in a complex drawing. The "commonality" instructional group was shown a "focus" card of the figure and three other cards, each showing a com- plex drawing. They were instructed to find the common attribute among the cards. The conservative instruction group was told to compare the complex picture to the focus card and to find the similar figure. Subjects with the analytic style were equally efficient in both modes, while subjects with the global style did much better with the conservative mode than with the commonality mode (Hester, '71). Learner Control Students who feel that they are in control of their fate (the definition of "internal control") perform better when they have control of their learning activities (Mathis, '69). 25 Mager and Clark report that allowing students to develop their own instructional design and to decide what they need to learn results in unique sequences and content of instruction, better performance, and requires less instructor and training time (Mager, '63). The effect of learner control versus program con- trol on achievement has been studied by Campbell and Chapman. Learner control subjects were given a file con- taining course objectives, study guides, practice problems, and tests for the course, and allowed to do anything they wished. Program control (PC) subjects were given the same material in a prescribed sequence, although still self- paced. The performance of the learner control (LC) group slowly improved as the program continued, and the groups were nearly equivalent on the course tests. The signifi- cant factors were the same in each group: clear objec- tives, study guides, self-evaluative problems, self- pacing. The students liked the learner control mode more and might be expected to become more highly motivated to learn for that reason (Campbell, '67). Fallers objects strongly to learner control and to too much choice in high school. The purposes of high school education should be to pass on the cultural heri- tage and the skills necessary to keep the society going. The society is encouraging individualized education 26 because of a fear of mass society and of inequality or ranking. We want to maintain individuality and the equality of men, so we treat all equally by individual- izing. But society must socialize students, must teach them to accept restriction (Fallers, '70). Polly Chico Gross, a high school student, warns against individualization in favor of "basic learning" (Gross, '70). However, the problems of a mass technological society which values freedom and democracy require an education that accustoms students to change and to rational self-selection of goals and activities, according to Bernstein. Students must be taught to be critical, rational, to respect the rights of others, and to be analytical about society and social change. Students taught to do these things gill be independent. Their independence must be recognized, tolerated, and encouraged through individualized instruction and individual choice of goals (Bernstein, '70). Relevance The strongest reasons reported by freshmen for going to college are, among men: . degree necessary for work prepare to be a success prepare for specialization opportunity for advancement satisfaction from field. U‘Iuwal-J C 27 Dole reports that, as seniors, these students still remembered these reasons as having been most important to them. However, total stability of reasons for going to college was small. The list of reasons given as freshmen was much longer and most reasons were of a different rank than the seniors remembered giving them as freshmen. Students do not remember why they came to college (Dole, '70). Reynolds suggests that only information that is subjected to the personalizing process of the individual learner is learned. The information must be relevant to ttgt person at that time (Reynolds, '71). Newton observes that "relevance" has become the rallying cry of contem- porary education and that a subject seems to be "relevant" if it has an immediate and useful bearing on the individ- ual's personal everyday life. He asks if science can have that kind of relevance, pointing out that science owes much of its success to selectively ignoring parts of reality. He questions whether science education should attempt to be "relevant" (Newton, '71). Wood also stresses the importance of the kind of basic science that is not relevant in the sense Newton observed. "Basic" science is the basis of relevant science and proves useful in unpredictable, unexpected ways. Per- haps the immediate "relevance" of science is the satisfying security of the rational approach as a way of life, the 28 delight in the way our observations all fit together to make sense (Wood, '72). Trigrams (1) that subjects liked and thought were words, (2) that subjects dtgliked and thought were words, (3) that subjects liked and thought were not words, and (4) that subjects dtgliked and thought were not words, were used as material for paired associate learning. O'Leary found that the performance of low ability white students was significantly better on trigrams they thought were words than on trigrams they thought were not words. Negro students performed significantly better on trigrams that they tttgg than on trigrams they dtgliked. This indicates that perceived relevance improves or is associ- ated with better performance and that there are two types of relevance, cognitive and affective (O'Leary, '71). Klopfer discusses relevance and individualized science: "Relevance" refers to how well an educational program or a course of study is matched to the needs, interests, and circumstances of the student. Individ- ualization of instruction suggests a practicable way to increase the relevance of the student's learning in the school. Klopfer predicts incredible changes in technology and society that we are not ready for but for which we must prepare the next generation. Students could be in deep trouble if they were to be as innocent about science 29 as many adults are now. The best preparation the school can offer is to help the student to become an effective independent learner. He must be able to select and use a learning environment and instructional material that will carry him toward his goals. He must have well informed positive attitudes toward science and accept the processes of scientific inquiry as a valid way to conduct his think- ing. Honesty, openmindedness, suspended judgement, self- criticism, commitment to accuracy, and a knowledge of the basic facts discovered by science are essential. In the Individualized Science program of the Learning Research and Development Center of the University of Pittsburgh, prescriptions for study are at first made out by instructors, but students are encouraged to start writing their own. Students progress at their own rate and have the opportunity to take alternate pathways to their goals. By providing alternate pathways the system allows the student to make the program more relevant to his own goals (Klopfer, '71). Dogmatism Ehrlich used the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale to exam- ine the relationship of dogmatism to classroom grades. Major area and sex determined the predictive efficiency of dogmatism scores. He hypothesized that grades would be more important to males than to females because of their greater vocational interest. This led to a prediction 30 of an interactive effect with major area and sex, which was confirmed (Ehrlich, '71). Rokeach and Norrell had found that close-minded subjects are less able to £3353 new beliefs (not accept new beliefs), than open-minded subjects (Ehrlich, '71). Low academic achievers score high on the Dogmatism Scale and high academic achievers score low on the Dogmatism Scale, regardless of grade level. Russo found that low academic achievers remain conventional and rely heavily on authority. Rather than exhibit flexibility and open-mindedness in a classroom situation, the more dogmatic individual tends to prefer structured situations (Russo, '70). Weiss, Sales, and Bode used IQ scores, English grades, and the California F Scale by Athanasion and Ezekiel, with a sample of thirty six students to determine the effect of authoritarian and non-authoritarian teachers on the performance of authoritarian and non-authoritarian students. Authoritarian students did best with authori- tarian teachers and non-authoritarian students with non- authoritarian teachers (Weiss, '70). Goals and Proposals in Individualized Instruction Paul Douglas lays the blame for the growing popu- larity of individualized instruction on the administrative search for a cheap escape from the costs of a staggering 31 increase in enrollments. But curricular reform has been a subject in education for a century. Eliot at Harvard claimed that a student's will to learn must come from his own inner motivation. A boy of 18 or 19, he said, should study what he likes best and what he is best suited for. But Harvard students, in the eyes of their professors, dis- sipated their energies in too many fields or concentrated too narrowly, or took "snap" courses. Students did not understand the basic aims of general education. Douglas outlines some principles of individualized instruction: True intellectual goals should displace time- serving goals. The mainstream of the student's learning should move in its own broadening channel, indepen- dent of courses, teachers, and institutions. Liberal education is a satisfaction of a sound feeling of the relative values that perma- nently concern human life wherever they may be found. A curriculum is nothing more than the actual sequence of mental acquisitions of a given mind as it makes its way through the world of ideas by which it is surrounded. Since every mind behaves in a different manner, every curriculum is necessarily different for every student. A curriculum presented to the student as a series of courses is ineffective. Education is a continuous intellectual voyage to be given direction by measurement of present worth. The student experiences intellectual momentum when with the acceptance of responsibility 32 for self-education he marshals all the emo- tional and moral qualities of his nature behind his intellectual task. No educational design can elevate intellectual performance above the level of the flow from a student's mind. The library is the active intelligence center on the campus. Douglas adds, "The corollary of the indisputable fact of individual differences is individualized education," and praises the Pittsburgh Curriculum Continuity Demon- stration for its emphasis on measuring and managing student progress in terms of what the student knows and is able to do. The perils of individualized education include the student's inability to organize and manage his time, inadequate planning of the student's course, the assumption that all students are equally ready for individualized instruction motivationally and academically, the inade- quacy of budgets and of instruments to measure student performance, the rarity of student-faculty contact, and the assumption that all students prefer independence (Douglas, '67). McClellan also stresses that the fact of individual differences requires individualized instruction. He further justifies individualized instruction as being morally proper in the sense of aiming toward "the release of the full human potential of each individual child and youth." 33 McClellan claims that programmed instruction was seen as being color and class blind, and that programmed instruction forced consideration of exactly what it was that culturally deprived people lacked, so that it could be provided for them. He praised Skinner: It (the theory of operant conditioning) was radically egalitarian; all men, like all pigeons, are endowed by their Creator with the right and the ability to learn; it was radically individ- ualistic; each man, like each pigeon, must learn at his own rate and with his own style. And after de-emphasizing programmed instruction, he added: Surely it is not ignoble to affirm that everyone can learn. Nor is it irrelevant to insist that educational research focus on the individual learner to discover how he can be helped to learn better (McClellan, '72). Kieffer complains that students do not get what they expect at small liberal arts colleges. He blames this largely on the mass lecture method of instruction. Lectures emphasize constant attention and do not allow for a moments consideration of what has been said. Learning should emphasize thought progressions, reflections on relationships, and free association. Lectures also assume that all students are alike, that they know the same things, and learn at the same rate. Lectures are wastefully used to transmit information that can be read. They fragment the student's time, exposing him repeatedly to a series of unrelated presentations and 34 preventing him from integrating a subject into a whole. Lectures force the professor to use multiple choice ques— tions on his exams and the student to "cram" knowledge and then go on, whether he understood or not. It is a ruthless and incredibly inefficient system that permits and almost forces weaknesses to go undetected or uncorrected, that piles weakness upon weakness, that shoves students on to ever more complex educational content without real information on their mastery of prior foun- dation content. Kieffer recommends these objectives: 1. Mastery of educational content rather than steady progress over a series of arbitrarily established time hurdles. 2. Movement of students through educational content on an individual basis at their own best pace. 3. More emphasis on integrative rather than disintegrative learning experiences and learning environments. 4. More efficient use of student and teacher time. 5. Wide options in teaching methods to accom- plish specific tasks. 6. Enlarged and more efficient opportunities for students to work with their professors and to seek their help. 7. More efficient use of college facilities. 8. Constant validation of teaching methods and educational content as reflected in the ability of each student to demonstrate mastery of desired content (Kieffer, '70). "Individualized instruction is quickly being established as a routine teaching procedure in many class- rooms." Students react quickly and positively to the cu Wu "4 ’(j (3 ~.., ‘\ ar- ‘10. (I) (I) (5 r h “u ( ‘2 11' J?” '4 35 release from the lockstep of group instruction and, per- haps for the first time, learn for the sake of learning in a world of realistic learning. Teachers perform as diagnosticians and prescribers, and have greater oppor- tunity for personal contact with students (McBurney, '69). Gnagey warns that technological progress may create a society where the individual will be "lost." "The main requirement for man's supremacy as a personal entity is intellectual freedom. Upon freedom of thought depends his political, economic, and all his other, freedoms." He suggests that men must learn to adapt to change and to enjoy learning for its own sake (Gnagey, '64). An effort to help students in the complex task of planning their educational development led to project TALENT in 1957. Flanagan describes the motivation for and essentials of a model of an educational system developed by the Center for Research and Evaluation in Application of Technology in Education (CREATE), of the American Institute for Research in Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto, California. There is presently inadequate provision for the very large individual differences found in any age group. Schools do not develop in the student a sense of his own responsibility for educational, personal, and social development and for making his own realistic educational decisions. There is not enough emphasis on learning how 36 to learn, to think, and to make decisions. Instruction does not have the efficiency and flexibility necessary to enable the student to plan and select the education that will prepare him for the roles he selects. The plan (CREATE) requires modules, modular seg- ments with specific objectives, and measures to determine when the objectives have been met. It uses a computer to process, store, and make information available. It requires guidance procedures for planning individual pro- grams (Flanagan, '67). Hug reports that students pursuing curricular objectives by independent study had better attitudes than other students. Students in independent study were pro- vided with programs of instruction, discussion questions, a room for discussion, and a quiet room. A small group discussion section with teacher made questions and a lecture-demonstration section were compared to the inde- pendent study section. No differences in achievement were found, but independent study students believed that they had learned more, improved their study habits more, and that their work was more interesting than in their other classes (Hug, '70). Programs of individualized study at Indiana Uni- versity have also developed improved attitudes toward science. One program involved a list of objectives and resources for a block of study, with the student left to 37 decide how he would proceed to attain the objectives. A date was given for completion of the block and for an examination. Only a few students complained, and they didn't complain about the subject matter. They wanted more structure, a more authoritarian teacher. Anderson suggests that few people would argue with the statement that schools at their best have been benev- olent dictatorships. The idea that students have civil rights is just now being established by court rulings. The need for student freedom is based on civil rights and the meaning of "science." Science requires the freedom to inquire. But we have to teach students to use freedom by forcing them to Operate under fewer and fewer constraints. That is, specify objectives and their priorities, then leave the student to decide his own fate. Extrinsic rewards may be used to get a student involved in science, since without some contact with science no inter- est in science will ever develop (Anderson, '71). Education is a purposeful, ggnfrandom event. Bloom suggests that the normal curve, describing random events, should not be used to evaluate achievement in education (Bloom, '68). Marso contends that classroom tests should be less difficult than the 50% difficulty level. He found that students exposed to less difficult tests studied more and achieved more on a final 38 examination. The increased study time suggests a better attitude toward science (Marso, '70). Glass and Yager also suggest that individualized instruction improves student understanding of science. They allowed students to read portions of the text on their own and at their own rate. No classes as such were held. The student performance in this class was compared to the performance of the students in the previous year, using the Test on Understanding Science and the Facts About Science test. Students in the self-paced course gained a significantly better understanding of the scien- tific enterprise (Glass, '70). Troyer quotes Mannello and immediately agrees, "'If grades must go,‘ as indeed they must, what will take their place?" He describes an evaluation system at the National College of Education, Evanston, Illinois. The system is criterion referenced instead of norm referenced. The student record is a list of competencies. A student is no longer allowed to "pass" a course by doing well on parts of it and badly on other parts. "Passing" a course is seen to have little meaning by the Council on Academic Standards at National. The letter grades are empty of meaning, relating to achieve- ment in later courses but not to professional or vocational achievement. The GPA and the normal curve do not reflect reality. Grades do not really tell a student where he 39 stands. The emphasis on comparisons between students rather than on intrinsic factors of achievement is unaccep- table. The pursuit of grades has a negative effect on the mental health of the student, especially on self-esteem and openness to further learning. Grades provide no ade- quate system of self-appraisal and encourage a morality of "getting by." At National the student is provided with a com- petency list at registration. The instructors evaluate the student on each competency item and sign a form when com- petence is demonstrated. There is no self-pacing inherent in the system, however. Instructors may require attendance in class and may set times when competency may be demon- strated. The plan also specifies matching learning units (modules) to student learning styles as expressed by vari- ables such as abstractness vs. concreteness, amount of practice, reading vs. listening, and observation vs. manip- ulation (Troyer, '70). Dunn states that individualization is necessary: Recently we have begun to recognize that each youngster learns in a manner which is uniquely his or her own, through perceptual strengths that either fortify or discourage the acquisition of knowledge and skills, and with a learning style that tends to dominate his or her every effort to achieve. . . . Drastic instructional and organizational change is needed to revise and improve the teaching-learning process to permit students to strive for, and reach, self—fulfillment. 40 He then lists what he believes to be the basic elements of individualization: Teacher and student diagnosis. Teacher and student prescription. Student selection of goals, learning materials and activities, and instructional tech- niques. Self-pacing. Self-assessment followed by cooperative assessment. Self-selection of modus operandi determined by learning styles. Objectives and prescriptions based on student interests. Student creativity incorporated into self~ selection aspects (Dunn, '72). The above models require some kind of competency statements. Barton cautions that competency statements are useful for instruction or training. They should not be used in situations that require original thinking, value commitments, creative solutions to problems, and self- discovery or self-understanding (Barton, '72). Bolvin and Glaser reiterate the absurdity of expecting and educating for uniformity, and espouse the moral value of individual performance versus group perfor- mance. The principle goal of education is to create men who are capable of doing new things, not simply of repeating what other generations have done--men who are creative, inventive, and discoverers. The second goal of education is to form minds which can be critical, can verify, and not accept everything they are offered. Creativity and originality can be brought about by freedom in the classroom, by freedom that assures that 41 the students' behavior is shaped by his own productivity and not by group norms. A critical approach is encouraged by the ability of the individual to challenge opinion, which can best be done on the basis of information the individual acquires himself. With these values, the members of the Learning Research and Development Center of the University of Pittsburgh developed the Individually Prescribed Instruc- tion program. The program keeps track of competencies, is self-paced, provides for differences in learning styles, and for different goals for each child. It is assumed that each child can master all of his subjects (Bolvin, '68). Ubben reviews self-pacing, observing that group instruction cannot cope with individual differences and that teachers should become instructional managers. Ubben, Liberman, and Schwen refer to Individually Pre- scribed Instruction (IPI), Learning Activity Packages (LAP), Program for Learning in Accordance with Needs (PLAN), and UNIPAC, all of which either are or involve instructional modules based on behavioral objectives, instructional activities, and diagnostic tests (Ubben, '70; Liberman, '70; Schwen, '70). The advantages and disadvantages to breaking a course up into instructional packages are listed by Johnson. The packages are portable, exchangeable between 42 courses, replicable, modifiable, feasible, applicable to any field. The student can go anywhere to learn, learn at his own rate, repeat material whenever he wishes, study topics in any sequence, get assistance whenever he needs it, and complete the course whenever he is ready. The limitations include lack of time to prepare materials and the antagonism of other faculty and administration. There is a tendency to use low-level cognitive objectives and to fail to use as large a variety of instructional methods as possible. More measures of attitudinal response should be included in the packages (Johnson, '71). Programs to Individualize Instruction Fred S. Keller developed a plan for self-paced learning based on his observations of training programs in the Signal Corps during World War II, in cooperation with J. G. Sherman. The plan involves dividing the course into roughly 30 units of content and writing a study guide with clearly stated behavioral objectives, a variety of learning activities, practice problems, and a self- evaluative quiz. Finally mastery tests are written in several versions for each unit. Students may study the units at their own pace. There are student tutors available if the student needs help, and he may see the professor. When he feels ready for a mastery test he goes to a testing center, picks up 43 the test, completes it, and sees it graded immediately by a student tutor. If he does not demonstrate essentially total mastery of the test material he does more problems, completes other study activities, and returns a day or more later to take another version of the same test. He may repeat this procedure until he finally demonstrates mastery and continues to another unit. Course grades are determined by the number of units in which mastery is demonstrated, and by a final examination. The student may complete the course well before the semester is over, or he may continue well into the next semester, with no effect on his grade. Lectures are given, but they are "enrichment" material. The material covered in the lecture is not tested, and attendance at lectures is a privilege that must be earned by demonstration of mastery of specified units. Student comments about Keller Plan courses indi- cate that students attained much greater mastery, and a greater feeling of achievement, felt more recognized as a person, enjoyed the course, improved their study habits, acquired better attitudes towards tests, worried less about grades, and became more interested in hearing lectures, in Keller Plan courses. The distribution of grades in Keller Plan courses is skewed, with a high percentage of A's and B's. 44 Withdrawals and incompletes are more common than E, C, or D grades (Keller, '68). Green reports the use of the Keller Plan in a phyraics course at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nolcxgyu He used 18 units of course material. He notes that. Keller Plan courses are highly structured, and that studtants tend to put off doing work in the course in favor Of dtJing work in courses with deadlines. Grading in the freshman course was based on a midtxerm and final examination, and was Pass-Fail. Grades in tflne sophomore course were based solely on the number of uniizs completed, with no midterm or final examination (Green, '71). Successful use of the Keller Plan is reported from nunkerous schools, including: Lowell State College, Lowell, Massachusetts, Dr. Paul Protopapae Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., Dr. Sue Clark Monterrey Institute of Technology, Mexico, Ing. Horacio Gomez Junco Universidade Brasilia, Brasilia DF 70.000 Brazil, Professor Paulo Cesar Bezarra University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Dr. Donald E. DeGraaf Staten Island Community College, New York, New York, Helen B. Siner Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand, Dr. B. A. Ryan Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, Dr. Emil Heitner Gordon Institute of Technology, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, Dr. Gerald King Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, Dr. Leila R. Cohen fl: t4 4 ‘IIIM. in 45 Henry Ford Community College, Dearborn, Michigan, M. F. Read Ohio University, Ada, Ohio, Donald C. Milks Boston University Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, Dr. Allen J. Cohen (Sherman, '72). Green reports that his friend, Fred Keller, is "ruruning scared." The Keller Plan is being adopted with frigiutening speed by all sorts of people (Green, '71). Nunney and Hill describe a program at Oakland Comfluanity College, Michigan, that is based on the pre- scriqption of instruction by means of cognitive style map- PiDSI. Tests are given which probe questions such as how thEE student uses his senses, how he searches for meaning, Whether he prefers to listen or to read, whether he pre- fers to categorize or to contrast and relate information. USing the map, the teachers choose a set of instructional acitivities for the student. The programs are self-paced, with traditional classroom experiences kept available (Nunney, '72). All of the programs involve self-pacing, mastery t‘ists, and learning packages or modules containing behav- iJDral objectives, instructional activities, and self- eV'aluative tests. Postlethwait and Husband describe the Audio or Auto Tutorial System at Purdue University. The system involves an Independent Study Session involving the use of multimedia in carrells, with activities determined by behavioral objectives, a General Assembly Session where 46 the instructor attempts to integrate and orient the subject material and gives majOr exams, and an Integrated Quiz Session where the student is quizzed orally about items covered in the last week. In this session students are handed an item and must then discourse on it, or "teach" it (Postlethwait, '70; Husband, '70). Edling reviews a number of programs of individual- ized instruction in which students proceed at their own pace and achieve self-evaluated and self-satisfying goals. These include the Continuous Progress Plan of Edwin Reid at the University of Utah, and at the Meadow Moor School in Salt Lake City; the Duluth experiment; the programs at Melbourne High School in Florida; Matzke Elementary School at Cypress, Texas; NOVA Schools, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; the UCLA Laboratory School, Los Angeles, Cali- fornia; Janesville Public Schools, Janesville, Wisconsin; the Tutorial Community of the System Development Corpora- tion, Santa Monica, California; Dekalb County Schools, Decatur, Georgia; and others in Haxtun, Colorado; Hager- man, Idaho; Pendleton, Oregon; and Temple City, California (Edling, '70). Steffen describes project SPOKE in Norton, Massa- chusetts (Steffen, '71). Wedemeyer and Ghatala describe the Wisconsin "Open" school (Wedemeyer, '72). Hunt describes an individualized program at Northpoint High School, New York (Hunt, '66). Reports of other programs 47 of individualized instruction include Kallenback and Carmichael, '71, Bertrand, '72, Shanberg, '71, Stoltz, '71, Briley, '71, Rogers, '73, Payne, '72, McCurdy and Fisher, '71, Krockover, '70, Frantz and McConeghy, '72, Hensley, '71, Lunetta and Dyrli, '71, and May, '72. Effects of Individualization on Achievement POppen and Thompson used a grade contract approach which allowed the student to select suggested grade level requirements or to substitute individual or independent study activities for an or all of the suggested course activities in an educational psychology course. If the student exceeded his contract or didn't complete it his grade was determined by his actual performance. No significant differences in achievement between the experimental course and a course ran in a traditional manner were detected, using examination grades and quality of papers and child case studies reports as measures of achievement. Subjective evaluation by the instructors indicates that those students opting for independent study projects in place of the examinations became more involved in "relevant" learning (Poppen, '71). Hastings divided a required graduate course in educational research into six units and wrote behavioral objectives for each unit. Reading references, learning materials, and exercises were included in each unit. 48 After the fifth class session there were no further class meetings held. Mastery was defined as 50% on the early units and up to 68% on the later units. Scores on the first form of each unit test taken by each student were used to compare the performance of the students in the experimental section with the tradi- tionally run class, which used the same division of the course material. There were no significant differences between the groups on IQ, critical thinking, previous achievement, sex, age, years since bachelor's, number who had completed the master's degree, years since completion of the master's degree, semester hours completed since completion of last degree, or undergraduate and graduate majors and minors. The experimental group performed significantly better than the traditional class group on four of the six unit exams. Students asked why it was necessary to learn cer- tain of the behavioral objectives, which led the author to suggest that a rationale for each objective be included in the behavioral objectives (Hastings, '72). An individualized self-paced instruction system and laboratory with small group discussion was develOped by Shavelson and Munger. They compared its effectiveness against a traditional course in high school biology. MD f t I n‘v I5 Ch . ‘1 49 The experimental, self-paced group did as well as the traditional group on the first quiz and completed the material in less time. The experimental group did signifi- cantly better than the traditional group on the second quiz and completed the material in less time. The experi- mental group also did significantly better than the tradi- tional group on a post test. The students in the experi- mental group felt that they had received a better "educa- tion" than in other courses (Shavelson, '70). Hartnett and Stewart, at the College of Basic Studies, University of South Florida, divided their stu- dents into two groups, one to take the regular courses and the other to take the same courses by independent study. The latter group attended no classes but took a common final examination, with the first group. These students were matched to the students in the regular cOurse using their Florida Twelfth Grade Test scores, with no pair differing by more than three points. In two of the six courses the independent study students performed significantly better on the final examinations than the regular course students. The mean performance of the independent study students in the other four courses was slightly but not significantly higher than that of the regular course students (Hartnett, '66). Born, Gledhill, and Davis distributed the students enrolled in a psychology of learning course according to n..- we» rf (3 \ “IA-u vi... l Wet. 50 cumulative GPA into one of four course sections in order to obtain similar distributions of GPA in each section. The sections were: a lecture-discussion section, two Keller Plan sections, and a "rotating" section in which instruction was switched from traditional to Keller Plan after the first midterm exam. The Keller Plan sections were provided with module study guides, tutoring, and tests, upon request, at one hour "class" meetings held three days a week. The course was divided into 16 study units, one per textbook chapter. Students were not quite self-paced because they were required to pass all units covered by a midterm examination before the midterm, which was given on the same day for all sections. Students in the two Keller Plan sections and in the rotating section earned a mean grade significantly higher than the students in the lecture discussion sec- tion. The differences occurred in fill in the blank and essay questions, but not in multiple choice questions. All students who dropped out of the Keller Plan sections had a previous GPA of 2.24 or less. The student with the previous GPA of 2.24 transferred to the regular section, earned a low C on the midterm, and finally with- drew from the course. Another student who insisted on transferring to the regular section completed the course with a grade of E. 51 In the rotating section the top five students and the bottom five students on the first midterm were deter- mined. Then instruction was switched from regular to Keller Plan. The performance of the top five students was not changed significantly on succeeding examinations, but the performance of the bottom five was significantly improved. Poor to mediocre students were most helped by the Keller Plan method, but withdrawing students in the Keller Plan section were all poor to mediocre students (Born, '72). Bybee gave one section of an Earth Science class three lectures a week, with films and lecture outlines. A second class was given one hour lecture a week and required to attend a two hour laboratory. Three quarters of the laboratory time was left to the individual, with access to an auto-tutorial (multimedia) center. He found no significant differences in examination performance of the two sections on a Comprehensive Earth Science Examina— tion. The group in the experimental section preferred the treatment they had received more than the group in the regular section had preferred their treatment (Bybee, '70). After briefly reviewing several studies that indi- cated that individual study without formal class attendance results in achievement as high or higher than achievement associated with attending class, Himmel selected 39 sub— jects from a general psychology course and gave them a 52 careful orientation to the self-directed study technique, passed out course material, and let them go. They attended class only for the examinations. The final examination scores of the students who were freed of class attendance were significantly higher than the final examination scores of those students that were required to attend class (Himmel, '72). James used the ISCS materials in a course for seventh grade science. In an experimental section he allowed faster students to go beyond the core and per- mitted slower students not to complete the core. Students were assigned to the regular and experimental sections so that there were equivalent distributions of scores on tests of science achievement and understanding in each section. No differences were found in the post course performance on these tests (James, '72). Crist observes that students do not pay much attention to programmed texts, but that projecting the frames on a screen in class and requiring the students to respond aloud in turn did not produce any higher perfor- mance than allowing the student to proceed through the text alone and at his own pace (Crist, '66). Menges arranged a self-directed study course in the psychology of learning. Attendance was required only at the first five class meetings. The student was required to write behavioral objectives for his plan of 53 study, meet personally with the instructor at least three times, submit a journal of learning experiences, and assign himself a course grade. Course achievement of the experimental group and a group receiving traditional instruction was compared using an 80 item multiple choice test. No significant differ— ences in performance were found. The students in the self- directed study group had consistently better attitudes toward the course than the students in the traditional sections (Menges, '72). A programmed science sequence of 100 frames was used by Gropper and Kress to measure the typical work rate or "pace" of each student in an eighth grade class. Fast workers made more errors and scored lower on post—tests than slow workers, but only among low IQ students. Work rate was found to be a stable characteristic of individuals, but many fast workers had low IQ and did poorly in terms of errors rate and on post-tests. Typically slow working low IQ students did well at their own rate but did poorly when forced to work at a fast rate. High IQ students who were typically slow workers did not suffer significant deterioration in performance when forced to work at a faster rate, but fast working high IQ students performed less well when forced to work slowly. The goal of efficiency would seem to require 54 some control of pacing, rather than allowing students to pace themselves (Gropper, '65). Goldman, Wade, and Zegar constructed a self-paced course in Economics involving three study units. Most of their students “never even came close to completing the three units of the course." The units were: (1) major concepts, (2) development of analytical skills and (3) research. The "major concepts" numbered 200, plus unspeci- fied behavioral propositions embedded in the text. The sections on analytical skills and research made no attempt to describe goals in terms of behavioral objectives. The authors claimed that "Most of the disciplines in the behavioral sciences, humanities, and creative arts . . . do not lend themselves to such step-by—step programming." The authors suggest that a detailed syllabus is apparently not enough structure and that the students seem to need deadlines, classroom activities, and an authoritative instructor. Only 21% of the students expressed any satisfaction with the course (Goldman, '74). Summary There seem to be four goals for which individual- ization of instruction is prescribed: (1) To make instruction more effective and efficient, (2) To provide for the stability of the democracy by training people to be critical, analytical, and rational, (3) To prepare the 55 individual to adapt in a rapidly changing world through life-long independent study, and (4) To give the student freedom to choose his own goals and activities, as sug- gested by the democratic ethic. Individuals differ far more than one would expect on every variable that might be measured. Many of these variables interact with the efficiency and effectiveness of instruction. Adapting the instruction to the learning style of the individual—~his pace, his preference for reading or hearing, his method for sorting new information-- should increase the total educational level of society as well as maximize individual accomplishment (Newsom, '72). Anxiety has been found to affect student achieve- ment, in increasing achievement for some and decreasing achievement for others. If an individual suffers test anxiety and takes a test that he considers important, he is likely to do poorly on the test. His performance will be improved if he takes tests frequently, of similar appearance, rather than taking a few highly important tests (Kirkland, '71). Performance on highly complex tasks is less affected by test anxiety than performance on simple tasks, but becomes poorer as the task becomes more test-like (Carlson, '69). Test anxiety is a persistent characteristic of students and increases with age and grade level (Kirkland, 56 '71). Academic failure in adults does not increase test anxiety (White, '66). Recitations in which students are actually called upon to respond increase test anxiety (Schultz, '72). The need to avoid failure can lead 10W ability students to choose the most difficult courses and high ability students to choose the easiest courses. Success or failure, respectively, will then cause a switch to a course of the oppoSite extreme in difficulty (Isaacson, '64). Authoritarian or dogmatic students prefer highly structured courses and authoritarian instructors, and achieve more in such courses than in less authoritarian, more individualized courses, but do less well in all types of courses than less dogmatic students (Weiss, '70). Other personality variables interact with achievement. Socialization, achievement via conformity, flexibility, and femininity on the California Psycho- logical Inventory correlate positively with achievement. Successful students are usually skeptical and hold liberal religious views. Less "mature" and less intel- ligent students are helped more by individualization than are mature intelligent students (Majer, '70). Giving control of the learning situation to the learner, so that goals, instructional activities, sequencing, and diagnosis are done by the student, f" P? p; 57 increases achievement. In a sense, such methods increase the relevance of the course. However, problems of moti- vational readiness, maturity, and preparation appear fre— quently (Mager, '63). Frequent claims are made that increasing course relevance increases achievement, although what seems rele- vant to the instructor is not frequently the relevance that students respond to. Lower ability white students are able to learn pairs of trigrams better if they seem "relevant" in the sense of seeming to be words (O'Leary, '71). Ehrlich predicted an interactive effect of major area and sex on the assumption that grades were more rele- vant to males, and more relevant in their majors than in their minors (Ehrlich, '71). The typical program of individualization allows students to progress at their own rate through instruc- tional modules. The modules contain statements of goals in terms of behavioral objectives, a study guide, practice exercises, and self-evaluative tests. The modules contain material that may be completed in one or two weeks. When the student feels ready, he takes an examination and chooses another module (Keller, '68). There are many such programs in Operation, most of them producing achievement equal to or greater than achievement in traditional courses, and almost all of them producing better attitudes 58 toward the subject involved and studying in general (Sherman, '72). The claims that individualized instruction makes courses more relevant and that increased perceived rele- vance increases achievement are widely made, but there seem to be no studies directed toward the question of whether perceived relevance in an individualized course does indeed increase achievement or is even associated with higher achievement. CHAPTER THREE DESIGN OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study was stated in Chapter 1; to search for an association of course material, as per- ceived by the student, with student achievement in a self- paced course in physics. Secondary objectives of this study include a search for an association of perceived relevance with achievement in a traditionally taught course in physics and for interactive effects of perceived relevance and selected variables on both types of course. In order to accomplish these purposes it was necessary to obtain access to a self-paced course in physics, a comparable traditional course in physics, a measure of perceived relevance, a measure or measures of course achievement, measures of the "other variables," and subjects from the two courses. Finally, a procedure for handling the data had to be developed. The interfering variables of sex, test anxiety, dogmatism, and aptitude as measured by the Michigan State University Reading Test were chosen as factors likely to have differential effects on achievement in a self-paced course for the following reasons: 59 60 (l) Self—pacing seems to be non-authoritarian and dogmatic personalities do not do well in non-authoritarian learning situations (Weiss, '70); (2) The negative effects of test anxiety seem to be reduced when the anxiety is spread over a course rather than concentrated at a few examina- tions, and when the student becomes familiar with the form of testing used (Kirkland, '71). In the self-paced section anxiety should be well spread out, since the student takes a great many tests. He may also retake tests as many times as he needs without negatively affecting his grade; (3) High aptitude students are likely to show a ceiling effect where a number of students earn the highest possible grades regardless of other fac- tors; (4) Sex has a reputation for being an interfering variable (Desiderato, '69; Lin, '71; Kirkland, '71). The Course A service course offered by the Department of Physics at Michigan State University was taught in two sections: a traditional section and a self-paced section created by Jules Kovacs and Peter Signell. A questionnaire, to be described later in this section, was distributed in the beginning of the Winter quarter of 1974 to all students in the two sections, and scores on examinations and examinations test items were obtained from the instructors, for all students in the course. 61 The Traditional Section The traditional section was a lecture recitation course, with two one hour lectures and three recitations a week. The final grade in the traditional section was obtained from two midterm examinations consisting of four problems each, a final examination consisting of eight problems, and a grade provided by the recitation instruc- tors. Since the traditional section was given to two lecture groups, the midterms were given in two forms. The scores from these had to be converted to standard form for comparison. The problems were graded by reci- tation instructors on a partial credit basis. The maximum credit per problem on the midterms was 25 points. The maximum credit on final examination problems was 20 points. Scores for each problem on each test were obtained for all members of the sample population shortly after the tests were graded, in order to form composite tOpic area scores . The Self-Paced Section The self-paced section began the quarter with one lecture, whose purpose was to introduce the students to the course procedure and to distribute a handbook describ- ing the course. 62 Two rooms in the physics building were provided for the course. One was a study and help room, manned by graduate assistants, student consultants, and faculty. The second was a testing room. The course in the self-paced section was organized into modules. Each module incorporated a study guide and a number of forms of a mastery test. The study guides included some instructional prose, references to study activities, practice problems, and a self-evaluative quiz. Students obtained copies of the study guide for the module of their choice in the study room, studied the material until they felt competent, then reported to the testing room for a mastery test. The mastery test was evaluated immediately, in the presence of the student, by a more advanced student or by a graduate assistant. The grader could ask the student for clarification and could point out arithmetic errors for correction, but could not excuse errors in "real physics." If his performance on the mastery test demon- strated essentially total understanding, the student was awarded a grade of "excellent." Otherwise he was given a "not yet" and required to study at least one more day before being allowed to take another form of the test. After receiving an "excellent," the student returned to the study room at his convenience to obtain the study guide for another module. 63 All tests taken were retained by the instructor. A record of the modules passed was kept for grading pur- poses and for display on a wall chart just outside the study room. The material was only partially student self- selected. Certain modules were required, although some required modules could be bypassed by passing certain other required modules "up the line." Students were not allowed to retake a test for such a module until they had taken and passed the mastery tests for the modules they would have bypassed. The basic required course material was divided into 12 modules, with additional modules available. The student had to pass all 12 modules or take a final exam- ination. Passing the 12 modules resulted in a grade of 2.5. For each two additional modules passed, 0.5 was added to the grade. If the student did not pass all of the required 12 modules a grade was determined from the number of modules he did pass. This grade was then adjusted according to the results of the final examination, as follows: Resulting Change Final Examination Score in Final Grade 0 < final score < 20% deduct 1.0 20% 3 final score < 45% deduct 0.5 45% < final score < 90% deduct 0.0 90% 3 final score ). 5c. Hr...rL..,.,. . '0'. ... . has..\_7_?.11 . k. :. Lrhrbrhnu..... :2 R 275 H T. h“ C 1163 I p 32 0 TI 31 “.3210 0 2hr) H T 1.3.“. C 126s0 I D. 142 0 Tc “.1 [#321, a up“ 1 I45 H.‘ (L Q.L C 1 9.6..) I D .1 7. 0 Tc 731 B7 A1241... (.Pr V “(k LEVANCE §CAL§§ 1. Q.- ‘8. “3 1H 4.601.325 3 1 1219.52“ 114415110833 2312.4352142 TOPIC SEVEN 2112 1 “0628 “.4628“ 66kg“ B h .9375?— X 73 653 r) T. S 31 522 14 C (0.5 “g 3 T... D. 0.0 3.5.9 2 O T. 21 7.11 1 H . ??2 51...... 1025. I» 56.55 414 “339.2 L. V 11 742;“..1513 C) I F 1?..21u211kh nu 7.1 2?.-432p9~)3 I D 17.1: 7.7322 flu... T 11.514 1 .4 SbZan 262.61w 655.5 k b. “332?. Q, U 1 .Ou37. 7.16) 0 CI 12 “(2.5.17222’4 «J 017) .92 2) T1 :1 P Lh232212 0 TI 1 2121 QLEZRQCFFE k F F .91. .1 b. L 11:22 N :2 V H .9 .t S 7 ¢ 0 1 b 3 I P 1“ 2 0 T H 1 336.921.2146 1 . c u x 2&1 5 I S 2...) B C 2:. 3 I p 21; 2 \U TI .3 1 Larr “9... 3214 H 1 . . . V 22 5 T. F 21 4 «-1. 7)"? P. 2) I p 33 1 9. A”. T. 12 1 38,0 “zozurnu 1 . . . .,~.. .U «)r.) .7 O F 131 u 3 11411 .5 T; F 19.. .c O .0 1... 1 \ufikb \2QC 1. ... 7 FIV‘ TQFI FJU? ‘ l I 3:21. TAELh h-lg 1 21.» «11313 1 9,. .09. 11 .43321. . 1 719C. 17) 21 5k .51, 2 ‘rsi-‘Q »?>:1. 86 11 111 21 TOPIC THREE 1 2 3 Q 5 1 “OBZBQOIDZR‘ Q. 665514“ #3322 0 1 I; H T 11 2 h. C 11 22 3 T. p 1 AC 0 T 1 1 11 Q‘nubza HnJrDaaoq 6655144“ 3327. .p. 11 C; N 0 1 211 b- A a 411 .1 I P l 11 P 0 T l 1. 1 h LENA/EU b. :07LH L 663.2/QQQ339.2 c... 7‘) t. 2 1 P) S 7.. 2.. 122.4 1 U 2 O 11 Q Pu 1 1 s! n LL....L£. .5? 523. .a a O o o o O o o o rfitvs‘uzn/blalrur. VI; A» «IJITICNAL .- O. t- E Q 7. S H T 1 u C ?.nc 3 I P 4; 2 J T 1 “5.66.1.2“ .7746 1 u . . «L 5 H vl. 1 2 1“ «nu 1 1 3 I D. 1 2 2 0 T: 1 alvslo uWA/ballzuvfo 1 . . o I 2 :J N n 1:3 ,4 .1.-.» 1 ‘ v 1 9 1 9. 3 TI 1 r339 #2. 15146 1 . . o 1 F) 7) :1 W 8 S 5L .d. 14‘ 1 U 2 0.1 .9 Av 41 «I. :9. .C st...uc..u o o o o o o o o o L_.J?u2$c11..ru ..4....ILFfi.rnhb.. ..~. -F. ’13:. 10910 TH? TOpIC THO C IC 04 m; 7.5 u _s\.7.1. . (.9. .IVT. SCALE§ ~ -. VDMC" L5 as .L 7. .5 1 1 11 l 11 3 1 2 3 H 5 TOPIC 211 ‘40628 I... «H.028 .Q (Dar—Lb...» 14 B .J~O./_2 X C; I S 1 4 C 1 1. 1 3 I C 2 19. 2 \u T 9. 1 1 d.ufP.n/L.Hu.-s.rh\acfvln 6%..“qu 2.} ~14 Q?Z&D,.a V .9 T. .L. 1 11 B. .au 1 11. s) Tl. C 11119. a. v. 11 1 1 .vlJAJa/THJ 4 ...U.Q).8 * rn..0c.rL a Q3322 0‘ U .t/ 0 F 12 .u n... 7 .41 1. 3 1 r.. 1 1 .12 1 2 .(l\. T 1 1 4‘ ?b.t25.~ .L 2.5L (7 {IZVLL I» b -.r. 3 THPEE TOPI TOPIC THO 41 laséo 1 2 21 Q 782 1. O r511 k. rd 8 SCALE Ci VAN QPLP N V3 .2 5 TOPIC TOJIC SIX FIV; '\ J TDDII 2 .42.“.2225 11 1 121.“ 1 2 2257 23 2117033222 11 211 1 ZKJ 2 .32 25 21 90628 30623“ (065.5.» 4. 4:11:22 .5520 . 311 27“ 232 1?. . .. 1.09.8 .u L623“ 6.5.9.5sz 5.2.6122 C1 1 2 3 Q 12“...qu 5 1 2 2117..“ 23.5257)? 1 1 :45? 19. 141 aLA/Z/Z/q 04:4520) 41.528 1... rh bay—5..» :4 .u 332 2 1 1 .0 .“13 11C) 127-. 332112“ 441. n) 9,— 73 4.. hpC17v111AC 1111 9.. .6720 u (307.? (4 F int.-. 1%..» 75.5.(2 41 N C. V ). .t OJ 5 C 2 I P 12 0 T 3 0861420236 1 c o o X «z. I S 13 C 12 I p 13 O T a :RICQD..21Q. ,n 1 . . . t V 92 I F 1 C 23 I Q. )1). 1 fit T! 11 .UBIOQZnUZIOB 1 . . . 7. U 7. w. 0 F 1 C 1.1. I Dr 12 r; .I. 1?. a .83») had. liar? 1 a - - :1 7‘. u-lH TABLE 3 FIV' TOPI 3 FOUP TOFI a r). 1“. 113a) AL “7.. 111 .w 32 1fu 9.35 1:.» 1 .1 3 21 ad 11 52 2C&.I.. 92 E E R 2. .11 41 8 H T 522 2 1h. C1 31 211 13 T. P 1 12 0 T111 11 1 “36284362314 6655“““3322 1 2 4 21 5 12221312“ 1331Q2 3 22122 TOPIC THO 41 11 771 1 “6.025 HJ625 14 6655144 43322 9... 1 72C 11“.“, C ON. 411:3..Jfifirl 1.4.4. In. A \- TDPlu 1 a;..../Z)1.2.J 7.. 2411?— 1 31 1 u L b7..8h.» «£12 0 Q rh rh—a‘bh‘uaa 3322 1 1 3 71Q212R3t 3.92143 2:...16321 E 121*3312 CUPS 1 12 ‘ J 1 ....C; ..ru/I.L:,..C.,L o O I 0 O o o o 0 Id «5392211. 7L T? D ..LITIP NA— L THREE 2 4 3 3 1 1 2 3 a 5 TOPIC 1 586423246 1 . . . 0 1 2 1 5 H T 11 .4 C 122 3 3 I D. 1 2 0 T- 1 1 03:0 9 25.9.1420 1 . . . 2 5 .r... M1 n). 01 .9 hp *1 .5 I D 1 9. O T. 1 1 19.9.. b 91.521430 1 . . . 11 1 C; .5 . 217.9. 1 A: C. 2 On.) 411 1 1 ..U 2 0 1.» Pl. 1 7 .5.LC.....CF.._I, .. O O O O O O O 0 0 25.32211n ...... .>._..L= C. anilo TOPIC THREE TOPIC THO OPIC QN' - b , 1:.»5 COD. Iluwo 'VEN TOPIC S: TOPIC SIX 3 '— - CAL (s 3 b P LiVANC' p C Q TOPIC FOUP 1223132315 11 1 122.» 3 h. 4213 13./.3 12 111 1 4062333628“ 6615—514 1%. 04.12022 9&3 532 5 40 .0261. né- 281% 665.54% b .933 22 1 11“ 33 5 112112“ 11162233 1 9.. 611 72 112 41 “.0628“ 3623.“ 56591.0 #3322 1 ““11... 2 5 11.43122 4 29. 2?. 2; 2221212 11 11 $3.628“. upon/.804. E.3r.F.L '4 L 71322 N E V 2 5 t. S 9 h c Q 3 T. P 1% 2 0 ..I 1 1 086“202h6 1 . . . X 11 5 I S 22 .4 C 23 3 T. D. 1.4 2 O T 1 ....48rblqe Lzuro 1 . . . c V 11 c. I F 11 14. a . 2.3 2 3 I P 32 1 2 n. T 1 336l47_02-%6 a. U 19) C) 0 F 21 I... a). 2.21 3 1 p 41? 2 0 rl. 1 1 . .Q.rbh.?_r.u2h6 1 . . c “‘11 p C TABLE M H 1 1CJ FIV'. 11k 1153 1:42 TOPIC *3021. . 1 125 FOU? «9“. a J 1121.5 P21 2 TOP? 11 {#30212}. 93 ..t E... R7. 2 r? H T1 311 1 k C1 1 3 1 3 T. P 2112 2 0 ...I 111 1 1 “av/DZBQCFDZBR 6655““:43322 U 11 111 5 H ..l 2 12121 9 C 113?. 22123 I D 125 .01 2 x. T. 1 1 1 11 14.16 28:74.52 5:. 6.055“ “14332). .L 2.121 2121 a? q 0 11:..2 21.1 u C 1 #2111113 I 3 139.11 )1 O 1' 11 41 1 140.7523 » -. NJ?! 685:. ##135? 22 7.3111 Ca 3 PE 32 61 R; S .1 R C). 351.215. 4* 1A . L U .... 0 1411.3 1 b 1 1 7 .LP» .t—Ca Lt. o‘. b . ...... .. 1H 3‘0959L11.5,L tlpfln: T;T.11P.HN B .... r: .L 0‘ r? S H To 9. I“ C C; 2 3 1 D. 1 l 2 O T 1 1 086:“2.J7.19»O 1 - n . o 1 1 5 H T 1121 In, {V 2 1 7x I Dr 1 22 2 0 T 2 1 1.36.42.32ng 4.. o o o . M 9:: C; :4 C .. L n! d 2, I P 1 P. O T 1 1. ..t..4 ,.....Iu.;(_...9.L.H 1 . . . 7.1 1 r... 3 p... 4 1 R Ca 2 firq 1 1 .J 2 nu. ... 1 .4 a. 1 1 7 .c,. II. v.fi. .. 5 O O O 0 I O 0 O . L_.::9_211 .... (V.L:rwf.~.!rh TOPIC THQEE TOPIC TWO 7 s ”V *aozc 1&5 2“ 163 27.. I“ 321rL 9.5 114.9 1720 .92 9.39.1. . In)? 7 7.3: 1.35 11 L .. 241. . (Btu-0 .Wr... -V E QFQL" JANC {LE Q N c. V 112121 5 ... 3 1 1 h. C 11111 2Q13 I P 23?. 212212 0 T 2111 1 1 40628."..0623“ (OerbrbL no. “4:322 VA 25 13 :1. I S 2 a. C 31 333 3 r1 0! 62 2 2 0 T 21 7. 1 u grhzndhw .thL ..h.,b.....r,; u [H .13....715... V 7.11.11. N...) .1 c, 117.1 s/_ 9.14. n; 7.1 1):.1 a 5 .11 C 1 ‘1‘) 1!..02 s) K. T 11 9:.1 1 “Wuroa/unu)“- ..b28.Q 6655uhh3:92 a .U D... 7.1 1r? 0 ...r 14111141 21% A; 511710,. 1 3 I C. ”wt/.121 2 r4 7. 1 «.1411 kaLrDZQ.b.r..t7 Q L (r (Cilia b '- 7».....»L»C N F. V 3 :J C. S 3 h C 1 3 3 I P 4 2 0 T. 3 1 036 “202:1,6 1 . . . X .6 5 I S 3 I» Pu 13 3 I p 32 7. U T 2. 1 LEE... :42 9?. 5 cu 1 . . . V 21 n, I C. 1 1 k ‘ , «59) J 1 ..~ 19.1 7. r 3 1 3.06 431). 4 C) 1 . . . V U 39,— buy. 0 F 12 .1 «It. 13 1 ‘3 TJ n. 2 2 v: 7,. 1 f FL. 92 JZLF 41 ... 4" lJ TAPLE TCPIC FlV TOPIC F000 HUM.“ ...rCS VMU 1.20 .AJ.VI fluEx ”\IN EHAH pc AT CHE. TT SI MN pc.” 6008 ANNALT .ZAH I.‘ r TVGE TC.ND ALO U PIZMT. S 12?) 214 1.47) +). 19.11 3.8.9QQ1J 2:15 th 7. .7. 7:1,. 1 11 1.37.1 . 94 F. ..r. «Kazhl 14L 1. .9 H. T1 612 1 H «U1 1111. 2 79 I D. 11 12 0 T! 1111 11 1 «.../029406231.» 669514 «b.3322 213 9‘» r: 22312011 H 12312133 .3 1:3 h. 1 2 TOPIC THO 111 2111 H U.O?._.H, H :50‘58“ r0 0.3:)“;finu‘33427. .L 1.2.11 (32115 N 0 Zia/LE3? 11 a a1. 1 1119.7. 9:5 I P 14.11212 n) T 32 l u -.rn 38L 1:07.214 8555141» “33.2.2 .....r.fi\.7’w\u 1 1% .\J ..L. 91.21.01 12 «NJ S 2 9‘ 132wflv29g9_ 1 .U. 2 0 1.; 1—KV?_ I“ «.2 1. 1 4k. 7 .r-. w...) .L.. .r..'s o o o o o o o o o «1.2.2311ruu T. . Alp ...LTJTV.‘.(/ b.. F.“ L CC 3..— D 3 9.. PM. H T. 2. b. C 3 1. 3 I P 3 l 2 0 T 11 1 03,0“202 4.0 1. _ . . O 111 1 c; H vl 11 u C 41.1 3 3 T. D. 22 2 0 .II 1.1 1 NUS bl.” 9c 92 “’0 1.. . . g C. J 5 C 4‘73 u C 01 t I Dr ‘L a). 0 TI 9. 1. 438614.2an1 H a) 1 . . . 3 1 K1. 3 .. .1 1 1 8 S 2 P; J 12 1. U 7. O1. 1 ... 1. a) l 1. 7 3.; .C/ J.u. I O O O O O O O 0 “.3—57. )Ll4.‘ I: «3....IL: p. L. ...? J E Pp. D, 23: H T 2“ C 1 33 I D .92 0 TI 7.1 1% 321.3 0 225 N T. 2.“ 0.4 9:53 I P “2 n. T 21 w 37.1. U L 1. PE, 0 u b C 1 9.143 I D 1 9. 0 T. 21 “IA/.13. r .r. 1|...b ml» CALEB S VANCE Li D." TOPIC SEVEN TOPIC SIX 3 FIVI TUQI .% U 0 Cr n; I pp. Al 7» 1.34“. .Jifi3l 5 2 1121“ 1 213 2.*13 24... 123127. 121 1 1 “0625“ 062814 6655:. h. h 332?. “1.... 6h. 5 9.1 211 u 3h. 9703 3 23 1 1 2 l 1.2 1 “0.02314 .9073)“ (FF/9;. “.10 H3322 1 21 “.137. I? 121 1211?. H 1 41.7.2 +13 1.. 3:. m9“). 5; {L 112 1 “AU/DDIK I». .7623“ rh Rut...“ 1414 4.3322 £22.03 11 9 11152311.. 1 B 311 + 3 29.1.2.61fid 1 1.17.1 L.L{29Lp_¢7_.C. yr SJCJC not.» 3......»CLPL EN TOPIC SEV TOPIC SIX F00? TOPI: FIV; N J TOPI cerhgocn 1.. . warn...“ 7.4L9Llu IT. 1 (4 1h. 1* 085.920 1. 4+1 ZQrO ... .296 ... 1 2 3 a 5 TABLE a-lK l 2 3 A 5 v) CL 3 FIV” TOJL 7 FJUP [OPT AH LOU PICGHTI 03 P AnQ 1 1:. l u 11:); 1.57. 19.1 “1) 21d 22;). 1 u 1 .);.1w) 217.2 1 7.1. balm/“1 a 95 E R ?. 1 41 p? H T 221 3 .9 c1 2 211 13 I D. 2 12 2 0 T1 1 1 1 ~06de 9623 r» 56.55.444.532? 0 1 1 11 2 C} H T 21 1 21 1,4 C 1 22112 23 1 P 11.» 12 12 0 1i 1 1 1 1 “C6 9.3 14.3023 H 665?) .4“ 143.02 9.. .L 1111 2 1 :2 N U .1 J.)11.:>ic 1 Au 7 .1 1123.17 I O 1.0;)“ )— 9 1| 1 1 1 1 high «(3,» 359.31% 6.0:.Cflkhht,749_7. 12 21 c, 3 f. 33 b3 1 R, «Q 2 0 62352 1 U 2 0 11 1 1 u «z; 1 -/ gr. 9:1..rhr.n. u 0 0 O o o 0 O 0 O ”Kisu)_?4+1 . . Ilfi. .Ln .1171fpr By. L t. 3 S T0516 THR 6 2 1 2 3 h 5 38r0.421 -2 '6 O 11 5 W T 1121 h C 32 1 3 I p 1 1 2 O T 1 1 3854.48. 3.14:0 1 . . . .. 7 11 r Ma. rut .... r ‘1 Lu bl «N. 7) 7.. DI 1 7. 0 v. 1 ...,H Qvoqfi;..g?_ b (h. 1 g . . 12 1 r) 3 :7522 a. A) 2 3.13 1 1 U 2 0 I». F; 1 VI. u 3., .3 -.C, .C u 0 O 0 c 0 0 0 O O b33221... . . .\d-..1Lr w... L QJ— .‘. THREE TOPIC TOPIC THC 0N7 T)DIF «J r? ‘ .L 192) 19. Q? 21.. C.C VI “rt .-.) SCNL EVANCQ ”1L N :1 V 1 12 2.15 .C Q. 1 .1“ C 1?. 2 3213 I 0. 22114121 2 0 T ?. 11. 1 43.028.41.625 Q 6 berth h. 153.022 x nu. 22 r? I S 1 11 a 01.. 21 211 3 I Dr 8.2 :1?) 2 \U T. 7.1 1 1 4,1628% 2» 25 u 6 FUJSLQ 93382 V 4111 141 k) T. F 41 2 2“. 3 1.1 9.251.) 52.5 I 3 11? 112 a. 0 T 1 21 1 4 -2023qu 028:4 66.52.. ..HB3322 1... U 1 12 2 1 5 O F 1 1112th «J 4.3111151 .5 I C 7.2/ 42.7. 2 .. TI 11 1‘ .u .533“ 7.781 1 II. -../c ..— h L .s. sun/...: TOPIC SEVEN TOPIC SIX Fly. TQCIC FOUC T a J I TOT 3 5 3 ..w 1 5 3 .4 2 1 .086 92 0256 1 . . c 3 a. 12 Q 25 3 2 2 1 [.86 1.2.2st10 1 . .. 21 c, 11 l u. )1 + 1.. ...) 19. 2 1 3.0.0 H2)?.I.W.,D 1 . . . .5 a 5 1 4 w 13 11 a) 7.. 1 6". “all. \ A/zbr . o 0 TABLE fi-lL FIVfi TOPIC ”N .....E I:— ....V SEC 9......” 5303 RNLT EA N TVGE TEND ALOU CENT. ‘DD‘AS 17;? 1214 1.01; .5). .4321) F';3lJ'~" ‘ L T031? 1.5 r.., r) ,4 19;) .J 2 1 -‘wsV?.4.. . 96 E .L PTiC 1 5 H T1411 1» C 41 111 1 3 I P2 2 O T11 1 “...-.rndC 8,410628“ 6655 ““43322 0 1 1 1 5 H T 1111 21 u. C 1 1 113 I D 21 2 0 T. 2 1 1 “NJ/028,“ {3.07.th 65.9.9 Q.“I.u.w)39.2 E. .5 1 1 1 a) N O 9(— 1 l in C 11 2.). I D: 1 11 11 11. O T 1 1 h;,.L,bZoO.H¢-..h Cash. 66.? pH, {#14 Q 3.5.7.2 21 21 L1 7... r. .H 2 1 3 S a p. 1 1.} 1 U 2 O 3 u s... at Fir. .J: .slv.ar~rb. nu . . . C . . . . . 912362.511... .. Illunu FITIrLMwAL ..r. I. D. as 1 5 H T 14 c .0 1 ”O I D. 2 0 T 1 03:0“.2 run/748 1 . . . O 11 C.- W T 1 1 44. C 3 1 3 I Dr 11 2 0 TI 1 1 036.42 4?. a .b 1 . . . .h. 7,. .3 N at ..c I» b C 11 I I D. 1 fiz. n} T. 1 14.. r). .3 J h. 1 D... S 2 O 3 1 1 U 2 flu .. a; 1 7 . .C: .L . e; .C . O O O O O O 0 O O 04.332211. .1 C. .. ..Fr..£ Pu. ...c...‘ .C .... he “5 H T h. C 163 I p 2 0 T 1 h 321..Is 0 7...: N T 2“ C «.1233 I P 22 0 T 11 4.021,...0 ... .11K M! n. (In... P. 1.1.) I D 17. A... T #1 u.\.~).u“. v PAD r. U. W. {’LEVANCE SCILQ§ VEN - '- ‘— 7) 1 1 T0010 5 1 2 1 123-95 “.06 2“. “0.028 n* rCtOr:C.aL Id [- TXJZZ X 31 5 I S 21 11 a C 2 3 I 0.. 51 1 9. O T 1 1H .LrD 2a?) 1.79.025 H .0 (3.... C. u h 1 1159.2 V 1 1 1 ...? I F 1111 1 9 P4 1 1 1 7., I D 1.9. 1 21 12 fl. . 1 1 k nUrO 2% 14.0623.“ 68:5. .9414“ 7:322 Q U 1 1?. 1 5 0 Cr 1 .)L141 B. «.24 3 1 «fl. T1 pk: 4121 1L 6(- T. 1 L.1r 7..."... I... .r— .(2) h at: Iv—r. I.b'o.......-.5._rl. N E V 2 5 .L S 11 B Pg 1 .5 3 I P 3 2 0 T 1 086.925.2545 1 . . . X 2 E. I S 1 Q n. 3?. 3 I P 21 9.. 0 ..l 1 3850 h 72.1.; «we 1 . . . V 11 .9 I F 1 1 9 n). 9.2 1 3 I D 11 9. 0 T 1 ”U86 *2. uZHrO 1 - g . .M. .U 2 Ru 0 F 131 .9 «u 117. ....) I C. 2 O .l. 1 .Qir -.. 7.. .3. u f). :4 ... .... nU TU ONT -.-.I VMLT. T...r.D ..».VAH Ct RICE .ZHND PCIU ADT F AI OHET. THO. SI A NW A HH RC.GTI GCIAS D.NHMT TABLE “'lM .LA N TV6 :1 TRENHU ALOGU «LCEMIT SD...AHH.S 'Jflsau}_41 . 97 .p. E E E 0 E E E TU D. 7.7,. 11 1 pH, 0.. .3 .5 P. 7.3?) ONT H H H N N SET. T1 7.11 1.4 T 1 Q T 114 ... ... VMT V 2231215 V 2 5 IE? C1. 322211 13 C 1 3 C 13 ... 5 EVA 1 T. .1 S 11 111 W S 5 a. C... D. 1 7. 1 17. D. 3 7. c. 37. RIG... 0 0 O c 2 7.2.9513 C 1 3 N ....HNO T. 11 1 1 T 1 1 T 11 T. I 1 FCIU D. 111337.217. P 1 7. . ADT “na.09.3“367.3n~ 336 “237.146 1437.15... 0 O .H F AT. 6655““43327. 1 . . . ..l 11 111 1 T 7. 1 OHMMT .... T F 367.5“56284 3864237.“,0 L ST. A 0 127.121 .... O 111 .b 0 17.5 66.55%.“ ...3327. 1 . . . 9 NW N H N A A H T 7.1213 1.4 T 1 1 9 T 11.» T RENT X 13 252 5 X 2 5 GCOAS 0 23235213 C 1 2 2 .J C 17.7..) I I DxNLHT. T. I I S 311 .4 S 11 .4 EA N P 2 51 17. D. 7. D. 7. T.Vru C. O 0 0 C 37. 7.67. 3 C 11 3 TEN .U T 11 1 11 T. 1 1 T 11 T. T. ALOHU D. 15 7.31 7. D. 7. 7. CEMOT “HOZSQUeeak Usnggng QKZIL 0 0 SEALS 66.95.+.HH337.2 1 . . . ..I 7. 17. 1 T 1 1 1%.,brhax.3§fiur09...5h ..an -Nzr,.29r0 E 1 17.7. 15 ... 3 ... ... 1 7...? .065... g b “339.7. 1 . . . N N N n... 111.7...M7.L 2h 0 11 4 n ...c. H C . U 1 7.1.91 .9 V 7. .... V 7.5 C 119. 1 H s37. 1.3 fl... » 7) RJ 1 17.51. I I I T. I. .1. F a; 7.111.» F 1 ..+ F 1 .9 D 2111 a. D. 1 D. D. 1 7. .. O n). nJ . . n... 1 7.. 47.49...) C 37.. .3 n, 117.3 T 211 1 T 1 1 T 11 L T. I I Q P 1 u #317. D 11 1 7. c. 17.7. .uUrrJZQ “3.67.8.4 757697.. .../...F) ....s....1.-. C O 0 0 66G54#h33?2 1 ... g T 1112 2 1 T 1 1 T 11 .C 13:52.5 .4 957.8 4 12.0..) 47. J7. 46 437.1,... 7.30.9.1 1 1.... 31 1 .9 C 6658:» . 14.3327. 1 . . . 3 3 N E 11287.1 8 : 11 R. A D... a D. S 7. S 7. V U 1 17. 17. 1...) U 7...» 3 U1 7:55 Q ZQHQ111 1 01 1 1 1 O O 0 U 7. U 7. l. F 17.7.3 7.7.1 1% F 1 .4 F 1.... 0 1111 :4 O 1 1 u .C C 1 3 1 D. ... .51 .97. 3 3 1 2. .... 1 5 1 7 7 .1 I T1 D. 1 b .C 1.71.11 2 F 41 2 p 91 m.(. r .f.CC...o.CfLC/.L . .C. .2... at: .r... L “I, O 0 000000000 000000000 T: 1 4.. 1 1 v- 7. 1 T .1 11 #332211. 4 L L3327.11 . b. .6935... . . ER ... . .Q Rh.7fl-.7.r~c. .37.... . ..IFAF..1TT.OMHIPL (.....ILFrrnuau...hJ C ... 1.... F...C....L L5. .../.9. 4. . . . 98 F. ..L ”E F. C; .t T R 1.5 1 1 5 P. 1 1 5 R 2 5 0 N E H H H N N EEO T ...-.12 1 a. T 2 Q T 2:... E E VMU V 321 2 115 V 1 5 IPLT C 11 1 3 C n 3 C 133 E E EVI I I I S 2 12 1 k S 1 u CET P 2 2 P 2 D. 2 9.310. O 0 O C 1 1 2 1113 C 1 3 3 P EHA T1 1 1 T 1 1 T 11 I I 1 p C P 22 2 12 D. 2 2 . AH “.....OZBQAUSZS » ..864202146 4 3210 0 0 44 F T 6655“““3322 1 . . . T 1 1 T 1 1 OHA F. THS “062.614.0628 u 386 420245 L 3.1. T 0 2 1 2 c... 0 11 5 0 2c. 6655.. L b.5322 1 . . . R. M N N H N N A A HF. T 1112 111 k T h T h T 93:60 X #3 1 1 5 X 1 C) GCIU C 2 2 1113 C 3 3 C 33 I .1 RNHT I I T. S 31 11 9 S 1 u. EA 5 P 123 2 D. 1 1 2 P 22 TVG 0 0 0 C 2 2 3 C 12 .5 TENS. T 1 1 1 T 1 1 1 T 21 I I ALOL p .91 1 1 2 P 21 2 C...HA 1-....628190628h. 90.10 ..Zru2h..b «3210 O 0 BEAM. 565.94....“3322 1 . . . T 1 1 T 1 1 b Lbenflu 7.02an yarhuarbavwrb .... 32 1 21 5 f. 1 5 I. 1R. 87055 9.4.5.3372d 1 . . . N N N 0 31111 114 C 22 L U . a . .... ... V 1 31 11 5 V 1 r... V 1.3 C 1 2123 C 21 a) C 123 I 1 T I I .1 F 12 1 1,4 ..r h. F I. 9 1 1111 12 D. 2 a 2 5 a.) 0 O ... C 1 1 12 13 C 12 1 .5 a... +3 T 1 1 1 T 1 1 T 11 L T. I I A D. 1211 22 2 D 21 2 D 32 .9.....o?n...~Crn.ZR # (.86 9232146 .. 3 21C C O 0. O 65:..544fi3322 1 . . . S T 21 1 T 1 1 T 1 1 r. 14362814 0528 ,4 .85 1.2.4.2446 43213 22 .92 5 1 C). C aha—96.4414747122 4. . . . 3 3 N E 2313 3 ...1 1 1 3 A P D\ R. S 7. S 2 V U 2113 2 5 H; 1 E. U 1:. C. 2 1 311 1 0. .w 1 T. O 0 0 U 2 U 2 L F 2 «J 1 1-» F 111 I} F .3“ 0 .3 1 h. 0 :4 .2 C 1 3 1 Q. C + 3 3 111 3 s; 21.5 7- 1 7. 1 T. T. C- 4121a‘1 12 C: 1 5L C. 41 fit— ,LCf-..C.'bCJr.C... . ..uc. an: ..t. .....f." . n. 3 h” 000000000 000000000 T 1 1.- 4.. 1T1 1 b3322115..-. 12332211... . l4 .59_RLr..629. .. 2.9!...“2 L2,. 6 “321.. TinrnUIJTInUrunuL 5:5 -..FPQP...:. 6.? 9. U0 (IL (....L L “2.1.7.7. .1 . . . 99 E E E P. 22 11 1 5 H T1 212 2b. ca 2221 13 I P 2 1 12 0 T 11 1 1 40628Q0628H 665 5:44 #3322 0 221122 5 H T 1 21113 19 C 1 22329213 I P 2 52 12 O T 1 2 1 8.05 2840623 .» 665 54:4. R3322 2 21911 1:, my 1fiL..:.L.s§a/_T;.LIN C 1 13 1.4.99.1...) I P 7.111 9. O T. 21 1 Q. .(n. «1034“ 1.620 ..W 665:..4hk3322 2.4221 1 1:1 3 .1. 9.7:3822 6 S 2 C. —021W7111 11 U 2 0 12 w n 1 W. . roierAuIv. 3.1.5 0 00000000 “3qJZAC1114 T3.Aba ..1T10TCL THREE 22 6 1 2'34 5 TOPIC 3 1 386%252#6 1 ... 0 111 S H T 2 1 ..w C 1 2 2 3 I D. 11 2 0 T 1 1 1.086449... .2“6 1 . . . I. .J 5 N O 7.1 .h. C K .J I D. 1 2 3 T 1 1 (4864.7. Edi-.6 1 . c o .91 1 5 3 r.19.2. 8 S 2 9.1 1 1 U 2 O 1 1:». n J 1 7 ...—k. .55EC..LP:.L O O O O 0 O O O 0 “3137.1211415...» .321LFPQPV...D TOPIC THREE 2 3 32 11 “3210 0 125 N T 12“ C 1223 I D. 22 0 T 11 443210 .r. 1 2.19 N U .... C 1 133 I D 41 2 0 T 11 1.9521.-. 83-71.50 QELFVANCE 22:97.21; 11 111k 12 31Q523 1 1332222 TOPIC SEVEN 111 b.0623 190628“ (0 6:) 5h. 0.» #3322 X 23 252 5 I S “11 :4 C :42 172 3 I P 15 222 2 O T 1 11 1 14.6628 9062814 665,914 4.43322 .5 V 2 2141 5 I F 21221114 C 2 1 24232..) I P 2 .4322). n.. T 11 2 1 :4 U628 413625.» .055 5.4 ..w “3322 3: U 1 1213 15 0 F 1?.2g111 1“ a; 1.3.7) 1+2 .5 I P 3.1 211 2 C T 41 1 1 L U628L.&r‘ 2.? 4 (CszFiHvarxiaicn: VEN - h _ TOPIC 5 TOPIC SIX FIVt TOPIC 3 F"0UP. TOPI 2 .12 3Io5 UBGQZGZQE 1 ... 779 1?. 2 1 213k 5 1 .186h2£7.&-1C 1 c n c 2 5 2 1 19 953 as. al.8614202hi0 1 . o a 9.“ 2 «5 1 1 2 3h 5 a/_ . 80L29.n/.lufr 1 a .- T ”N... ......LD VHU 1.2T .CVI GET RID. EHA pC AH OHA THS SI TI MIN N A .2 9.C.ND rUCnUU RNLT .ZA S TVG TENE ALOL C—CMA SJxAHMI tum TABLE TOP13 FIVt 3 F09? 1 $ 1 1 3 TOFL 100 LVE C. E. 0.12 1 5 H T 312 1 1“ c1 111 1 3 I P 21 2 0 T11 1 2 1 39628140628.» 665‘.“ ““3322 2 1 11 5 212 11111“ 11111 113 21 11 1?. TOPIC TWO 1 111 1 1 “0628Q56289 6.055 4 914.33 22 131 3111 5 1.... 11.3 n 1111112.) .1 .112 12 TOPIC 1 0L 1 ha 867—8“ ~. rrJfifipxIb ..0.05C:.Q.u.h.3q)?.2 3?. 21 r.) 3 3316.211 3 O. 211 3 11 2 .3 1 P. u 1 1 w COLF’3E . .t.._...pv..s.l er... . O O C C C O C C 0 1.332211. ... .IIP- AHDT1T-.TJA.CM-D IL 5 1 2 1 2 3 h S THREE TOPIC THOSE TOPIC 986142 a. TOPIC THC TOPIC THO 0’1? (N- TOPIC TJPIC [JAR u~ILF.H/. +er I 75 7’142128 1Q 1143 2 1 1432194 2:. 1“ 2‘3 32 11 “~02 1.... 1C. 12?. fix. 41 -u 7-8.1. J r! VANCE SEAL: - p- — REL. N ... V 13 1121 .3 C. S 2 2 1B nu 1313 1 13 I D. 21 1 2 12 0 T 2 1 1 “0628“36?.84 665.514.“ “7.322 1 1 2 1 1 4 “.1217. TOPIC SIX 1 1 1 1 “fencehtrhfigpuu 66:25:41» “332.7. 141 141 1 .7 11 112 21» 11 19.1111 3 12 7) 21 12 TOPIC FIVl 11... 1 “3.362814 052R. h. 6655)». b “3.522 ... U 2 1.3 1 5 0].. F 122 11 14 «I :19. 7) I D. 12211 ,2 n T. n61 1% ..rr 7...!“ To .16, 0.9 h (0.5:: C.IJ L L ...T»./.»/. TOPIC SEVEN 1 2 3 4 7 TAPLE “‘lR Casual—325.6 C J TOPIC SIX 1 2 3 H .sS‘;h2l.w2a-6 n FYV- 5 TOPIC FIVT n‘ T091 FOUQ POI!“ h «rupv: TOPIC 3r. #39... Lyra . - .C TU ONT ...EI 1:5. S.VAH CE RIG EHN PCT. AD OHE TRS ST. T MW N an HP. 01.560 SCIU RNHT .CA S 1V6 T——.NE ALOL 0:.MA 32AM ,W~321~U 1.9 Bk. 3.9.3 .b3241n a 101 E F. R 115 1f+1 1.. 5 H T1..329. 1h. C1.142?T1 .13 T. P .c 1 .12 0 T. 1 .11 1 QnZX:8hJ#02nY9 ,O6BE??HQZ;SC2 2?:fiol :1 231214 1.4 19Z2ZZR43129 1QS112 TOPIC TWO 1 1 1 “0628“...0628“ 6655 .414 143.322 P: 1 1 113115 N ...J 1..Lh.7..5.)..u... a alv 116 13.ha.fi)1~(. I P H 21 9. ‘1.) To 11 1 1 b02033“ 162nm. u wO65-Duh‘.+3322 2C).25.5 1 1r».— .3 p.» 1239211 8 S 7.. R. 3Dfi98§fidZ 1 U 2 0 21 B C 1 7,. . vC .r..r:.r>..TLr... .L O . . . . . . . . T 1,00 rLTJT Irina. . F. 3. On 5 5 H T- 3 “ C 2 3 I D. 3 2 0 7| 1 1 1 086142 021» 6 1 . g o O 111 ...J H T 11 1 I» C 112 2 3 I P 1 7.. 0 TI 1 1 1 38,092 J2 46 1 . . . C. 3 r.) M. 0 4.21 b C ...? q) I D. 1 9. Q T. 11 1 7V 1 41 5 3 C.- 171 8 S 2 .939 1 1 U 2 0 1 1.9 AU 1 1 7 .UC... ltd LID-Ibc...’ . . . . . . . . . “325%c11f3: (2.7.5an .0 8:.0 C. .... R 21Eu H 1| 3“ c 1 13 I P. .02 0 T 21 “321%.; TOPIC TWO 1 2 3 3 1 ago A» 1 c£f3 1 ;. TJPIC UN 21 a..v21.:.. (....L Quilrllk §CQLZS EVANPE L 2: 2 '42:“2225 aLl 1 121“ 1 1 21b”? 23 7.. 12332.12 TOPIC SEVEN 111 1 140628 99628 14. 666514 “#18022 X 7:) SRQQ 5 I S 7. 31:1 h C 271 172u.3 I P 2.9 17.7. 7. 0 v. 111 11. 1 43628148628 :4 6G31?Qu.39¢27. V 121W1Q7o CT. I F 1.. 2 2112“ «v 1 21:11.43?) I p 11 Ing./4217.. 0 T 117.7. 1 14.14628 9.sz8 I4 66”???“ 9 1433322 9\ U 1 341~O 11.5 0 F 412.037.1112!» «1 :41 14?. 3 I P 3? 2.11.1? .L. TI .1 11 1 IA.,...6).\K “Lt...n.7.1l4 ralbputurabn U 18765.3(».‘5 N r. V 2 5 c. S .5 h an 2 3 I P .12 ?. O T «a 1 035“? n02 14.0 1 a c o X 2 5 T. S «:3 h C 12 3 l o- .13 2 0 T P. 1 .V 2 C. I. F 1 .H C 23 a) T... p 9.9. 1 2 0 T 11 1 356 4?. 22. .H 5 1 . . . P. ..J 2:.» J O F 1 1w ~. 1 1 3 t. p ‘1 . 2 r. T 1?. 1 ....R, (r. I49. r :C L C ‘o u p 0 TABLE “'18 T R S FIV- 1 1» 113.5 A J 114.2 Tan 11:1 19321 Ha 1 9.735 FOUR 1“ ‘ J 113 7.1 2 TOPI «I. 11 In 7.9.1.;— Ail»- .ols‘ Bulb 102 T0310 CNE E E R2 2 .5 H .11 211 .4 C1 1 3 1 3 I F. 11 2 2 0 T 11 1 1 “01.028.40.025“ 66551414143322 0 11 111 5 H .... 2 11121 4* C 1121 1212.5 I P 125 31 2 0 T. 1 1 1 “062314052814 6 5:95 “IQ 143322 2121 2121 9 122 11 1 1 31111113 417110141 7. 1 1 1 L. PJrr: «(Q 14 {9.5318}. 665:.{4hh3322 23111 22 61 521511 1 17¢ 1 COURSE 714212835 r.L.. LC? .51. yr). L O O O O O O O O O 14715.929.11r11 . T u- anvpivleILllb IL EE TOPIC TH? 1511. 123“; 1 086 “2» RCA-.6 1 u . . 0 1 1 5 H T. 1 1 a. C 2 1 3 I P 1 2 2 0 T 2 1 .056R2J2 46 1 . . . E 1 92 a? C 2 2 h P. :4. 74 I D: 9.1 0 TI 41. 1 r48h,.w2.L9_ a.” 1 c . . 921 1 C... 2; C .2 1 8 ..Q 2 Dw 3 1 U 2 n, 1 1.». h; 1 1 I Lc.- r.z¢...P~.-ncauc« .. 29167122 11K! .f.~ 6.....ernr0 nut.“ E E p. 135 H .l 1:“ c 1.43 I P 12 0 T. 11 #3 21 d 0 25 N 1| 11.“ C 123 I P 32 0 T. 21 1H4) 7.1.J .r. 3.9 N n L L C 2?...) I D 2 O ..l 11 hi} 21, ¢.Frl.uv.r|.. VANCE SCALES - a- b REL N E V 112121 .9 .C S 1 1 M C 11111 «(“13 I p 131 212212 0 T. 11 1 1 “0625Q06285 66:15.8.“ .0 .0322 X 25 13 5 I no 2 k. C 31 233 3 T. D. 92 2 7.. O T. 11 1 1 14 U628 .w any/v.82 Uh. 6.0.35.4“ 993329.. V 21111 5 I F 12 2 2.» C. 9.1 19.1 ..S. a) I P 1 1.) 1 49. 2 n. T 2.1 1 14 abroadnl “3.5281... 56:23:.“ .4 163322 Px U 2 21 1.3 0 F 111111 2L. 3 *1 3 3 I D. 12 21 2 C T 41 141.1 I... .rn2a 9...,Hacflh FF. ...L...‘ 2 1:37:22. N E V 2 5 E S 3 Q C 1 .5 3 I D. 1 2 0 T 2 1 a86fi29246 1 .. . X 2 5 I S 3 h. C 12 3 I P 2 2 O T 2 1 ..URurbhOc. 92% (D 1 . . . . . V 11 L) I F 1 .B AM, 9:33 a) T» o. 1.1 7 flu. T 2 1 7.86 [1.2.5.214 r0 1 . . . n. U 22 ..9 O F 141 I“ P; 121 3 T. D. 2 L fl 2 1 ..8rnh2. 2!}5 TABLE b’lT IFIW. TOPI FOUR. A I TOP} 025 114.3 9.9. 111 4321.1.» 135 21.». 22.5 2 1 11 “709,21.- 103 EE R 3 11 1 5 H T 1322 7. 1“ C1 21 2 13 I P 1 12 0 .l11T1 11. 1 “3.623.40628“ 6655 ““43322 1 2 7v 21 5 122113121“ 133132 .J 12122 TOPIC THO 1 11 21 1 “FUCK/.814 962309 66554“Q337.2 F. 2 1 21 115 J (U 117331.52...) a C 1 .212? 1723 I D. 9. 9.112 0 1| 1.. 2141. 1 h. ..C2n3 u a.h,;..rh.ou 56584243322 3gp.— “3 1 41pr 3 PC 2k15321 6 S 2 D... 1132312 1 U 1].. O 1 412 I“ «b 1 1 7. .57... .2 .r. . bf . O O O I O O C O O “12.7.2119- vltrflDIT.1rku.vD1 3 :4. TOPIC THREE 2 1 3 11 336 .4 2,u2k.6 1 . - . O 1 n2 1 C. N T. 11 h. C 112 2 3 I D. 1 2 0 TI 1 A}. .05..0h.21.2hrc 1 . . . ... «C F1 J. 2.. nu. u 1 cu. Fl u 41 2, .1 3. 1 ) _ \J T. 1 1 JR. ml: 72-..). a.“ 1 . . . 111 5 er. 722 1 D. 3 1 1 O l 1&21253 ., I ...?.....La 2.». l. s O O C O O O 0 O O ...-.232fiL11. 7s C»...L—. r» run ....A.. E C. D. 1&9 H T 3 9 5.4 1 21¢ I p 22 0 T 11 I» «(191— 1..U O 225 w T0 2“ C 11143 I p 412 0 TI. 11 b. 73813.0 1 1 5 ON’ 5 L. PI. 1 a—o I D 1 P .3 T: 141 h «(we 1.- .. S ‘VANCE QPQL 92L: N "C V 122347231.) 3» S 11 1 1221.? C 2 Q 3213 I D. 1223 12 O T 1 1 1 40628 1* ‘Ueaag (Le CSC.“ M [#33722 x 37v £1qu 5 1 S 11 222 “ Pu 2.0 «(“1 70 I D 13 311 2 O T 2 1 “1,528 ,w £2.26.“ thaw—9514:“ .4 135127. L V l 11“ .33 Col 1 F 115/.1112“ C 1 1.02133 TL. 9 1 2 511 2 0 T- 12 1 “0.62.514. 8.3975 u. (Drnéhé. .914 I.» If: 22 3. U 1 .9141“ 2 .3. O F 11I42 22 IQ ..J 7:1. 4.9. I: I 0. 7.211212 ...J Y. 1 11 b th..R outf.,rr;9._8 u bin}. trol, 1.3.3.25; N C. V 2 .C S Q AI: 3 I D 13 O T 1 3865120246 1 . . . X 11 I s 22 C 13 I p 13 0 TI ..PHL2L2QF. 1 . . . V .11 I F 11 «J 1.). 7. I p 2). 1 0 T 14.5.0 42 J2h..b 1 . . . D U 1.) 0 ..r 21 «L; .2. 1 I C, 132 VI. ‘5 21‘ 1472. .214 ..t. a. n o c 1 2 3 h 5 «fly 7.1 “'IU E TAEL FIVJ T091: ‘ I ( Tfip] .IVG TENC. ALOL CEHA aDRAH 1 113 21 2 11 u ?J9_1.lo 104 PL CL R. 2 1 1 .7 H T 121 2 .3. c1 2 21 1a) 1 P 1 2 2 0 T1 1 1 1 “067.3 .4U628 1w 6655hhh3322 1 1 11 2 5 21 1 21 19 1 111 1 23 113 12 12 TOPIC THO 1 1 1 14 91028:» U628“ 6655414143322 .C 1111 2 1 .9 N O 331 21,/... flU 9;1141a1)¢0(41~\ I P 1 9:. 1... O T 4. 1 1 Q1 14., .6 28...Hr.c;.fi,.8b 665.544 1,. Q3322 12 7.1 ,9 3 E 33 L3 1 8 S 2 D\ 511k 2 1 U 2 O 1 1 1.. W «ta 1 7 r.5..b‘alLC.: ..ro . . . . . . . C . n“ 71022111. :l ‘9 ADIIT.CNLL THREE u R, 2 k C 5 1 3 I P 2 0 Ta 1 ”JR/DB7. . J91 bib 1 . . . 0 11 Ca N T 1 1 Q c 22 1 .3 I p 1 1 2 0 T 1 1 .386h2t91H6 1 . . . ... 11 :2 N \IU 41CJ4¢ b. h a) 2?. I D- 2 O T: 1 .0; f.) k 7,“ .9. W ..O 41 c . . 2 41 ...—y 3 7122 6 S 2 Of?) 1 41 U 2 O I.» «.0 1 7 ..C. L: .C..L.L.L O O I O I O C . ».J3O.211 L. u C ......L: PAL a JCRJ TOPIC THREE TOPIC SEVEN TOPIC THO TOPIC SIX UN :1. FIVI ‘ TOPIC Inpp — L- ‘ VONC ,- ?L FOUP D ‘ I run: 1 12 215 1 14 12 2 2213 2113121 2 11 1 410.0 2A... “.3528 .9 665 5:.» h “3322 u 22 5 1 11 # 21 111 3 14.2 23 2 1 1 1 n» .1628 “.9628 h (3 6.519141% #33312 111 11 ...) 2 2h. 11 7.. 9.17) 17...) 11v) 111. 2 21 1 H .-....D 28 c.1362 d u ,0 355141... 43322 1?. 2 1 K1 1 11121:.» R: 1 1?. 9) 1 9. A}... 2 1 ‘1 P.“ a. .‘ Dug.” L‘ 2N” I‘ -. . “I“.(wtuq/lré SEVEN 2 b 3 2 1 2 3 a 5 TOPIC TABLi “'IV 086“202“6 5 TOPIC SIX 1 2 3 h FIV? \ : J TJPI 1.48 .D Q. 9. J2 146 ON PE. If. ...V CCMC RII :.HT PCA F G 0H0 TDS SI 7- Mn“ N A» f. RCbWD VGCOU RNLT EA 5 TVG TENE ALOL CEHA SQAM 105 E E R21 11 1 5 H .....1 512 1“ C1 111 1 3 I P 11 12 0 1| 11 1 11 1 hfiaezaksURVACS 1+ 6655hku3322 0 212 go r; H ..l 2121311“ C 12312.93 3 I P 13 -4 12 0 ..l 111. 21 1 “.U’h 281% J 023 W 6.35—9-4“43327. 1.9111 22.5115) N 0 21222311.. Pu 1 1 1912 9...} I D 11411.512 3 vl 26L 1 h. .6234...n.2flb 5.055.» .4 £339.? 7.. 5333 1 1a.. 3 .1 121312 3 3 Z P. 1223 2?). 1 U 2 O 1 1¢?.2 0% n, 1 1 7 .Lf..s£-. st. . .5 . o o o o O o o o 0 Lu ..CIHOLOL11r ..L v!r§n “L .1'IINVVO IL TOPIC THQEE 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 h 5 11 (156.»232 46 1 u o c 0 111 1 r: w T 11 I“. c 11 2 3 I Dr 2 2 0 T 11 1 .... «Q 6 .N n 14. la? P. c 1 ‘5 I .w. AL 7‘. O T- 7. 1 as. 41 :1 3 ...1 1 1 8 r.» 7.. 7;; 1 1 U 2 O 1 1h \U 1 1 7n . ..ba. .fv hr. 5r. 5 O O O O O O C C C w..:0?211.. . (.rv LFC [— FIJI: y E E Q 235 H T 24... C 1 13 I P 32 0 ..l 21 B321...» 0 225 H." T 2 Q C 223 I P 22 O T. 21 #521...» .... 1 2.8. Mu 7.1.. C 1147. I D 1 2 J T 21 Q7151 .. :5 v. Nd. n ) SCAL- :VAJC am.» N E V 13,15,361 5 E S 2 1121:... C 1 113 2w13 I D 11 123122 0 T. 2 1 1 4062 .6 #3628 .4 BB??? “5..“ .07. 9.2 X “h. 61% 5 I S 21 211 4* C 33 263 3 I P 13 1 1 2 0 T 1 11 1 .... £62 61.1.7028 9 5655.914 “.3322 V 1 9,—1H132 p“. I F 12 12112“. a; 1. 171/1+1?) I P 1 9. .399“ 2 0. T 12 1 “J,b28h§u623 .w Q)»h.fi..5 914493322 0. U .923.) 115 n), ..r 1119?. 1 1.“ 3 21 a) .5 Y... P 2212212 u r... 11.2.1 1.», 5.1.13“. Ema/.3 .4 ..rF.:..L.L0u\ 337:1? ZVEN TOPIC S TOPIC SIX 3 FIVE TOPI TOPIC FOUa 9. 5 k A 2 3 12 2 3 1 366420246 1 ... 11 5 13 u 11 3 13 2 2 1 38,092 L246 41 o . c 21 I. 3 7.9. 1 2 2 1 066 52.J21+.O 1 . . . 13 5 1 «b 21 .2) 161. 7..— 3 1 r .Q)Cr In"; .2!“ r— 1 ... TABLE h-lW '3 FIVT 7091: Q?) FOUR 1 1F) 11... 1.42 111 210 22 Pa.- 1.“ C 1 113 T. F flu T. 1. lug) 21 2 21 7. 1A... 106 E E R 5 H ..l 111 2 1% 0.41 1 .0 I D. 1 2 0 t1 1 Q0628h06284 6655“““3322 0 1 1 5 H T ~41 41 1h. C 1 2 13 I D. 1 2 0 T. 1 1 “0628 “0628“ 6655“ 9.43322 P2 11 1 1 R; NV 0 l 1 41 2 h. P. 11 13 I P 3. O T 1 1 k . ..629..Ln.¢n29, % 665514“ 9.5322 5 3 .2 22 21 3 S 2 Q. «31 1 1 U 2 0 1 14. Pu 1 7. .c..Dr.c,nO.L,.nU:.[. O O O O C O I O O L37v2211. s L '3? 50.17.4113 NH!» I... EE R 3 5 H .I 1 :4 C 5 1..o I D. 2 0 T. 1 38614297746 1 . . . O 1 5 N T 111 :4 C 3 3 I D. 1 1 2 0 T 1 41 086:“.232146 1 . . . C. 1 .9 N C .(C. n A». 1 ...) I D 1 2 O T 1 r groan/T4 Zia-H 1 . . . 11 5 3 .2311 R, S 2 o. 3 1 U 2 0 h h; 1 7 LC, 1:757: 4r... 0 O 0 O I O 0 O O 14...}.16211115 QVPLLFnu. Ann Orig TOPIC THREE TOPIC THO - L h TOPIC ON us. Fr?! -flfi. ES SCAL EVANC. REL N E V 15 E S 1“. C .16 7.41.13 I p 1 1 2 0 T 1 1 90628“ 0,023“ bBSCJgh. 5.37922 TOPIC SIX 2 1 1 1 2L3“ u UCZBL. Eton/.8.“ 6.0.5:).914 .9vJ322 rt V 5 +1 Cr 1 20% a4 11 191 2: T. ..H 1 1 1 9" 0. Va 1 1 #362614352644 6..n.t....5.4 1+ 14.3322 of: U 5 0 F 11 k \‘I POII 9) I C 1 «C F. Y 1 h ......rn..23 on. .. :57...» a ....CLDLrbb L.J.J»(7. N E V 7.. F. S Pu 1 u I P 3 0 T. .gafibéfigckfi 1 . . . K 2 I S 1 C 23 I P 2 0 T 986b27.21wr0 1 . . . L V 411 I F 1 1 3 32 I D. 11 O T 385923.245 1 . . . D. U 7. O ...r 13 «u 121 I Dr 0 TI £56442 «diary. 1 . . . 1 213» 5 IABLE u-lx 5 3 Q3).13u FOUF s.) 74 1C9 0 N .tE IE E EV O CECU QIIT EHTI PCAT F GA 0H0 TIDG ST. My MN I RENA GCOES P\NLRT EA N TVG .... TENHD ALOGU C...M.I.IT SRAHS 11:1 25 9.7. 1 115 4“. 1% 4|.)— 1&1. h7.21,. 107 TOPIC ONE .t F. R 1. 1 41 5 H T1..J11. .1“ .01 41 1 .1 3 I P 12 0 T .11. 1 kfi2248u$92d8u 665594743322 112C 2 15 12 2 1.“ 122 2.8.2 3 13 2 TOPIC THO 1 11 .40628‘9qurozg 9 6555 “QQ3322 22115 11222214.!» 1 1 11 1..) 7) 11 2 11 1 LCBZSLrBZBL 6655914443322 361.22 1 1 h 1 7.11 1312 22 11 COUPS 71k212fl35 1 LCJJPDUAJCS. . O O O I O O O O O #332211L » T1? LDITIOM.P .1. TOPIC THREE 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 k 5 1 08632 .02.“.6 1 o . . 1 1 1 1 2 1 TOPIC TWO 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 .0286 .42. 92.46 1 . . . ., ... 7. 5 N O 1 1 L C Q. . J I «Ir 1 A/. J T 11 1 «JR»? .w2 .39....“6 1 . . . 3 5 3 r. . 1 A; S 2 ..K 3 1 1 U 7-. O 1 1 u. C 1 7 2 Fifi}. ..r..L.; . 0 O O O O 0.. O O h 3329.. 11:9 .... (9.31:. D P Films; TOPIC THREE 1 3 .52 11 b.3210 0 115 W 1. 2“ C 223 T. D. 12 0 T _11 “321?... E 1 15 ...w at 1L.» ‘1 1 12?. I D. 1 2 O T 11 “7.210 rs?» In.’l\ SCALis VANCE ?ELE “1321 5 1.9.1.“ 1 1 2 2313 1 21.112 1 1 1 1 TOPIC SEVEN 140628 #0628“ 6655b .... 143322 X 2 59s.. 5 I S 1 211 14 Pu 2 1 1142 3 I D- 3 1 2 0 .l 2 1 1.» L623 a 0528.“ 58.55% 1+ 5 .2322 V 3122 .5 I F 1 14112“ C 1 13 1.5 I D. .531 2 nu 1 19b 1 T | “9628 “4.352814. 6655“ “#33329. O. U 2211 15 O F 1113111 1:“ A) 7. 3 q) a11a1nC T 1 1 1 L ...Eaiq H « Er..9,_.3“ (pantry/b. k 572.152 EN 2 1 2 3 h 5 TOPIC SEV TABLE h-IY 03614202 .46 1 . . . X 1 5 T. S 11 h‘ c 11 3 I p 13 2 O T 1 1 (Cabana/.02 8:0 1 . . . V 1 5 I C. h. a: )11 3 1 3| 22 1 9. O T: 1 1 0‘ U 12 3 O F :4 n; 11 2: I P 12 2 nu. T. 2 1 ..AJLJIA 2. .2 brr. .1 ... FIV? N-a 1‘.) TOP Fou: TOPIC 0N .CC. 1.... C. —._v «J CECU 931171 C.HTI D.CAT AND. F GA 0H0 ST. N Huh I an HD REGA GCIES RNHRT F.A N TVG F. TEN D ALONU CEHOT CORQLS 15 I.» 1 2.5 1:42 11 43213 21.? 113 7.1 2 lb 3.7L 4‘ ..HU 108 E F. R 1. 1 .5 H .l 111 1 .4 C 1 .3 I D. 1.. 2 0 T1 1 1 “062840628 :4 66554.3.“3322 O 1 1 c) H T 11 1 1 Q C 13 I P 111 3 0 T .1 1 “40625 410628 9 6655“““3322 F. 11 1 5 N 0 211 u C 7.113 I D 2 O T. 1 1 1 90628L0.628 T» 6.05:, “H“?Jaoez 1 21 :1 3 C. 11 1 8 C4 2 3. 2 1 1 1 U 2 0 1 1 k F; 1 7- 2......1 ..c]. 1.51.3.4 I. O O O I O O C O O 51:39.7.11 L 2 1:5» ..U 71.3.91FCMWD 0.. E; C. D\ 2 5 H T h. «Iv 5 1 3 I p. 2 O T 1 586.47.02.96 1 . . . 1 5 TOPIC TWO 3 1 2 3 h 1 UBBQZWLZ 46 1 .. . ONE 1 5 ..C TV In. TOPIC 1 2 Alarm [up/..LULIWE 1 .- u 411 ...?) S 93 U 0 C ?1h212835 \on./ TV: u6§r.o ch IL 0 o o o 0 o o o o h7.32211.;n. (......LF: 0. hu'ra TOPIC THREE 1 5 3 TOPIC THO 439.1.U '— h. 1 r? r... 4% 13 TOPIC CNv L .521... . “5,-p T “"0 ZVANCE SCALES L J: N E V 1 1 4+15 E S 1 h. c 12113 I 1 P 7. 2 0 T 1 1 “067.8 b.0523 a. 665541443322 2 1 5 1 1 1 ~01 TOPIC SIX 1 Z 3 h 1 a 06.28“ Len/Sou rotor)..91# #1433204. C V 1 1 1.. F) I F b. «u; 1 1 1 7) I P 1 1 1 9. O T 9.1 1 49628 “U526 u. 6655b.“ “3322 11 1 1 3) TOPIC FOUR 1 a 1 2 3 # h.LEZBh...-.F.?8L rDF..2._£/.L 1.1L 7, 757:). N E V 2 5 ... . S n» flu 1 3 3 I D. 2 2 0 T 1 386QZOZI+6 1 c . . X 2 r? I S ..u. C 22 3 I O. 2 2 0 T 1 066 1» 2321.96 1 . . . t V 11 5 1 F 1 1% OJ 7.1 ~\ I P 11 9. (U T 1.. R U 2 .9 O F 12 I“ «v 111 3 I P 2 C TI 1 .. .QJrOIQZIVACL—JU 1 n g . TABLE h-IZ TOPIC FIV' FOUR TCPIC 0 N £31"; I... ...V FICC 911:». ...HTD PCAU AMITI F 6.1 OHOT- TOP 81 A MIN A H R.-.NT GCOAQ. RNLHT C_A N TVG w.“ TC.NHD ALOGU 055:. IT. ANZKAH HS 1 1r) 1... 1+ .5 3 9.. 7.. B321 U 11:; 314 1113 ~7..21... 109 E C. P 1 1 5 H ..l 1 Q C1 1 111 13 I D. 1 2 2 0 T 1 [#29623 455239 6655““.fi3322 1 2 5 1 1 In. 1 121 2 13 11112 TOPIC THO 11 1 Q U628 #362814. 6.055141%:43322 .L 1 1 1 15 N 0 1 1 1 224% bk 7. 111 1 T. I D 11 2 0 v! 1 1 “HOICAILP. AW? .rh 2.4, ... 665.914h143323 I. 5 11 L. 3 ... 1?. 21 R, .5 2 P. 31 51 1 U 9. 0 1 b1 «3.4 1 .I . .E. -G... urkutf; o o o o o o o o o k.\.ws..9..2411¢.. U T. C A. PAITIAU NO I... EE TOPIC THQ r and 5 :42 .Uzh‘ro 1 . . . 2 1 1 TOPIC THO 08514.2 0214.6 1 . . . ..p. 1 N «U _~,1 su 1 1 D O T r.8rbu97.L21.wR. 1 . o. 1 1 .r. 22 S D... U 0 «a . .Cer..5.a€..:.c.rb I I I 0 O O O O O 44.3—39.9.11Cf. Q..L.L: Pia «...—IQ V1Q212835 SE TOPIC TH? TOPIC TWO 3 ONE TOPI 3:, 2k 13 2 1 .9 «@216.» u a. 9....1 L (.D Iler SCNLZ? VANCE REL? N .t V 1 1 .9 .r. S “ c 1 2113 I O: 1 31.21 7. 0 Tc 2 1 1 4062840628.“ rDrDCara L. I“ 14.5322 X 1 21 5 I S k C 1 .11:1 3 I P 21 32 2 O T 1 1 1 ,9 .../02A”. 9 UbaaL 6.055 ..- .u 5.332: V 1 1 .9 T. F 1 1 by C 1 1 1) 29.3 I P 7. 1); 7. C T 1 1 “3.525406254» rh rDLaC, 42% 14.1.7129. .1. U 1 1 5 O F 1 1 1R 3 7.1117. .5 1 F 7:54.112 2 w. T. 1 h. ..(Oa/fikJ.“ r. 7.9‘05 Katy...» (IL ... l.._ ..CC..C N C. V 1 2... S 3 c 1 I 3: 1 0 T 386 “202.“ 6 1 x 1 T. S 12 c 2 I .P 0 T I F 1 1 A u 1) T. .H 0 T .JR r) 1% 7.0 1 Du. U 12 0 F 2 A... 1 .1... ..P 0 T Q rr). 1W9 11.4.3 ... 1 2 3 h 5 TABLE 4-1AA 1 2 3 h 5 1 P 3 h 3 FTV? Tst-‘I TIDE. SI A Mun“ A H R55”?! GPVOAS RNLMT CbA N TVG C. TEN D ALOWU CEMAJT SDWALaD 1.5 11 H. 17...) d 1 1 .43 213. FOUR 1 'OP13 )3») 2 ,9 1 .5 0c. IQ .(L 21. 110 h -. ._ Px 1 1 1 5 H 7.1 212 1.4 C1 1 1 1 «0 1 P 12 O ,1 111. 1 h.£626hfl4628h. 6655“““3322 O 7.12 1 .54 N T 12 1 1% C 2 1231 3 I P 1 3 2 0 T. 1 1 11 4.0628 .4 062R. 4 6655“ 4.43.5).2 .... 121 1.5 M. 0. 1122311 a P; 1 1 9.1 17 I D. 1 1.. 9. 0 v1 241 1‘ Q. .F 29.. u. F53. ... {Urn 35514.-» 4.53).); 7,214‘ 1 1: a) F. 18.12 R. S 2 D. 1311 1... 1 U 2 3 17:. I... A4 1 1 7 O O C O O s... THREE 1 3 1 1 2 3 u 5 TOPIC THQ a 0 TOPIC 3 1. «U861... 7..-.296 1 . . . 11 TOPIC TWO 1 2 l 2 3 h b 1 «561423915 0 1 . . . 9.. C: ON: 1 TJPIA 1 2 0 *3 1 1 1 1 713212.35 .7..:»r?rg.2--.r.. . o o o c o o o o o “1:..9124111' . P;f.LFrr L n .....PL CC _. C THO 2 1 3 TOPI 2 2 “203.1 u ‘54::- 1 4" r). 1 flor\ ,‘v, ”‘1 ... 71 T091? I.» _. 201. .. rxvfrr. IVPK ....) SCQL ‘- o a .v DELL-IVAN! N E V 22311 5 t. S 111“. C 2 3 2213 1 P 1 2 1 2 0 .... 1 1 1 1 4062816. 0626'“. 6656.14 14 b7istL2 X 17.123 ,5 I S 211 9 C 22 1Q1 3 I P 3 2 O T 2 1 40462814..»62.b.w a... 05.9 H h. @3322 I... V 1 7.1.21 r? I F 111111» «v 1 2). .5 TL 9. .3311 9. ..U T. 1 1 2 1 43.028“ .9025 w ,h 8381.? a :4 “73.322 3. U 1119.. 1..) O F 11 .4111 k C 9 1 q) 3 T. p 1 1.111 2 3 T 1 1 1 1% ..r.. 7.6.x 14 1.1.7.53 w .. C.r.....~b 51.... 17:2 N CL V 1 5 I. S .0 h C 1 3 I P 1 2 0 TI 3 1 086.921.42.46 1 . . . x 1 5 I S 12 h. C 1 .5 I D 3 2 C T. 1 1 ..8 b a 20214.0 1 . . . V 1 r) 1 F 1 Q. «J ). ‘8’ T. D. 11 1 ). fq T. 2 1 136 0 49132 .w C) 1 . . . L. U 12 b O F by n1. 9. as T... rr 2 2 n... ... 2 1 ... .Rrv. ... 7.. Led.“ rn . . Q; . TABLE #- 1A3 FIV? T0917 A HH 91.267. pacvlnucu QWNHMT. EA N TVG .C TI_:N nJ ALONU «LSJHOT SPKHLQV 1:, 1 u 1 12$ 1) 7. 911 4:121... R U 215 O F a. \. 1 1? T1 F .1 01°C 0. v: 1 11 tha. .1. 111 C. Q1 1 5 H T 3 41 u C 1 1 3 T. P 1 2 O T. 1 1 B 3r02841u528h. 6655“““3322 O 1 c. N T 1 12 h. C 1 1 113 I P 173a 2 0 TI 1 H u62843.b?25 H .0055ng “.3322 a, 12 11 ) Mn 0 PC '- Fa 1.1 117‘} I p 111 7. A} w . ..LU9MH.L ....n,)..,r,. b 8.55:, I.» 4 ,4 332?. 11 1 C... H) PL. 2?. 11 Q; .5 2 S 2 1 1 41 Hz 9. U. 1L l b1 a 4 1 I ....firr.,.cansrr.n ..v. t» o O 0 O O O O 0 0 171.157.1111. 9 Tr. tr. IYIHVKDL 7. 5 TOPIC THQEE 1 9 .La ,0 .4 7TUZIq6 1 . . . U 1 ...: ...Vv ..l 1 1 Q C 2 .3 I Dr 1 1 9.... 0 TI 1 1 .v8.0.#2..7_14:0 1 . . . P.» 4|. ...? (U. TLC L a: 1 «D 11 D 1 )— O T. 1 .3) r. a. 22!.» n 1 . _ . 11 r? .0 a .2 1 fly. a) 2 0 3 1 U 2 0 ,u a.) 1 7 .LC ,LC... 17(fo . 14...}..6124111LL C....LC..rr A..— grinJ TOPIC THQEE TOPIC THO .\“__ ~ . 1 -. TOPIC 41 n1...— 4:. » .xJn/Ld... ..\.D I'Vf.“ EN EV 1 1 1 1 123u5 TOPIC S 2 2 1 “067.8 436723 :4. Ernscinl. 143322 VA 1 1 1 r.) T1 S 2 k C 1 1 2. I P H P. 0 v1... 1 1 @1529. a 2628:» 665...,“ 4.45322 3 V 1 R I F 121 1 u «b 1 1 t T. p 4. 1 1 7 5. T 9,. 1 #3625 #3528 u 6,055.1 4:357:22 1K U 1 1 5 O F 1 1 1 a \(J 1‘“ 'L 7\ I p, < A 1 ad r1. . o. 1 1 1 «1.5(9; a. F. 9.9 L ..IL rrxrtufvlv ’ L I“ 7.?UaCA/ N ... V 2 5 .L. S .9 nv 1 3 3 I D: 2 2 0 TI 1 J86 9202 .4 (O 1 . . . X 2 5 I S :4 C 13 3 I D. 9.. 2 0 TI 1 inch #2 U2 A R. 1 . . . _ V 11 P. w 1 F a. a \o 1). a) T1 an 1"... )1 H. T 1 .V. U 9. Z, 0 ...r 10. 14 x. .111 2) Y; .r. 7.. ru .-. 1 LQ 957. 1.2-. C 4‘ u . o “‘ lAC TAPLE FIVL ‘ J TCPI 0H::.| rut-F ST. A NW A H DENT 5:053 RNLHT. rZAH N TVG .t TruNHD ALOGU hu_r.MIT n30.“ HS 11% 11.». 7).). ‘17.. “37.13 11.7 "8,.“ 9.1?) lu .«.A111{ 112 12345 “..9628145623 1» 665 514.».443322 11 1 1 5 1 h 1 21 12 13 221 2 10910 IWO 1 11 “LBZBQLSZBQ 6655 +41%7V329. .... 4L 2 l :J N O 1 1 .c .... g C 41 ...) 1 41 :4 I D 1 1 7. «J t! 11 1 h. 1h. 29; L .- .h 28h r065 ...... 4 -~ #3329. ??1 1 r J 3 C. 1 7.1 9a.. ‘3 2 p 32 9 {-.. ‘1 U 2 0 1 1 I» no 1 1 7 IL... ..Pj. wlp. ..r... o o o O o o 0 o o 0 H7 «5?:d11HLwL 1|.FAUrHLIT7.rUNALL TOPIC THREE 1 1 4L8 rm, .u 2 7.9.. 620 1 ... O 1 N T 11 C 1 I P 11 O T 088 .42. .296 1 . . . _ . 9.. N .U C u I D- .J V t it? .O.L ). .7. .~ C 1 ... 91 1 _ .1 ..b .K U 01 1 Au upl..f.»pH LP.. urn” v 0 O O O O 0 O O 0 “3323147.... ,. C....L_.Fn~ ..WJ 714212835 TOPIC THREE TOPIC THO ‘- — .— UN TOPIC .\.F~- . WasaZAIC A/_ .9 29p -.7 711‘- «D a) ... QFQL .- VANS" ??LZ 3 SEVEN 1 TODI 11 306?393U6?3f4 :0 655 1% ..u L 33 2 2 X 13 2 5 I S Q C 1 221 3 I p 22 2 2 O T 1 7.. 1 In ...?he BQCBZR. I... 66.29 Q #143322 . . V ‘1 111 tn. T1 Eu 1 1 1...? a... 7.. 1 1 1 7). I D. 1 41.39. 2 \u. T 1 4L 1 Al. -45 .028 Q3523 4 6.0.9514.» “339.2 D U 1 1 15 O F 11 1‘ 1!“. «D .5 111 .5 I P 9.1111 2 0 T: 1 1 1 I“. chze .... kahuna/sq, I~ t’.—3’rr.-/luv “1*.Ja‘wfl/ PC N E V 1 5 ... S 3 .H nu 3 1 p 2 O T 9. 1 336:.»202 446 1 . . . x 1 C, I S 3 1» PV 3 I P 1 9. O T. 1 1 (.86L202gr0 1 . c. .g V 1 PH. I F 1 u. 5.; 11 as I D 2 0 T. 9. 1 r . 3.»). 421.7. 14.6 1 . . . a... .U 19. C) O F 4 «Iv 1 Z: T. F 1 2 C pl. 1 1 ( .Q/rr) .. .C,L9.I4$. 1 . o . TABLE h- LAD 3 FIVF Tnpy Fouv (PI 113 E E R2 1 1 5 H T 22 1h. PYL 14 .111. 13a T. P 12 0 .I 1?; 1 .QnrbaznhAflb73n4 '96::bhflTH3iic2 0 1211 .c. H T. 171?..2 4+“ Pu 1ft51$J1 .5 I D ?_ 1:4 0 T. 1. 2 1 #3628 u 4,023 H 665.51% 493322 E 2 11.... N O 112221.20 C 1 121 1.3 T. D: Or. 1 2 0 T 2 .1 “(.6 28.908.02.11“ 6655141.» 1.33329. 2211 1 1r) 3 E 21512 8 S 2 9‘ 12221 1 1 U 2 0 2 I... 64 1 7 .».9.L.......L:.D LC, 2 O 0 O O O O O O 0 “332211909 ,0 TL QUITIONPL THREE 3 5 2 Q C 1 3 T. D. 2 2 0 7| 1 1 ..J36h2ru246 1. . . . C 1 1 5 H T- 1 1H Pu 1 2 1 3 I D. 1 2 O T. 1 1 ..URZO 9?...J2hv10 1 . . . .P. 4.. .r—J N. r. ....1 a n... 2 Z. T. p. 4-1 9. ....I T 1 1 UREA ..2. .3146 1 . . . 11 5 3 .L. 22 8 S 2 0?; 1 1. U 2 O 1-“ n4 1 7. T.L.....CJE.C:::} L O O O O O O O I O 481192211391. .327LFFLP a .....nU THREE TOPIC TOPIC THU L) N 6: TOPIC ALE3 . ) ‘ C‘ VANC: L; - _ 2- N .t V 12112 S ... S 1 1111.. C 2 3 3113 I D: 121 2 0 vs 11. 1 “0628 40528.4 66c.c.kh b.3322 X 1 .Z31..D I 5 21:1 Q nu 27. 311 3 I n 9. 3 2 O T 41 1 “(EDA/.HVQadrnxn/EBQ .C.h...)5.“b “7.322 I h V 11215 T1 F 111111.» C 2).).9...) T. D 1 .5 1 2 O T 1 1 1 1+.u_b28143,07.8ru ..Obfi.fi.hhh.3322 D U 1 211 C) O F 11h111 9 nu 1?. )5. t; I C: 1 7... 1 2 O Y! 1 u arrJn/gnxuld. ...‘JZQ-hv Err... F..L r4 la 2:071). TOPIC SEVEN TOPIC SIX FIVf 0P1) FOUD 1 S 3 Q 2 3 2 2 1 1 .JRGQZQZQG 1 . . . 1 5 21 .4 12 Tu 2 2 1 586L2.;...L.Hr0 1 . . . 1 C 11. b. 1.2 3 11 1. 7. 1 18.3.62HJ2 5 Q; 1 . . . 12 ...) 9. 1H. 7. _<. 1 2 1 1 .Q. CL un/Tluz “LL 1 ... W'IAE TABLE FTVC UPIC , FOUR A TCPI E55 VMU IEO EVI Optx DQLNC. EHAD PC U AT¢I F :11 OHET T.T.D. ST. A A HH PEST. 50.1an RNHMT EA N ...-VG .r. ..IFLN D ALONU C.».MI.OT _,Jr.r.ALS 1...) 111* 1 1....) 41.7.). Lvagdfi/hl .. 114 1 1 TOPIC THREE 1 1 1 2 3 9 5 93.0 281463028 ,4 665 5-44h 3322 0 1 c, H T 2 1111 k C 1 2 113 I P 21 1 2 O T 1 1 “.06 28 h. H.628 B 665 62,414 .4339. P. C. 111 11 VD N C 41 1 l h C 121 1 41?: I p 111 A... 0 TI 1 b LEA/hp o ”20 b (D 5:. Cu.“ “(.3339 9. 16L .5 3 .... 311 3 3 S 2 D «.31 1 1 U 2 0 1 1 ,9 C 1 7 . r.” Jr......r:[(,.. y C O O O O O O O 0 #3322119 .. T: C.LIII»JTHIL E .C R 9. 5 H T. .H Pu cl. 7. 3 I P 2 O T 1 «JerOQZfiJZQe 1 o c a O 1 C/ N T 1 1 :4 C 2 3 I p 1 11 2 O T 1 1 1 ... TL 1 5 WV 51 7L7]. U P“, a V q) I D 1 2 A.) T 1 . 8:!“ -H «/~ 0 AIL Q rhw 1 . c - 11 .9 3 ~. .74. R) a) 2 360 1 U 2 01 h. A) 1 7. ,..E 51. .r,..-1.z.. ‘ c o o o o o o o o “:13917L11,L«L .\.:.LFD (51.1”) TOPIC THPEE TOPIC SEVEN TOPIC SEVEN b.9028 Q3628“. Rwanda/49L 1“ 7207.2 TOPIC TWO TOPIC SIX TOPIC SIX T'JQIC (N; V? -t" ;n 5: (AL TOPIC FIV’ 109:: S Q 5523 93623 1+ r0655.“ L “37.2 2 p- \— VANC" U9 \ J /‘ aZL: row? TFFIG Iep1c r Q523Q.Q28Q Lu. .LF.L.:‘ .- .. 7\.3_.-,r:( 2 2 1 2 1 08605.2 0?. “.6 L..5r0h.2 L154 FT 1 11 11 1 18.01421. 9.. 1 2 3 4 5 TABLE “'lAF 5 «q 3 9.— 1 Tu UN EES VMU I.CO.L ...VID CEXU RINT. Chum-HT. PC ..I ATP F SA OHE ..ITG ST. N MN I A D REHA FOCOPZS RNLRT. .ZA N TVG :z. TF.NHD ALOGU ‘b—;HIT .DDWAHS 115 E .t 9‘ 3 11 1 5 H rl 211 1b. C1 2. 111 13 I D- 12 0 T 1 1 “0625.436234 66551914193322 0 2 2 1 5 H T. 11212 1Q. C 122142 3 I c. 2 12 0 T 1 1 1 9.062814. .7028 H BRUSH/9h. 4337.)“ C. 2 1d.) 0 17.7.17: 1...... H C 1 113112, I D. 9. 1 a O T 1 1 I» n.uF,9quh.¢L._m.figa..b .b69_9hh,..~1.3?2 2h1—«JA/L 1 41C} 3 .y. 41. P541141 8 3 2 HR 1222112 1 U ?_ O 1 a «b 1 7 £1: a.uC,.LpH:.bc. 1. o a o a o o o o 0 “332211 . . T .L n... PUTJTaTJAJ M... 5'. F. CL D\ 2 .9 H T 2 .4 C 2 3 I P 2 2 0 T. 1 1 09,. 6:42 r1998..b 1 . . c 0 1 1 5 H T 1 4 n... 1 12 1 .0 I D. 2 O T. 1 1 083923.). *5 1 . .. .r- l .n. MW 0. 7.1 n «..J .3 .4 I P 1 3 \U T (L 1 F. R F» » 1L . -3.-. 4:» 1 . . . 1 1 E 3 1 1221283. .. I r... ..3,....b,.4L:.. O O O O O O O 0 O “3:422 11 u L 1:71: par: 4: D =5 Q 115 H T. 2“ C 1 1.3 I P 22 O T. 11 14.3213 115 in 1133 2 TOPIC THC 11 hu?¢n/.l.-d C’Ji .JL 4.. 7;) T0010 1 3 1‘1 (1."..1 7— ‘l‘.i| .C‘rr 71kb, SC\L£S VANCE €ELE N E V 1 )5222215 .C S 1 1 121.“ C 1 2 3113 I Dr 21 12 0 T: 11. 1 14.0628 # 3628.“. 665c...»# #3327. X 12 #32 5 I S 1 211 h. C 21 21 3 l P 2 9. 1 2 O T. 1 1 h: .528.“ 0528b. A 5.551.. « 5.2.322 .r. V 141w) 5C7; .n/ I F 1 1111!» «J ‘\J1¢)(.q(23 I D: 3 1 7L (U T.- 1 4. 1 “WU/07.15 fl..hph1.....aluv 66551.». a 9333?. n...‘ U 1 3k 12 1 5 O F 1141—3414111 H s. 1 23 2.. I By 1 1 1175 r! T 1 .14.. .r. 7,231». .(rn/ar.“ ...xon p5,,c..l‘lh 0H 7 _.»»/.n.: N .2 V 1 3 E S 3 Q c 1 3 I P 12 2 O T. 1 1 0861.». «£02 :4 ...O 1 o . . x 1 b I S 11 .H C 11 7, I P 13 2 0 TI 1 .U.brhbv2rLa/_ b r0 1 . . . V 1 C) I F 1 14 at. 11 5 T. or 9:). 1 .... C T 41 ......354202h .b 1 — . . 3.... U 1). c, n. F 1 h n; 1 a) I c 19. 3 {u T 1 1 c hdAG ~ TAEL TOPIC FIVL .‘\ I T051 TI 0N ...ES VHU I.—uO—.. ...VID CEer RINT FCHAI PC TI ATP F C30 UHF. TITS «5.1 N N...“ T. A HD RFFUA ruCT.:ZS RNHo‘T .PKA TVG TurtN 0 LOW C.CM.O SuKAL ..(1 41 .4 7 7.. 1.-.. N .C, D U TI S 93 2 1 116 E E on 1 5 H T111 :4 .C1 41 2 .o I P112 2 0 .l 1 11 “0628143623 R 66554.4“3322 O 1 1 S. H T «d 41 1 H at; 1 21 11 9.23 I P 113 1 2 O T 1 1 “069.8“?U6a/18 ,4 6655 “““337g2 pp. 1111 1 p) N 0 1 2.1 141 .— P.. .31 1 11.3 I D 11 9. 3 T- 1 1 blag/.9. h -5328. . .055rs uQé3322 5 3 F: 2 331 R S 2 ..w ”13.2231 1.. U 2 fit... 1 11 1 :9 n... 1 7 .. C.....F.... risué. . h3~322117~ w TrhtrLIvlcwllaJM: Au L TOPIC THREE Q 1 3 1 1 2 3 a 5 au486“2.U2“6 1 a c o 0 1 5 W T. 1 21 Q C 2 .5 I p 1 2 O T 1 1 J85 92. .2130 1 . . . C rd 1 5:. V C 7.. 2 14 «I4 41. 5‘1 r1 3. 1 2 3 T. 1 .86 1272146 1 . . . 11 1 :1 3 ...:(u 8 .1) 2 3....» 1 U 2 O 1» «:4 1 7 . r: 3v. .F..L:z.. . . . . . . . . I L .(vojalLfl/h 11. b». \ Ct... .Fnrfl. LL...’ THREE TOPIC TOPIC SEVEN TOPIC THO TOPIC SIX OPT; f‘ ' I ‘ FIV? TS OPL T091 SCALa f. h — FOUP I QELEVATKI ‘ r~91 5 H 11..L 177£J 2?. 2111 7.. 2 1 1 b.0628 #0623“ 66:15-91” B40322 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 Q 5 TOPIC SIX U628 “\Jbacfl nu. r0 £39....) h. 4% “~3..J..C2 ...? 1 1“ 11 19.1 7. 3 1). 12 9. 1 2 1 “0.1028 ..U.h9.81.~. 66.H.G.uh 1.7.1322 C» 1 1 Q 1111... 1 24 7.117.. 7.. 1 1 .6725“. C7.R.h ...r.r?.C.ru lu- 91H..w7.n/._n( 3 2 1 2 1 2 3 Q 5 TOPIC SEVEN TABLE k-1AH uasuzoz “6 Q 5 carbhnifuz L at FIV. ! TOPIC FIVT TOPI .....BrOhvaaauzo FOUD I TOPID FUU? TOFI A .I RENS GCOES QNLTT ..zn N .IVG C. TEN D ALOWU CthOT SD‘ALS 41 1?) 17.3 «32 1 143213 117 E E R 2 1 5 H T 1?. ad 4 C 1 11 13 T. D. 1 2 0 T1 1 .HPJ r028 “Cusp—Ru I“ 66 55“““3322 O 1 1 1 1 r? N T 1 11 1“. C 111 1 .5 I P 1 11 12 0 T 1 1 1 #3 62819062314 A3OSE14th332). f. 1 1 ..D N 0 21 291/. b. aL. 1 )L 41 .3 I p 1 1 2 O T «1 1 -1 9rd ,00 73.1?ch P A, » baflb:h?4#715?Su 12 7.1 8 «\J P: 13 17L 1 and S 9.. R. 1 121 1 U 7. 0 1 h. flu 1 7 rbrnJ. rol.r.. M.v u . . . . . . . . . h3—qk26C11 9?. Q. as '. nsTaoTIONflwlu TOPIC THREE 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 h 5 ERfiYHZfii§96 1 ... TOPIC TWO 1 2 1 1 2 3 Q 5 5869292150 1 . . . .L .H. N at; 7. .s I P 2 3 TI i1 .8! H 7x. 210?,“ 1 . . . 1 “all 3 .11122 8 S 2 D. 1 1 U 7. O 1» ha 1 7 .-L... .f -..£.r’uf2fu O O O 0 O O O O O Q?::7:(131»r. (...... 5F fir A; H L-viru E E R 9E1 H T. 2.“. C 3?) I P 2 0 ..l 1 MIXCILC 0 1r: N TI 1“ Pu 112.) I D. 12 0 T 1 1% 32 10 F. ...) N O .Db nu 9.3 I P 7. O T 1 4.” 715,11» ... 3:11-73 IS VANCE SCAL' ?7LE N F. V 1 12 218. .C s 1 1“. C 1 1 2 3 I D. 1?. 1 2 0 T 1. 1 “2069394083%6u (0656:“.9 130.022 x 3 12 P? I S 1 11 I“ C 1 3 I p 11 31 2 O T! 1 1 1 44.146281». 06284 (0.05q7uvhn. “.5322 .- V 111 11 5 I C. 1 1h C 11 7) 123 I D. 1 1 1 3 0 TI 1 1 +3528h.06284 6,9959,» .9332?— Du U 1 1?. 2 1 .9 0 F 1 1 1?. B P4 7. 2 7) I D. 1 1 7. C T. 1 1 [93.620u i” overha/gah. Fofldc.rwo'yv In I‘ 9‘1.JPCA)I— N .C V 1 5 C.— S 2 b. c 3 3 I p 1 2 0 T 1 036.“ 202.“ 6 1 c . c X 1 5 I S 11 a. C 13 3 I P 2 0 T 1 C V 1 t) I F 11 :4 3 1?. 1 3 I p 9; n. T 1 086“23246 1 ... D U 11 5 O F 2 .# nu .+11 _) I P 2 O .l. 1 TABLE h-IAI F G I 3 FIV: q 3 T!)PI' 2 .4321... 1 1 C) FOUR 9114 1113 A J TOPI u. 7.21.. 118 p: R2 T1 TOPIC 1 1 1 Z 3 4 5 “0 628143628 ¢ 66 551444143322 TOPIC TWO 11 1 5 1if111 .9 111 111 3 12 73 2 1 1.1.1.. 1+0 628 #0623 .4 ....er 5.? 4 414332). TOPIC CHE a .. 1 1 1121 :1 4. 1 a... b 1 111 1 1, 131.. 1.. 3.. 11 1 n 62.3 Ragga/.8 » 66 .92.. .4 0414;)???zd E OU?§ A J 2.34;!11 C) 3 12 «3 8 .C 11 2 1.. 1.. 2 1 17.. H 1 1 n. r 1&1??? grits... .... o o o o o o o o o h337_211r.\l 13h“ 0.17.131. m..- h. L 1 1 1 1 2 1 TOPIC THREE 1 18c) h2..u?_..?b 1 ... 2?. TOPIC TWO 1 ‘1. unnroge CAIN/O 1 ... UN: 1 1 1 A ‘1 no I 3 0 v 4:. .., a3 6» u 2.62 4;. 41 . . . 2 fall. 1 Q4 .H 1 U 01 1 «.4 1 Lia/TLC. u n. 15:.-. 871:1»).211 up-.. (:2. .Fon KL RA_.>»PU 1 Z 3 h 6 TOPIC THREE 1 2 3 k F TOPIC THO (N :7. I! "- 3 T7PIP VANCé SCALI‘ “- p- —. "L b \ - 71%212%?5 ) N E V .11Pdel .9 E S 1 1 k C ‘1 1. 19.93 I P .d1 117%: 0 T 11. 1 11 “3.9281413628“ Gard—Db 0 “yo-€22 X 2a..12 .9 I S 2 h C 1 .137..5 I D. 21.. 2 O .z 1 P. 1 Lnlvrhzn. I.“ 982“» .H 560651“. a.» 43371.). .r V 21111. 5 I F 121 1 1h. «.u .1 2 14 TL 0. L. 1 17.1 9. O ... 1 1 1 u... .528 wfl..3?3-w rOfflv Phi—H.14.“ “1L922 P U 2 21 15 O F 11111 115.. «‘1 7. 11 7: I P 1 1 7. U T. 1 111.. Q 5.9.8 .9 .. 7... 71.1.. L €57J2/bxlq .wTiJA/ch N ”C V 1. 5 C. S 2 a c 1. 1.. I D. 1 2 0 T 3 1 056:“202“ 5 1 . . . x 1 r? I S 2 In hu 1 3 ..l. D: 2 «L 0 T. 3. 1 L86 “2.4245 1 . . . V 41. S I F 1 u «u 11 a) T. p 1 2 n. T .5 1. .255 #23214 .8 1 . . o 3‘ H: 1.1 :2 O F .4 s... 11. q) I F .C 2 n; T. a: 1 TABLE h-lAJ FIVE N TOPIO FOUR 2913 h \ T 119 F. E P. 1 1 1 5 H .I Q 2 1% Cl 11 1 1 3 I P 12 0 T. 11 11 1 “0628143623“ 665599143322 1.. 3 ”C r? 112 2114 121132 .3 11 12 TOPIC THO 11111 “0:0 259 0628.4 6655 B 9 143322 E 2 1 12 1.5 Ni. 0 11122311 2 fix 7.41 ).__) I a; .1 111). TI 1.7.. 1 b 06?.“ «7.9.320...Q 6...): .5-» -u 1337.2 129:2?2 1. 1r. 3 F. 1 1.512. 3 S 2 DR 2.21212. 4.. U 2 0 12 ,. my 1 1 7. T,EEJTATT.C.P..OL E E R 1 2 r) H T 1 h C 2 .6 I D: 2 92 O T 1 1 «U86Q232Q6 1 . . . O 41 1 1 C. N T 1 In C 11 2 3 I P 2 0 TI 41 1 J36“). U2 41b 1 . . . ....U «I. r. N ..U 71 u C 21 .) I D 1 2 O T 1 1 UG..F)142. ALB 1 . . . 1 1 5 3 r; 1 8 S 2 3x3 11 1 U 2 0 4.. b A... 1 7 r .....r. ..a. . up.) :2... b O O O O o O O O O “Ty—1127511 our... SFLLC gm t h . .. .nun; TOPIC THPEE 1 1 Cl"- 1 TODIC 10°10 TWO ; J 3 4.. 17.5 «C «J )— 11 :u .3 921. u .\.D T1Hflqlu 2..) CAL' VANCE 3' (IL: N E .v 222221 5 .L S 1 121.“ mu 2 3 1113 I D. 122 12 O T 11. 1 40628440628“ ID bra/Cab ““7262?— X 7. 52 5 I 9 1 211 :4 C 214 121 9) I D. 2 1. 1 2 O T. 1 1 “Urban. “rhea/.8.“ 66:, 5.“ :4 L31. 22 p .. 1 3 2 2 .1) FIV 11111 H 1221413 o-‘J 1 -41 1 9.. TQDT“ 111 1 9359.8 1413023.“ .h/rné) 5.1.» “#147022 R. U 3212 1 5 n.) F “.211 .4 A; 1 2 w) I .v 1A,_1§.A/..412 '4 T 1 141 1.» £3.23. :4 train .4 Fillr. Mb...“ 7:327. N S. V 1 5 F». S 2 a. Au 1 3 I p 13 2 0 T. 1 1 086420246 1 . . . x 1 5 I S 11 .u. C 1 3 I P 114 2 0 T 1 386 42. U296 1 . . . ._ V 1 G T. F I» I D 7.9.. 1 9. “U T 1 336 “24.296 1 . . . C U 2 c; .U C. 1 I} a J 1 1 .5 I C. 1 2 2 3 T 1 1 .99.er Q2 52 «F. 1 ... lAK TABLE #- FOUP T0910 FTV~ ."\ I TOPI T 0N EE Van 1.?— :.V F320 RIT. EHTS PCAU AND F GI OHOX ..anN 5.1 A MW A HT REGS GnaIES QNHTT FEM N TVG CL T:_NHU ALOGU C—CMIITI CuPKHHg, 111.1.) 1 H9. 1 14321 J 11.) 113 52.1 2 “fit—21 .\ 120 points near the line among low dogmatic high mathematics aptitude subjects, among low test anxious high reading aptitude subjects, or low dogmatic low test anxious sub- jects, while the line is distinct for high dogmatic low test anxious subjects, high test anxious low reading aptitude subjects, high test anxious low mathematics aptitude subjects, high dogmatic low reading aptitude subjects, high dogmatic subjects, high dogmatic males, low test anxious subjects, low mathematics aptitude subjects, and low reading aptitude subjects. Correlation Coefficients The correlation coefficients for the course and the seven topic areas and their significance levels are reported for the traditional section and the two methods of measurement of achievement in each of the sub-groups in which the self—paced section has at least six members. The significance levels for the difference between the correlation coefficients in the self-paced and traditional sections are reported for the course and the seven topic areas. Significant within-line corre- lations are reported. Total Correlations Among all 126 subjects in the traditional section, as illustrated in Table 4-2A, five of the correlations among the seven topic area correlations are significant Ho.u«¢««¢ b a mo u«««« .OH.H««« .mH.n«« .o~.na Nmagma mozdonHonm .ama meaznx ..emm ozHommmnm .moonz¢ emmeum .oHemzooouo .zoqnq .monum .mqazmmum .mqazuz “mooo moomo oameu Bro! wNol rm. :Nol uMol :00! hr Nmm Omar Ooh r0. Mrol ..NM. mro @0- Nro Quocwdo columdo loomMo Br ram Owwo mom gouacwro pour. nengo usmro uiaommo w0. w0. QoJro andro Ow Qmm XHm M>Hh mbom mmmmfi O38 MZO mmmbOO Z @900 Amq mozaonHonm 2&4 SEQ ...an oZHofimum 6:852 Swans. .oHSzooouo .383 .moomum .mdzmmum .mézuz wmooo aoomo 8. Ex ®Ool NNol oath. rNol MMOI OOol Jr Nam M®Nor mom rOol arol sumo mro I no. «ouNJo 9.9.0:. nucmdo Jr ram mom. o.m ...wr. ....om. ...w.. ...or. ....am. or. mo. ..or. ...or. on omm me m>Hm woos momma oza mz mmmooo z mooo A42Hm a-3 z2 mmomum Hmcww some cam mucmflofimmmoo mCOHuMHmHHOUnI.mNIv canoe 127 level on the first measure and one at the .20 and the other at the .10 level on the second measure. The mean within-line correlation on the first measure is .10, significant at the .20 level. High dogmatic males in the traditional section show a correlation of final grade with total relevance that is significant at the .10 level and show five sig- nificant topic area correlations, one at the .15 level, two at the .10 level, and two at the .05 level. The mean within-line correlation is .18, significant at the .10 level. In the self-paced section the course correla- tion is significant at the .10 level and three tOpic area correlations are significant, at the .20, .10, and .05 levels for the sixth, second, and first topic area in that order. The mean within-line correlation is not sig- nificant. One of the five correlation coefficients on the second measure of achievement is significantly greater than zero at the .15 level. The other four are all nega- tive. None of the differences between correlations among low dogmatic males is significant, while two are significant among high dogmatic males on the first measure of achievement, one at the .20 level and the other at the .10 level. 128 Test Anxiety (Table 4—2C) Low test anxious students in the traditional section exhibit a course correlation (between course grade and total relevance) significant at the .20 level and two significant topic correlations, one at the .10 level and the other at the .01 level. The mean within- line correlation is .10, significant at the .10 level. Low test anxious students in the self-paced section show five significant correlations, one for the course at the .05 level and one among the topic area correlations sig- nificant at the .20 level, one at the .10, one at the .05 and one at the .01 level, on the first measure of achieve- ment. The second measure shows two correlations signifi- cant at the .15 level, and a negative mean within-line correlation. High test anxious students show four significant correlations in the traditional section and four on the first measure of achievement in the self-paced section, at the .20 level in the course for both sections, at the .20, .10, and .05 levels in the traditional section and all at the .20 level in the self-paced section. The mean within-line correlations are .12 in the traditional section, significant at the .05 level, and non- significant in the other two, although negative on the second measure in the self-paced section. 129 rOoHuluau omOouciic .Orounuc .mrofloo .Omona "mason moEoEHzEm ..Es Esme ...Es ozHosmmum .3852 Emma} .oEszooouo .383 .monum .mQEum .méznz ”mooo moomo 2.. was or.- um.u mm. «m. u so. me Now mow. m.n mo.- mo. or. u mr.u so. or. ....ws. om.a ms ram woo. o.m ...or. no. so. ...sm. mo. .or. mm.u ...rm. .sr. rs oqme mm mo. nm.u ..sm. or.u mr.u so.s ms mom mmo.r m.m so.u om.u ....ws. ms. no.1 ....ss. rs. .wm. ...ss. we saw mom. o.m ..rs. no. mo. mo.u mo. ..mr. mo.n mo. mo.n mu omm me m>Hm moon mazes oze mzo mmmooo z mooo qmg mozsoHston POouuouoa .mO-ucuoo oOroflnoo awrouoo oONoflQ .ems mpnm mozonmHonn .oms mscsus ..em< oZHosmmum .moonzs Emmoms .ostzooouo .3oquq .monum .mgszmMum .maszuz "mooo moomo o9 was E-sa so. no. 2.... on... me... 8.: m mam mmm.r o.m so.- ....mu. .mm. us. ....rm. ...rm. .mm. .....om. o ram woo. w.m so. me. mo.u ms. sr. Ms. me. s~.u mo. on osma xqmm me m>Hm zoom mummy oze mzo momsoo z maoo q<2Hm an; 24m: onoa onoa numoe onoa onoe onoa onoe 44909 moomo .msoum >9 mmpmum Hmcwm some cam mucwHOHmmmoo coflumHmuHOUII.Umus magma 143 correlations at the .05, .10, .10, .20, and .10 levels. One topic area correlation on the second measure of achievement and the mean within-line correlation are sig- nificant at the .20 and .05 levels. Low dogmatic high reading aptitude students in the traditional section exhibit seven negative correla- tions, five which would have been significant at the .10, .05, .05, .01, and .01 levels, if the hypothesis had been in the opposite direction. Five correlations in the self-paced section in this group are negative. On the second measure of achievement in the self-paced section two topic correlations are significant, at the .20 level, while one topic area correlation and the mean within-line correlation are negative. Differences between traditional section and self- paced section correlations on the first achievement mea- sure among high dogmatic low reading aptitude students are significant for the total course and for four topic areas, at the .05, .05, .10, .10, and .20 levels. Three topic areas on the first achievement measure and two on the second show significant differences in correlations among low dogmatic high reading aptitude students, at the .10, .05, and .10 levels on the first achievement measure and at the .20 and .05 levels on the second. 144 Test Anxiety and MSU Mathematics Test Scores (Table 4-2F) There are no correlations significantly greater than zero among high test anxious low math aptitude stu— dents in the traditional section, but six correlations are significant in the self-paced section, including the course correlation at the .01 level and five topic area correlations on the first measure at the .20, .10, .05, .20, and .05 levels. One topic area correlation and the mean within- line correlation are significant among low test anxious high reading aptitude students in the traditional section, at the .10 and .01 levels, respectively. Four topic area correlations are negative in this section and four corre- lations and the mean within—line correlation are negative in the self-paced group. On the second measure of achieve- ment one topic area correlation is significant at the .10 level, and the mean within-line correlation is negative. Low test anxious low mathematics aptitude students show two significant topic area correlations in the tradi- tional section; one at the .15 level and the other at the .10 level. There are three significant topic area corre- lations on the first achievement measure and two on the second measure in this group, at the .20, .10, .05, .20, and .15 levels. Differences between correlations in the traditional and self-paced sections are significant for the total 145 course and for four topic areas on the first achievement measure among high test anxious low math aptitude students, at the .05, .10, .20, .10, and .05 confidence levels. Low test anxious low math aptitude students exhibit three significant differences at the .20 level, two on the first achievement measure and one on the second. Test Anxiety and MSU Reading Test Scores (Tables 4-2G, 4-2H) Five tOpic area correlations and the mean within- line correlation are significantly greater than zero among high test anxious low reading aptitude students in the traditional section, at the .20, .05, .20, .20, .10, and .05 levels. Self—paced students in this group exhibit a significant total course correlation and four topic area correlations, at the .05, .20, .15, .05, and .15 levels respectively. The mean within-line correlation is nega- tive. Low test anxious low reading aptitude students in the traditional section exhibit five negativecorre- lations. There are less than six members in this group in the self-paced section. Two topic area correlations and the mean within- line correlation among low test anxious high reading aptitude students in the traditional section are signifi- cantly greater than zero at the .05, .20, and .10 levels, while two tOpiC area correlations are negative. 146 rOoflniiui .MOouiina oOroHlou .mrouin oONoua "mqmsmq mozmm me m>Hm moon mmmma oaa mzo mmmooo z mooo q<2Hm 4-3 saws onoe onoe onoa qmm me m>Hm moon mummy ozm mzo mmmooo z mooo AdZHm 4-3 zsmx onoa oHooe onoe onoa OHmoa onoa onoa A4909 moomo .msoum wn mmomum Hmcaw cmmE cam mucmflofimmmoo cowumamHHOUI|.Hmnv magma 149 significantly greater than zero among high dogmatic high test anxious students in the traditional section at the .15, .10, .15, .05, .10, .10, and .01 levels. One topic area correlation in the self-paced section is significant at the .20 level on the first achievement measure, while four topic area correlations and the mean within-line correlation are negative on the second measure. High dogmatic low test anxious students in the traditional section show one significant topic area corre- lation and a significant mean within-line correlation, at the .10 and .05 levels. Self-paced students in this group show a significant total course correlation and six sig- nificant topic area correlations, at the .05, .10, .01, .15, .15, .10, and .10 levels. One topic area correlation on the second measure is significant at the .20 level while two topic area correlations and the mean within-line correlation are negative. Among low dogmatic high test anxious students in the traditional section one topic area correlation is significantly greater than zero, while five correlations are negative. Four topic area correlations and mean within-line correlation on the first achievement measure in the self-paced section are significant at the .20 level for the topic areas and at the .15 level for the within- line correlation. None are negative. 150 Low test anxious low dogmatic students show a sig- nificant positive total course correlation and one signifi- cant topic area correlation in the traditional section, at the .20 and .01 levels respectively, while three topic area correlations are negative. Self-paced students in this group show one significant positive topic area correlation on each of the achievement measures, one at the .15 level and one at the .20 level, while the total course correlation, the mean within-line correlation on each measure, and six topic area correlations on the first measure of achievement and three on the second are nega- tive. All differences between correlations in the tradi- tional section and the self-paced section among high dog- matic high test anxious and low dogmatic low test anxious students are non-significant. The differences on the first measure of achieve— ment are significant for the course and five topic areas among high dogmatic low test anxious students, at the .05, .20, .05, .20, .20, and .20 levels, and for the course and three topic areas among low dogmatic high test anxious students, all at the .20 level. Groups Excluded Because of Low Membership (Table 4-2J) There are several sub-groups in which there are not enough members in one or the other of traditional or 90."..... .90.".... .09."... .mr.u.. .00.". "049909 909409999090 .990 m9mm x90 m>99 9:09 99999 039 920 909000 2 9000 A<299 0-2 zsmz 09909 09909 09909 09909 09909 09909 09909 44909 90090 .msoum 9n mmpmum H0999 some can mucmHOHmwmoo coaumamuuooll.hmnv manna 152 self-paced sections to be used in this study. Those groups that have six or more members in the traditional section but not in the self-paced section are described below. Among high dogmatic high MSU Reading test achievers in the traditional section the correlation of course grades with total relevance is significant at the .10 level. The correlation of tOpic one achievement with relevance is significant at the .05 level. Topics four and five show correlations significant at the .10 level, topic three at the .15, and topics six and seven at the .20 level. The within-line correlation is .20, significant at the .05 level. Among low dogmatic low MSU Reading test achievers two topic area correlations are significantly greater than zero at the .15 and .20 levels. The mean within-line correlation is .00005. The correlation coefficient for topic two is negative. High dogmatic students with high MSU Mathematics test scores show two significant topic area correlations, one at the .10 level and the other at the .05 confidence level. The within-line mean correlation is .32, signifi- cant at the .01 level. Students showing high test anxiety and high MSU Mathematics test scores show four significant tOpic area correlations, one at the .20 level, two at the .15 level, 153 and one at the .05 level. The within-group mean corre- lation is significant at the .05 level. Low dogmatic females show six negative correla- tions in the traditional section. If the hypothesis had been that the correlation would be negative, one of these would have been significant at the .05 level and another at the .01 level. The within—group mean correlation is negative and would have been significant at the .05 level. Students with low reading scores and high math scores exhibit three significant topic correlations, one at the .10 level and two at the .20 level. The within group mean correlation is .41, significant at the .001 level. Better readers with low math scores show two significant topic correlations, one at the .10 level and the other at the .15 level. Summary of Significant Correlation Coefficients Total Course Correlation Coefficients: Correlation coefficients were calculated for 47 groups in the traditional section. Seven of these total course correlation coefficients are significantly greater than zero at the .20 level, five at the .15 level, and four at the .10 level. 154 Among 35 total course correlation coefficients in the self-paced section one is significantly greater than zero at the .20 level, three at the .15 level, 5 at the .10 level, 6 at the .05 level, and 4 at the .01 level. TOpic Area Correlation Coefficients: Twenty-six of the 329 topic area correlation coef- ficients in the traditional section are significant at the .20 level, 26 at the .15 level, 27 at the .10 level, 22 at the .05 level, and 3 at the .01 level. In the self-paced section on the first achievement measure 26 of 245 correlation coefficients are signifi- cantly greater than zero at the .20 level, 19 at the .15 level, 20 at the .10 level, 27 at the .05 level, and 4 at the .01 level. On the second achievement measure 5 of 175 correlation coefficients are significant at the .20 level, 6 more at the .15 level, 8 at the .10 level, none at the .05 level, and 2 at the .01 level. Mean Within-Line Correlation: In the traditional section 32 of the 47 mean within-line correlations are significantly different from zero; 9 at the .20 level (6 greater than zero and 3 less than zero), 11 at the .10 level (10 greater than zero and one less than zero), and 11 at the .02 level (10 greater than zero and one less than zero). 155 Among the mean within-line correlations in the self-paced section 9 are significantly different from zero on the first measure of achievement; one at the .20 level (negative), 6 at the .10 level (two positive and 4 negative), and two at the .02 level (one positive and one negative). On the second measure of achievement 13 mean within-line correlations are significantly different from zero, one positive correlation at the .02 level and 12 negative correlations at the .20, .10, and .02 levels (4, 5, and 3, respectively). Differences Among Final Course Grades Since all but three final grade distributions among the groups in the self-paced section are skewed with the majority of students earning high grades, the means of the distributions are lower than the medians or the modes. Thus if the means of the distributions in the traditional section are significantly less than the means in the self-paced section, they are also less than the medians and the significance level is higher than is reported here. Analysis of variance among the fifty groups and subgroups reported in this study yields a F ratio of 10.59, significant at better than the .0005 level. On every group in which the self-paced section has at least six members the mean final grade in the 156 Table 4-3.--Analysis of variance for mean final grades among groups in the traditional section. Sum of Degrees of Mean , Squares Freedom Square F Ratio Category Means 81.162 46 1.764 F = 2.384 Within 1158.354 1566 0.740 F (46,1566) .9995 = 1.79 Total 1239.516 1612 traditional section is less than the mean final grade in the self—paced section. The differences are significant in 19 of the 37 groups at the .01 level, 8 at the .05 level, 5 at the .10 level, and one at the .15 level. The following differences in mean grades are sig- nificant in the traditional section: , Significance Pairs Level Females-Males .10 Low test anxious-High test anxious .025 High reading aptitude-Low reading aptitude .025 High math aptitude-Low math aptitude .10 Low dogmatic-High dogmatic .10 The differences between high reading aptitude and low reading aptitude students are 0.5, significantly dif- ferent from zero at the .01 level, among both high dog- matic and low dogmatic students. The differences between low dogmatic and high dogmatic students are 0.4 among both high and low reading aptitude students. There is no 157 difference significant at any level reported in this study between high dogmatic high reading aptitude and low dogmatic low reading aptitude students. The difference between low dogmatic high reading aptitude and high dog- matic low reading aptitude students is significantly greater than zero at the .0005 level. Among groups determined by dogmatism score and MSU Mathematics test score only the difference between high dogmatic high math aptitude and high dogmatic low math aptitude, high dogmatic low math aptitude and low dogmatic high math aptitude, and high dogmatic low math aptitude and low dogmatic low math aptitude are signifi— cantly greater than zero. High dogmatic students earn lower grades than low dogmatic students among low math aptitude students, high math aptitude students earn higher grades than low math aptitude students among high dogmatic students, and low dogmatism combines with high math aptitude to earn higher grades than high dogmatism combined with low math aptitude. The differences among groups differentiated by test anxiety and sex show significant differences with females earning higher grades than males and low test anxious students earning higher grades than high test anxious students. The effects reinforce one another. Three of six differences among groups determined by test anxiety and dogmatism are significant, each at 158 Table 4—4A.-—Mean final grade differences between tradi- tional and self-paced sections. group Nt Grade sp Grades Difference ode TOTAL 126 2.8 35 3.2 .4***** M 111 2.7 27 3.1 .4***** F 15 3.1 8 3.6 .5*** LA 46 3.0 17 3.5 .5***** HA 58 2.6 16 2.9 .3**** LR 72 2.6 15 3.2 .6***** HR 41 3.0 15 3.6 .6***** IK 64 2.7 15 3.2 .5***** HK 35 3.0 14 3.6 .6***** LD 42 2.9 16 3.4 .5***** HD 60 2.6 17 3,0 .4***** HAHD 35 2.3 9 2.7 .4**** LAHD 24 3.0 8 3.2 .2 HALD 20 2.9 7 3.0 .l LALD 22 3.0 9 3.7 .7***** HALR 35 2.5 9 3.1 .6***** HAHR 16 2.7 -- --- LALR 24 2.8 —— --- LAHR 17 3.4 9 3.9 .5**** HALK 30 2.6 9 3.0 .4**** LAHK 14 3.3 8 3.8 .5*** 159 Table 4—4A.-—Continued. group Nt Gradet NSp GradeSp Difference ode LALK 21 2.9 6 3.5 .6**** HDLR 35 2.4 10 3.2 .8***** LDHR 13 3.3 10 3.8 .5*** HDHR 20 2.9 LDLR 23 2.8 HDHK 15 2.8 HDLK 31 2.4 9 3.2 .8***** LDHK 13 3.0 8 3.9 .9***** LDLK 19 3.1 6 3.1 FLA 6 3.5 MLA 40 3.0 12 3.4 .4**** MHA 54 2.5 14 2.8 .3**** LRHK 14 2.6 HRLK 10 2.8 LRLK 54 2.7 11 3.0 .3**** HRHK 21 3.2 11 3.5 .3** FLK 9 3.1 MLK 55 2.6 14 3.1 .5***** MLR 64 2.6 15 3.2 .6***** FLR 8 3.0 MHR 37 2.9 9 3.4 .5***** FHR 6 3.8 Table 4-4A.--Continued. 160 Group Grade Grade Difference Code t t SP sp MHD 56 2.6 14 2.9 .3**** FLD 6 3.2 MLD 36 2.9 12 3.2 .3*** Table 4-5.--Differences within the traditional section. Group Codes Difference Group Codes Difference LDHR-HDLR .7***** FLA-MLA .5** HDHR-HDLR .4**** FLA-MHA 1.0**** LDLR-HDLR .4**** MLA-MHA .5*** LDHR-HDHR .4** MHK-MLK .3 LDHR-LDLR .5*** FLK-MHK .2 HDHR-LDLR .1 FLK-MLK .5*** HDHK-HDLK .4*** FLR-MLR .4 HDHK-LDHK .2 MHR-MLR .3** LDLK-HDHK .3 FLR-MHR .1 LDHK-HDLK .6**** MLD-MHD .3** LDLK-HDLK .7**** FLD-MHD .6**** LDLK-LDHK .1 FLD-MLD .3 HRLK-LRHK .2 LALK-LAHK .4** LRLK-LRHK .1 LARK-HALK .7**** HRHK-LRHK .6**** LALK-HALK .3 HRLK-LRLK .1 HRHK-HRLK .4 HRHK-LRLK .5*** HALD-HAHD .6***** LAHD-HARD .7**** LAHD-HALD .1 162 Table 4-5.--Continued. .- ‘-_ ..—....—-—-—_._-_. Group Codes Difference Group Codes Difference LAHD-LALD 0.0 LALD-HALD .1 HAHR-HALR .2 LALR-HALR .3 LAHR-HALR .9**** LALR-HAHR .1 LAHR-HAHR .7**** LAHR-LALR .6**** 163 the .0005 level. Three differences among groups determined by test anxiety and reading aptitude are significant, one at the .005 level and the others at the .025 level. The difference in mean grades between females and males among low math aptitude students is significant at the .005 level. The difference in mean grades between low reading aptitude and high reading aptitude males is significant at the .10 level. The mean grades of low dogmatic males and low dogmatic females are higher than the mean grade of high dogmatic males, at the .10 and .005 confidence levels. The differences between mean final grades in the self-paced section are in the same direction as in the traditional section, except that while low test anxious high dogmatic students, low test anxious low dogmatic students, and high test anxious low dogmatic students have nearly the same mean final grade in the traditional section, high test anxious low dogmatic and low test anxious high dogmatic students have mean final grades that are 0.7 and 0.5 points below low test anxious low dogmatic students in the self-paced section. Final Course Grade Distribution in the Self-Paced Section The final course grades of students who completed usable questionnaires include eighteen 4.0 grades, four 3.5 grades, four 3.0 grades, five 2.5 grades, one 2.0, 164 two 1.0 grades, and one 0.0. All of the subgroups that have at least six members have similar grade distributions, except the groups limited to students with high test anxiety and low MSU Mathematics test scores, low dogmatism and low MSU Mathematics test scores, and low dogmatism with high test anxiety. These groups do not include a large number of 4.0 grades. 165 Table 4-6.--Final grade distribution among responding students in the self-paced section. 21. 203 19. 18 17.. 16 15‘ 1I+_ 13.. 12- 11. -3 N l O 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 COURSE GRADE 166 Table 4-7A.--Correlations among all variables in the study subjects in the traditional section. Dogmatism:Sex Test Anxiety:Sex Reading Aptitude:Sex Mathematics Aptitude:Sex Dogmatism:Test Anxiety Dogmatism:Reading Aptitude Dogmatisszathematics Aptitude Test Anxiety:Reading Aptitude Test Anxietszathematics Aptitude Mathematics Aptitude:Reading Aptitude Relevance with: Sex -.26** -.02 -.06 -.16 -.26** Dogmatism .19* .06 .07 .ll .21 Test Anxiety .07 .03 .09 .02 .09 Reading Aptitude .06 -.O3 .05 .09 .05 Mathematics Aptitude .03 -.05 .04 .02 -.01 Achievement with: Sex .19* .06 .08 -.005 .12 Dogmatism —.30***-.l7 -.16 -.25** -.20* Test Anxiety -.35***-.32***-.28** .02 -.28** Reading Aptitude .33*** .31*** .29***-.001 .14 Mathematics Aptitude .14 .13 .20* .07 .ll -.07 -.O6 -.001 -.09 .32*** .003 _72*** -.27** -.15 .48*** .005 -.34***-.36*** .23** .21* .24** .21 .008 .15 .003 -.16 .06 -.05 .01 .09 .15 .09 .29*** -.26** -.008 -.008 -.4lttt-.29***-.32*** .43*** .31*** .38*** .26** .15 .28** 167 Table 4-7B.--Correlations among all variables in the study subjects in the self-paced section. Dogmatism:Sex .41** Test Anxiety:Sex .35* Reading Aptitude:Sex .51*** Mathematics Aptitude:Sex .55*** Dogmatism:Test Anxiety .27 Dogmatism:Reading Aptitude .09 Dogmatism:Mathematics Aptitude .37* Test Anxiety:Reading Aptitude -.07 Test Anxiety:Mathematics Aptitude .18 Mathematics Aptitude:Reading Aptitude .62*** Relevance with: Sex .24 .23 .24 .20 .21 .31 .20 .08 Dogmatism .006 .13 -.70*** .12 .09 -.16 .03 -.10 Test Anxiety .12 .14 .20 .14 .04 .06 .02 .06 Reading Aptitude .42** .39** .14 .46** .39** .48** .37* .29 Mathematics Aptitude .35* .46** .26 .35* .26 .30 .26 .13 Achievement (First Measure) with: Sex .45** .13 .04 -.33* -.l4 -.13 -.30 -.06 Dogmatism .08 -.09 -.06 -.50***-.25 -.18 -.17 —.09 Test Anxiety .06 -.20 .22 .07 .23 .08 .ll -.24 Reading Aptitude .44** .01 -.05 -.18 .08 -.ll .20 .09 Mathematics Aptitude .51*** .04 .27 -.14 .09 .07 .16 .13 Achievement (Second Measure) with: Sex .04 -.006 -.12 .07 .15 Dogmatism .30 -.006 .14 .05 .09 Test Anxiety .14 .32 .03 .32 .32 Reading Aptitude .4o** -.2o -.16 -.32 -.16 Mathematics Aptitude -.04 -.02 .11 .21 .02 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, FINDINGS, OBSERVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The purpose of this study is to search for an association of the relevance of course material as per- ceived by the student with student achievement in a self- paced course in physics. Secondary purposes of this study include a search for an association of perceived relevance with achievement in a traditionally taught course in physics and for interactive effects of per- ceived relevance and selected variables on both types of course. The selected variables include sex, test anxiety as measured by the Sarason True-False Test Anxiety Scale (Sarason, '59), Dogmatism as measured by the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, '68), and aptitude as measured by the Michigan State University Reading Test and the Michigan State University Mathematics Test. A questionnaire containing the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, the Sarason True-False Test Anxiety Scale, a rele- vance scale incorporating descriptions of course study areas, and questions about the students' sex, age, 168 169 marital status, academic program, academic level, geo- graphic origin, hometown size, work experience, and reasons for selecting the traditional or self-paced section of an undergraduate physics course, was distrib- uted to all students enrolled in Physics 288 at Michigan State University in the Winter Term of 1974. 48.95 percent of the students in the traditional section and 39.42 per— cent of the students in the self-paced section returned usable questionnaires and completed the course. The final sample included 126 students in the traditional section and 35 students in the self-paced section. Scores on test items on midterm and final exam- inations in each of the seven topic areas described to the students on the relevance scale were obtained from the course instructor during the quarter, and final course grades were obtained at the end of the quarter, to be used in forming composite scores in each topic area. Scores on the MSU Reading and Mathematics tests were obtained from the Office of Evaluation Services. In handling the data students were divided into groups differentiated by sex, high or low test anxiety, high or low dogmatism, high or low reading aptitude, and high or low mathematics aptitude. High and Low were defined as above or below the median score of the sample pOpulation in the self-paced section. All possible groups that included zero, one, or two of these variables 170 were formed, then all groups containing less than six members in the self-paced section were dropped from the study. Correlations between perceived relevance and achievement as measured by final course grade and com- posite scores of test items in each of the topic areas, converted to standard scores, were calculated for each group retained in the study. The coefficients were examined for differences from zero in the positive direc- tion and for differences between the correlations in the traditional and self-paced sections using the Fisher R to transformation. Mean grades were calculated for each group and examined for differences in the traditional section using analysis of variance. The direction of differences in the self—paced section were compared to the corresponding differences in the traditional section, and the mean final grade in the self-paced section compared to the mean final grade in the traditional section, in each group. Restatement of the Hypotheses (1) The correlation between perceived relevance of the course and final course grades will be negative or zero, within each of the two methods of instruction, traditional and self-paced, and among subgroups 171 differentiated by sex, MSU Reading Test scores, test anxiety, and dogmatism. (2) The correlation between the perceived rele- vance of tOpic areas in physics and scores on test items in each topic area will be negative or zero, in each topic area within each method of instruction, and among subgroups differentiated by sex, MSU Reading Test scores, test anxiety, and dogmatism. (3) The numbers obtained as the correlation coefficients in the self-paced section will be less than or equal to the corresponding numbers in the traditional section. (4) The final grade distribution in the self-paced section will not be skewed with the majority of students earning high grades. (5) The mean final grade in the self-paced section will be equal to or lower than the mean final grade in the traditional section. (6) There will be no differences in mean final grades among groups differentiated by sex, MSU Reading Test scores, test anxiety, and dogmatism, in the two sections. Findings The first null hypothesis cannot be rejected for the group of all 47 groups in the traditional section and all 35 groups in the self-paced section. It can be 172 rejected for 16 groups at the .20 level, 9 at the .15 confidence level, and 4 at the .10 confidence level, in the traditional section. In the self-paced section the first hypothesis can be rejected at the .20 confidence level for 19 groups, or at the .15 level for 18 groups, the .10 level for 15 groups, the .05 level for 10 groups, or the .01 confidence level for 4 groups. The significance levels are calculated for each correlation coefficient as if it were the only coefficient being considered or as if it were independent of other coefficients being considered. For independent measures where one measure is different from zero at the .20 con- fidence level it is expected that 10 of 50 measures will differ from zero by the same amount or more. For 47 measures the expected numbers are 9.4, 7, and 4.7 for the .20, .15, and .10 confidence levels, compared to obtained numbers of 16, 9, and 4. The numbers of "sig- nificant" differences do not differ greatly from chance in the traditional section. The expectation for variation by chance in a group of 35 samples should produce 7, 5, 4, 2, and .4 deviations from zero, "significant" at the .20, .15, .10, .05, and .01 confidence levels. The numbers of groups differing from zero at these confidence levels in the self-paced section are 19, 18, 15, 10, and 4. These are 2.7 to ten times as high as expected by chance. 173 The second hypothesis cannot be rejected for every one of the topic areas in every one of the groups in the traditional and self-paced sections. It can be rejected for 104 of the 329 topic area correlations in the tradi- tional section at the .20 level, 78 at the .15 confidence level, 52 at the .10 confidence level, 25 at the .05 confidence level, and 3 at the .01 level. The corres— ponding numbers expected by chance are 63, 49, 33, 16, and 3. The numbers obtained are all a factor of 1.55 to 1.65 higher than expected by chance, except the last one. Among the 245 topic area-group combinations in the self—paced section the second hypothesis may be rejected for 96 samples at the .20 confidence level, 70 at the .15 level, 51 at the .10 level, 24 at the .05 level, and 4 at the .01 level. The numbers expected by chance are 49, 37, 25, 14, and 3. The numbers obtained are 1.0 to 2.1 times larger than expected by chance. The final course grade in the traditional section does not appear to be related to perceived relevance over all groups, but perceived relevance does seem to be related to final grade in the self-paced section. Topic area achievement appears to be unrelated to perceived relevance over all groups in both sections. The third null hypothesis cannot be rejected for all differences calculated. Differences between the correlations of total relevance with final course grade 174 in the traditional section and the correlation of total relevance with final course grade in the self-paced section are significant in favor of the self-paced section at at least the .20 level for 14 of the 35 groups, at at least the .15 level for 11 groups, the .10 level for 9 groups, the .05 level for 5 groups, and the .01 level for one group. This is over twice as many as might be expected by chance. Differences between individual topic area corre- lations in the two sections are significantly greater than zero in favor of the self-paced section in 69 of the 245 pairs of correlations in the 35 groups, at at least the .20 level. The differences are significant at the .15 level for 33 pairs, at the .10 level for 30 pairs, and at the .05 level for 11 pairs. This is 1.0 to 1.4 times greater than expected by chance. The correlation of per- ceived relevance with final course grade seems to be greater in the self-paced than in the traditional section, but the correlations for the topic areas are not signifi- cantly different overall. The fourth hypothesis is rejected by inspection. Eighteen of 35 students in the sample in the self-paced section earned grades of 4.0. Eight more earned grades of 3.0 and 3.5. More than 70 per cent of the sample earned grades of 3.0 or better. 175 The difference in mean final grades between all students in the sample in the traditional section and all students in the sample in the self-paced section is 0.4, significant at the .01 confidence level. The grade dis- tribution in the self-paced section is skewed with the median larger than the mean, so the difference in final grades may be expected to be greater than 0.4. The fifth null hypothesis is rejected. The difference in mean grades between the tradi- tional and self-paced sections in each subgroup is in favor of the self-paced section in every group containing at least six members in the self-paced section. The differences are significant in 33 of the 37 groups at the .15 confidence level, and in 19 groups at the .01 level. An analysis of variance in the traditional section indicates differences between final grades among the groups at the .0005 confidence level. Differences in magnitude of mean grades among groups in the self-paced section are all in the same direction as in the tradi- tional section, except that low test anxious high and low dogmatic students and high test anxious low dogmatic students earn nearly the same mean grade in the tradi- tional section, while low test anxious low dogmatic students earn higher grades than either low test anxious high dogmatic or high test anxious low dogmatic students in the self-paced section. The sixth null hypothesis is 176 rejected. There are differences in mean grades among groups differentiated by sex, MSU Reading Test score, test anxiety, and dogmatism. Observations on Student Choice and Testing (l) A smaller percentage of students in the self- paced than in the traditional section believed that they would earn higher grades in the "other" section than in the section they were in (3% and 8%). Seventy-two of the 126 students in the traditional section chose the tradi- tional section over the self-paced section deliberately, 47 because of a strong personal preference for the tradi- tional course and 64 because they believed they would earn higher grades in the traditional course. Twenty-seven of the 35 students in the sample from the self-paced section expressed a strong personal preference for the self-paced section. More students believe they will earn higher grades in the course they chose than chose the course for that reason, 30 to 20 in the self-paced section and 116 to 64 in the traditional section. (2) The method of instruction in the self-paced section appears to result in very high or very low test performance, corresponding to the "excellent" or "not yet" grades. 177 Observations on Group Correlations Examining the correlations in each of the groups yields the following observations. (1) In the group including all students in the sample in the traditional section the course and the topic area correlations are nearly all positive. Six of the eight correlations are significantly greater than zero at the .20 level. Five of the eight correlations are significantly greater than zero at the .20 confidence level in the self-paced section and are generally larger than in the traditional section. Three of the seven topic area correlations in the self-paced section are significantly larger than their counterparts in the traditional section at the .20 confidence level, one of them at the .10 level. Perceived relevance seems to be related to achievement among "all" students, more strongly in the self-paced than in the traditional section. (2) Male students in the traditional section show seven of the eight correlations greater than zero at the .20 confidence level, three significantly greater than zero at the .05 level. Female students display seven negative correlations in the traditional section, although the largest is -.28. In the self-paced section male students show somewhat smaller correlations than they do in the traditional section, but female students show six of eight correlations greater than zero at the .20 178 confidence level, three of them at the .10 confidence level. The difference between the correlations in the self-paced and traditional sections for female students is significant for the total course correlation and six of the seven topic area correlations at the .20 confidence level or better. Perceived relevance is positively related to achievement for male students in both sections with about the same correlation. For female students it seems to be negatively related to achievement in the traditional section and positively related in the self— paced section, with the correlation for females more than twice as large as for males. (3) Low dogmatic students in both sections show both negative and positive correlations, with two positive correlations in each section significantly greater than zero at the .20 confidence level. Nearly all correlations in both sections are positive for high dogmatic students, with six significantly greater than zero in the tradi- tional section and four in the self-paced section, at the .20 confidence level or better. Increasing dogmatism seems to be related to an increasing positive relationship between perceived relevance and achievement, in both types of instruction. (4) Low test anxious students in the traditional section show three correlations significantly greater than zero, while there are five correlations significantly 179 greater than zero among low test anxious students in the self-paced section. The difference in correlations is significant between the traditional and self-paced sections at the .20 level for each of the total course correlations and two topic area correlations. There are no significant differences among high test anxious students in the two sections. They exhibit four correlations significantly greater than zero at the .20 confidence level in each of the sections. Low test anxiety seems to be related to changes in the relationship between perceived relevance and achievement and method of instruction, with perceived relevance more strongly related to achievement in the self—paced than the traditional section. (5) Low reading aptitude students exhibit four correlations significantly greater than zero at the .20 confidence level or better in the self-paced section, three correlations larger than .40, and one significant correlation in the traditional section, equal to .13. The differences in correlations in the traditional and self-paced sections are significant for the total course correlation and three topic area correlations at the .20 level or better. The relationship of perceived relevance with achievement seems to be greater in the self—paced section than in the traditional section for low reading aptitude students. There seems to be no differential effect of course type on the relationship between 180 perceived relevance and achievement among high reading aptitude students. The total course correlation is posi- tive in the traditional section and negative in the self— paced section, while there is one comparatively large topic area correlation in the self-paced section. This appearance may be due to a ceiling effect. (6) One correlation is significantly greater than zero in the traditional section at the .15 confidence level and four in the self-paced section, among low mathe- matics aptitude students. Four of those six correlations in the self-paced section are significant at the .05 level. The differences between correlations in the traditional and self-paced sections are significant for the total course correlation and for five of the tOpic area corre— lations. High mathematics aptitude students show positive correlations in the traditional section and negative correlations in the self-paced section. There seems to be an interaction with high mathematics aptitude related to an increased positive relationship of perceived rele- vance with achievement in the traditional section and low mathematics aptitude related to an increased positive relationship of perceived relevance with achievement in the self-paced section. The low math aptitude pattern repeats among students with both low math 32g low reading aptitude, and among low reading aptitude male students. 181 There are less than six low reading aptitude female stu- dents in the self-paced section, so that group is excluded from the study. (7) Dogmatism seems to interact with test anxiety in their relationship with the correlation of perceived relevance with achievement in the traditional and self- paced sections. The combination of high dogmatism and high test anxiety seems to depress the correlation of perceived relevance with achievement in the self-paced section. Either factor alone seems to be related to positive correlations in the self-paced section. Low test anxiety seems to reduce the relationship of dogmatism with the correlation of perceived relevance in the tradi— tional section and produce very strong correlations in the self—paced section, while low dogmatism reduces the relationship of low test anxiety with the correlation in the self-paced section. (8) The high dogmatic low reading aptitude group exhibits small negative and positive correlations in the traditional section and large positive significant corre- lations in the self-paced section. The differences are significant at the .05 and .10 confidence levels. The 193 dogmatic high reading aptitude group shows large negative correlations in the traditional section and generally smaller, positive correlations in the self-paced section. The differences are significant at the .10 and 182 .05 confidence levels. High perceived relevance seems to be associated with increased achievement among high dog- matic low reading aptitude students in the selfepaced section. High perceived relevance seems to be associated with decreased achievement among low dogmatic high reading aptitude students in the traditional section. The remaining groups do not yield any new infor- mation. Summary of Observations The correlation of perceived relevance with achievement as measured by course grades is greater in the self-paced section than in the traditional section, and may be greater in self-paced courses than in tradi- tional courses. The relationship is less clear for topic areas but may also be toward higher correlations in self— paced than in traditional courses. Students in the self-paced section earn higher final grades, on the average, in nearly every group, than students in the traditional section. The effect of high perceived relevance appears to be generally neutral or positive but may be negative for some groups in one of the methods of instruction, perhaps for low dogmatic high reading aptitude students in traditional courses. The high positive correlation among low dogmatic high reading aptitude students in the self-paced section may indicate 183 a negative influence on the performance of students who believe the course is irrelevant. Female students exhibit somewhat lower achievement if they believe the course is highly relevant, in the traditional section, while high perceived relevance is associated with high performance for females in the self— paced section. High dogmatic students show high correlations of perceived relevance with achievement. Low test anxious students show somewhat higher correlations of relevance with achievement in the self- paced section than in the traditional section, as do low reading aptitude students, while high mathematics aptitude students show considerably lower correlations in the self- paced section than they do in the traditional section, to the extent of becoming negative in the self-paced section. Recommendations (1) Since it appears that students do earn higher grades and may learn more in self-paced courses, and since self-pacing may encourage the develOpment of inde- pendent learners, it is recommended that self-paced courses be increased in number and that students be encouraged to enroll in self-paced courses. (2) Since there are differences in the relation- ship of perceived relevance with achievement between the self-paced and traditional course among various groups 184 and since students come to the course with large dif- ferences in their perceptions of the relevance of the course, and since many students express a strong prefer- ence for the traditional course, it is recommended that traditional courses continue to be made available. (3) It is recommended that further research to examine the relationships between sex, dogmatism, test anxiety, aptitude, perceived relevance, method of instruc- tion, and achievement be carried out using experimental rather than correlational designs. It might be helpful to know that students who believe that a course they have to take is irrelevant will be harmed less by this belief in a traditional than in a self-paced course, or vice- versa. Research should be directed to determining if these differences in correlations correspond to causal relationships and to determining how large the effects are. (4) It is recommended that guidance personnel make interim use of these observations in influencing their advice to students who are selecting between self-paced and traditional sections of a course. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Albott, W. L. and J. N. Haney. "Self-concept, choice of study plan, and performance in an introductory psychology course." The Journal of Educational Research (April 1972), 65, 8, 339. Anderson, H. 0. "Developing favorable attitudes towards science." The Science Teacher (November 1971), 38, 41. Barton, G. E. "Designing competency statements." Audiovisual Instruction (February 1972), 16. Baskin, S. and R. Churchill. "Experiment in independent study." Antioch College Reports No. 2, 1961. Bernstein, E. "Choice is a start." School Review (February 1970), 242. Bertrand, J. "Shasta College; growing into an individ- ualized learning program." AV Guide (April 1972), 51, 10. Bigelow, G. S. and R. L. Egbert. "Personality factors and independent study." The Journal of Educational Research (September 1968), 62, 1, 37. Binder, D. M., J. G. Jones, and R. W. Strowig. "Non- intellective self-report variables as predictors of scholastic achievement." The Journal of Educational Research (April 1970), 63, 8, 364. Bloom, B. 5. "Learning for mastery." Evaluation Comment. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation of Instructional Programs, May 1968, Vol. 1, No. 2. Bolvin, J. O. and R. Glaser. "Developmental aspects of individually prescribed instruction." AudiOVisual Instruction (October 1968), 13, 828. 185 186 Born, D. G., S. M. Gledhill, and M. L. Davis. "Examination performance in lecture-discussion and personalized instruction courses." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (Spring 1972), 5, l, 33. Briley, T. S. "The EDO and the ABLE system for instruc- tional improvement." Audiovisual Instruction (December 1971), 16, 39. Broverman, D. M. "Cognitive styles and intra—individual variation in abilities." Journal of Personality (1960), 28, 240. Bybee, R. W. "The effectiveness of an individualized approach to a general education earth science laboratory." Science Education (April-June 1970), 54, 2, 157. Campbell, V. N. and M. A. Chapman. "Learner control vs program control of instruction." Psychology in the Schools (April 1967), 4, 2, 121. Carlson, J. S. and F. Ryan. "Levels of cognitive functioning as related to anxiety." The Journal of Experimental Education (Summer 1969), 37, 4. Cohen, R. M. "Effects of feedback on test anxiety and performance as a function of certain personal characteristics." Doctoral thesis, New York University, 1971. Dissertation Abstracts order no. 72-13, 342. Coop, R. H. and I. E. Sigel. "Cognitive style; implica- tions for learning and instruction." Psychology in the Schools (April 1971), 8, 2, 152. Costin, F. "Dogmatism and conservatism; an empirical follow-up of Rokeach's findings." Educational 'and Psychological Measurement (1971), 31, 1007. Crist, R. L. "Use of a programmed multiplication text under group paced and individual paced conditions." AV Communication Review (Winter 1966), 14, 507. Desiderato, O. and P. Koskinen. "Anxiety, study habits, and academic achievement." Journal of Counseling Psychology (March 1969), 16, 2, 162. Dole, A. A. "Stability of reasons for going to college." The Journal of Educational Research (April 1970), 63, 8, 373. 187 Douglass, P. "Theory, practice, and perils of independent education." Improving College and University Teaching (Autumn 1968), 16, 273. Dunn, R. S. "Individualizing instruction; the rationale and five alternative methods." Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin (Fall 1973), 40, 9. Dunn, R. S. "A position paper to further individualization of instruction in the schools." Audiovisual Instruction (November 1972). Edling, J. V. "Individualized instruction; the way it is-- 1970." Audiovisual Instruction (February 1970), 15, 13. Ehrlich, H. J. "Dogmatism and classroom grades; re- appraisal of the Rokeach-Norrell studies of academic performance." Psychological Reports (December 1971), 29, 3 pt 2, 1133. Fallers, M. "Choice is not enough." School Review (February 1970), 229. Flanagan, J. C. "Functional education for the seventies." Phi Delta Kappa (September 1967), 49, 27. Frantz, N. R. Jr. and G. L. McConeghy. "Individualized instructional systems for industrial education." Audiovisual Instruction (February 1972), 19. Glass, L. W. and R. E. Yager. "Individualized instruction as a spur to understanding the scientific enter- prise." The American Biology Teacher (September 1970), 32, 359. Gnagey, T. P. "A new transcendentalism; the marriage of humanism and science for individual freedom." Adult Leadership (June 1964), 13, 34. Goldman, R. M., S. Wade, and D. Zegar. "Students without harness; the SUM experiment in self-paced learning. Journal of Higher Education (March 1974), 45, 3, 197. Green, B. A. Jr. "Is the Keller Plan catching on too fast?" Journal of College Science Teaching (October 1971), l, 1. Green, B. A. Jr. "Physics teaching by the Keller Plan at MIT." American Journal of Physics (July 1971), 39, 7, 764. 188 Gropper, G. L. and G. C. Kress, Jr. "Individualizing instruction through pacing procedures." A! Communication Review (Summer 1965), 13, 165. Gross, P. C. "Choice can be too much." School Review (February 1970), 78, 240. Hartnett, R. T. and C. T. Stewart. "Final examination grades of independent study students compared with those of students taught by traditional methods." The Journal of Educational Research (April 1966), 59, 8, 356. Hastings, G. R. "Independent learning based on behavioral lbjectives." The Journal of Educational Research Hensley, C. "Individualized instruction." School and Community (October 1971), 58, 32. Hester, F. M. and G. E. Tagatz. "The effects of cognitive style and instructional strategy on concept attainment." The Journal of General Psychology (October 1971), 85, 2, 229. Himmel, C. E. "College learning with and without formal classroom instruction--a comparison." Psychology in the Schools (July 1972), 9, 3, 272. Hug, W. E. "Independent study evokes good student attitudes." Science Education (April-June 1970), 54, 2, 115. Hunt, B. "Surprising things happen when they study on their own." Grade Teacher (November 1966), 84' 114. ‘ Husband, D. P. "The Auto-tutorial system." Audiovisual Instruction (February 1970), 15, 34. Isaacson, R. L. "A model for students' curricular choices." Improving College and University Teaching (Sprifig 1964), 12, 105. James, R. K. "A comparison of group and individualized instructional techniques in seventh grade science." Journal of Research in Science Teaching (1972), 9, I, 91. 189 Jenson, A. R. "Varieties of individual differences in learning." In Gage, R. M. (Ed.), Learning and Individual Differences. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, 1967. Jenson, B. T. "A comparison of student achievement under conditions of class attendance and non—attendance." College and University (1951), 26, 399. Johnson, R. B. "Self-instructional packages; good or bad?" Junior College Journal (August 1971), 42, 18. Kagan, J., H. A. Moss, and I. E. Sigel. "The psychological significance of styles of conceptualization." In J. F. Wright and J. Kagan (Eds.), Basic Cognitive Processes in Children, Monograph of the Society for Research on Child Development, 1963, 28, 73. Kallenbach, W. and D. Carmichael. "The California development program; a system for individualizing instruction." AV Guide (April 1972), 13. Keller, F. S. "Good-bye, teacher . . . ." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (Spring 1968), 1, l9. Kieffer, J. A. "Toward a system of individually taught courses." Liberal Education (October 1970), 56, 443. Kipnis, D., G. Lane, and L. Berger. "Character structure, vocational interest, and achievement." Journal of Counseling Psychology (1967), 16, 4, 335. Kirkland, M. C. "The effects of tests on students and schools." Review of Educational Research (October 1971), 41, 4, 303. Klopfer, L. E. "Individualized science; relevance for the 1970's." Science Education (October 1971), 55, 4, 441. Koenig, K. E. and W. J. McKeachie. "Personality and independent study." Journal of Educational Psychology (June 1959), 50, 132} Krockover, G. H. "Individualizing secondary school chemistry instruction." School Science and Mathematics (June 1971), 71, 518. 190 Liberman, H. "Project PLAN--an individualized learning system." Audiovisual Instruction (June 1970), 15. Lin, Yi-Guang and W. J. McKeachie. "Sex similarity in personality correlates of test anxiety." Psychological Reports (October 1971), 29, 2, 515. Lin, Yi-Guang and W. J. McKeachie. "Aptitude, anxiety, study habits, and academic achievement." Journal of Counseling Psychology (July 1970), 17, 4, 306. Lunetta, V. N. and O. E. Dyrli. "Individualized instruc— tion in the science curriculum." School Science and Mathematics (Fall 1971), 71, 121. Mager, R. F. and C. Clark. "Explorations in student- controlled instruction." Psychological Reports (August 1963), 13, 71. Majer, K. "Differential relationships between personality and performance under dissimilar modes of instruc- tion." AV Communication Review (Summer 1970), 18, 2, 169. Marso, R. N. "Classroom testing procedures, test anxiety, and achievement." The Journal of Experimental Education (Spring 1970), 38, 3, 54. Mathis, R. W. "Operant learning rates as a function of internal control and task structure." Doctoral Thesis, The University of North Dakota, 1969. Dissertation Abstracts order no. 70-11, 407. May, F. B. "Some practical suggestions for developing competency based, independent-study modules for teacher education." Journal of Teacher Education (Summer 1972), 23, 155. Menges, R. J. "Freedom to learn; self-directed study in a required course." Journal of Teacher Education (Spring 1972), 23, 32. McBurney, W. F. "Individualized instruction; a case for the independent student investigation in science." School Science and Mathematics (December 1969), 69, 827. McClellan, J. E. "Individualized instruction; a projec- tion." In the National Society for Education Yearbook, 7lptl, 164, 1972. 191 McCurdy, D. W. and R. L. Fisher. "A program to individ- ualize instruction in chemistry and physics." School Science and Mathematics (June 1971), 71, 508. Newsom, R. S., R. Eischens, and W. R. Looft. "Intrinsic individual differences; a basis for enhancing instructional programs." The Journal of Educa— tional Research (May-June 1972), 62, 9, 387. Newton, D. E. "Can science teaching be relevant?" School Science and Mathematics (June 1971), 71, 6, 531. Nunney, D. N. and J. E. Hill. "Personalized educational programs." Audiovisual Instruction (February 1972), 17, 2, 10. O'Leary, L. R. "Comparative study of the perceived rele- vance of material to be learned and its impact on the performance of culturally deprived junior college students." Journal of Educational Psychology (October 1971), 62, 5, 405. Payne, J. G. "Physics just for fun; an individualized course using Harvard Project physics." The Physics Teacher (March 1972), 10, 138. Poppen, W. A. and C. L. Thompson. "The effect of grade contracts on student performance." The Journal of Educational Research (May-June 1971), 64, 9, 420. Postlethwait, S. N. "The audio-tutorial system." The American Biology Teacher (January 1970), 32, 31. Reynolds, R. N. "Toward relevancy, the curriculum, and the social order." School and Society (January 1971), 29. Rogers, J. G. "Medical students who never go to class." Parade, Supplement to the Detroit Free Press (May 6, 1973), 13. Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Russo, W. J. "Relationship between dogmatism and academic achievement among male academic high school stu- dents." Doctoral Thesis, St. John's University, 1970. Dissertation Abstracts order no. 70-23, 259. 192 Sarason, I. G. "Relationships of measures of anxiety and experimental instructions to word association test performance." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (1959), 59, 37. Sarason, I. G. and V. J. Ganzer. "Anxiety, reinforcement, and experimental instructions in a free verbali- zation situation." Journal of Educational Psychology (1961), 52, 4, 201. Schultz, C. B. and T. R. Dangel. "The effects of recita- tion on the retention of two personality types." American Educational Research Journal (Summer 1972), 9, 3, 421. Schwen, T. M. "Self-instruction." Audiovisual Instruction (June 1970), 15, 110. Shanberg, M. S. "Individualized instructional systems." Junior College Journal (March 1971), 41, 46. Shavelson, R. J. and M. R. Munger. "Individualized instruction; a systems approach." The Journal of Educational Research (February 1970), 63, 6, 263. Sherman, J. G. (Ed). Personalized Systems of Instruction Newsletter. Issue 6, October 1972. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, Psychology Depart- ment, 20007. Steffen, D. C. "The multimedia classroom." American Education (August-September 1971), 7, 28. Stoltz, R. "SJET; the system for individualizing instruction." Audiovisual Instruction (September 1971), 16, 72. Stroup, A. L. "The prediction of academic performance from personality and aptitude variables." The Journal of Experimental Education (Spring 1970), 38, 3, 83. Swinn, R. M. "Changes in non-treated subjects over time. Data on a fear survey schedule and the test anxiety scale." Behavior Research and Therapy (1969), 7, 205. Troyer, L. "Grades have gone; what then?" Liberal Education (December 1970), 56, 542. 193 Ubben, G. C. "A look at nongradedness and self-paced learning." Audiovisual Instruction (February 1970), 15, 2, 31. Wedemeyer, C. A. and M. H. Ghatala. "Wisconsin's proposed "open" school." Audiovisual Instruction (January 1972), 9. Weiss, R. L., 8. Sales, and S. Bode. "Student authori- tarianism and teacher authoritarianism as factors in the determination of student performance and attitudes." The Journal of Experimental Educa- tion (Summer 1970), 38, 4, 83. White, B. J. and R. D. Alter. "Dogmatism and examination performance." Journal of Educational Psyghology (October 1967), 58, 285. White, W. F., E. L. Gaier, and G. M. Cooley. "Selected personality characteristics and academic perfor- mance of adult evening college students." The Journal of Educational Research (April 1966), 59, 8, 339. Witkin, H. A., R. B. Dyk, H. D. Faterson, D. R. Goodenough, and S. A. Kays. Psychological Differentiation. New York: Wiley, 1972. Wood, E. A. "Fun and spirit; the universal relevance of hardcore science." The Physics Teacher (May 1972), 241. APPENDIX A COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE Great concern has developed in the last few years regarding the relevance of the courses that students have been required to take and successfully complete in order to obtain a degree or even to continue in attendance at a university. Efforts are being made to increase the rele- vance of course work and to increase freedom of choice and student involvement in curriculum construction. Information about the effects of various methods of instruction on students with varying abilities, per- sonalities, and goals is necessary in order to help choose which methods we will spend our relatively scarce resources on, and to help the student determine which of the available methods will be most effective for him in reaching his or her goals. A variety of research is being done to obtain such information. This questionnaire is designed to help deter- mine the effect of the perceived relevance of course mate- rial on achievement among students of varying personali- ties and between two different methods of instruction. Some information about your personality and ability, along with a measure of how relevant you feel various parts of the course are to your career, is needed in order to discover the relationships among these variables. This information must be "tied together," so some identification is necessary at first. I ask you to write your student number on each page of this questionnaire. In order to assure the confidentiality of this information a random number will be assigned to each stu- dent and all information will be filed under that number through a master list. When all relevant information has been collected and recorded, the master list will be destroyed. Doing experiments involving people is not like doing experiments in physics. People are more variable. In order for an experiment of this nature to be meaningful at all nearly everyone in the group has to reply. So please complete and return this questionnaire. Thank you. There will be a box in the undergraduate physics office for deposit of this questionnaire. Please return it by Monday, January 14, 1974. 194 195 Student Number Please circle the most appropriate response to each item. The first three items involve levels of agreement with various answers to the following question: Why, given the choice between a self-paced and a lecture-recitation type section of this course, did you make the choice you made? 1. Because of scheduling problems or other reasons not related to the differences between a self-paced and a lecture-recitation course. l)yes, totally 2)yes, mainly 3)maybe 4)no 5)not at all 2. Because of a strong personal preference for this type of course. l)yes, totally 2)yes, mainly 3)maybe 4)no 5)not at all 3. Because I feel I will do better in this type of course than in the other. l)yes, totally 2)yes, mainly 3)maybe 4)no 5)not at all 4. I feel I would do better in 1)a self-paced course 2)a lecture-recitation course 5. Sex; l)male 2)female 6. Age; l)15-18 2)l9-22 3)23—26 4)27-30 5)over 30 7. Marital status; 1)single 2)married 3)separated 4)divorced 5)widowed 8. Program; l)pre-law 2)pre—vet 3)pre-med 4)other (specify) 9. Level; l)freshman 2)sophomore 3)junior 4)senior 5)graduate 196 Student Number 10. I was raised in the 1)Northeast 2)Southeast 3)Midwest 4)Northwest 5)Southwest 11. I was raised in l) the country or a city of population 2) 0-10,000 3) 10,000-50,000 4) 50,000-250,000 5) over 250,000 12. I have worked for at least six months each as; 1)a laborer 2)a clerical worker 3)a skilled tradesman 4)a professional 5)I have not had six months full time employment. RELEVANCE SCALE In this section I ask you how relevant you feel a number of topics in physics are to your career goals. Try to decide whether these topics will be useful in practicing your profession or necessary to understand- ing and learning other material you will have to know in your profession. On each item mark one of the numbers 1 through 5, l for totally irrelevant, 5 for extremely relevant, and 2, 3, or 4 for intermediate levels. 1 totally irrelevant 2 3 4 5 extremely relevant 1. Statistics and thermodynamics. A description of the average effects of very large numbers of mole- cules. Heat, temperature, pressure are such average effects. Heat engines such as the internal combustion engine and steam turbines are one subject of thermo- dynamics. 2. Gravity. The universal law of gravitation. The interaction--or force--between masses. Motions pro- duced by gravitational forces. Planetary motion. 197 Student Number 1 totally irrelevant 2 3 4 5 extremely relevant 3. The electrostatic interaction; force between two or more charged objects. Potential energy and motion. 4. The magnetic interaction; force between charged objects due to the motion of the objects. 5. Gauss's Law and capacitance. The electrostatic interaction and energy, charge storage. 6. Ampere's Law and magnetic flux. The current in a wire is moving charge and produces a magnetic inter- action. Electric motors. 7. Michael Faraday and Joseph Henry; "Faraday's" Law. A change in the strength of a magnetic field through a wire coil produces a voltage between the ends of the wire of the coil. Electric generators, transformers. 198 The following is a study of what the general public thinks and feels about a number of important social and personal questions. The best answer to each statement below is ypur personal Opinion. We have tried to cover many different and opposing points of view. You may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain about others. Whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many people feel the same as you do. Mark each statement on the answer sheet according to how much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark for every statement. Write +1, +2, +3, or -1, -2, -3 depending on how you feel in each case. 1 I agree a little -1 I disagree a little 2 I agree on the whole -2 I disagree on the whole 3 I agree strongly -3 I disagree strongly 199 Student Number 3 I agree strongly -3 I disagree strongly 2 I agree on the whole -2 I disagree on the whole 1 I agree a little -1 I disagree a little 1. The United States and Russia have just about 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. nothing in common. The highest form of government is a democracy and the highest form of democracy is a government run by those who are most intelligent. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal, it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain political groups. It is only natural that a person would have a much better acquaintance with ideas he believes in than ideas he opposes. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable crea- ture. Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty lonesome place. Most people just don't give a "damn" for others. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve my personal problems. It is only natural for a person to be rather fear- ful of the future. There is so much to be done and so little time to do it in. Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I just can't stop. In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself several times to make sure I am being understood. In a heated discussion I generally become so absorbed in what I am going to say that I forget to listen to what the others are saying. It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward. 200 Student Number 3 I agree strongly -3 I disagree strongly 2 I agree on the whole -2 I disagree on the whole 1 I agree a little -1 I disagree a little 15. While I don't like to admit this even to myself, 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. my secret ambition is to become a great man, like Einstein, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare. The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important. If given the chance I would do something of great benefit to the world. In the history of mankind there have probably been just a handful of really great men. There are a number of people I have come to hate because of the things they stand for. A man who does not believe in some great cause has not really lived. It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that life becomes meaningful. Of all the different philosophies which exist in the world there is probably only one which is correct. A person who gets enthusiastic about too many causes is likely to be a pretty "wishy-washy“ sort of person. To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to the betrayal of our own side. When it comes to difference of opinion in religion we must be careful not to compromise with those who believe differently from the way we do. In times like these, a person must be pretty sel- fish if he considers primarily his own happiness. The worst crime a person could commit is to attack publicly the people who believe in the same thing he does. 201 Student Number 3 I agree strongly -3 I disagree strongly 2 I agree on the whole -2 I disagree on the whole 1 I agree a little -1 I disagree a little 28. In times like these it is often necessary to be 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. more on guard against ideas put out by people or groups in one's own camp (or family) than by those in the opposing group. A group which tolerates too much differences of opinion among its own members cannot exist for long. There are two kinds of people in the world; those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he's wrong. A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is beneath contempt. Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the paper they're printed on. In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what's going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted. It is often desirable to reserve judgement about what's going on until one has had a chance to hear the opinions of those on respects. In the long run the best way to live is to pick friends and associates whose tastes and beliefs are the same as one's own. The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only the future that counts. If a man is to accomplish his mission in life it is sometimes necessary to gamble, "all or nothing at all." 202 Student Number agree strongly —3 I disagree strongly agree on the whole -2 I disagree on the whole agree a little -1 I disagree a little Unfortunately, a good many people with whom I have discussed important social and moral prob- lems don't really understand what's going on. Most people just don't know what's good for them. 203 Student Number A number of statements which students have used to describe themselves are given below. Read each statement and decide whether it is true or false as applied to you. If a statement is true, or mostly true as applied to you, respond by marking "T" in the space provided. If a statement is false, or mostly false as applied to you, respond by marking "F" in the space provided. 1. While taking an important examination, I perspire a great deal. 2. I get to feel very panicky when I have to take a surprise examination. 3. During tests, I find myself thinking of the conse- quences of failing. 4. After important tests, I am frequently so tense that my stomach gets upset. 5. While taking an important exam I find myself thinking of how much brighter the other students are than I am. 6. I freeze up on things like intelligence tests and final exams. 7. If I were to take an intelligence test I would worry a great deal before taking it. 8. During a course examination, I get frequently so nervous that I forget facts I really know. 9. During course examinations, I find myself think- ing of things unrelated to the actual course material. 10. If I know I was going to take an intelligence test, I would feel confident and relaxed beforehand. 11. I usually get depressed after taking a test. 12. I have an uneasy, upset feeling before taking a final examination. 13. When taking a test, my emotional feelings do not interfere with my performance. 14. 15. 16. 204 Student Number Getting a good grade on one test does not seem to increase my confidence on the second. After taking a test I always feel I could have done better than I actually did. I sometimes feel my heart beating very fast during important tests. APPENDIX B SAMPLE STUDY GUIDE FROM THE SELF-PACED SECTION 9 Physics 2888P Winter 1973 Unit 23 Electric Interaction I Prepared by: J. Kovacs and P. Signell We come now to another one of the important "funda- mental interactions" in nature, the electromagnetic inter- action. The remainder of the term's work will be on the study of the nature and effects of this interaction. In this unit of work you will learn about the "static" electric part of that interaction: the magnitude and direction of the force associated with it, the dependence of this force on the displacement from the source of the interaction, the nature of the source of this interaction, and some definitions that will be useful later on. Objectives: When you have mastered the objectives of this unit, you should be able to l) 2) 3) Calculate the force on a charged point particle due to the presence of another charged point particle as a function of the separation of the two particles. You should also be able to calculate the force on this particle due to a distribution of charged point par- ticles. Calculate the electric field at any point in space due to a charged point particle as well as due to a dis- tribution of charged point particles. Calculate the force on a charged point particle at a point where you know the electric field. Also be able to determine the motion of a charged particle in a region where the electric field is known. 205 206 Suggested Procedure Read sections 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 16.7, and 16.8 in the text (pp 331-343). Memorize Coulomb's law. The value %__ = 9 x 109 we 2 per coulomb 2 is easier to remember than the newtonmeters value of so. However this constant will be given to you on any test. Work through the worked-out examples 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3. Understand the meaning of the "lines of force" in the diagrams of figures 16.8, 16.9, 16.12, 16.13, 16.15 and 16.16. (The dotted equipotential lines will be treated in the next unit.) Work problems 16.2*, 16.3*, 16.7*, 16.9, 16.10, l6.ll*, 16.12 (part (a)) and l6.13*. Don't attempt a unit test until you have worked at least the starred problems and the preassessment test. Comments Because the electric force is also an "inverse r2" force, its properties are quite similar to the gravita- tional force. Only the "strengths" are different. Prob- lem 16.2 has you directly compare these strengths. The answers to even-numbered problems and those odd-numbered ones for which the answers in the book are incorrect are: 16.2*: 16.3*: 16.10: 207 (Put in the units with the numbers when you make this calculation. This will assure you that your answer has the correct dimensions and pinpoint for you sources of error if your numerical answer is wrong.) The answer is 8.20 x 10'8 newtons as com- pared with the gravitational force between these same particles, 3.62 x 10"47 newtons. You might say, you can safely neglect the gravitational force in this case! Sketch all the forces on one of the balls before you try to solve the problem. The answer in the book is the correct relation that 0 must satisfy. Answer is O.K. Solve with symbols first before you insert num- bers, get E = 2mx' when m, e are the electron et mass and charge and x is the separation of plates. Put in the units with the numbers and make appropriate unit cancellations. Also get v = SEE = %§. The answer to (a) is correct, the m answer to (b) should be 2.67 x 106 m-s'l. This is a constant acceleration trajectory prob- lem. See equations 5.28. (a) The time to reach the maximum height occurs when the vertical component of the velocity reduces to zero: t = mVoSin 30° = 5.69 x 10"9 sec. The vertical 66 16.11*: 16.12: 2 x 10‘7c 1 x 10'70 3 x 10’ 208 displacement will be zero (or yo) again when 2mVoSin 30° t = (Get this by solving for t in es the equation y = y0 + Voyt + at2 when you set 2 y = yo). Numerically this is 9.9 x 10'2 meters. (See example 16.3.) Note that the field point r and the two charge points are on the vertices of 3 a 3-4-5 right triangle. The resultant field should be 1.88 x 105 N-C-l directed about 50 below the line joining the charges (when you take the field L_ point below this line). (b) E is zero at a point (1 + /2) meters from the smaller charge, along the line joining them, but Egg between them. (c) At the point between the charges (/2 - 1) meters from the smaller charge. With the charges aligned as shown: A B C 7C and with A at the origin and B at x = 0.10 meters and C at x = 0.20 meters on the x-axis, the force felt by each of the charges is + -2_+ FA = - 3.15 x 10 ux newtons F = - 9 00 x 10'3 3 newtons B ' x + -2 + F = + 4.05 x 10 u newtons X 0 209 16.13*: (a) Answer is O.K. (b) Note that vertical (0y) components cancel and + the uX components add. Answer is correct. ***Objective 1 is illustrated by Example 16.1, Problems 16.2, 16.3 and 16.12 (a). ***Objective 2 is illustrated by Example 16.3, Problems 16.11 and 16.13. ***Objective 3 is illustrated by Example 16.2, Problems 16.7, 16.9, and 16.10. 210 Unit 23 Preassessment Test 1. Write down the expression for Coulomb's Law. Put in the units for each one of the factors in the expres- sion (including the constant) and verify that the expression has the dimensions of a force. A charge q1- = - 3 x 10"6 coulombs is located at the origin of a cartesian coordinate system while a charge q2 = + 4 x 10‘6 coulombs is located at x = + 0.3 meters, y = 0, z = 0. (a) Calculate the force on ql due to q2 (b) Calculate the force on q2 due to ql. Due to the above two charges (question 2) find (a) the magnitude and (b) the direction of the electric field at the point x = + 0.6, y = 0, z = 0. Do the same for point x + 0.1, y = 0, z = 0. 0, y = 0.4, 2 = 0. Do the same for point x Using the results of questions 3, 4, and 5, find the force at each of the points of these three questions on a + 2.0 x 10'8 coulomb charge. Is the force on this particle constant? This force will give to the particle an acceleration. Will the acceleration be constant? (can you use the same kinematic equations relating position, velocity, and acceleration as you do for a particle in the con- stant gravity field near the surface of the earth?). Repeat question 6 for a charge of - 2.0 x 10'8 coulombs. 211 9. A uniform electric field of E = + 5 x 107 02 Newtons per coulomb exists in a region of space. (a) What is the force that + 3 x 10'6 coulomb charge feels when placed at a point in this region? What force does a - 3 x 10"6 coulomb charge feel in this same region? 10. Repeat question 7 applied to the particles in question 9. Answers: 1. Read section 16.4, page 334. + 2. (a) 1.2 EX Newtons (b) — 1.2 Ux Newtons 5 -l + 3. (a) 3.25 x 10 N-C . (b) + UX 4. (a) 3.6 x 106 N-c‘l (b) — fix 5 -l _ o + . . 5. (a) 1.02 x 10 NC (b) 0 — 31.8 below -UX direction in X-Y plane: .+ -U Resultant X + Field Direction ¢ -Uy + _3 + 6. at x = 0.6, y = 0, z = 0 F = +6.5 x 10 UX Newtons + at x = 0.1, y = 0, z = 0 F = - 7.2 x 10'2 UX Newtons + at x = o, y = 0.4, 2 = o F = 2.03 x 10‘3 Newtons in same direction as E 7. No, No, (no). 8. Same as (6) except direction of each F is opposite to that of (6) 212 1 l + _ + - 9. (a) 150 Uz NC (1)) -150 UZ NC 10. Yes, Yes (Yes) 7934 3 1293 030 "III u H "III "I u H I..- H H “I. H II A H H