ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENCES IN SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTITUDES BETWEEN STUDENTS IN OPEN AND TRADITIONAL MIDDLE SCHOOL CLASSROOMS BY Heber Lee Jensen Open education is an educational approach estab- lished in Britain and growing in the United States. Its advocates claim that open education promotes positive self- concept, social sensitivity, and other positive social and psychological attitudes. If this is so, students who have functioned well in an open classroom setting should presumably display characteristics different from their peers in regular classes. The present study is an attempt to determine and measure differences in social-psychological attitudes between students in an Open classroom in Kinawa Middle School, Okemos, Michigan, and students in regular classes in the same school. A review of the literature revealed that while phiIOSOphical rationale for open education is abundant, solid research is severely limited. Most research projects failed to reveal significant differences between "open" Heber Lee Jensen and "traditional" models of education but much of the research undertaken in the name of "Open education" involves an imprecise or even faulty definition of open education. The present study makes use of two instruments-- an attitude questionnaire and a value survey--in order to determine and measure differences in social-psychological attitudes between Open classroom and traditional classroom students in Kinawa Middle School. The open classroom subjects were all the Open classroom or "School Within a School" students in Kinawa. The traditional classroom subjects were randomly selected from the other classes within the school. The attitude questionnaire and the value survey were administered to all subjects. On the attitude questionnaire, the open classroom groups were consistently higher on all sub-tests except "authoritarian" on which the traditional classroom groups were consistently higher. The comparison of the combined Open classroom groups with the combined traditional class- room groups showed significant differences in all but "social responsibility." Consistency of difference was not found in the value survey. Comparison of the combined open classroom groups with the combined traditional classroom groups Heber Lee Jensen showed a difference in rank order of more than three places for "imaginative" only. These results indicate that either the open class— room experience has a significant influence on the social-psychological attitudes of students, or, that the existence of a priori attitude differences results in success and satisfaction with the open classroom. There seems to be a lack of definitive information on which to base a judgment regarding these two possibilities. A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENCES IN SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTITUDES BETWEEN STUDENTS IN OPEN AND TRADITIONAL MIDDLE SCHOOL CLASSROOMS BY Heber Lee Jensen A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum College of Education 1975 List of List of CHAPTER I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables ...... .. ...... ....... .... ...... ..... .... Figures ..................... . ............ ..... THE PROBLEM ....................... . ........... Introduction . ................................. The PrOblem . . . . . . . . . O . . . . ...... . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . Need for the StUdy ............................ Definition Of Terms ........................... Limitations ....... 000000 O ........ .....00000... Overview of the Study .... ..................... RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH ............... PhilOSOphical Literature ................... ... Open Education Research .... ....... ..... ...... . summary .................... ......... .......... PROCEDURE AND DESIGN .......................... Introduction .................................. Instruments .. ......... ..... ...... ............. Attitude Questionnaire ..... ........... ...... .. The Value Survey ..... .................. . ...... Selection of Subjects ............ .. ........... Design ........................................ Treatment of Data ..... . ....... ................ summary ....................................... ANALYSIS OF DATA . ......... ........ ........... . Attitude Questionnaire--Comparison by Sub-test ............ ........................ Attitude Questionnaire--Comparison by Group ... Value Survey by Group ... ..... ................. Value Survey by Value ......................... Summary ..... .................................. ii Page iv Vi H OkDU'IwNH 11 16 23 25 25 26 29 31 31 31 32 33 34 34 56 75 88 102 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Page CHAPTER V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .... ........... ........ 114 Summary ......... ...... ........................ 114 Conclusions .... ........ ....................... 116 Further Research ... ........ .. ....... .......... 119 APPENDICES A. EVANS CLASSROOM OBSERVATION RATING SCALE ...... 122 B. INSTRUMENTS ...0............................... 126 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................O..................... 129 iii ll 12 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Attitude Questionnaire by Sub-test--Environ- ment.......... ................ .......... ........ Attitude Questionnaire by Sub-test-—Satisfac- tion ................I...........O............... Attitude Questionnaire by Sub-test-—Personal Competence ..... ...... ..... ......... ............. Attitude Questionnaire by Sub-test--Acceptab1e to Others ...... C. ............... ................ Attitude Questionnaire by Sub-test--Social ReSponsibility ................ ......... ......... Attitude Questionnaire by Sub-test--Authoritar- ianiSIn ............O.......O..................... Attitude Questionnaire--6th Grade--All Sub- tests ........................................... Attitude Questionnaire--7th Grade-—All Sub- tests. ...... ......O................. ........... . Attitude Questionnaire--8th Grade--All Sub- tests 00...... ...... ... ..... ............ ......... Attitude Questionnaire All Sub-Tests--Total Open Classroom--Traditional Classroom ..... ...... Attitude Questionnaire All Sub-Tests--Returning, Not Returning Groups ..........................I. Attitude Questionnaire--One Year, Two Year Groups--All Sub-tests ........... ...... .......... Value Survey Scores ............................. Value Survey in Rank Order--Sixth Grade ......... Value Survey in Rank Order-~Seventh Grade ....... Value Survey in Rank Order--Eighth Grade ........ iv Page 40 45 49 53 57 61 63 66 68 71 73 76 77 80 82 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.) Table Page 17. Value Survey in Rank Order--Total Open Classroom and Traditional Classroom .... ......... 85 18. Value Survey in Rank Order--Open Classroom-- Returning - Not Returning ....................... 87 19. Value Survey in Rank Order-~Open Classroom-- lYear-ZyearSoooooooo ..... ooooo ooooooooooooooo 90 20. Significant Difference Confidence Level ......... 108 16 H L" Figure 1. 10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 15. LIST OF FIGURES Means for Attitude Questionnaire--Environment . Ranges and Means for Attitude Questionnaire-- Environment .................O................. Means for Attitude Questionnaire—-Satisfaction Ranges and Means for Attitude Questionnaire-- satiSfaction ............O..................... Means for Attitude Questionnaire--Persona1 competence ..O...........O..................... Ranges and Means for Attitude Questionnaire-- Personal Competence ........................... Means for Attitude Questionnaire-—Acceptable to Others Ranges and Means for Attitude Questionnaire-- Acceptable to Others .......................... Means for Attitude Questionnaire--Social ResponSibility ....0............................ Ranges and Means for Attitude Questionnaire-- SOCial ResponSibilj-ty .......................... Means for Attitude Questionnaire—-Authoritarian Ranges and Means for Attitude Questionnaire—- Authoritarian ........................O........ Means for Attitude Questionnaire--Sixth Grade Groups Means for Attitude Questionnaire-~Seventh Grade Groups 000.000.00.000....0000...00.000.00.00000000 Means for Attitude Questionnaire-~Eighth Grade Groups vi Page 37 39 42 43 46 47 SO 51 54 55 58 59 62 64 67 LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd.) Figure Page 16. Means for Attitude Questionnaire--Total Open and Traditional Groups .......... ...... ... ....... 69 17. Means for Attitude Questionnaire--Returning, Not Returning Groups ..... ....... . ............... 72 18. Means for Attitude Questionnaire--One Year, Two Year Groups .......................O............. 74 19. Rank Order of Sixth Grade--Value Survey ......... 79 20. Rank Order of Value Survey—-Seventh Grade ....... 81 21. Rank Order of Value Survey-~Eighth Grade ........ 84 22. Rank Order of Value Survey--Total Grades ........ 86 23. Rank Order of Value Survey--Returning, Not Returning ......O................................ 89 24. Rank Order of Value Survey-—One Year, Two Years ......... ... ........... . ................... 91 25. Rank Order of A11 Groups--Value Survey-- Capable ............... .... ...................... 93 26. Rank Order of All Groups--Value Survey-- Cheerful ............ .... ......... .... ........... 94 27. Rank Order of A11 Groups--Value Survey-- ForgiVing ......IOOOIO.......I.............OO.... 95 28. Rank Order of A11 Groups--Value Survey--Good LOOking 0.0.0.0.............O...O......... ....... 96 29. Rank Order of All Groups--Va1ue Survey-- Helpful .. ..... ...................... ..... . ...... 97 30. Rank Order of A11 Groups--Va1ue Survey-- Imaginative .. ........ ...... ...... .. ............. 99 31. Rank Order of All Groups--Value Survey-- Independent ..... ........... ...... .... ........... 100 32. Rank Order of All Groups--Value Survey-- Loving .......................................... 101 vii Figure 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd.) Rank Order of All Groups--Va1ue Survey-- Obedient. ..... ......IOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOO 0 Rank Order of All Groups--Value Survey-- POlite ........ O ....... 0.... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Rank Order of All Groups--Value Survey-- Responsible ....... . ..... ............. ........... Rank Order of All Groups-—Va1ue Survey-- self contrOl ......OOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00. ..... O. Attitude Questionnaire for All Sub-tests-- Returning, Not Returning and Totals ..... ........ Attitude Questionnaire for All Sub-tests-- One Year, Two Years, and Totals .. ............... Differences in Rank Order--Value Survey ......... viii 112 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The Open school, emphasizing differences among children, educates for breadth not depth. It sees knowledge as uncompart- mentalized and teachers as problem posers rather than solution givers. Basil Bernstein Introduction Open education is an educational approach estab- lished in Britain and growing in the United States. At the heart of the movement is a philOSOphy similar to that of Dewey and the progressive movement in education--educa- tion is not preparation for life, education is life. Children should live more richly now, not at some ill-defined time in the distant future. The child is not an imperfect and unfinished adult but rather, a complete functioning being at his own stage in life. A seven-year old is no more an incomplete twenty-one year old than a twenty-one year old is an incomplete sixty-three year old. Therefore, an educational system should not constantly attempt to fill a child but rather, should strive to help him to realize his potential at his own stage of deve10p- ment. Since talents, interests, potentials and rate of develOpment vary across individuals, a lock—step pattern 1 an: CO.T 2 such as our educational system has traditionally utilized, cannot serve the interests of the individual to maximize his potential. If education is life, the classroom must become a microcosm. The social interactions which take place in the real world cannot be intercepted by unnatural school- imposed regulations, e.g. do your own work, do not talk to your neighbor, work at what the school believes to be important at the time in which it is deemed important. The goal of open education is not to make life more comfortable for a chosen few students, but to provide a group of students with the strength and ability to devote their lives to creating a human, just, and equitable society. Therefore, an "Open-classroom" . . . will not be a self-indulgent individualistic collection of isolated students so much as a humanist community in miniature. (Kohl, 1973:192) Open education attempts to serve the individual, and at the same time develop humanistic values of a community nature. The Problem If Open education creates an environment that is different, students who choose an Open classroom setting should presumably display characteristics different from their peers in regular classes. The present study is an attempt to determine and measure differences in social- psychological attitudes between students in an open classroom in Kinawa Middle School, Okemos, Michigan and students in regular classes in the same school. Signifi- cant findings here may lead to insights into the effects PH 0f ow— ST» ‘1 3 of Open education on a more general scale. Kinawa Middle School was selected for the study because of the existence within the school of both tradi- tional and Open models of education. Approximately 10 percent of the students attending Kinawa are members of the School Within a School or S.W.S. The S.W.S. is an autonomous group of students and learning facilitators who live and learn in an informal setting employing organismic learning theory and having full access and use of the total building and learning facilities of the existing school. (Blom, 1970:10) The present study makes use of two instruments-- an attitude questionnaire and a value survey--in order to determine and measure differences in social—psychological attitudes between Open classroom and traditional classroom students in Kinawa Middle School. The Open classroom subjects were all the Open classroom or "School Within a School" students in Kinawa. The traditional classroom subjects were randomly selected from the other classes within the school. The attitude questionnaire and the value survey were administered to all subjects. Need for the Study Open education is growing in America. The concept of freedom in education is capturing the hearts and minds of countless educators and parents whose memories of their own education may be far from pleasant. But can it be shown that the Open alternative is an improvement over C~ C I. ”1 I t}. .- 4 the organization and methods of the past? Despite the mass of information accumulating about Open education, there is still virtually no rigorous research concerning its effects upon the deveIOpment of children's thinking, attitudes, and behavior as compared with the effects associated with more tradi- tional forms of education. (Barth, 1971:117) Research into the measurable academic achievement of the Open classroom group has revealed that there is no significant difference between achievement of these students and that of children in regular classrooms: In the spring of 1971, an attempt was made by the Educational Psychology Department of Michigan State University to determine what was happening to students experiencing the informal learning environ- ment of the S.W.S. open classroom. The Stanford Achievement Test Battery was administered to S.W.S. students and students in the traditional school program. Background and previous achievement test data were obtained, and S.W.S. students were matched with other students in the school who daily attended fifty minute classes, five days a week. The SAT revealed that there was no significant difference in achievement between the two groups. (Blom, l970:9) Open classroom advocates are convinced that the most significant advantages of Open education are in the area of positive attitudes toward self and others which will in turn lead to an increased ability to learn and function effectively in society. Measure of curiosity, creativity, and self concept were difficult to make because of a lack of informa— tion about the students at the beginning of the program. But the resource peOple who lived, learned and socialized with these students on a daily basis saw very positive growth in self concept and witnessed many creative tasks by the students. (Blom, l970:9) So far, the amount of research conducted to verify these assumptions has been limited. The present study is C . : 5 an attempt to provide some evidence which may verify or negate the assumptions. Definition of Terms Open Classroom Literature on the subject of Open education has proliferated in the past five years or so. However, in spite of the wealth of philOSOphical writing on the subject, a concise definition of the Open classroom is difficult to find. The assumptions stated by Barth are not part of a description or definition of the Open classroom, but rather, assumptions concerning learning adhered to by prOponents of Open education. The director of the Open classroom which is the subject of this study, Kinawa Middle School in Okemos, Michigan, defines the Open classroom as one in which: Students will be given the Opportunity to find and develOp inner purposes for learning. They will be allowed and encouraged to plan and evaluate the use of their time and use of their school. Such planning will help to develOp personal and group decision making, planning skills, reSponsibility and risk- taking in terms of learning. This environment will also encourage a learner to develop positive feelings about himself, feelings of open-ness, and curiosity. It will also enable him to look at learning experiences realistically and relevantly to his personal life. (Blom, l970:4) In order to make definition more descriptive, and thereby more explicit, a checklist of Openness develOped by Judith T. Evans in her study Characteristics of Open Education: Results from a Classroom Observation Rating the 6 Scale and a Teacher Questionnaire is presented in Appendix A. The description of Open education which emerged as a result of analysis of Evans' Classroom Observation Scale is probably as close as one can come to an Operational definition of the Open classroom. The open classroom teachers, . . . allowed the children more freedom in the use of time, choice of activities, and ways of working than in the traditional classroom. The children worked individually and in small groups at various activities, which often involved the use of manipulative materials. The children used "books" written by their classmates as part of their reading and reference materials, and often children spontan- eously looked at and discussed each others' work. The teacher concentrated his time with the children by providing intensive diagnostic help rather than giving whole group instruction. Children were encouraged to use other areas of the building and school yard during school time. The children seemed deeply involved in what they were doing. (Evans, 1971:25) Traditional Classroom Probably the most useful method of defining the traditional classroom is to again make use of Evans' Classroom Observation Scale. It would be invalid to think of differences between the Open classroom and the tradi- tional classroom in terms of a dichotomy. It is more likely that there is a continuum between more traditional forms of education and the open classroom along which any given classroom would fall. In light of her research on Openness Evans defines the traditional classroom as one in which, The teachers were more in control of the learning environment with regard to organizing the child's use of time, materials, space, and the curriculum . C ._ . E C. :1 O~ 1G C LL thin“ s ‘k 7 to be studied. They expected children not to talk while working, nor to move about without asking permission. The physical environment was uniformly arranged so that children could conveniently see the blackboard or the teacher from their desks. The teacher stressed keeping all children within his sight so that he could make sure they were doing what they were supposed to do. In general, the children were supposed to use standardized curriculum materials and the teacher gave academic achievement P; a top priority. Testing was used by the teachers for j grouping the children and for grading them in compari— '5 son with their peers. (Evans, 1971:25) Open-Space School It is evident in reviewing the literature and in discussing Open education with others that there is some confusion between the Open school, or Open classroom, and the open space school. Clarification of terms is indicated here. According to Norman Heimgartner (1972), an Open space clasroom is an organizational scheme, not an instruc- tional device. The salient features are: no interior walls, ungraded, children have the Opportunity to interact with children of different age groups and different teachers. However, it is not necessary that Open-classroom characteristics be present here. A very traditional curriculum may be followed in the open-space setting. Non-graded School Another type of education often confused with the Open school is the non-graded school. The non-graded school shares features with the Open classroom and yet there are important differences. as! 8 The non-graded school, like the Open classroom has abolished the lock-step grading system in favor of a more individualistic situation as recommended in the Report of the President's Commission on National Goals. Our devotion to equality does not ignore the fact that individuals differ greatly in their talents and motivations. It simply asserts that each should be enabled to develop to the full, in his own style and to his own limit. Each is worthy of respect as a human being. This means that there must be diverse programs within the educational system to take care of the diversity of individuals; and that each of these programs should be accorded respect and stature. (President's Commission, 1960:81) However, in place of grades, the non-graded schools have substituted "phases of learning" in which students are placed on the basis of achievement. The difference, then, is that in the graded school students are grouped together by age; in the non-graded school, the students who are grouped together are at approximately the same stage of learning. This is decidedly not ability grouping, which is based upon intelligence potential. There are many factors besides native intelligence which determine the rate of student progress, but achieve- ment is superior to any other criterion. (Brown, 1963:35) Students performing at lower levels of efficiency are guided into a cluster-group of basic or remedial education in the area in which they are deficient. (Brown, 1963:54) This differs significantly from the Open classroom where group work is arranged by choice and mutual interests. No attempt is made to structure and sequence a pre-conceived curriculum. Limitations The following are some of the limitations which would have to be considered in interpreting the results of this study and in considering recommendations for further research: l. The study involved only one school, Kinawa Middle School, and only the students enrolled at the time of the study. The project was only in its second year and possibly the study was made prematurely during a process of maturation. Therefore, inferences made from this study are limited to the population and the circum- stances of the study. 2. The instruments available for measuring social- psychological attitudes at the time of the study were limited. Most of the instruments were developed several years ago and their reliability and validity studies were weak. Perhaps it is not possible to measure attitudes accurately by means of such instruments. Obviously, we will need many new devices to more accurately describe nonverbal behavior and to quantitatively assess social- psychological attitudes. Perhaps some form of observa- tional technique would be more apprOpriate and revealing. 3. The study did not provide clear evidence that the measured social-psychological attitudes were the result of the Open classroom experience and not already present in students who chose the Open classroom. lO 4. The choice to attend and the decision to remain in the Open classroom was made by both students and parents, therefore the measurement Of students' attitudes may be insufficient. 5. The instruments used were not validated for subjects of middle school age. Overview of the Study In Chapter II the relevent literature is reviewed in terms of Open classroom philOSOphy and related research. Chapter III contains a description of the study--selection of subjects, instruments used, and the treatment of the data. In Chapter IV the data is analyzed and interpreted. Conclusions, discussion and implications for further research are presented in Chapter V. If) (D CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH During the past several years, American interest in Open education has grown tremendously. While five years ago knowledge of this classroom was practically non-existent, now nearly every American teacher has read at least one article, somewhere, that describes its Operational features. To express this explosion more statistically, in 1968 only thirty articles were published in the United States that even mentioned what was going on in England; two years later there were over three hundred. (Rathbone, l97l:xi) This "explosion" of literature falls into two main classes: philOSOphical rationale for open education and research attempting to describe measurable results of such education. In spite of the recent emergence of Open education, there is considerable phiIOSOphical and even descriptive literature on the subject; however, solid research is severely limited. PhilOSOphical Literature PhiIOSOphical writings may be classified into four general types: 1. Criticism of traditional education 2. Historical outlines of the Open education movement 3. PhilOSOphy of learning 4. Description of Open classroom environments. 11 12 The following quotations are chosen as samples from the wealth of criticism of traditional education: I believe that if a child, no matter what his back- ground, can succeed in school, he has an excellent chance for success in life. If he fails at any stage of his educational career--elementary school, junior high, high school, or college--his chances for success in life are greatly diminished. (Glasser, l969:5) . . in the vast majority of our schools, at all educational levels, we are locked into a traditional approach which makes significant learning improbable if not impossible. When we put together in one scheme such elements as a prescribed curriculum, similar assignments for all students, lecturing as almost the only mode of instruction, standard tests by which all students are externally evaluated, and instructor- chosen grades as the measure of learning, then we can almost guarantee that meaningful learning will be at an absolute minimum. (Rogers, l970:5) Rathbone discusses the historical aspects of Open education in America: . . . The Plowden Report was released in England at the very end of 1966; in the United States, Joseph Featherstone's three New Republic articles were published in the fall of 1967. Both called immediate attention to the fact that Open education classrooms were exciting places in which young children can live and learn. However, the quality of attention focused on an issue is often more important than the sheer number of articles written about it; and here one must acknowl- edge the special roles played in the United States by the Elementary Science Study of Newton, Massachu- setts, and the National Association of Independent Schools of Boston. ESS curriculum designers, though from the mid-1960's aware of what was happening in England, were apparently too tough-minded and independent to accept the open education approach uncritically. Instead, they began testing its ideas against their own, incorporating what seemed reasonable and relevant, rejecting or retesting the rest. Given their seriousness of purpose, they found little time to sing the praises of open education, and this no doubt delayed its pOpularization. There was an evident advantage to this delay, however, for when the stampede finally did come, it meant that there was a 13 small group of knowledgeable men and women who had already worked through the problems of implementation - at least in one setting - and who were now in a posi- tion to assist others elsewhere. (Rathbone, l97l:xi) Roland S. Barth has organized a number of covert assumptions in an attempt to make explicit the working philOSOphy of most educators who espouse Open education. Though I realize not all of these assumptions would be acceptable to every advocate of Open education, they do, I believe, reflect the thinking of most. In fact, I have "tested" these assumptions with over a dozen British primary teachers, headmasters, and inspectors at an in-service workshOp for teachers offered by the Leicestershire Advisory Centre in May, 1968, and with a number of American proponents of open education at EDC and elsewhere. To date, although many qualifica- tions in language have been suggested, there has not been a case where an individual has said of one of the assumptions, "No, that is contrary to what I believe about children's learning." (Barth, 1971:118) The following is Barth's list of assumptions: Children are innately curious and display explora— tory behavior quite independent of adult interven- tion. Exploratory behavior is self-perpetuating. The child will diSplay natural exploratory behavior if he is not threatened. Confidence in self is highly related to capacity for learning and for making important choices affecting one's learning. Active exploration in a rich environment offering a wide array of manipulative materials will facilitate children's learning. Play is not distinguished from work as the predomi- nant mode of learning in early childhood. Children have both the competence and the right to make significant decisions concerning their own learning. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 14 Children will be likely to learn if they are given considerable choice in the selection of the mater- ials they wish to work with and in the selection of the questions they wish to pursue with respect to those materials. Given the Opportunity, children will choose to engage in activities that will be of high interest to them. If the child is fully involved in and having fun with an activity, learning is taking place. When two or more children are interested in exploring the same problems or the same materials, they will Often choose to collaborate in some way. When a child learns something that is important to him, he will wish to share it with others. Concept formation proceeds very slowly. Children learn and develop intellectually not only at their own rate but in their own style. Children pass through similar stages of intellec- tual develOpment - each in his own way, at his own rate, and in his own time. Intellectual growth and develOpment take place through a sequence of concrete experiences followed by abstractions. Verbal abstractions should follow direct experience with objects and ideas, not precede them or substitute for them. The preferred source of verification for a child's solution to a problem comes through the materials he is working with. Errors are necessarily a part of the learning process; they are to be expected and even desired for they contain information essential for further learning. Those qualities of a person's learning that can be carefully measured are not necessarily the most important. Objective measures of performance may have a nega- tive effect upon learning. 15 22. Evidence of a child's learning is best assessed intuitively, by direct observation. 23. The best way of evaluating the effect of the school experience on the child is to observe him over a long period of time. 24. The best measure of a child's work is his work. (Barth, 1971:118) Descriptive research is too lengthy to relate in detail but one of the best accounts is found in the article "Two Classrooms" where Anthony Kallett describes a successful traditional classroom in the United States (Miss Jones' class) and a fine open classroom in Great Britain (Miss Smith's class). There is little question in my mind that in many aspects of their work the children in Miss Smith's class were achieving results that surpassed those of the children at Meadow. Most of the six-year-olds who had been in school two or three terms were writing copiously and often quite creatively, almost always illustrating what they wrote - or writing about what they drew. They wrote stories, poems, even little plays. Indeed, I would judge that the writing of many of these children surpassed in both quantity and quality that being done by the children two years older at Meadow. An important reason, of course, was that they were writing when they chose and about subjects they chose and that they were writing for other children, not just the teacher, to read. . . . I have little doubt which provided more suitable conditions for children to explore and grow, which provided children with more sc0pe for important learning, which manifested in everything that went on greater reSpect for and acceptance of the uniqueness of each child. (Kallett, 1971:15) Probably the most concise description of the open classroom may be gained by a careful study of the fifty features examined by the Evans' checklist provided in Appendix A. 16 An extensive list of philOSOphical books, articles and bibliographies is provided in the Bibliography. Since the focus of the study is on empirically based research, such research will constitute the main thrust and bulk of this chapter. Open Education Research .m Terence P. Kohler studied the relationship between self-concept and open education and reported his research in a paper--"A Comparison of Open and Traditional Educa- tion: Conditions that Promote Self-Concept"--presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, March 1, 1973. The study tests hypotheses derived from the prOposition that Open education promotes self-concept. The stated objectives are: 1. To examine differences in self-concept for Ss experiencing Open and Traditional Education. 2. To determine if differences in self-concept exist between males and females in Open and Traditional Education. 3. To determine if differences in self-concept exist between schools within a set of Open Schools and within a set of Traditional Schools. 4. To determine if a relationship exists between the rated degree of Openness of a school and the measured self-concept of the Ss. 5. To identify conditions that exist in Open and Traditional Schools that promote growth in self— concept. Instrumentation: Three instruments were used to collect the data for this study. One measured self- concept, while the other two rated classrooms for 17 degree of Openness, one being an observation scale, the other a teacher questionnaire. Measure of Self-Concept: The method used to measure students' self-concept was the Sear's Self-Concept Inventory. The instrument is a group administered questionnaire. It is designed to cover ten components of self-concept: Physical ability, mental ability, social relations with same sex, social relations with Opposite sex, attractive appearance, social relations with teacher, work habits, social virtues, happy qualities, and school subjects. The child's (l) satisfaction with himself in each area, (2) his prediction as to whether he will or will not improve, and (3) his self rating in comparison to other members of the class are readily obtainable from an approxi- .‘ mately one hour testing session per class. (The instrument was originally develOped by Pauline Sears: for The Effects of Classroom Conditions on the Strength of Achievement MotiVe and Work Output on Elementary School Children [Stanford University Press, 1963]. 5 I Rating Schools as to Degree of Openness: The methods used to rate schools as to degree of Openness were the Walbernghomas Open Education Observation Scale and Teacher Questionnaire. (Walberg and Thomas, l972:l97)' As a result of Kohler's study, no significant difference was found between Open and Traditional Education in any of the six "areas" of self-concept identified by the Sear's Self-Concept Inventory, Kohler's conclusion is as follows: This author believes Open Education itself will not promote self-concept, but the possibility for growth is better in the Open setting than in the Traditional one. The four conditions thought to promote growth in self-concept seem to be part of the definition of Open Education but relatively removed from the central processes of Traditional Education. Kohler's conclusion does not follow from his research results. He seems to be following an intuitive optimism Often manifested by those involved in Open educa- tion in the absence of measured evidence of its benefits. 18 John Sackett in his study, "A Comparison of Self- Concept and Achievement of Sixth Grade Students in an Open Space School, Self—Contained School and Departmentalized School" (Sackett, 1971) examined the question: Does the sixth grade student self-concept and achievement in an Open Space school differ signifi- cantly from the sixth grade student self-concept and achievement in the self-contained school and from that of the sixth grade self-concept and achievement in a departmentalized school? He defines self-concept as: The evaluation which the individual makes and custom- arily maintains with regard to himself, it eXpresses an attitude of approval or disapproval and indicates the extent of which the individual believes himself to be capable, significant, successful and worthy. It is synonomous with self-esteem. Sackett used the Lorge-Thorndike I.Q. measure and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills to determine intelligence and achievement and the Self-Esteem Inventory developed by S. COppersmith at University of California, Davis, to assess self-concept. He discovered that both the achieve- ment scores and the self-concept scores were significantly lower for the Open space students. This piece of research is included in the present study because it is an attempt to measure personal charac- teristics of students in an alternative educational plan. However, Dr. Sackett makes no mention of curriculum or teaching-learning methods in his report. He includes seven pages of architectural drawings of the Open-space schools he studied but is apparently not interested in the type of "Openness" implicit in the Evans' checklist. ...I '1 {I 3“]; . . ...... Ii F.- 19 Leo Remacle also attempted to measure social- psychological attitudes of students in alternative educa- tional plans in his doctoral study, "A Comparative Study of the Differences in Attitudes, Self-Concept and Achieve- ment of Children in Graded and Nongraded Elementary Schools" (1970). Remacle, like the author of the present study, realizes that innovations in education are often supported more by feelings than by solid research. Much of the literature on the nongraded school consists of reports that there is an improved atmosphere, that fear of failure is removed, that tensions in children are reduced, that achievement is greater, and that teachers are more aware of individual differences. However, most of these reports are based on Opinion rather than research. (Remacle, l970:3) Remacle continues, quoting Goodlad: "There is a dearth of specific data, educated guesses, or research evidence on the effect of any new organ- izational structure. Very little is known about what happens when a school moves from graded to nongraded. Reports from many so-called nongraded schools seem to be characterized more by a desire to vindicate their decision than by presentation of objective evidence - even at a low level of sophistication — that would cast light on the effectiveness of the new plan of organiza- tion." (Goodlad, 1965:57) Remacle, through his study, sought to provide answers to the following questions: 1. Is there a significant difference in the achievement of students in graded and nongraded classes? 2. Is there a significant difference in the school morale of students in graded and nongraded classes? 20 3. Is there a significant difference in self- concept between students in graded and nongraded classes? The Iowa Test of Basic Skills was used for the measurement of reading, work-study, language, and arith- metic skills. In order to assess school morale, Remacle used The School Morale Scale develOped by Wrightsman,Nelson and Taranto (1968). Self-concept was measured by the Index of Adjust- ment and Values designed by Bills (1951). Analysis of the data indicated the following results: 1. That there was no statistically significant difference in fifth and sixth grade students in achievement in vocabulary, reading, language and work-study skills except in sixth grade work-study skills where the differ- ence was favorable for nongraded sixth grade students. 2. That there was no statistically significant difference in any of the seven subscales of school morale for sixth grade students in nongraded classes. That there was a statistically significant difference in all seven subscales of school morale for fifth grade students. All of these significant differences favored the students of the nongraded school. 3. That there was no statistically significant difference in the fifth or sixth grade students in self- concept, ideal self, and discrepancy between self-concept 21 and ideal self between the graded and nongraded classes. Remacle's study does not support the claims of superiority made for the nongraded classroom. Again, this study does not directly pertain to the previously defined open classroom but was reviewed because of the author's attempts to measure social-psychological attitudes in an alternative educational environment. Alan F. Sewell and Allan W. Dornseif compared open and traditional education at the junior high level in their study: "Controlled Multivariate Evaluation of Open and Traditional Education at the Junior High School Level." They presented their findings in a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa- tion in New Orleans in March 1973. They conducted a year-long study to evaluate the relative educational outcomes of Open and traditional education in four areas: academic achievement, personal growth, social develOpment and attitudes. Sewell and Dornseif's description of their "open" classroom leaves some question as to its "Openness" according to the definition implicit in the Evans' check- list and being employed in the present study. The day is organized around the four major disciplines in the morning with the amount of time devoted to each determined COOperatively by the teachers. Projects and modified contract assignments are the basic activities of students in all subjects except mathe- matics, in which an individualized skill develOpment materials kit is used. 22 During the afternoon, or about one-third of the school day, the students are scheduled into other school programs such as physical education, home economics, etc. Indeed, the authors themselves show limited confi- dence in their "Open classroom" designation: Even a cursory review of the literature reveals that "open education" and "Open classroom" are highly ambiguous terms. In comparison to Neill's "Summer- hill" concept of Open education this program more closely resembles traditional education. . . . Whether the present program is indeed "Open education" and whether this study is a genuine evaluation of "open education" are undoubtedly fit questions for debate. The study revealed no significant differences on any of the variables measured. The authors concluded: It is the opinion of the investigators that open education has yet to be subjected to rigorous analysis. While the concepts of Open education appear at the verbal level to differ significantly from those of traditional education, it may well be that in terms of performance outcomes, these two methodologies do not truly differ. Sewell and Dornseif, having admitted, and rightly so, that their experimental program is not necessarily "Open" but could in some lights be seen as closer to "traditional" have no grounds for hinting that the two methodologies "do not truly differ" since they, in effect, have not compared the two methodologies in their study. James McPartland investigated the transition from an Open elementary school to a traditional junior high school in his study, Student Reactions to the Transition from Open Elementary School to Junior High School: A Case .Study, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md., October 1972. 23 McPartland reports a case study of forty-seven students drawn from an Open education and a traditional scfiumol in which their relative adjustment to a traditional janior high school was considered. The investigation revealed no significant differences between students from time two schools in adjustment to junior high school as Ineasured by grades, attendance, discipline and satisfaction with school. At no point in the study does McPartland define Open education or justify the use of the term in connection with the school system in question. One point of interest emerges from McPartland's study. He studied the relationship between students' preference for open school and an index of their family style. He found positive correlations which imply that students will be more likely to prefer Open school organi- zation when they are accustomed at home to more flexible rules governing their behavior and a more influential role in the decision making process. Summary The survey of the literature conducted in relation- ship to the present study reveals that: 1. An extremely limited amount of research deals wininmasured results of Open classroom education. 24 2. Much research undertaken in the name of "open- education" involves an imprecise or even faulty definition of Open education. The present study is an attempt to assist in alleviating this serious lack of research and to provide information upon which interested educators may make decisions concerning implementation of open classroom projects. CHAPTER III PROCEDURE AND DESIGN Introduction The present study is an attempt to determine and measure differences in social-psychological attitudes between students in an Open classroom in Kinawa Middle School, Okemos, Michigan and students in regular classes in the same school. Kinawa Middle School was selected for the study because of the existence within the school of both tradi- tional and open models of education. The Open classroom in Kinawa is called S.W.S., or "School Within a School." The S.W.S. is an autonomous group of students and learning facilitators who live and learn in an informal setting employing organismic learning theory and having .full access and use of the total building and learning facilities of the existing school. ITNe s.vv.s. is a complex of four rooms which are divided iJTtO a: social room, a quiet room, a seminar or group learning room, and a science laboratory. Approximately seventy students ages eleven, twelve, and thirteen are assigned to this area four hours of their day. During these four hours they utilize these areas, go to other parts of the building, or go outside to pursue their projects and activities. For the remainder of the day, the students join the other students in the school for lunch, physical education, and electives they have chosen from areas such as: drama, typing, media, and teacher assistantships. While in the S.W.S. complex, the students can choose to interact with each other, the three assigned learning facilitators, or community resource peOple who visit daily. Interest groups are formed and activities are planned to accommodate the 25 26 needs of these students. Students are responsible for setting goals, learning activities, self-control, motivation, evaluation, and use of time and materials. They are reSponsible to all the school rules and policies as outlined in the student government hand- book. This "Open-informal" learning environment is a volun- tary program open to any student who, with parental permission, understands, supports, and desires to participate. (Blom, 1970:10) The categories "traditional" and "open classroom" were determined applicable by analysis according to Evans' Classroom Observation Rating Scale. Evans' rating scale has a possible total score of two hundred (four possible points on each of fifty items). The American open schools which she studied showed a mean of 163.17 as compared with a mean of 160.80 for the British Open schools. Application of the Evans Classroom Observa- tion Scale in an informal way by this researcher to the Open classroom in Kinawa Middle School resulted in a score of 185. The most extremely structured classroom could score no less than fifty on the rating scale (one point for each of fifty items). The traditional classrooms in Evans' study showed a mean of 117.46. The three control groups in Okemos scored 120, 116, and 110 and thus fell within close range of Evans' group. Instruments Two separate instruments were utilized to compare the social psychological attitudes of students in S.W.S. 27 whhtMmeof students in traditional classrooms. (The cmwhfietmrpart questionnaire is provided in Appendix B.) Thefinal instruments were constructed from a kmtuuyofthe original instruments by conducting a pilot shflyamdtmilizing item analysis to reject items and infixwmnuswhich did not discriminate between the two groups. ‘Nm instruments for the pilot study were selected onefifedfiye topics that open education claims to stress: 1. Environmental satisfaction (Schulman, 1972) 2. Personal satisfaction (Schulman, 1972) 3. Self-esteem scale (Robinson and Shaver, 1969: 100) 4. Personal competence (Robinson and Shaver, 1969: 104) 5. Acceptable to others (Robinson and Shaver, 1969:541) 6. Social reSponsibility (Robinson and Shaver, 1969:385) 7. Alienation (Robinson and Shaver, 1969:208) 8. Authoritarian (Robinson and Shaver, 1969:230) 9. Value survey (Robinson and Shaver, 1969:467) Details of the above instruments are supplied on pages 29 1C1 230..) 1116: subjects for the pilot study were all the ninth :ade students who had attended S.W.S. the previous year 1d students from traditional classrooms who were randomly 28 selected by computer for Dr. Schulman's evaluation. After the item analysis, the instruments on "self- esteem” and "alienation" were rejected because there was very little difference shown. The instruments designed to test "environmental satisfaction," "personal satisfaction," and "acceptable to others," were selected and used unchanged as sub-tests in the final instrument. For "personal competence," "social responsibility," and "authoritarian," the five best discriminating items were selected from the eight items in the original instru- ments. The five selected items were used as sub-tests in the instrument constructed for the present study. For the Value Survey, the twelve items from the original eighteen that discriminated best were used and treated as a separate instrument. The attitude questionnaire and the value survey were presented to the students as one task containing thirty-one items without labels or subdivisions. However, for research purposes the attitude questionnaire and the value survey are treated as separate instruments due to the analytical treatment of the results. Tflie attitude questionnaire utilized a four-point Likert scale for which means could be calculated and compared statistically. Tflie value survey required a rank ordering which ioes not lend itself to statistical treatment. 29 Attitude Questionnaire The attitude questionnaire was designed to ascer- tahitmastudent's feelings about himself and his envtnxment. Sub-tests of this questionnaire were taken from various sources: 1. Environmental satisfaction 2. Personal satisfaction Theaflmwe two items were part of an instrument developed by Dr.I“ Schulman as part of Michigan State University's evaluation of S.W.S. They are designed to determine the student's satisfaction with the S.W.S. environment and with himself as a person. 3. Personal competence This test was developed by A. Campbell and published in the American Voter in 1960. Personal efficacy is a feeling of mastery over the self and the environment. . . . The efficiency of ego functioning bears directly on the way in which the individual can or must allocate his energies in dealing with the environment. Where such functioning is chaotic, more energy is drained off in the maintenance (If the psychological economy and less remains to ixritiate and create beyond the immediate emotional necessities. Where the ego is strong, however, the iJuiividual can maintain a higher level of involvement iJi these secondary areas of behavior. (Campbell et al., 1960:518) According to the authors of the test "consistent replica- tions of this pattern in later studies supports the construct validity of the Personal Efficacy Scale" (Robinson and Shaver, 1969:102). F ‘ .3, 30 4. Acceptability to others This sub-test is taken from W. F. Fey published in Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology and is intended to ascertain the student's feelings concerning his acceptabil- ity to other people. 5. Social reSponsibility "This scale attempts to assess a person'a traditional social responsibility, an orientation toward helping others even when there is nothing to be gained from them" (Robin- son and Shaver, 1969:383). The scale is published in Berkowitz and Lutterman, "The Traditionally Socially Responsible Personality," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1968. 6. Authoritarian aggression This sub-test is taken from the California F Scale which was "designed to measure ethnic prejudice and 'prefacist' tendencies simultaneously, without mentioning minority groups by name. Both of these characteristics come under the heading of authoritarian or 'implicit antidemocratic' trends in a personality" (Robinson and Shaver, 1969:224). The California F Scale is published in Adorno et al., The Authoritarian Personality, 1950. Only one sub-test of the California F Scale was utilized in the present study, authoritarian aggression: the tendency to be on the lookout for, and to condemn, reject and punish people who violate conventional values. DELIAII 31 The Value Survey The value survey was constructed by Rokeach and published in Beliefs, Attitudes and Values, 1968. The instrument assesses a respondent's hierarchical arrangement of instrumental values--preferable modes of conduct. Subjects rank order alphabetically listed values to indicate the relative importance of each value to them- selves. "Test - retest reliabilities after seven weeks are reported in the .70's for form D, the final version" I (Robinson and Shaver, 1969:463). Selection of Subjects Open classroom subjects.—-All the students in the Open classroom, S.W.S., in Kinawa were used in the study. The group consisted of twenty-six sixth graders, twenty- three seventh graders and twenty-two eighth graders with approximately equal numbers of boys and girls. Traditional classroom subjects.--A random sample of students was selected from the other classes within the school. One half of the students from each of six classes were used (two classes from each grade), totalling twenty- five sixth graders, twenty-four seventh graders and twenty-three eighth graders with approximately equal numbers of boys and girls. Design The present study is an accumulation of data that is descriptive rather than experimental. 32 Descriptive research describes and interprets what is. It is concerned with conditions or relationships that exist; practices that prevail; beliefs, points of view, or attitudes that are held; processes that are going on; effects that are being felt; or trends that are develOping. The process of descriptive research goes beyond mere gathering and tabulation of data. It involves an element of interpretation of the meaning or signifi- cance of what is described. Thus, descriptive is often combined with comparison or contrast, involving measurement, classification, interpretation, and evaluation. (Best, 1959:102) Treatment of Data The present study compares Open classroom and traditional classroom subjects on both the attitude questionnaire and the value survey in the following ways: 1. Open classroom subjects with traditional classroom subjects by grade. 2. All Open classroom subjects with all traditional classroom subjects. 3. Returning Open classroom subjects with not returning Open classroom subjects. Because the eighth grade subjects did not have the choice to return to the Open classroom this group consisted of sixth and seventh graders only. 4. First year open classroom subjects with second year open classroom subjects. 5. Sub-tests across grades for all subjects. The results of the attitude questionnaire were analyzed by calculating means for each group and determining 33 significant differences between means through the use of the t test. For the value survey each instrumental value received a numerical score calculated by assigning the score of twelve to the value chosen as most important by each student, eleven for second choice, etc. It was then possible to use these scores to calculate means for each group for each value. The means were used to determine the rank order for the groups. Summary The present study is a descriptive study designed to determine and measure differences in social-psychological attitudes between students in an open classroom in Kinawa Middle School, Okemos, Michigan and students in regular classes in the same school. Two instruments--an attitude questionnaire and a value survey--were constructed from several existing instruments by means of a pilot study which determined the best discriminating items. Open classroom and traditional classroom subjects (Mere tested by means of the two instruments. The results of the attitude questionnaire were analyzed statistically through the use of the t test to compare means. The value survey was examined by comparing the :relative rank orderings of the values by each group. This analysis is presented in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA g: The results Of the attitude questionnaire and the ' value survey are organized and presented in this chapter in four sections: attitude questionnaire by sub-test, E attitude questionnaire by group, value survey by group, , and value survey by sub—test. Attitude Questionnaire--Comparison by Sub-test This section presents the results from the various groups on each Of the six sub-tests separately. It includes tables and graphs containing information on means, range, standard deviation, t statistics and statistical significance. Each of the sub-tests (environment, satisfaction, etc.) contain five questions using a four point Likert scale. Integral values were assigned to each scale point-- 1 for Strongly Disagree, 2 for Disagree, 3 for Agree and 4 for Strongly Disagree-~giving a possible twenty points lnaximum for each sub-test. Total scores were Obtained by simple summation. Most of the statements were worded positively but some were worded negatively to avoid 34 35 acquiescence. In the case of negative wording the numerical value was reversed. Totals were obtained for each student for each sub-test. The means were obtained by averaging the total raw scores of each group of students for each sub—test. Environment The "environment" sub-test was designed to measure the attitudes of the subjects toward their school environ- ment. 7 The means, differences in means, t test statistics, and confidence intervals are shown in Table l. The bar graph (Figure 1) provides a visual diSplay which clearly illustrates the differences between the groups. The vertical (x) axis shows means to the nearest tenth and the horizontal (y) axis shows Open classroom (0) and traditional classroom (T) groups—-sixth, seventh, eighth grades and their totals; as well as returning (R) - not returning (NR); and one year - two year Open classroom groups. Asterisks above each pair of bars mark groups in which the differences are statistically significant. Confidence levels for these significant differences may be found in Table 1. In all three grades, the open classroom subjects were measured as more satisfied with their environment. The difference between groups was not statistically significant for the sixth grade subjects but the seventh 36 Table 1 Attitude Questionnaire by Sub-test--Environment Groups Means S.D. T test Confidence 6 - 0 14.1923 2.8151 .6056 ---- 6 - T 13.8000 1.4967 7 - O 15.1739 2.0568 4.6628 .001 7 - T 13.4583 1.8480 8 - 0 15.5909 1.3369 6.1158 .001 8 - T 13.1200 1.3659 Total 14.9437 2.2759 5.4317 .001 Total 13.1351 1.6711 R 16.2692 1.6067 6.3168 .001 NR 12.8261 2.1193 1 Yr. 15.5217 1.2809 .5520 ---- 2 Yrs. 15.2273 2.1306 37 2 Yrs Yr HWHW NR .ucmECOHH>CMIImuflmccOHummso mcoufluud How mcmoz Total 8th 7th “a musmflm h t T60 mcflcusumm uoz mcflcuzumm accofluflcmue Eooummmao ammo Ill 094mm I I 1 f T T T j moohxomvmmr-i (Vt-IO HI—lr-i wen rqa omcohxom Nr-ir-{r-{I—‘Iv-i 38 and eighth grades and the total Open classroom group did show significant differences at the .001 level of confi- dence. The Open classroom students who were planning to return to the S.W.S. for the following year showed a significantly higher satisfaction with their school environ- ment than did those students not planning to return. In fact, this difference was larger than the difference between any other pair of groups in the entire study-—significant to the .001 level of confidence. There was a slight difference in favor of the students who had been in Open classroom one year over those in their second year. However, this difference was not significant and both first and second year groups showed means of over fifteen, which reveals a high degree of satisfaction with environment-~much higher than those of any of the traditional groups. Figure 2 depicts the ranges and means for the various groups on the "environment" sub-test. There seems to be no consistent pattern in ranges. Satisfaction This sub-test was designed to measure the subject's satisfaction with himself and the things around him. Table 2 provides means, differences between means, t test statistics and confidence intervals for the various groups. 39 2 Yrs .pcmEcOHH>cmllmuHmcc0flummOO occuwuud Mom mammz cam mmocmm Yr NR Total 8th 7th "N musmflm 6th mcflcusumm uoz mcflcusumm Hmcoauficmua Eooummmao ammo Ill 054mm .H .m Tm :v -m .5 .m .m .0H rHH TNH +MH rwa .mH 10H fwd .wH wad .om 40 Table 2 Attitude Questionnaire by Sub-test--Satisfaction Groups Means S.D. T test Confidence 6 - 0 14.1923 2.0943 .6055 ---- 6 - T 13.8400 1.9734 1n: H1 7 - 0 14.7391 1.6995 “ 2.8757 .01 7 — T 12.7917 2.7077 _ i 8 - 0 14.5909 1.7493 ’ 3.9100 .001 8 - T 12.0800 2.4482 Total 14.4930 1.8830 4.2764 .001 Total 12.9054 2.4996 R 15.2308 1.6007 3.2541 .01 NR 13.5652 1.9071 1 Yr. 15.2174 1.8405 2.2637 .01 2 Yrs. 14.0909 1.3787 41 The bar graph (Figure 3) illustrates the differences more clearly. Again the Open classroom subjects in all three grades were revealed to be more satisfied than the subjects in the traditional classrooms. The differences were significant for the seventh and eighth grades as well as for the total group at the .01, .001, and .001 levels F” respectively. Those students planning on returning were signifi- cantly more satisfied (.01) than those not planning to ’3 return. The results show the first year open classroom students more satisfied with themselves and their situation than the second year Open classroom students. The differ- ence was statistically significant at the .01 level, however, the second year students measured higher on satisfaction than any of the students in the traditional classrooms. Figure 4 presents the ranges and means for all groups on the "satisfaction" sub-test. There was a greater range of satisfaction in the traditional classroom students than that evidenced by the open classroom students. A much greater range of satisfaction was revealed by the not .returning group than by those students planning on returning to the S.W.S. the following year. 2 Yrs 1 Yrs .coauommmflummllmnflmccoaummso mcsufluua How mammz "m musmwm NR Total 8th 7th 6th 42 , IIIIFIII, wva 1N .m .¢ .m rm rb .m .m 10H :HH _ me « .ea .ma :ma .om ocflcnsumm uoz mcwcusumm HMCOHDHUMHB Eooummmao ammo II OE-Imof. 2 Yrs .coauomwmflummllmHHMCCOHumsz OUSDHuud How Yr NR R Total 8th mcmoz cam mmmcmm 7th "a musmwm 6th 43 meacuoumm uoz mcflcuoumm amc0auflcmue Eooummmao ammo OEfiflim .H .N am .v um .m .5 .m .0H .HH -NH .ma rva fima rod and rma rma .om 44 Personal Competence The "personal competence" sub-test was designed to measure the student's "feeling of mastery over the self and the environment" (Campbell, 1960:518). Table 3 presents the means, differences in means, t statistics, and confidence levels for each group on the characteristics of personal competence. The means are interpreted graphically in Figure 5. For each of the three grades the open classroom subjects revealed a higher degree Of personal competence than did the subjects from the traditional classrooms. This differ- ence was significant at the .02 level for the seventh grade and at the .02 level for the total Open classroom group. The returning and not returning open classroom groups showed a difference in means of 3.1488 yielding a degree of confidence of .001. The first and second year open classroom groups were almost identical with a difference of only .1799. Again both groups measured a higher feeling of personal competence than any of the students from the traditional classrooms. Figure 6 shows ranges and means for all groups on the sub-test of "personal competence." The seventh and eighth grade traditional classroom subjects show a wider range on this sub-test than the open classroom subjects but for the sixth grade, the opposite is true. 45 Table 3 Attitude Questionnaire by Sub-test--Persona1 Competence Groups Means S.D. T test Confidence 6 - 0 12.5385 3.0157 .4653 ---- 6 - T 12.2000 1.9391 7 - O 12.9130 1.6128 2.3266 .02 7 - T 11.5417 2.2726 8 - 0 13.1818 1.4025 1.7583 ---- 8 - T 12.3600 1.6942 Total 12.8592 2.2030 2.3230 .02 Total 12.0405 2.0097 R 14.1923 1.7763 5.6685 .001 NR 11.0435 2.0319 1 Yr. 12.9565 1.3666 -.3886 ---- 2 Yrs. 13.1364 1.6596 .mocmummfiou HchmummnlmuHmccoHummso mcsufluum How memos ”m musmwm 2 Yrs Yr Total 8th 7th 6th NR 46 rd rm um .v rm to .m .m 10H rad .NH .MH .mH .hH ocflcusuom uoz mcflcusumm accofluflcmue Eooummmao ammo I 09:21:): .ma -om 47 .mocmummaoo HMCOmummllmuflmccoflummso monufluud MOM mammz can mmocmm 2 Yrs Yr NR Total 8th 7th "m musmfim 6th mcflcnsuwm uoz mcficusumm Hmcofluflomue Eooummmao ammo ll 064mm I awe him H 48 Acceptable to Others This sub—test is intended to ascertain the student's feelings concerning his acceptability to others. Table 4 provides the means, differences in means, t test statistics and confidence levels for all groups on "acceptability to others." The means are interpreted graphically in Figure 7. In each grade the Open classroom subjects believe themselves acceptable to others to a higher degree than do the traditional classroom subjects. However, these differences are statistically significant only for the eighth grade (.001) resulting in a total group significance at the .01 level of confidence. Again, the returning - not returning groups show a significant difference (.01) with the returning students significantly more secure about their acceptability to others than the students not planning to return. The first and second year Open classroom students scored very close on this sub-test with both groups revealing a higher feeling of acceptability to others than any of the traditional classroom groups. Figure 8 is a bar graph showing the ranges and means for all groups on the sub-test "acceptable to others." The traditional classroom seventh and eighth grade groups show a greater range than the Open classroom subjects in these grades while the sixth grade Open classroom figures reveal a higher range on this sub-test. 49 Table 4 Attitude Questionnaire by Sub-test-- Acceptable to Others Groups Means S.D. T test Confidence 6 - 0 13.8462 2.8915 .5750 ---- F? 6 - T 13.4400 1.9407 1 f 7 - 0 13.9130 2.0624 1.4067 ---- i 7 - T 13.0417 2.0912 f~ 8 - O 14.9545 .8245 5.0165 .001 8 - T 13.2400 1.3647 Total 14.2113 2.2134 2.8556 .01 Total 13.2432 1.8293 R 14.7308 1.9327 2.6255 .01 NR 12.9130 2.7806 1 Yr. 14.5217 1.5286 .4011 --—- 2 Yrs. 14.3182 1.7936 .muwcuo on manmummooallmuflmccoflumono mosufluufi How mammz uh musmflm 2 Yrs Yr Total 8th 7th 6th NR 50 ‘H .N .4 .m .w A -m .m -3 E .2 .2 .3 cmH uma -hH -ma -mH Z com mcflcusumm uoz mcficusumm Hmcofluflcmus Eooummmao ammo ll OE-‘Oim 51 .mumcuo Ou mancummoodllmHflMGCOHumono mcsufluud How mammz cam mmmcmm um musmflm s 1 a n a h h h R O t t t 2 l N T T 8 O 7 6 0 1H .m fim -v .IIIJ .m .m .1Ill, IIIJ. .5 .m 1m , 1I|l .OH ..IIJ. J .HH .NH .IIIL _flll. ImH .lllg .llllt .va ‘1, rmH .mH l. ,I, ill]. Ala. 15H .Flll Flll_ illl. rlll. ,Flll. &H &H mascusumm uoz I m on ocflcusuwm I m HMCOHuHcmuB I B EooummmHO ammo I O 52 Social Responsibility The "social reSponsibility" sub-test was designed to measure "a person's traditional social responsibility, an orientation toward helping Others even when there is nothing to be gained from them" (Robinson and Shaver, 1969: 383). Table 5 supplies means, differences in means, t test statistics, and confidence intervals for all groups on this sub-test. Figure 9 illustrates the various means graphically. There is a slight difference in favor of the open classroom subjects on "social responsibility" but it is not statis- tically significant for any of the groups. The returning S.W.S. students, however, show a significantly higher, (.05) "social responsibility" rating than do the not returning students. The first year S.W.S. students show a slight but not significant lead in "social responsibility" over the traditional classroom students. The ranges and means of the various groups on this sub-test are presented in Figure 10. The pattern appears random although the not returning group shows a greater range than the returning group, a pattern consistent throughout most of the sub-tests. 53 Table 5 Attitude Questionnaire by Sub-test-- Social ReSponsibility Groups Means S.D. T test Confidence 6 - O 16.4615 3.1772 1.2280 ---- If? 6 - T 15.5600 1.7223 5 7 - O 15.0000 2.8893 1.2324 ---- y 7 - T 14.0000 2.5495 7‘ 8 - 0 15.2727 1.6006 .5382 ---- 8 - T 14.9200 2.6065 Total 15.6197 2.7597 1.8064. ---- Total 14.8378 2.4107 R 16.5769 3.2246 1.9908 .05 NR 14.8261 2.7450 1 Yr. 15.6957 2.0733 1.6522 ---- 2 Yrs. 14.5455 2.4813 54 .muflaflnflmcommmm HmHOOmIImuHmccOHummsc mooufluud now mammz "m musmflm S ...... r r a Y Y t h h h R o t t t 2 l N T O T 8 O 7 6 O .H .m .m -v .m so In .m .m Ioa .HH .NH Ima .wa .[III-J .rl TmH _r||ll AFII! .mH _ aha -ma rma oceansuwm uoz I m Tom mcflcusumm I m Hmcofluflpmus I B Eooummmao coco I O 55 .wuflafloflmcommmm HMflOOmIImHHMCCOHumOSO mcsuflpus How memos cam mmmcmm 2 Yrs Yr NR Total 8th 7th “OH musmflm 6th measusumm uoz mcflcusumm HMCOfluwcmuB Eooummmao ammo 09mm IMH .vH .mH .mH .ha .mH .ma Iom 56 Authoritarian The "authoritarian sub-test in the present study is concerned with only one dimension of authoritarianism-- authoritarian aggression: the tendency to be on the lookout for, and to condemn, reject and punish people who violate conventional values." Table 6 provides the means, differences between means, t test statistics and confidence intervals on this sub—test. Negative values appear for all pairs except first and second year open classroom subjects. Figure 11 provides a visual display for ease of interpretation. In all cases, the traditional classroom groups measured a higher degree of authoritarianism with the sixth, eighth and total groups showing differences which are significantly different at the .05, .001, and .001 levels respectively. The not returning S.W.S. students show a signifi- cantly higher (.01) degree of authoritarianism than do the returning students. Figure 12 provides the ranges and means for the various groups on the "authoritarian" sub-test. The differences in ranges reveal no consistent patterns on this sub-test. Attitude Questionnaire--Comparison by Group In the preceding section, each sub-test was presented separately and comparisons were made between 57 Table 6 Attitude Questionnaire by Sub-test--Authoritarianism Grogps Means S.D. T test Confidence 6 - 0 12.0769 2.3357 -2.l764 .05 6 - T 13.6000 2.5612 PI 7 - 0 11.4348 3.2946 E -l.8373 ---- 1 7 - T 13.0833 2.7067 8 - 0 10.9545 2.3641 F -4.3255 .001 8 - T 13.7600 1.9855 Total 11.5211 2.7315 -4.5326 .001 8 - T 13.7600 1.9855 Total 11.5211 2.7315 -4.5326 .001 Total 13.4865 2.4508 R 10.7692 2.5315 -3.0004 .01 NR 13.1304 2.8636 1 Yr. 11.2609 2.5744 .1414 ---- 2 Yrs. 11.1364 3.1808 58 _. I .Ilbfllr 1| .cmaumufluocusgllmHAMCCOHummso coopfluu< 2 Yrs Yr Total 8th NR How mcmmz 7th "Ha OHSOHm 6th ocflcusumm uoz mcflcusumm Hmcofiuflcmus Eooummmao ammo ll 09mm 59 .coeumufluocusmmIImuHmcc0Hummso modufluum How mono: "ea musmam ReSponsibility O T Satisfaction Acceptable to O T Others 0 T Environment Competence Personal 0 T Social TH .N uc Im 10 IN Im rm fiOH IHH VIII INH Ima Iva a Illl. _IIIL_ .mH Tod « 15H wma rmH row Hmcofluflcmue I B EoonmmmHO ammo I O 65 Their means are higher than those of the traditional classroom seventh graders on "acceptability to others," and "social responsibility" but the differences are not significant. The traditional classroom seventh graders show a higher mean on authority than the S.W.S. seventh graders but the difference is not statistically significant. ”I“. "HINT." Eighth Grade ' A Table 9 contains means, differences in means, ‘1: t test statistics and confidence levels for S.W.S. and traditional classroom students in the eighth grade. Figure 15 presents the means graphically. Here again, for all sub-tests except "authoritarian" the S.W.S. group's means are higher with the differences for "environ- ment," "satisfaction," and "acceptability" being signifi- cantly greater to the .001 degree of confidence. The traditional classroom subjects measured significantly higher on authority than did their S.W.S. counterparts in the eighth grade. T9531. Table 10 provides means, differences in means, t test statistics and confidence levels for S.W.S. and traditional classroom students in all three grades combined. Figure 16 presents the means in graph form. 66 Table 9 Attitude Questionnaire--8th Grade--All Sub-tests 8-0 8-T Environment Means 15.5909 13.1200 Diff. in Means 2.4709 T test 6.1158 Confidence .001 Satisfaction Means 14.5909 12.0800 Diff. in Means 2.5109 T test 3.9100 Confidence .001 Personal Competence Means 13.1818 12.3600 Diff. in Means .7218 T test 1.7583 Confidence ---- Acceptable to Others Means 14.9545 13.2400 Diff. in Means 1.7145 T test 5.0165 Confidence .001 Social Responsibility Means 15.2727 14.9200 Diff. in Means .3527 T test .5382 Confidence ---- Authoritarian Means 10.9545 13.7600 Diff. in Means -2.8055 T test -4.3255 Confidence .001 Authoritarian T .mmsouo mcmuw cusmflmllmuflmccoflummsc mcsufluum How mammz "ma musmflm ReSponsibility O T Satisfaction O T Environment Acceptable to Others 0 T Competence Personal 0 T Social 67 .H 1N .v .m .m .5 +m to .OH :HH Illl. INH .2 .3 . .3 .3 .2 ImH .ma Hmcofluflcmue I B Eooummmao ammo I O 68 Table 10 Attitude Questionnaire All Sub-Tests--Tota1 Open Classroom-—Traditional Classroom Total OC Total TC Environment Means 14.9437 13.1351 Diff. in Means 1.8086 T test 5.4317 Confidence .001 Satisfaction Means 14.4930 12.9054 Diff. in Means 1.5876 T test 4.2764 Confidence .001 Personal Competence Means 12.8592 12.0405 Diff. in Means .8187 T test 2.3230 Confidence .02 Acceptable to Others Means 14.2113 13.2432 Diff. in Means .9681 T test 2.8556 Confidence .01 Social Repponsibility Means 15.6197 14.8378 Diff. in Means .7819 T test 1.8064 Confidence ---- Authoritarian Means 11.5211 13.4865 Diff. in Means -1.9654 T test -4.5326 Confidence .001 69 .mmsouu Hmcofluflcmue can ammo HmuOBIImHHmccofiummso mcsufluud MOM mammz "ma musmflm V. n t O l a .1 t n a .l l O t r .1 e e .1 n a b l C t e t .i b 1.n c m .l S a ae a n r 1 n +.s nit f o O 30 pr 08 S r .h .1 P see 3 P .1 .1 t CS Ch rm t V ..u 06 Ct 80 a n TA 0 TSRO TACO TPCO TSO T E0 1 1 T T r fil .[. l _ T Ill, .rr * , _ .r. fl * I a a I ¥ HMCOHUHcmuB I B EooummmHO coco I O T mmFOLDQ'MNI—i O H LOVMNr-I HHI—lI-lr—l [‘0 HH moo HI—l 70 There is a significant difference in means between open classroom and traditional classroom subjects on all sub-tests except "social responsibility." Returning - Not Returning Table 11 contains means, differences in means, t test statistics and confidence levels for S.W.S. students planning to return to the open classroom compared with S.W.S. students choosing not to return. Figure 17 illustrates the means in graphic form. In every sub-test the means between the two groups were significantly different. The returning group scored l significantly higher on all sub-tests except "authoritarian' in which the not returning students obtained a higher mean. One-Year and Two-Year Students Table 12 provides means, differences in means, t test statistics and confidence levels for students who had been in the open classroom for one and two years respectively. Figure 18 shows the means graphically. The only sub-test on which a significant difference occurred was on "satisfaction." Here the first year students measured significantly higher; however, both groups scored means of at least 13 on all sub-tests except "authoritarian." 71 Table 11 Attitude Questionnaire All Sub-Tests--Returning, Not Returning Groups Returning Not Returning Environment Means 16.2692 12.8261 Diff. in Means 3.4433 T test 6.3168 Confidence .001 Satisfaction Means 15.2308 13.5652 Diff. in Means 1.6656 T test 3.2541 Confidence .01 Personal Competence Means 14.1923 11.0435 Diff. in Means 3.1488 T test 5.6685 Confidence .001 Acceptable to Others Means 14.7308 12.9130 Diff. in Means 1.8178 T test 2.6255 Confidence .01 Social ReSponsibility Means 16.5769 14.8261 Diff. in Means 1.7508 T test 1.9908 Confidence .05 Authoritarian Means 10.7692 13.1304 Diff. in Means -2.3612 T test -3.0004 Confidence .01 ’__- - .mmsonw mcflcuoumm uoz .mCHCHODOmIImHHmCCOHumOSO mcsufluum How mammz "ma mndmflm Responsibility Acceptable to Satisfaction Environmental Others Authoritarian R NR R NR Social R NR NR Personal Competence R NR R NR 72 10H .3 VIII rl. .2 r1. _ . IVH .. L .3 « .ba « mascuSpmm uoz I mz * jma maflcusumm I m -mH Iom Attitude Questionnaire--One Year, 73 Table 12 All Sub-tests 1 Year Two Year Groups-- 2 Years Environment Means Diff. in Means T test Confidence Satisfaction Means Diff. in Means T test Confidence Personal Competence Means Diff. in Means T test Confidence Acceptable to Others Means Diff. in Means T test Confidence Social Repponsibility Means Diff. in Means T test Confidence Authoritarian Means Diff. in Means T test Confidence 15.5217 15.2174 12.9565 14.5217 15.6957 11.2609 .2944 .5520 1.1265 2.2637 .01 -.1799 -.3886 .2035 .4011 1.1502 1.6522 .1245 .1414 15.2273 14.0909 13.1364 14.3182 14.5455 11.1364 74 20- 19' 181 17‘ 16‘ 15“ 14‘ 13‘ 12‘ 11‘ 10‘ 9— 8c: 7d 6’ 5- 4‘ 2H 1. 2 Authoritarian l 2 Social ReSponsibility 1 2 Acceptable to Others 1 2 Personal Competence 1 2 Satisfaction 1 2 Environment 1 Means for Attitude Questionnaire-One Year, Two Year Groups. Figure 18 75 Value Survey by Group This section presents the ranking Of the values by each pair of groups. It includes tables and graphs illustrating the results of the survey; for example, the rank orders of the various values for sixth grade are presented by table and by graph (Table 14 and Figure 19). Special attention was given to those values that were given the same or almost the same rank by both of the groups being compared and those values that were given quite different rankings. A three place difference was arbitrarily selected for Special mention because it was felt that it could be used to show any forming patterns. Table 13 supplies the means for each group on each of the twelve values calculated as explained on page 33. In this table the higher scores indicate the values selected as most important. It gives an overview of all values for all grades. Sixth Grade Table 14 contains the rank ordering of the values by the sixth grade open classroom and traditional classroom students. The figures in parentheses indicate equal ranking. Both groups chose "cheerful" as their first place value and both ranked "good looking" and "obedient" as their last two. The only two values with a difference of more than three places in rank order were "capable" and Table 13 Value Survey Scores onquoo ates atqrsuodsaa earIoa nuetpeqo burnoq quapuadapu: aAIqeurbemI IHJdIaH Burxooq poos burArbxog Ingxeeuo anedeo 6.0 . . . 6.9 . . . . . 5.0 . . 5.9 OE-I xoxo 76 . 7.9 . H 6.4 . 8.0 . 8-0 m 4.9 6.3 8.6 . . 8.2 5.9 . . 8.0 . . . . . 6.7 . NR . . 5.0 . 1.9 6.5 6.9 1 Yr 2 Yrs 8.0 5.9 10. 77 Table 14 Value Survey in Rank Order--Sixth Grade Open Classroom Cheerful Helpful Self Control Forgiving Polite Responsible Loving Imaginative Capable Independent Good Looking Obedient Traditional Classroom Cheerful Capable Helpful Independent Forgiving Loving Self Control Imaginative Polite Responsible Obedient Good Looking 78 "independent, which were both ranked higher by the tradi- tional classroom students. The bar graph (Figure 19) presents these results graphically. Because an instrument which requires a rank ordering of items cannot be adequately handled statisti— cally, significant differences are not obtainable. The asterisks in the graphs in this section refer to comparisons in which values differed by more than three places in rank and should not be interpreted as statistically significant. Seventh Grade Table 15 contains the rank ordering of the values by seventh grade Open and traditional classroom subjects. In both groups, "cheerful" and "helpful" ranked as the two most important values and "obedient" as the least. "Imaginative," "loving," and "polite" were the values moving more than three places in the rank order. The Open classroom students ranked ”imaginative" higher and "polite" and "loving" lower than did the traditional classroom subjects. Figure 20 illustrates these results in graph form. Eighth Grade Table 16 contains the rank ordering of the values by the eighth grade subjects. "Cheerful" is still ranked very high by both groups and "obedient" and "good looking" are at or near the bottom. Values changing rank by more than three places are "helpful," "independent," "loving," 79 O - Open Classroom T - Traditional O H 11 12 Self Control Responsi- ble Polite Obedient >. o > Lovin H g m m s I d a 7'. n e en - ent p ? . I) Imagina- S tive o c 4.) Helpful .fi m '44 Good 0 Looking a 'o H o Forgivingx c m m Cheerful .. 0" I—( m Capable g m -a m 10. 11. 80 Table 15 Value Survey in Rank Order--Seventh Grade Open Classroom Helpful Cheerful Forgiving Self Control Imaginative Capable Responsible Independent Loving Polite* Good Looking Obedient Traditional Classroom Cheerful Helpful Loving Forgiving Polite Self Control Capable Responsible Good Looking Independent Imaginative Obedient 81 T Self O Control E O O . NH T ResponSI- $2 0 ble mo F+H on cg T Polite mm 0 on OE—I " TObd' t 0&4 0 e ien Loving T Independ- O ent T Imagina- O tive T Helpful T Good 0 Looking Forgiving T Cheerful Capable ll 12 O H Rank Order of Value Survey-Seventh Grade. Figure 20 82 Table 16 Value Survey in Rank Order--Eighth Grade Open Classroom Cheerful Self Control Forgiving Independent Helpful Capable Loving Polite Responsible Imaginative Obedient Good Looking Traditional Classroom Helpful Cheerful Capable Forgiving Responsible I, Imaginative F Polite Self Control Independent Good Looking Loving Obedient 83 and "self control." The Open classroom subjects ranked "self control," "independent," and "loving" higher and "helpful" lower than did the traditional classroom students. The bar graph (Figure 21) presents these results graphically. T2331 Table 17 shows the rank ordering of the various values by all subjects. "Cheerful" and "helpful" were ranked one and two, and "good looking" and "obedient" ranked ten and eleven. The only value which moved three or more places was "imaginative" which was ranked higher by the Open classroom students. Figure 22 shows these results graphically. Returning - Not Returning Table 18 shows the rank ordering of the values by the returning and not returning open classroom students. "Cheerful" was ranked in third place by the returning group as compared with first place in the not returning group. "Obedient" was ranked at or near the bottom by both groups. Five values show a difference of more than three places in rank order: "capable," "good looking," "loving," "independent, and "self control." There is more differ- ence between the returning and not returning groups than there is between any of the other groups. "Self control" was ranked first by the returning group and fifth by the not returning group. "Capable" was ranked second and 84 Self Control Responsi- g ble o 1 ur4 I m g -? g o Polite ’1 I—I-I-I I OIJ " .3 ; {3% T ‘ 8.. Obedient 5,1_ 054 . II 06* Loving 'rIndepend- O ent TImagina- O tive T H 1 f l O e p u TGood OLooking gForgiving Rank Order of Value Survey-Eighth Grade. :Cheerful T OCapable Figure 21 o H N H H H 10. ll. 85 Table 17 Value Survey in Rank Order-~Total Open Classroom and Traditional Classroom Open Classroom Cheerful Helpful Forgiving Self Control Independent Imaginative Capable Loving Responsible Polite Obedient Good Looking Traditional Classroom Cheerful Helpful Capable Forgiving Self Control Independent ReSponsible Polite Loving Imaginative Good Looking Obedient 86 O - Open classroom T - Traditional O H 11 12 T O Obedient .5 m c {‘3 T O Loving 0 H m 4..) IrIndepend-g ()ent : > O , > TPImagina- g 0 tive to S T Helpful ".3 O > u.) T Good 0 0 Looking 8 c H T . . O ForgiVIngx a m m Self Control Responsi- ble Polite g Cheerful T Ca able 0 E3 Figure 22 2.(2) 2.(2) 8.(2) 8.(2) 10. 87 Table 18 Value Survey in Rank Order--Open Classroom Returning Self Control Capable Helpful Cheerful Forgiving Independent Imaginative ReSponsible Loving Polite Obedient Good Looking Not Returning Cheerful Helpful Forgiving Loving Good Looking Self Control Responsible Imaginative Capable Polite Independent Obedient 88 eighth, "independent" fifth and ninth, "loving" eighth and fourth, "good looking" tenth and fifth by the returning and not returning groups respectively. Figure 23 presents these results graphically. One Year - Two Years Table 19 shows the rank order selected by students who had been in S.W.S. one year and two years. Both groups ranked "good looking" and "obedient" at the bottom of the list. "Cheerful" and "imaginative" almost exchanged places for the second year open classroom students. Most groups ranked "cheerful" in the tOp few and "imaginative" about the middle but the second year open classroom group ranked "imaginative" second and "cheerful" eighth. Figure 24 is a graphic representation of these results. Value Survey by Value In the following section the rank order of each value is presented for all groups, for example, the rank orders assigned to the value "capable" by all groups are presented on one graph (page 93). Figures 25 through 36 are bar graphs that display graphically the rank order of all groups for the individual values. 89 N Self R Control N ReSponsi- R ble N R Polite ow ‘3 N '3 Obedient cw H R I: :1 -.-I u I: a) $5 In N _ p u R LOVlng a) O a: z I I N Independ- a: 2 R ent N Imagina— R tive R Helpful N Good R Looking Forgiving N Cheerful Capable Rank Order of Value Survey-Returning, Not Returning. Figure 23: 10. 11. .(2) .(2) 90 Table 19 Value Survey in Rank Order-—Open Classroom One-Year Cheerful Forgiving Self Control Helpful Independent Loving Capable Imaginative Polite ReSponsible Good Looking Obedient 10. ll. 12. Two Years Helpful Imaginative Self Control Indepedent Forgiving Responsible Capable Cheerful Loving Polite Obedient Good Looking fl 2 Self ]_Control N Responsi- 1-ble N Polite N Obedient Loving Independ- ent 2 Imagina- l tive Helpful 2 Good ]_Looking 2 Forgiving 2 lCheerful 2 ]_Capab1e Rank Order of Value Survey-One Year, Two Years. Figure 24: 92 Capable In most cases the traditional classroom groups ranked "capable" higher than did the open classroom groups (Figure 25). Returning Open classroom students ranked it much higher than did the not returning group. Cheerful "Cheerful" was ranked in the top three by all groups except the second year open classroom students who ranked it eighth in importance (Figure 26). Forgivipg There is very little difference shown between the groups for "forgiving" (Figure 27). The range is only from second to fifth rank. Good Looking In general, "good looking" was ranked low (Figure 28). The only group to rank "good looking" higher than third from the last was the not returning Open classroom group who ranked it number five. Helpful In general, "helpful" ranked high (Figure 29). Its lrmnest rank Of five was given by the eighth grade Open Classroom group . 93 .mHnmmwOIImo>Hdm OSHm>IImmsouo HH< mo Hmcuo xcmm "mm wusmHm R o m ..n. ..n. 2 1. N R mlT ml 8 T 7. mlro O .NH .HH .0H .m _l|I1, .m I! L g .L _[_ Um II. E TV .lllL iIIL. .m _[llL. oCchsumm uoz I mz _rllL. .m « mchusumm I m « HmcoHuHcmuB I B EooummMHo ammo I O 94 .HsmumeUII>w>usm wsam>IImmsouw Had mo HmUHO xcmm "mm mgsmflm m n m h h h R o t t t 2 l N R T m; 0 m.no O m; 7 nu T cu O rNH .HH .oa .l m illll. .- m .5 1m .m OCH Iv Icusumm uoz I m. mcflcusumm I m L I m Hmcofluflvmue I B Eooummmao ammo I O _ , IN ...IL ,IILI I H 95 .mcH>HmHOMII>m>udm msam>IImmsouo HH¢ mo Hmwuo xcmm "mm musmflm s a. r r h Y Y R m m m t 2 1. N T 9v T v1 0 m; 6 .NH .HH fi0H T .m in Im _| w m ,l rlll rlll .6... _ ill. 1 v IIIIL ill! ill .rll T m IN mcflcusumm #02 I mz mcwcusumm I m HMGOfluficmuB I 9 IA Eooummmao ammo I o 96 .mcflxooq UOOUII>m>Hsm mzam>IImmsouU Had no HmUHO xnmm "mm musmflm s l r r a Y Y t h h h R o t t t 2 .1 N T “6 O m.ql O ,0 O fma .HH L J, rOH .m .m .5 Im .m .v mcficusumm #02 I m jm mcflcusumm I m Hmcofluflvmua I 9 EooummmHo ammo I O .m rd 97 .H5mmawmIIxm>Hsm msam>IImmsouw Ham mo Hmwuo xcmm "mm musmfim S l r r a Y Y t h h h R o t t t 2 l N R T T O T 8 O T 7 O T 6 O -NH IHH Ioa rm .m -5 .m I EL rim L L. .FI -m RIll. Tr IN mcflcusuwm uoz I mz Hmcofluflcmue I e « EooummmHo ammo I O 98 Imaginative "Imaginative" had a wide range, from second to ninth (Figure 30). The difference in rank order exceeded three for the seventh grade and total groups in which the open classroom students ranked it higher than did the traditional classroom groups. The second year open classroom group ranked "imaginative" much higher than the first year open classroom group did. Independent In the sixth grade, the traditional classroom group ranked "independent" far higher than did the Open classroom group (Figure 31). In the seventh and eighth grades and the total sample, the Open classroom students ranked "independent" higher. The returning students ranked it higher than the not returning students. A Spread of greater than three places was found between the sixth grade groups, the eighth grade groups and the returning - not returning groups. Loving There is a wide range of difference in the rank order for "loving"--from third to tenth (Figure 32). A difference greater than three occurred between the seventh grade groups, the eighth grade groups, and the returning and not returning groups. "Loving" was ranked higher by the seventh traditional, eighth open, and not returning groups. 99 .m>wumcflmmEHII>m>uom moam>IImmsouw HH4 mo Hmpuo xcmm "om mnzmwm s l r r a Y Y t h h h R o t t t 2 1. N R T no mi 8 .I T cu O .l’. ,l. .l. .. IL mcflcuouwm uoz I m mcficusumm I m HmcoHuHomuB I B Eooummmao ammo I O NH Ha OH 100 .ucmocmmmocHII>m>udm moam>IImmsouw Had mo Hmouo xcmm ”Hm whomflm s s l r r a Y Y t h h h R o t t t 2 l N T T 8 O T 7 O T 6 O rma .HH foa .llll fm Fill [I] [I 1m flL L Tm .[ll '1 um .lll. .[. RL _[v TV « « Im mcflcusumm uoz I mz IN mcflcusumm I m Hmcoflufipmue I B Eooummmao ammo I 0 Id 101 2 Yrs Yr .mcfi>oqII>m>usm mon>IImmoouw HH¢ mo Hmpuo xcmm NR R T Total 8th 7th "mm musmflm m T60 mcflcuoumm uoz mcflcusumm Hmcoflufipmue Eoonmmmao ammo III OE-‘CCDC I HH 102 Obedient The range is smaller for "Obedient" than for any of the other values (Figure 33). All groups selected "obedient" last or second to last in importance. Polite Except for the sixth grade, the traditional classroom group ranked "polite" higher (Figure 34). The only difference greater than three occurred in the seventh grade. Responsible There was little difference between groups for "responsible" (Figure 35). All groups ranked it in the middle with a range from fifth to ninth. Self-Control All Open classroom groups and the returning group ranked "self-control" higher than did the traditional classroom groups (Figure 36). A difference greater than three was found between seventh grade groups and returning and not returning groups. Summary This chapter contains the analysis of the data gathered from the attitude questionnaire and the value survey. The results of the study were presented in four sections: the attitude questionnaire by sub-test, the attitude questionnaire by group, the value survey by group, 103 .uCOHUmQOII>m>H:m OOHO>IImmsonw HH< mo HOUHO xcmm "mm musmflm s l r r a Y Y t .n .n h R O t t t 2 .i N R mi T no mi 8 no m.q/ O T no 0 INH Fl. . S [III ,IIIIL rill ,IIIE .| OH .Flll I m Im In mcflcusuwm #02 I mz I m mcflcusumm I m aOCOfiuflpmue I B m Eooummmao some I O I I v a m r N I H 104 .OuHHomII>O>usm msam>IImmsouw Ham mo Hmpuo Mama "vm mnomflm s l r r a Y Y t .h .n .n R o t t t 2 .l N R T mi 0 n6 7 ml,o O INH .HH .fllI. IOH IL I FL r .m .L A III! Im II ilL .m .1 r. mcflcuouwm uoz I m mcflcusuwm I m Hmcofluflpmue I 9 Im Eoouwmmao ammo I o IN Ia 105 .manflmcommmmllmm>usm moam>IImmsouo Had mo Hmpuo xcmm “mm mndmflm s l r r a Y Y t .n h h R o t t t 2 l N “R T mi 0 mi 8 no 7. 6 .NH .HH Ioa ,lIIL Im IIL Is I 1N. L ,rIIIIL .rIIIL To _rIIL. Im Iv mcflcusumm uoz I m .m mcflcusumm I m Hmcofluflpmue I 9 IN Eooummmao ammo I O .H 2 Yrs .HOHQAHOU MHmmlIIwax/Hflm 05HM>IImQSOHU HHAN MO .HmmuHO Mcwm "mm. GHSOHW Yr Total 8th 7th 6th NR 106 mcflcusumm uoz I mcficuoumm HMCOHuHUmuB _ Eooummmao ammo I 09mm 107 and the value survey by value. The study revealed that there were significant differences between the Open class- room and the traditional classroom groups on several of the sub-tests. On the attitude questionnaire, the open classroom groups were consistently higher on all sub-tests except "authoritarian" on which the traditional classroom groups were consistently higher. These findings were discussed in detail in the chapter both by sub-test and by group. The comparison of the combined Open classroom groups with the combined traditional classroom groups showed significant differences in all but "social reSponsi- bility." These results are presented in Table 20 along with individual group differences. The returning - not returning comparison revealed significant differences in all sub-tests with the returning group scoring higher on all sub-tests except "authoritar- ian" as shown in Figure 37. For one and two year groups, no differences were found except on "satisfaction" where the first year group scored significantly higher. These results are shown in Table 20 and in Figure 38. Where differences between Open classroom and tradi— tional classroom groups were obvious and consistent for the attitude questionnaire, such consistency of difference was not found in the value survey where the only consistency was in similarity. Comparisons between groups were discussed in detail by grade and by value in the 108 Ho. H00. H00. mo. coaumufluonusm mo. III xuflaflnflmcommmm amaoom Ho. Ho. Hoo. muwsuo ou magnummood Hoo. mo. mo. mocmummfioo HOGOmuOm Ho. Ho. H00. H00. Ho. cofluommwflumm H00. H00. H00. H00. uGOECOHH>cm mummy N.H mcflcusumm Hmuoe momma m momuw n womuw m Hw>oq wocmpflmcoo OOCOHOMMHQ ucmOflmacmwm om mant .mamuoa paw acacusumm uoz .mcflcudummIIwummulnom Had How OHHMQGOHummoo mpoufluud "hm mmsmflm 109 n w a .1 n .1 l O t r .l e e i n a b 118 c t e t .1 kur Iin c m i S a e a e a n r l n th nt f O O a 0 pt 0 e S r h i P 80 S D. .1 i t c s c rim t V u o e cnu pco a n T A O TSRO TAtO TPCO T S O T E O .H .m i .v .m rm .5 .m .m Ioa .. . ‘N‘II .HH .NH ...-.33. 1!... 73...... .MH ......I. . .3 33.1% IIIL I; ImH ..... .4 0" ---. oW-H :::.cwmo Hmuoe . Hmcowuflpmue I a (xxtmcficuoumm uoz Eooummmao ammo I O IIII mcflcusumm .mamuoe cam .mnmow O39 .Hmmw mco Iumummuunsm Haa you muumccoflummso muspfluua ”mm musmflm 110 Y n t O a .l t n .1 l o t r i e e i n a b .1 C .t e t .1 b l n C m .1 S a a e a n r l n t S n t f O O a O Pr 0 e S r h iiD. nee s P .1 .1 t C 8 ”ch r m .t v u 0 e C t e O a n TA SRO TAOO TPCO TSO TEO Ia an Im .v .m IO 1 h .m Im Ioa IHH F I NH WIN... VII I 3 0|.fi It! 1 VH ‘§-l ..r.»... 00...! e I-.. ......u“ -3 :ruu E::.cmmo Hmuoe rIIL .ma :5... mummy O39 IIIIumm» mco HMCOfluHUMHB I B Eooummmao ammo I o lll chapter and are shown in Table 13 (page 76). The compari- son of the combined open classroom groups with the combined traditional classroom groups showed a difference in rank order of more than three places for "imaginative" only. The returning - not returning comparison showed a difference of more than three places in rank order for "capable," "good looking," "independent," "loving," and "self-control." "Capable," "independent," and "self- control" were rated higher by the returning students and "good looking" and "loving" were rated higher by those students not choosing to return. In the one year - two year comparison, the one year group rated "cheerful," much higher than did the second year group. For the two year group, "imaginative" was rated much higher. The other values showed little difference. A summary graph (Figure 39) provides an overview of the differences in rank order of the values by all groups. 112 Traditional Higher Open Classroom Higher Vi Rmiauql,b Y R T.8 7.6 O>HumaH «EH How Hmm .mm>u5m moam>IInmpuo xcmm :H mmocmHOMMflo Y RHT.8q/ 6 viR T.8.I.6 vianr 8 7.6 mcflxooq boom mcfl>flmuom «. Homummno "mm whomflm viR mi8 7.6 a. wanmmmu 113 n Classroom Hi her .>O>Hsm OOHM>IIHOpHO xcmm GH mmocmHOMMfio "A.U.ucoov mm whomflm vi R T 9.7L6 "Y R T 8.1,0 Vinnmi8 7.£u v. Rminb 7.6 v.puT 8 7 G. v.R T Rllro Traditional Hi her Howucou mamm wanflm: mom ouwHom unwapmno mcH>oq unmocmmmch CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary Open education is an educational approach estab- lished in Britain and growing in the United States. Its advocates claim that Open education promotes positive self-concept, social sensitivity, and other positive social and psychological attitudes. If this is so, students who have functioned well in an Open classroom setting should presumably display characteristics different from their peers in regular classes. The present study is an attempt to determine and measure differences in social-psychological attitudes between students in an Open classroom in Kinawa Middle School, Okemos, Michigan, and students in regular classes in the same school. The concepts of "Open classroom" and "traditional classroom" are made explicit for purposes of the present study by application of the Evans Classroom Observation Rating Scale. Both types of classroom in Kinawa fall within close range of norms established by Evans for open and traditional classrooms in America. A review Of the literature revealed that while philosophical rationale for Open education is abundant, 114 115 solid research is severely limited. Most research projects failed to reveal significant differences between "open" and "traditional" models of education but much of the research undertaken in the name of "Open education" involves an imprecise or even faulty definition of open education. The present study makes use of two instruments-- an attitude questionnaire and a value survey--in order to determine and measure differences in social-psychological attitudes between Open classroom and traditional classroom students in Kinawa Middle School. The Open classroom subjects were all the Open classroom or "School Within a School" students in Kinawa. The traditional classroom subjects were randomly selected from the other classes within the school. The attitude questionnaire and the value survey were administered to all subjects. On the attitude questionnaire, the open classroom groups were consistently higher on all sub-tests except "authoritarian" on which the traditional classroom groups were consistently higher. The comparison of the combined Open classroom groups with the combined traditional classroom groups showed significant differences in all but "social responsibility." The returning - not returning comparison revealed significant differences in all sub-tests with the returning 116 group scoring higher on all sub-tests except "authoritar- ian." For one and two year groups, no differences were found except on "satisfaction" where the first year group scored significantly higher. Consistency of difference was not found in the value survey. Comparison of the combined Open classroom groups with the combined traditional classroom groups showed a difference in rank order of more than three places for "imaginative" only. The returning - not returning comparison showed that the returning students ranked "capable," "independent," and "self control" three or more places higher than did the not returning students. The reverse was true for "good looking" and "loving." In the one year - two year comparison, the one year group rated "cheerful" much higher than did the second year group. For the two year group, "imaginative" was rated much higher. The other values showed little difference. Conclusions Advocates of Open education claim that students who have functioned successfully in the Open classroom setting should display characteristics different from those Of their peers in traditional classes. The present study, in comparing the Open classroom totals with the traditional classroom totals, reveals ll7 significant differences in all sub—tests except "social reSponsibility" and higher ratings by the open classroom students on all sub-tests except "authoritarianism." These results indicate that either the Open classroom experience has a significant influence on the social- psychological attitudes of students, or, that the existence Of a priori attitude differences results in success and satisfaction with the Open classroom. There seems to be a lack of definitive information on which to base a judgment regarding these two possibilities. However, in examining the sixth grade figures it appears that there is no a priori difference except perhaps in "authoritarianism" where the students who selected the Open classroom scored significantly lower, to the .05 level of confidence. Perhaps a test measuring "authoritarianism" would be a predictor of satisfaction and success in an Open classroom environment. Further research is needed to substantiate this suggestion. The value survey failed to reveal any consistent pattern of differences between groups. Perhaps the reason that differences are lacking here and present in the attitude questionnaire lies in the difference between the two instruments. The value survey forces the subject to evaluate the values in relationship to each other rather than to evaluate the importance of each value independently. It is possible on the attitude questionnaire to rate every ll8 value equally high, whereas the value survey forces a last place value. There are more differences between returning and not returning groups on the attitude questionnaire than there are between any of the Open classroom and traditional classroom groups. This is the only comparison that shows significant differences for all sub—tests. The grade comparisons and total comparisons included in the Open classroom groupsIthe students who were not planning on returning, whereas the returning - not returning comparison separated them. In all cases the not returning students scored significantly lower than the returning students, thus lowering the means for the total open classroom groups. The not returning group scores were very much like those of the traditional classroom group (Figure 37, page 109), which may explain their choice of returning to the traditional classroom. Rather than the Open classroom eXperience functioning as a "weeding-out" or "weeding-in" process perhaps it would be less disrupting and upsetting to the students if a valid predictor of open classroom success were devised. This is another indication of the need for further research in this area. Again the value survey failed to reveal any consistent pattern of differences. The one and two year comparison was made in order to determine whether length of time in the open classroom 119 affected the students' attitudes and values. Very little difference was found between the two groups. Both first and second year groups scored on the attitude questionnaire more like the total Open classroom group than the total traditional classroom group-~high on all sub-tests except "authoritarian" (Figure 38, page 110). The only signifi- cant difference shown was on "satisfaction" in which the first year students were measured higher than the second year students. This seems contrary to the expectation of Open classroom educators but should not be cause for concern because the second year students rated "satisfac- tion" high also and it is possible that the difference was due to the Hawthorne effect. It appears that length of time had very little effect on the subjects in the present study. The value survey adds little to the conclusions. Further Research Before any further research in open education is attempted, new devices and techniques must be developed and tested which can adequately measure all aSpects of the affective domain. It is insufficient to reveal the existence of differences in attitudes in Open classroom students. Causes for these differences must also be determined in future research. If Open classroom experience does lead to attitude change, it seems logical that the more time spent by 120 students in the open environment the greater would be the attitude change. This assumption was not borne out in the present study and additional research with more effective instruments is needed to re-examine the assumption. One interesting possibility emerges from the present study. The researcher would like to examine an extension Of the "authoritarian" sub-test to see if it could function as a valid predictor of open classroom success. The "authoritarian" instrument would be admini- stered to incoming Open classroom students and their parents in a longitudinal study to determine the correlation between "authoritarian" scores and satisfaction and success in the Open classroom. A high negative correlation would indicate that this one instrument could be a predictor of Open classroom success. Trial and error selection which sometimes results in frustration and disillusionment for students, parents, and teachers might be alleviated. This sfliould not be used as an exclusive selection procedure but rather as a counselling device. Any arbitrary decision Which eliminates free choice by the student is contrary to the basic concept of Open education. We lack the instrumentation and technology to accurately measure something as complex as human attitudes and values. Perhaps it is not as important to prove open eduCEition superior to traditional education or vice versa, as it is to accept that they are both viable alternatives to le arning . 121 Since this study took place, Kinawa Middle School has developed three learning alternatives from which students, in counsel with parents, can select: 1. A self-contained classroom in which all decisions about what is taught and learned, when and how are made by the teacher. 2. A team-taught block with four teachers and one hundred twenty students in which the students are given a number of options. The decisions are made in a more or less democratic way with input from both students and teachers. 3. An Open classroom, in which the students make the decisions about what will be learned and how and when it will be learned. There is ample evidence that children learn in many ways and in many environments with little conclusive proof that any given method or environment is superior. Any learning alternative which produces happy youngsters, happy teachers, and satisfied parents should be made available. AP PEND ICE S 10. 11. APPENDIX A EVANS CLASSROOM OBSERVATION RATING SCALE no evidence weak infrequent moderate occasional strong frequent evidence Texts and materials are supplied in class sets so that all children may have their own. Each child has a space for his personal storage and the major part of the classroom is organized for common use. Materials are kept out of the way until they are distributed or used under the teacher's direction. Many different activities go on simultaneously. Children are expected to do their work without getting help from other children. Manipulative materials are supplied in great diversity and range, with little replication. The day is divided into large blocks of time within which children, with the teacher's help determine their own routine. Children work individually and in small groups at various activities. Books are supplied in diversity and profusion (includ- ing reference, children's literature). Children are not supposed to move about the room without asking permission. Desks are arranged so that every child can see the blackboard or teacher from his desk. 122 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 123 The environment includes materials develOped by the teacher. Common environmental materials are provided. Children may voluntarily make use of other areas of the building and school yard as part of their school time. The program includes use Of the neighborhood. Children use "books" written by their classmates as part of their reading and reference materials. Teacher prefers that children not talk when they are supposed to be working. Children voluntarily group and regroup themselves. The environment includes materials develOped or supplied by the children. Teacher plans and schedules the children's activities through the day. Teacher makes sure children use materials only as instructed. Teacher groups children for lessons directed at specific needs. Children work directly with manipulative materials. Materials are readily accessible to children. Teacher promotes a purposeful atmOSphere by expecting and enabling children to use time productively and to value their work and learning. Teacher uses test results to group children for reading and/or math. Children eXpect the teacher to correct all their work. Teacher bases his instruction on each individual child and his interaction with materials and equipment. Teacher gives children tests to find out what they know. The emotional climate is warm and accepting. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 124 The work children do is divided into subject matter areas. The teacher's lessons and assignments are given to the class as a whole. To obtain diagnostic information, the teacher closely Observes the specific work or concern Of a child and asks immediate, eXperience-based questions. Teacher bases his instruction on curriculum guides or textbooks for the grade level he teaches. Teacher keeps notes and writes individual histories of each child's intellectual, emotional, physical devel- Opment. Teacher has children for a period of just one year. The class Operates within clear guidelines made explicit. Teacher takes care Of dealing with conflicts and disruptive behavior without involving the group. Children's activities, products, and ideas are reflected abundantly about the classroom. The teacher is in charge. Before suggesting any extension or redirection of activity, teacher gives diagnostic attention to the particular child and his particular activity. The children spontaneously look at and discuss each other's work. Teacher uses tests to evaluate children and rate them in comparison to their peers. Teacher uses the assistance of someone in a suppor- tive, advisory capacity. Teacher tries to keep all children within his sight so that he can make sure they are doing what they are supposed to do. Teacher has helpful colleagues with whom he discusses teaching. Teacher keeps a collection of each child's work for use in evaluating his develOpment. 125 48. Teacher views evaluation as information to guide his instruction and provisioning for the classroom. 49. Academic achievement is the teacher's top priority for the children. 50. Children are deeply involved in what they are doing. Scoring Key for Classroom Observation Rating Scale and Teacher Questionnaire Item 1 2 3 4 Item 1 2 3 4 l 4 3 2 l 26 4 3 2 l 2 l 2 3 4 27 4 3 2 l 3 4 3 2 l 28 l 2 3 4 4 l 2 3 4 29 4 3 2 l 5 4 3 2 l 30 l 2 3 4 6 l 2 3 4 31 4 3 2 l 7 l 2 3 4 32 4 3 2 l 8 l 2 3 4 33 l 2 3 4 9 1 2 3 4 34 4 3 2 l 10 4 3 2 l 35 l 2 3 4 ll 4 3 2 l 36 l 2 3 4 12 l 2 3 4 37 l 2 3 4 l3 1 2 3 4 38 4 3 2 l 14 l 2 3 4 39 l 2 3 4 15 l 2 3 4 40 l 2 3 4 16 l 2 3 4 41 l 2 3 4 l7 4 3 2 l 42 l 2 3 4 l8 1 2 3 4 43 4 3 2 1 l9 1 2 3 4 44 l 2 3 4 20 4 3 2 l 45 4 3 2 l 21 4 3 2 l 46 l 2 3 4 22 l 2 3 4 47 l 2 3 4 23 l 2 3 4 48 l 2 3 4 24 l 2 3 4 49 4 3 2 l 25 l 2 3 4 50 l 2 3 4 APPENDIX B INSTRUMENTS Attitude Questionnaire Draw a line through the number under the answer on the answer sheet that agrees best with the way you believe or feel for each question. Example: I prefer nine week terms to semesters. Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree 1 2 3 4 Environment l. The books and equipment needed or wanted are available in the classroom. 2. The students enjoy their classwork. 3. There is a lot of bickering among the class members. 4. The better students' questions are more sympathetically answered than those of the average students. 5. Every member Of the school enjoys the same privileges. Satisfaction 1. There are long periods during which the class does nothing. 2. Students who break the rules are penalized. 3. Most classes have rules to guide their activities. 126 127 4. I am usually happy these days. 5. I am satisfied with school the way it is. Personal Competence l. I have always felt pretty sure my life would work out the way I wanted it to. 2. I seem to be the kind of person that has more bad than good luck. 3. I never have any trouble making up my mind about important decisions. 4. I have always felt that I have more will power than most peOple have. 5. There's not much use for me to plan ahead because there's usually something that makes me change my plans. Acceptabiligy to Others l. PeOple are quite critical of me. 2. PeOple seem to reSpect my Opinion about things. 3. Most people seem to understand how I feel about things. 4. I feel that I'm as good as anyone else. 5. I feel there are a lot of things about me that are good. Social Responsibility 1. It is no use worrying about unfair treatment in school affairs; I can't do anything about them anyway. 2. Every person should give some of his time for the good of his school, town, or country. 3. Letting your friends down is not so bad because you can't do good all the time for everybody. 4. It is the duty of each person to do his job the very best he can. 128 5. I feel very bad when I have failed to finish a job I promised I would do. Authoritarianism 1. Obedience and respect for parents and teachers are the most important things children should learn. 2. One main trouble today is that peOple talk too much and work too little. 3. An insult to our honor should never go unpunished. 4. What youth needs most is strict discipline, rugged determination, and the will to work and fight for family and country. 5. There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel a great love, gratitude, and respect for his parents. Value Survey Which qualities would you like for yourself? Arrange the following in order Of importance. Capable, can do things Cheerful, happy, joyful Forgiving, willing to pardon others Good looking, face and build Helpful, willing to help others Imaginative, has good ideas, daring, creative Independent, does things for himself Loving, tender, affectionate Obedient, does as one should, or is told Polite, courteous, well-mannered Responsible, does as he says, reliable Self-control, restrained, responsible for actions BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Barth, Roland 8. "Open Education: Assumptions about Children's Learning," in Charles H. Rathbone, Open Education. New York, New York: Citation Press, 1971. , and Rathbone, Charles H. Bibliography of Open Education. Cambridge, Mass.: EducaEIOn DevelOpment Center, Newton, Mass., 1971. Berkowitz, L., and Lutterman, K. "The Traditionally Socially Responsible Personality." Public Opinion Quarterly 32 (1968): 169-185. Best, John W. Research in Education. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1959. Bills, R. E. Manual Index of Adjustment and Values: Adult and High School Seniors. Alabama: University of Alabama, College of Education, 1951. Blom, Frank 8. "Learning Alternatives: A School within a School." Unpublished paper. Okemos, Michigan: 1970. Brown, B. Frank. The Nongraded High School. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., and Stokes, D. E. The American Voter. New York: Wiley, 1960. Evans, Judith T. Characteristics of Open Education: Results from a Classroom Observation Rating Scale and a Teacher Questionnaire. Newton, Mass.: Education DevelOpment Center Incorporated, 1971. Fey, W. F. "Acceptance by Others and Its Relation to Acceptance of Self and Others: A Revaluation." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50 (1955):274¥276. Glasser, W. Schools without Failure. New York, New York: Harper and Row, 1969. 129 130 Goodlad, J. I. "Meeting Children Where They Are." Saturday Review, 48 (March 20, 1965): 57-74. Hearn, D. Dwain. Current Research and Perspectives in Open Education. Washington, D. C.: Office Of Child DevelOpment, Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, May 1972. Hoffman, Jim, and Tower, Phyllis. "A Bibliography for the Free School Movement." Summerhill Society Bulletin (October 1969): 65-67. Howard, Norma K. Open Education: An Abstract Bibliog- raphy. Urbana, Illinois: Eric Clearinghouse on Early Childhood Education, March 1973. Kallet, Anthony. "Two Classrooms," in Charles H. Rathbone, Open Education. New York, New York: Citation Press, 1971. Kohl, Herbert. Reading: How To. New York, New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 1973. Kohler, P. Terrence. "A Comparison of Open and Traditional Education: Conditions that Promote Self Concept." Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, March 1, 1973. McPartland, James. Student Reactions to the Transition from Open Elementary School to Junior High School: A Case Study. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University, 1972. MetrOpolitan Toronto School Board. Bibliogrgphy on Research and Evaluation of Informal Education. Toronto: March, 1972. Moyer, Frank H. A Comprehensive Bibliography of Open Education and Open Space Schools-~A Reader's Guide. Plainfield, New Jersey: December 1972. Nation's Schools. "Open Education: BibliOgraphy: Books, Films, Suggested Resource People," May 1971. New Schools Exchange Newsletter. "A Bibliography." Toronto: Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1971. President's Commission on National Goals. Goals for Americans. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1960. 131 Rathbone, Charles H., ed. Open Education. New York, New York: Citation Press, 1971. Remacle, Leo Felix. "A Comparative Study of the Differ- ences in Attitudes, Self-Concept, and Achievement of Children in Graded and Nongraded Elementary Schools." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Dakota, 1970. Robinson, John R., and Shaver, Philip R. Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1969. Rogers, C. R. Freedom to Learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill PublIShing Company, 1970. Rokeach, M. Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. San Francisco: Jassey-Bass, Inc., 1968. Sackett, J. "A Comparison of Self-Concept and Achievement of Sixth Grade Students in an Open Space School, Self-Contained School and Departmentalized School." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1971. Sewell, Alan F., and Dornseif, Allan W. "Controlled Multivariate Evaluation of Open and Traditional Education at the Junior High School Level." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, March 1973. Schulman, L. "Evaluation of SWS." East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1972. Sears, Pauline. "Self Concept Inventory," in P. Terence Kohler, "A Comparison of Open and Traditional Education: Conditions that Promote Self-Concept." Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, March 1, 1975. Walberg, Herbert J., and Thomas, Susan. Characteristics of Open Education Toward an Operational Definition. Report for Educational DevelOpment Center Pilot Communities Program. Newton, Massachusetts, p. 70. Wrightsman, L. 8., Nelson, R. H., and Taranto, M. EEO Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Children's School Morale. Nashville, Tennessee: Goerge Peabody College for Teachers, 1968.