AN ASSESSMENT OF ATTITIIDEs
EXPRESSED TOWARD INSTRUCTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT BY THREE GROUPS. , . A
A3 A FUNCTION or (1) TEACHING LEVEL
AND (2) SEX. ’ j '

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
SIGRID ANN TROMBLEY
1 9 7 2

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
Ml ASSESSZ‘JTTL‘IT CF ATTITUDES
EXPRESSED TCI'II‘IRD INSTRUCTIOTTAL
DEVELOPl-TET’IT BY THREE GROUPS
AS A FUNCTION CF (1) TEACHING LEVEL
AND (2) 33X
presented by

 

SIGRID ANN TRCMBLEY

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for I

Ph.D. degreein Secondary Education

and Curriculum

 

Date: June 9, 1972

 

 

C ‘......- " (3‘4? <3

1",

I 13 "W5

 

 

ABSTRACT
AN ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES EXPRESSED TOWARD
INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT BY THREE

GROUPS AS A FUNCTION OF
(1) TEACHING LEVEL AND (2) SEX

BY
Sigrid Ann Trombley

The purpose of this study was to determine the difference
in expressed attitudes toward instructional development be-
tween males and females, and between elenentary and secondary
school teachers and administrators.

The pOpulation for this study consisted of 31 participants
in an Instructional Development Institute (IDI), 46 students
enrolled winter term, 1972, in the Education 831A course in
educational media at Michigan State University, and a group of
33 educators from the East Lansing Public School System.

IDI participants (teachers, administrators, policy makers, and
specialists) had taken part in a 40—hour program designed to
provide them with initial competencies and skills in applying
an instructional systems approach to the develOpment of solu—
tions to teaching and learning problems. Education 831A is a
graduate level course which provides the students with formal
exposure to the instructional deve10pment concept. The control

group of educators from the East Lansing Public School System

Sigrid Ann Trombley

had had no formal exposure to the instructional develOpment
concept.

Prior to the administration of the modified instrument
to the population used in this study, the original 50—item
Likert-type instrument, Attitude Toward Instructional Develop—
m§§t_was given as a pre-test to 43 students enrolled in
Education 831A at Michigan State University during the fall
term of 1971. The original instrument was modified according
to procedures of Guttman Scalogram Analysis and was found to
be unidimensional.

Univariate analyses of variance were used to determine
the differences which existed across and within the three
groups as a function of teaching level and also of sex.
Hypotheses were tested at the .05 level.

Data analysis supports the following conclusions:

.1. The attitude toward instructional develOpment of
administrators at the K—8 level was significantly more posi-
tive than the attitude of administrators at the 9-12 level.

2. No significant difference in attitude toward instruc—
tional develOpment was found between teachers at the K-8 level
and teachers at the 9-12 level when compared irrespective of
groups. When attitude toward instructional development of
teachers at the K-8 level was compared to the attitude of
teachers at the 9-12.1evel with respect to the groups the

teachers were in, one group showed a significant difference.

Sigrid Ann Trombley

Teachers at the 9—12 level in the control group had signifi-
cantly more positive attitudes than did teachers at the K—8
level.

3. No significant difference in attitude toward instruc-
tional development was found when males and females were
compared irrespective of groups. When the attitude toward
instructional develOpment of males was compared to that of
females with respect to the groups the individuals were in,

no significant difference was found.

AN ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES EXPRESSED TOWARD
INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT BY THREE
GROUPS AS A FUNCTION OF

(1) TEACHING LEVEL AND (2) SEX

BY
Sigrid Ann Trombley

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1972

, o ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The "thank yous" expressed here hOpefully will go beyond
my dissertation as it is only a single part of a doctoral pro—
gram to which many peOple have contributed.

To my doctoral committee: Dr. Elwood E. Miller, Chairman,
Dr. Curt McCarty, Dr. Walter Hapkiewicz, and Dr. Gerald Duffy.
Thanks especially to Walt for being willing to read the rough
drafts, suggest changes, and answer questions. His help and
positive feedback were greatly appreciated. In Gerry I've
seen a truly fine teacher--and I've grown from the experience.
Thanks to him for contributing to a rewarding internship.

To Dr. Witt, Director of the institute, for his concern.

To Drs. Marvin Duncan and Dick Boutelle for their patience
and help.

To my fellow graduate students from whom I've learned
much and who have never failed to lend a helping hand.

To Carolyn I. Whitenack of Purdue University for encour-
aging me to work on a doctorate.

To Phyllis Paquette for heIp with the typing, but more
importantly for her unfailing friendship, faith, and under-
standing. It is hoped that she will somehow understand the
gratitude that I cannot adequately express.

And to my parents and brother for their pride in my
accomplishments.

 

ii

CHAPTER

II.

III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . .

 

THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . .

Purpose of the Study.

Need for the Study. . .
Definitions . . . . . .
Theory and Rationale. .
Hypotheses to be Tested

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .

The Attitude Concept. .
Attitude Measurement. .

Guttman Scalogram Analysis

Attitude and Behavior .

Attitude and the Variables of

ing Level. . . . . .

DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . . .

Introduction. .
The POpulation.
Procedure . . .
Instrumentation . . .
Experimental Procedures
Hypotheses. . . . . . .
Analysis. . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . .

iii

and

Page

. v
. vi
1

l

. l
. 4
. 6
23

25

. 25
. 30
. 44
51

. 56
6O

. 6O
6O

61

. 62
. 63
. 64
65

. 66

TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued

CHAPTER
IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS. . . .
Analysis Of Attitudinal
Statistical Analysis. .
Summary . . . . . . . .
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. .
Conclusions . . . . . .
Discussion of Results .
Recommendations . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES

A. Attitude Toward Instructional DevelOpment

Scale . . . . . . . . .

B. Attitude Toward Instructional Development,

Modified Scale. . . . .

iv

Page
67
67
68
82
84
85
86
87

89

95

101

8.

9.
10.
11.
12.

LIST OF TABLES

Analysis of variance for attitude: administra-
tors by level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance for attitude: teachers by
level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance for attitude: teachers
(IDI) by level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cell means for sub-hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c by
group and level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance for attitude: teachers
(831A) by level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance for attitude: teachers
(control) by level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance for attitude: sex. . . .

Cell means for sub—hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c by
group and sex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance for attitude: sex (IDI). .
Analysis of variance for attitude: sex (831A) .
Analysis of variance for attitude: sex (control)

Hypotheses and sub-hypotheses tested, F statis-
tic, and significance probability. . . . . . . .

Page

69

7O

72

73

74

75

77

78
79
80

83

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page

1. Hamreus MinieModel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

vi

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine the difference
in expressed attitudes toward instructional development (I.D.)
between males and females, and between elementary and secondary

teachers and administrators.

Need for the Study

Rogers defines an innovation as "an idea, practice, or
object perceived as new by an individual."1 As far as human
behavior is concerned it does not much matter if the innova-
tion is new as measured by the passage of time since its first
use or discovery. What matters in terms of an individual's
reaction to an idea is his perception of the newness of the
idea.

"New" in an innovative idea need not be simply new knowl-

edge. An innovation might be known by an individual for

some time (that is, he is aware of the idea), but he has

not yet develoPed a favorable or unfavorable attitude

toward it, nor has he adapted or rejected it. The
"newness" aspect of innovation'may be expressed in

 

1Everett M. Rogers with F. Floyd Shoemaker, Communication
of Innovations (New York: The Free Press, 1971), p. 19.

knowledge, in attitude, or regarding a decision to use
it.

Knowing about a "new" idea, an innovation, and using it
are quite different matters. Most peOple know about many
innovations which they have not adapted. In making a decision
to adept or reject an innovation, an individual goes through
an innovation—decision process. The innovation-decision
process is defined as:

... the mental process through which an individual

passes from first knowledge of an innovation to a

decision to adOpt or reject and to confirmation of

this decision.3

Everett Rogers4 suggests that there are four steps or
functions in this process: knowledge, persuasion, decision,
and confirmation. The knowledge function occurs when an
individual becomes aware of the existence of an innovation
and acquires some understanding of how it functions. Mental
activity at this stage is mainly cognitive. The persuasion
function takes place when an individual forms either a favor-
able or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation. Mental
activity during this stage is primarily affective. Activities
which lead to a choice to adapt or reject the innovation are
engaged in during the decision function. During the confirma-

tion function, an individual seeks reinforcement for the

innovation—decision he has made.5

 

21bid., p. 19.
3Ibid., p. 25.
“Ibid., p. 25.
5Ibid., p. 25.

Since attitudes toward an innovation intervene between
the knowledge and decision functions, they can greatly influ-
ence the manner in which an individual passes through the
innovation-decision process.

Consideration of a new idea does not pass.beyond the

knowledge function if the individual does not define

the information as relevant to him or if he does not

seek sufficient knowledge to become adequately informed

so that persuasion can take place.6
Attitudes may prevent an individual from ever getting to the
decision function of the innovation-decision process or at
the very least they will affect the time it takes to go through
the process.

Since the role of a change agent is that of influencing
innovation-decisions,7 knowledge of a client's attitude toward
an innovation can help the change agent devise strategies most
likely to bring about adOption in the shortest period of time.

In education circles, one of the peOple who functions as
a change agent is the instructional develOper. Through ad0p-
tion of the innovation instructional development the instruc—
tional develOper hOpes to help those who adOpt and engage in
the instructional develOpment process to bring about systematic
changes in instruction which will result in more effective and
efficient student learning. If he is to function successfully

as a change agent, knowledge of the attitudes of the pe0ple he

works with is crucial to the efforts of the instructional

 

61bid., p. 103.
71bid., p. 227.

developer. According to Rogers, failure to look at attitudes
is one reason change programs fail. Change agents must have
'knowledge of their client's attitudes (among other things) if
programs of change are to be tailored to fit the clients.8

A study of attitudes toward instructional development
could provide 1) baseline data for further research, 2) in-
formation useful for devising change agent strategies for
implementing the instructional develOpment process, and
3) information which might be useful for those responsible for

determining the design and content of courses in instructional

development.

-Definitions
Specific terms used in this study are defined as follows:

Ado ion

... is a decision to make full use of a new idea as the
best course of action available.9

Attitude

... the degree of positive or negative affect associ-
ated with some psychological object. A psychological
object means any symbol, phrase, slogan, person, insti—
tution, ideal or idea toward which peOple can differ
with respect to be positive or negative affect.10

 

8Ibid., p. 239.
9Ibid., p. 26.

1°Allen L. Edwards, and Bette C. Porter, "Attitude
Measurement," in The Affective Domain: A Resggrce Book :9;
Media Specialists (Washington, D.C.: Communication Service
Corporation, 1970), p. 117.

Attitude Scale

... a quantitative method for assessing an individual' 5
relative position along a unidimensional attitude con-
tinuum. The direction and intensity of the respondent's
attitude are indicated by a single score which summarizes
his responses to a series of items, each of which is
related1 to the single concept, object, or issue under
study.1

Change Agent

....is a professional who influences innovation-decisions
in a direction deemed desirable by a change agency.

Formative Evaluation

... the use of systematic evaluation in the process of
curriculum construction, teaching and learning for the
purpose of improving any of these three processes.13

Guttman Scale

The Guttman scale, sometimes called the cumulative

scale,

... consists of a relatively small set of homogeneous
items that are unidimensional. A unidimensional scale
measures one variable and one variable only. The scale
gets its name from the cumulative relation between items
and the total scores of individuals.

Innovation

... is an idea, practice, or object perceived as new
by an individual.1

 

~ 11Ibid., p. 123.
12Rogers, op. cit., p. 227.
11Benjamin S. Bloom, J. Thomas Hastings, and George F.
Madaus, Handbook of Formative and Summative Evaluation of
Student Learning (New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1971), p. 117.

1‘Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundationg of Behavioral Research
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964), p. 485.

15Rogers, Op. cit., p. 19.

Innovation-decigion Process

... is the mental process through which an individual
passes from first knowledge of an innovation to adOpt
or reject and to confirmation of this decision.16

Instructional,Development

... systematic process of designing, carrying out, and
evaluating the learning and teaching process based on

research in learning theory and communication and com-
bining both human and non—human resources in an effort
to bring about more effective learning.1

Instructional Developer

... is an innovationdminded individual who functions as
a catalyst for bringing about more effective and effi-
cient learning through the improvement of instruction.
He is a specialist in the techniques and resources in-
volved in improving instruction.

§gmmative Evaluation

... the type of evaluation used at the end of a term,
course, or program for ... evaluation of progress, or
research on the effectiveness of a curriculum, course
of study, or educational plan ... the essential char-
acteristic of summative evaluation is that a judgment

is made about the ... curriculum with regard to the ef-
fectiveness of learning or instruction, after the learn—
ing or instruction has taken place.18

Theory and Rationale
This study is concerned with attitudes toward instruc-
tional develOpment expressed by selected individuals as a

function of the variables of sex and teaching level. In this

 

16Rogers, op. cit., p. 25.

17To Improve Learning: A Report to the President and
the Congress of the United Stateg (Washington, D.C.: By the
Commission Office, 1970), p. 5.

1eBloom, Hastings, and Madaus, op. cit., p. 117.

section are presented some dimensions of instructional develOp-
ment, the relationship between attitudes and behavior, and the
relationship of attitudes to the variables of sex and teaching

level.

Iggtrggtional Development

For some time now educators from such diverse areas as
media, educational psychology and curriculum have been aware
of the need to develop more effective and efficient instruc—
tional strategies which would lead to greater student learning.
Awareness of this need has led to the emergence of a concept
known as instructional development. Instructional development
is the phrase most often given to the concept. It has, however,
at various times been described by such terms as: instructional
systems development,19 the systems approach to instructional
development,2° instructional design,21 and a system approach

to education.22

 

19John Barson, A Procedural Analysis Study of Media in
Instructionalisystems Development (East Lansing: Michigan State
University, 1965).

20Dale Hamreus, "The Systems Approach to Instructional
Development," in The Contribution of Behavioral Science to
Instructional Technology, edited by Jack V. Edling (Monmouth,
Oregon: Teaching Research Division of the Oregon State
System of Higher Education), undated.

 

21Robert Glaser, "Educational Technology as Instructional
Design," Educational Technology, VIII (January 15, 1968), 5.

. 22Roger A. Kaufman, "A System Approach to Education:
Derivation and Definition," Audiovisual Communication Reyigy.
XVI (Winter, 1968), 415.

Just as there have been various attempts to give the con-
cept a name, there also have been several attempts to define
the concept instructional development. Gustafson defines it
as:

... a process for improving the quality of instruction.

For this is, or should be its goal. .Its objective is

to combine a variety of human and.non—human resources in

an effective and efficient instructional system.23

Hamreus considers instructional development to be:

... a systematic process of bringing relevant instruc-
tional goals into effective learning activity.24

According to Paris, instructional develOpment is:
... the process of designing, of inventing, of creating
solutions to instructional problems encountered by
teachers in a relatively localized situation.25
The following definition appears to be an amalgamation
of the aforementioned definitions. It is the definition used
in this study and though appearing in the glossary of terms is

repeated here for the convenience of the reader. Instructional

develOpment is:

 

23Kent L. Gustafson, Toward A Definition of Instructional
Develogment. A paper presented to the Instructional DevelOp-
ment Division: Association for Educational Communications and
Technology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 1971, p. 1.

2‘Dale Hamreus, Toward A Definition of Instructional
Deyglopment. A paper presented to the Instructional DevelOp—
tnent Division: Association for Educational Communications and
frechnology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March, 1971, p. 1.

25Gene Faris, "Faculty Development ... The Key to Instruc-
tional Development," Viewpoints Bulletin of the School of
Education Indiana University, LXVI (March, 1970), 131.

... a systematic process of designing, carrying out,

and evaluating the learning and teaching process based

on research in learning theory and communication and

combining both human and non-human resources in an
effort to bring about more effective learning.28

All four definitions consider instructional development
to be a process. Further, they either state directly or at
least infer that the process is engaged in to facilitate
learning under the most efficient conditions.

There are many models for carrying out the instructional
develOpment process. A description of the Hamreus Mini Model
(see Figure 1) has been chosen for inclusion in this section
not because it is necessarily the best but because it contains
or at least alludes to the essential elenents of the instruc-

tional develOpment process. Still further, it should be

pointed out that there is no generic model for instructional

develOpment.

Description ofythe Components of:the
Hamreus Mini Model
§g§_A_Define Prdblem

At this stage the nature of the problem and the setting
within which it has emerged are analyzed. More specifically,
reasons which caused the problem to be felt, persons associ-
ated with the problem, characteristics of learners, resource

materials available and constraints are considered.

 

”WNW ..., 0p. cit., p. 5.

10

.oca..m =.ucoemoao>on chowuuouumcH ou nomoummé mamummm one: .msouewm mamnkw

N.~._nomvoz flaws mooHEME

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m m G
coaumsHm>m
oaohoom
can DUOINHB omwuoooum
mmapoz ommuououm moHo>oQ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.H ousmfim
U m Aw
monommoz
QOGMEEOMHom
muco>m uosuumcoo
4
capo: _ uo>auuonno _
_ Hmuoa>mnom _ coauwcamoa
moamoumnum _ oceanouoo _ Emanoum
_ _
_ _
_ _

11

Box B Determine Objectives and Performance Measures

The first step of Box B involves the writing of behavioral
Objectives for every behavior the instructor wishes the learner
to acquire. The second step concerns the develOpment of evalu-

ation procedures which measure the behaviors identified.

Box C Determine Strategies, Media and Events

At this stage one chooses strategies for selecting and
presenting subject matter content, media to be used, and
activities which bring about the interactions of learners,
teacher, and materials which in turn bring about the desired

learning outcomes.

Box D DevelOp Prototype
Output from Box C provides specifications for developing
whatever is necessary for employing the new instructional

prototype.

Box E Prototype Try-Out and EValuation
At this stage, the instructional prototype is tried out
and evaluated with representative learners in a realistic

instructional situation.

BM Modify and Recycle

After the prototype has been evaluated, it is modified to
account for the weaknesses which were identified in Box E.
The modified program is retried and evaluated and the whole
process repeated until those involved are satisfied with the

outcomes.

12

Note that although the elements are drawn in separate
boxes, they are not discrete entities. All elements are
interdependent and interrelated. The importance of the estab—
lishment of a communication flow within and among all elements
cannot be overemphasized. Evaluative feedback is essential.
While summative evaluation is specifically indicated in the
model, formative evaluation is just as essential. All the
steps along the way can be evaluated and modified in light of
information derived at any time or place the process is being
carried out.

The instructional development process is not linear.

Thus, there is no predetermined sequence of steps and point

of entry into the process may be at any point deemed desirable.
Perhaps the chief value of using a model is to assure that
'when a full scale instructional develOpment project is
attempted all steps or design elements are at least considered.

An instructional develOpment model is universal only in
a general way. This is desirable as consideration of condi—
tions and restraints in a specific situation are more important
than is slave—like adherence to the steps in a particular model.

Rather than being tied to a particular discipline,
instructional development can and does take what is useful
from many disciplines.28 “Since instructional development is

eclectic it seems logical that the process would best be

 

28Gustafson, 0p. cit., p. 2.

13

carried out by a team of people. The team approach is one
reason that instructional development is potentially so
powerful. A group of individuals, with varying talents, and
using a systematic approach can do what no individual can do
regardless of how willing he might be. Wittz9 suggests that
some of the areas of professional competency needed on an
instructional develOpment team include: learning psychology,
human growth and develOpment, teaching, curriculum, communi-
cation, print and non-print media, instructional technology,
research, evaluation and instructional design.

However, merely assembling a group of peeple with diverse
competencies to engage in instructional deve10pment will not
assure success. .Human factors must be considered. An in-
formal study of ESEA Title III Projects in Michigan notes
that teachers and administrators who are involved in ESEA
Title III Projects look upon human factors as more crucial to
curriculum change than non-human or material factors. Humans
are the most commonly noted Obstacles to and facilitators of
educational change.30

Until recently, the human factors, as they relate to

instructional development, have not been given very much

 

29Paul W. F. Witt, Instructional Development: What?
Why? How? Who?, Paper presented at the Symposium on Instruc-
tional Development, Michigan State University, May 3, 1971,
p. 16.

30Peggy L. Miller, "Innovation and Change in Education,"
Educational Leadership, XXVII (January, 1970), 339.

 

14

attention. Witt,31 while recognizing that interpersonal
relations and group dynamics are-vitally important to group
efforts such as instructional development is, notes that
leaders in instructional development have not paid as much
attention to these factors as they have to the process of
designing instruction.
Gustafson also speaks to the pe0ple aspect of the in-
structional develOpment process.
Without doubt the most important element of the ID
system is peOple. Peeple are its energy, its insight,
its product and its consumer. To engage in ID is to
change peOple.32
He goes on to warn that continued neglect of human factors will
result in more and more of what he calls "ID casualties".
I have seen too many examples of faculty members begged,
bribed, cajoled, and wheedled through an ID project
from which a fine product emerged.... He [the faculty
member} is proud of his product as is the returning war
veteran of his purple heart but neither wishes to return
to the battle.3
Even though the project was a success in terms of the product
which emerged, it should prdbably be considered a failure since
the faculty member will more than likely have a negative atti-
tude toward instructional development and not wish to engage
in it again.
In dealing with the human factor or pe0ple aspect of in—

structional deve10pment, it seems important that peOples'

attitudes toward instructional develOpment be assessed as

 

31Witt, op..cit., p. 16. .
32Gustafson, 0p. cit., p. 6.
33Ibid., p. 7.

15

their attitudes may in large measure determine the nature of
their initial or continued.involvement in instructional

development activities.

Attitude and Behavior
The concept of attitude and its relationship to behavior
have long been concerns of social psychologists. However,
there have been relatively few studies which attempted to
systematically look at this relationship. The studies which
have attempted to predict behavior from some measure of atti-
tude have generally found a lack of correspondence between
actual behavior and expressed attitudes. In fact, Fishbein
states that:
After more than seventy-five years of attitude research,
there is still little, if any, consistent evidence sup-
porting the hypothesis that knowledge of an individual's
attitude toward some object will allow one to predict
the way he will behave with respect to the object.34
Because the research findings are inconsistent some authors
question the assumption that there is a relationship between
behavior and attitudes. Some ascribe the inconsistency of

research findings to the measuring instrument (Cook and-

Sellitz)35; other attribute the definition of attitude

 

34Martin Fishbein, "Attitude and the Prediction of
Behavior," In Fishbein (Ed.) Readings in Attitude Theory and
Measurement (New York: Wiley, 1967), p. 477.

358. W. Cook and C. Sellitz, "A.Multiple-indicator
Approach to Attitude Measurement," Psychological Bulletin,
LXII (July, 1964), 37.

l6

(DeFleur and Westie).36 Still others (Katz and Stotland)37
question the definition of the concept and the measuring

instrument.

Fishbein contends that psychologists have been rather
naive in their attempts to understand and investigate the
attitude-behavior relationship.

More often than not, we have attempted to predict some

behavior from‘some measure of attitude and found little

or no relationship between these variables. Yet, rather

than questioning our basic assumption that there is a

strong relationship between attitude and behavior, we

have tended to blame our failures on our measuring
instruments, on our definition of attitude, or on both.38

Two studies frequently mentioned as evidence of the in-
consistency of findings concerning the relationship of attitude
to behavior are those done by LaPiere,39 and by Kutner g; gi.4°
These studies revealed discrepancies among restaurant-owners
and innkeepers between verbal expressions of discrimination

toward Chinese and Blacks via letter or phone and their nondis-

criminatory face-to-face behavior.

 

35M. DeFleur and F. Westie, ”Attitude as a Scientific
Concept,“ Social Forces, XLII (I963), 29.

37D. Katz and E. A. Stotland, "A Preliminary Statement of
Attitude Structure and Change," In Koch (Ed.) Psychology:
A Study of Science, Vol. I, Formulations 0; Person and the
Social Context (New York: McGraw—Hill, 1959), p. 454.

 

38Fishbein,.0p. cit., p. 447.

39R. T. LaPiere, "Attitudes vs. Actions," Social Forceg,
XIII (December, 1934), 230-237.

4°B. Kutner, C. Wilkens, and P. R. Yarrow, "Verbal Atti-
tudes and Overt Behavior Involving Racial Prejudice," Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVII (1952), 649-652.

17

In these as well as some other studies which examined
the relationships between attitudes and behavior, the authors
mention intervening variables as possible explanations for
the discrepancies. The variables most often identified are
situational variables. Because of the recognized influence
of situational variables, some authors have concluded that
behavior is determined not by attitude, but by characteristics
of the situation (e.g., Blumer,41 Raab and Lipset,42 Rose,43
and DeFleur and Westie“).

The need to reconceptualize the relationship between
attitude and behavior rather than abandon the assumption that
there is a relationship has been focused on by Insko,45 and
Jahoda and Warren.46

In the past, Rokeach points out, researchers have

measured attitudes toward objects, across situations rather

 

41H. Blmmer, "Research on Racial Relations in the United
States of America," International Social Science Journal, X
(1958), 427.

‘ZC. Raab and S. M. Lipset, "The Prejudiced Society,“
In Raab (Ed.) American Rage Relations Today (New York:
Doubleday, 1962), p. 31.

43A. M. Rose, "Intergroup Relations vs. Prejudice:
Pertinent Theory for the Study of Social Change,“ Social
Problems, IV (October, 1956),.174.

4“DeFleur and Westie, 0p. cit., p. 28.

‘5C. Insko, Theories of Attitude Change (New York:
Appleton-Century, 1967) .

‘HM. Jahoda and N. Warren (Eds.), Attitudes (Baltimore:
Penguin Books, 1966).

18

than measure attitudes toward situations, across objects.47
The disjunction of attitude toward-situation from attitude
toward-object has "... resulted in a failure to appreciate
that an attitude object is always encountered within some
situation, about which we have an organized attitude."48
Rokeach hypothesizes that behavior can be predicted if one can
measure the attitude toward an object, the attitude toward a
situation and the cognitive interaction between the two.49

Kleijunas,50 in his study, attempted to look at the rela-
tionship between attitudes and behavior in light of Rokeach's
hypothesis about the nature of attitudes and their ability to
predict behavior. Results indicated that attitudes, properly
conceptualized and measured, can be accurate predictors of
behavior.

Remmers asserts that attitudes play an important role in
determining behavior. "The realization is rapidly growing

that attitudes, the way individuals and groups feel about the

various aspects of their world, are probably more determinative

 

47Milton Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1968), p. 118.

48Milton Rokeach, "The Nature of Attitudes," In Sills
(Ed.) International Encyclopedia 0; the SociaiiScienceg,
Vol. 1.(New York: ,Macmillan, 1968). P- 452.

49Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values, 0p. cit.,
p. 136. _

5°Peter T. Kleijunas, Attitude Toward Object and Attitude
Toward Situation as Predictors oinehavior, Unpublished
Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1969.

19

of behavior than mere cognitive understanding of this world."51

Attitudes toward instructional development should at
least reflect behavior though they may not necessarily predict
it. Knowledge of individual's attitudes toward I.D. will hOpe-
fully enable those involved in its diffusion to develOp better
strategies for encouraging educators to engage in it.

At present few studies have been done which have attempted
to assess attitudes toward instructional develOpment. A funda—
mental problem facing those who study attitudes is to ascertain
whether or not questions asked on a given issue have a single

2 An instrument is needed which

meaning for the respondents.5
will assess attitudes toward instructional development along
one and only one dimension. Too often, in the past, Guttman
states "the common tendency has been to plunge into analysis
of data without having a clear idea as to when a single dimen-

sion exists and when it does not."53

Sex and Teaching Level Variables
The literature indicates that there are significant dif—

ferences in the attitudes of teachers and administrators when

 

51H. H. Remmers, Introduction to Opinion and Attitude
Measurement (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954), p. 15.

52Louis Guttman, "The Basis for Scalogram Analysis,"
Reprinted from Studies of Social Psychology in World War II,
Vol. 4 of Measurement and Prediction, Princeton University
Press, 1949. Bobbs-Merrill Reprint Series in the Social
Sciences, Print no. 8-413, p. 60.

53Guttman, 0p. cit., p. 63.

20

their attitudes are assessed with respect to the variables of
sex and teaching level.

Lindgren and Patton,54 found that attitudes toward
children and current educational theory of elementary teachers
were more favorable than were the attitudes of secondary
teachers. They also found that females had more positive
attitudes than males.

vBeamer and Ledbetter55 examined the.Minnesota Teacher
Attitude Inventory scores of 212 graduate students at North
Texas State College. These students were subdivided by sex,
teaching level and experience. Elementary teachers had more
positive attitudes than secondary teachers and females had
more positive attitudes than males.

Leeds,56 using a Teacher—Pupil Inventory, found little
relationship between teacher's attitudes and the variables of
sex, grade level, age. training, experience and subject
taught. Though not statistically significant, the mean scores
of teachers of grades 1—6 were higher than the scores of

teachers of grades 7-12.

 

54H. C. Lindgren and Gladys M. Patton, "Attitudes of High
School and Other Teachers Toward Children and Current Educa-
tional Methodology," California Journal of Educational Research,
IX (March, 1958), 85.

55G. C. Beamer and Elaine W. Ledbetter, "The Relation
Between Teacher Attitudes and Social Service Interest,"
Journal of Educational Research, L (May, 1957), 665.

56Carrol H. Leeds, and Walter w. Cook, "The Construction
and Differential Value of a Scale for Determining Teacher-
Pupil Attitudes," Journal of Experimental Education, XVI
(Decenber, 1949), 159.

21

Wandt57 felt that information for assessing the total
personality would result from the assessment of teacher's
attitudes towards groups contacted in the schools. Findings
from his Teacher Characteristics Study indicated that ele-
mentary teachers had more positive attitudes than did secondary
teachers.

In an NEA58 study, teachers were asked to reveal their
attitudes toward teaching in five ways: 1) by estimating
teaching load, 2) by estimating degree of tension or strain
felt in work, 3) by indicating willingness to again choose
teaching as a career, 4) by identifying sources of professional
satisfaction and encouragement, and 5) by describing any
teaching innovations or experiments initiated during the past
year. More males than females and more secondary teachers than
elementary teachers reported feeling considerable strain.

Women and elementary teachers showed a greater willingness to
again choose teaching as a career.

More than 6,000 teachers in 1,700 schools were involved

in the Teacher Characteristics Study directed by Ryans.59

 

57E. Wandt, "The.Measurement of Teacher's Attitudes
Toward Groups Contacted in the Schools," Journal of Educational
Research, XLVI (October, 1952), 117.

58Research Division NBA The American Public School
Teacher, 1960-61 Personal and Professional Characteristics,
Agsignments, Attitudes, Research Monograph 19632M2, April
1963.

59D. G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers (Washington,
D. C.: American Council on Education, 1960).

22

Data from instruments which assessed attitudes, verbal under-
standings, educational viewpoints, and emotional viewpoints
indicated the following:
1. Attitudes of elementary teachers toward groups
contacted in the school were more positive than
those of secondary teachers.
2. Secondary teachers educational viewpoints were more
traditional while those of elementary teachers were

more permissive.

3. Male teachers were more emotionally stable than
female teachers.

Summary

In most instances, the attitudes of female teachers and
the attitudes of elementary teachers were found to be more
positive than the attitudes of male teachers, and secondary
teachers when their attitudes toward various psychological
objects were measured. Though attitudes toward instructional
develOpment with respect to these variables have yet to be
assessed, the literature indicates that teaching level and sex
are and continue to be important variables to study when
measuring attitudes. Since school personnel involved in in-
structional development are likely to be similar to the groups
studied in the literature previously cited, it seems logical
that these variables should be looked at with regard to in-
structional develOpment attitudes and that significant dif-
ferences are likely to exist between females and males and

between elementary and secondary school teachers.

23

Hypotheses to be Tested

The following hypotheses were generated and tested to

determine the degree of difference in expressed attitudes

which existed between and within the three groups.

1.

Administrators at the K-8 level will exhibit a more
positive attitude toward I.D. than will administrators
at the 9—12 level.

Teachers at the K-8 level will exhibit a more positive
attitude toward I.D. than will teachers at the 9-12
level.

Sub-hypotheses

2a. Teachers in the IDI group at the K-8 level will
exhibit a more positive attitude toward I.D.
than will teachers in the IDIrgroup at the 9-12
level.

2b. Teachers in the 831A group at the K-8 level will
exhibit a more positive attitude toward I.D.
than will teachers in the 831A group at the 9—12
level.

2c. Teachers in the control group at the K-8 level
will exhibit a more positive attitude toward I.D.
than will teachers in the control group at the
9-12 level.

There will be a significant difference in the expressed
attitudes of the three groups as a result of sex.
Females will exhibit a more positive attitude toward
I.D. than will males.

sub-hypotheses

3a. Females in the IDI group will exhibit a more posi—
tive attitude toward I.D. than will the males in
the IDI group.

3b. Females in the 831A group will exhibit a more posi—
tive attitude toward I.D. than will the males in
the 831A group.

3c. Females in the control group will exhibit a more
positive attitude toward I.D. than will males in
the control group.

24

Limitations of the Study

There are specific limitations to this study which must

be considered prior to making interpretations of the findings.

The results of this Study will be generalizable to other

pOpulations only to the extent that other populations are

similar in characteristics to the population used in the

study.
1.

The specific limitations are:

An instrument which may be scalable for a pOpulation
at a given time may at a later time not be scalable.
Conversely, an instrument may not form a scale at
one time but may be found scalable at a later date.

A universe of items may be scalable for one pOpula-
tion of individuals, but not for another.

A universe of items may form a scale for subgroups
of a population, but may not form a scale for the
total population.

The relatively small sample size poses a significant
problem with respect to statistical analysis of the
differences which may exist between subgroups of the
three groups being studied.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The Attitude Concept

 

Thomas and Znaniecki in their study Of peOple in transi—
tion between two cultures first established the concept of
attitude as a central variablerf They considered an attitude
an internalized counterpart of an external Object which'repre-
sented the individual's subjective inclinations to act toward
that object.

.By attitude we understand a process of individual con-1
sciousness which determines real or possible activity of

the individual counterparts of the social value;

activity, in whatever form, is the bond between them.2

To illustrate the common usage of the term, several tradi-
tional definitions Of attitude are included.

We shall regard attitudes here as verablized or verbal-
izable tendencies, dispositions, adjustments toward
certain acts. They relate not to the past nor even prim—
arily to the present, but as a rule to the future....

The "attitude" is primarily a way of being "set" toward
or against things.

 

1George G. Stern, “Measuring Non-cognitive Variables in
Research on Teaching," in Gage (Ed.) Handbook of Research on
Teaching (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1963), p. 403.

2W. I. Thomas and F.“Zhaniecki The Polish Peasant in
Europe, Vol. 1 (Boston: Badger Press, 1918), P. 27.

3G..Murphy and L. B. Murphy, ExperimentaiiSOcial Psychol-
pgy (New York: Harper, 1931), p. 615.

25

26

... a more or less permanently enduring state of readi—
ness of mental organization which predisposes an indi-
vidual to react in a characteristic way to any object
or situation with which it is related.

An enduring learned predisposition to behave5 in a con-
sistent way toward a given class of Objects.5

A relatively enduring system of evaluative, affective
reactions based on and reflecting the evaluative con-
cepts or beliefs which have been learned about the char-
acteristics of a social Object or class of social
Objects.6

An enduring system Of positive or negative evaluations,

emotional feelings, and pro or con action tendencies

with respect to a social Object.7

An attitude is a relatively enduring organization Of

beliefs around an Object or situation predisposing one

to respond in some preferential manner.8

Although more definitions of attitude could be cited, the
above definitions are representative of those found in much of
the literature. The importance Of the attitude concept is

clearly indicated by Allport who states that:

The concept of attitude is probably the most distinctive
and indispensable concept in contemporary American social

 

4H. Cantril, "Attitudes in the Making," Understanding the
Child, IV (1934), 13-14.

5H. B. English and A. C. English, A Comprehensive Dic—
tionary Of Ppyghological and Psychoanalytic Terms: A Guide
to Usage (New York. McKay, 1958). p. 50.

fiMarvin E. Shaw and Jack.M. Wright, Scales for the
Measurement of Attitudes TNew York: tMcGraw-Hill, 1967),

p..3.

7D. Krech, R. S. Crutchfield, and E. L. Ballachey,
Individual in Society (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962), p. 177.

SM. Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudegyand Values, Op. cit.,
p. 112.

27

psychology. No other term appears more frequently in
experimental and theoretical literature.9

Despite the importance and central position of attitude
in social psychology, the concept has been plagued with
ambiguity. As one looks at the various definitions of atti-
tude cited in the literature, it is difficult to determine
what ways the definitions are conceptually different or similar
and more importantly what difference the variations in con-
ceptualization make. As far as attitude measurement is con-
cerned most of the definitions seem to be interchangeable.

Two researchers have even advocated discarding the atti-
tude concept. Doob10 asserts that while socially useful, the
concept has no systematic status as a scientific construct and
should be replaced with such learning theory constructs as
'habit-strength drive, anticipatory responses, etc. Blumer11
believes that the concept should be abandoned because it is
ambiguous and therefore blocks the development of sound social-
psychological theory. These two views are in the minority
however and Rokeach12 predicts that despite its ambiguity the

concept will remain for many years to come. Further, he

 

9Gordon Allport, "Attitudes," In Fishbein (Ed.) Readings
in Attitude Theory and.Measurement (New York: Wiley, 1967),

p..3.

1°LeonardW..Doob, "The Behavior of Attitudes," Psycho—
logical Review, LIV (May, I947),‘lS4-155.

11Herbert Blumer, "Attitudes and the Social Act,"
Social Problems, 111 (October, 1955), 60.

12Rokeach, "The Nature of Attitudes," 0p. cit., p. 453.

28

states that rather than abandon the concept it should continue
to be subjected to critical analysis with the aim of finding
a more precise conceptual and operational meaning.

.In order to analyze the concept of attitude, it is help-
ful to look at some of the characteristics of attitudes. An
attitude is not something that can be observed directly. It
is a psychological concept designating something inside the
individual. Nevertheless, the concept of attitude has some
characteristics which differentiate it from other concepts
which refer to internal states of the individual. Many of the
characteristics are indicated in the previously mentioned
traditional definitions of attitude.

First, attitudes are not temporary states but are rela—
tively stable and enduring once they are formed (Newcomb gt
§;.,13 Sherif and Sherif,H and Rokeachls). Attitudes do of
course change; but once they are formed they acquire a regu-
latory function so that within limits they do not change with
every slight variation in the life of the individual. Second,
attitudes are not inborn. The appearance of an attitude is

dependent upon learning (Sherif and Sherif,16 McGrath17).

 

13T. M. Newcomb, R. H. Turner, and P. E. Converse,
Social Psychology: The Study of7Human Interaction (New York:
Holt, 1965), p. 42. .

14M. Sherif and C. W. Sherif, An Outline of;Socia1 Psy-
chology, Rev. ed. (New York: Harper and Row, 1956), p. 494.

15Rokeach, Beliefs, AttitudesLyand Values, op. cit., p. 112.
16Sherif and Sherif, 0p. cit., p. 494.

17J. E. McGrath, Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction
(New York: Holt, 1964).

29

They are learned through interaction with social objects and
in situations. Third, there is an implied relationship between
the person and the objects (Sherif and Sherif,18 Newcomb §§_
gl.}9).. In other words, attitudes are formed in relation to
identifiable referents such as persons, institutions, Objects
and issues. Fourth, the referent Object has certain charac—
teristics which an individual evaluates when fonming his atti—
tude about the referent Object. The attitudes formed give
rise to motivated behavior (Anderson and Fishbein,2° DoOb,21
Osgood g§_g1.22). Attitude is not behavior, but the predis-
position tO behavior. Fifth, attitudes vary in intensity or
strength along a continuum from positive through neutral to
negative (Krech, gt 31,,23 McGrath,24 Newcomb gt al.25).

The intensity or strength of an attitude becomes greater as
one moves toward either extremity of the continuum from the
neutral point. Last, there are varying degrees of inter-

relatedness among attitudes (Krech gt al.,26 McGrath27).

 

 

18Sherif and Sherif, op. cit., p. 494.

19Newcomb, Turner and Converse, Op. cit., p. 50.

20L. R. Anderson and M. Fishbein, "Prediction of an Atti-
tude from Number, Strength, and Evaluative Aspect of Beliefs
About the Attitude Object: A Comparison of Summation and Con-

gruity Theories," Journal'of Personality and Social Psychology,
II (Septenber, 1965), 437-443.

21Doob, Op. cit., p. 137.

22C. E. Osgood, G. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum, The
Measurement of Meaning (Ufbana: The University of Illinois
Press, 1957).

23Krech, Crutchfield and Ballachey, Op. cit., p. 142.

24McGrath, Op. cit.

30

They are interrelated to the extent they have like valences
or referents. ~Highly interrelated attitudes form subsystems.
The total attitudinal system is formed by the interrelation—

ships Of the subsystems.

Attitude Measurement

 

There are two basic dimensions of attitude which re-
searchers attempt to measure. The first is the direction of
an individual's feelings toward a psychological Object: either
positive or negative, favorable or unfavorable. The second is
the magnitude of the feeling.

One of the earliest attempts at applying psychological
test construction techniques to the development of attitude
questionnaires was made by G. B. Watson in 1925. His
"fairmindedness" test was an attempt to measure prejudice on
12 different issues related to religious and political beliefs.
This test exemplifies a multimethod design which provides a
variety of ways to sample each attitude. By providing a number
Of ways to sample attitude, the likelihood that the total score
will be a reliable measure of a generalized Opinion is in-

creased.

 

25Newcomb, Turner and Converse, Op. cit., p. 48.
26Krech, Crutchfield, and Ballachey, Op. cit., p. 217.

27McGrath, Op. cit.

31

Recognition of a need for Objective measurement instru—
ments that could be administered to large groups of peOple
led to the development of attitude scaling techniques. They
are technically superior to questionnaires and provide a
method of determining an individual's relative position along
a continuum. A single score, summarizing his responses to a
series of items, indicates the direction and magnitude of the
individual's attitude.

Because the purpose of an attitude scale is to identify
direction of and differentiate between varying intensities of
attitudes, items must be included which reflect the total
range of feelings from very favorable, through neutral, to
very unfavorable toward the object being measured. Obviously
if a statement is as likely to be endorsed by a person with a
positive attitude as with a negative attitude, the statement
will not differentiate and should not be included.

Generally speaking there have been two major approaches
used to develop attitude scales. The method of equal-appearing
intervals, associated with Louis L. Thurstone, involves the
use of a judging group to Obtain scale values for the items.
The method of summated ratings depends upon the responses of
agreement or disagreement given by a pilot group of subjects
to the original pool of itens. There is no attempt to give
scale values to the items. Likert-type scales, named after
the originator of the summated rating method of scale con—

struction are the most widely known.

32

The main purpose of Thurstone's technique is to divide
the continuum between extremes in attitude by building an
attitude scale with equal-appearing intervals. For example
one might be measuring attitudes toward abortion. The most
favorable item on the scale might be, "Abortion for any reason
whatsoever should be permitted in all states." The least
favorable statement might be ”Persons convicted for performing
abortions should be imprisoned for life." The remaining items
in the scale constructed using the Thurstone technique should
be chosen so as to equally divide the psychological range be-
tween those two extremes. The procedure for constructing and

8 First a

administering a Thurstone scale-is as follows;2
large number of statements are collected which express an Opin—
ion about the attitude object in question (100 statements or
more are usually used). These statements should be as unam-
abiguous as possible, and should cover the entire continuum of
attitude toward the object from extreme favorableness to
extreme unfavorableness.

The attitude statements are then given to a large number
of judges (it's usually desirable to have a hundred or more)
who are instructed to sort the statements into eleven piles in
such a way that the Opinions the piles represent seem to be

‘spaced along a continuum at intervals which are, in his Opinion

equal. The pile at one end will contain the statements which

 

28Remmers, Op. cit., pp. 87-90.

33

express an extremely favorable attitude toward the Object;
while the pile at the other end contains the statements which
express an extremely unfavorable attitude. The middle or sixth
pile is for statements which express a neutral attitude.

Distributions are tabulated.for each statement showing
the frequency with which it appeared in each of the eleven
categories. The median and 0 (distance between the 25th and
75th percentile points) are determined and serve as criteria
for building the attitude scale. The median judgment for an
item is taken as the scale value for that item. The statistic
0 serves as a measure of fault in the statement. The smaller
the Q, the more closely in agreement were the judges about the
position of a statement along the continuum. If the Q is
large, relative disagreement among the judges and unsuitability
for use in the attitude scale-is indicated.

The attitude scale is now built up by choosing a number
of statements with low Q-values whose scale values represent
all eleven places along the continuum. A subject whose atti—
tude is to be measured is instructed to read each statement and
check each one he would endorse as expressing his Opinion and
attitude. The subject's attitude score is the mean or median
of the scale values of the statements he checked. If a scale
had perfect internal consistency and the items were perfectly
reliable, the subject would check only statements within a very
narrow range on the scale where his true attitude fell. In
practice this does not generally occur as the statements do not

have the same scale values for every individual tested.

34

While the purpose of the Thurstone technique was to
divide the total range of the attitude continuum into equal—
appearing intervals, Likert was concerned with the unidimen-
sionality of the measure.

The method of summated ratings or the Likert technique
applies item analysis procedures borrowed from test construc-
tion techniques to attitude-scaling. The procedure is as
follows.29

First a large number of statements are collected which
refer directly to the attitude Object or in the Opinion of
the investigator are related to the attitude to be measured.

The items are put in the form of a questionnaire with

each item being given multiple response categories Of strongly
agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree.
The questionnaire should be constructed so that for about half
of the statements an "agree” response represents favorableness
toward the attitude object and for the other half a "disagree"
response~represents-favorableness.

The experimental instrument is administered to a large
group of subjects (generally 100 or more) who are asked to
indicate their own attitude toward each item by marking the
response which most nearly expresses their feeling on that iten.
Arbitrary weights (l,2,3,435) are assigned to the five response

categories so that the highest weight always tends toward one

 

29Remmers, Op. cit., pp. 94-95.

35

end of the attitude continuum. A subject's score is the sum
of the weights assigned to the responses he made.

Next the items are analyzed for their power to discrimi-
nate with respect to the measurement of the attitude in
question. This may be done by any one Of a number of iten-
analysis procedures. The simplest is to take the tOp and
bottom 10 percent (or 27 percent or any other percent) of sub-
jects on the distribution of total scores and calculate the
mean of the responses to each item for each of the two groups
of subjects. The items which show the greatest discrepancy
in mean response between the high and low groups are the
items which most highly discriminate. More sensitive indices
of item discriminating power can be Obtained by using the phi
coefficient, multiserial correlation, or other item test
correlation procedures.

The final attitude scale is constructed by choosing the
twenty or twenty-five items which have the greatest discrimi-
nating power. The items are used with the same five "agree-
disagree" response categories and scoring is the same as it
was for the experimental instrument.

It must be remembered that the interpretation of Likert
scores is based on the distribution of sample scores. Since
a score has meaning only in relation to scores earned by others
in the sample, the scale shou1d_be standardized on a sample

taken from the target pOpulation.3o

 

30Shaw and Wright, Op. cit., p. 25.

36

In comparing the Thurstone and Likert techniques, four
areas are often considered in the-literature: influence of
the judging group, simplicity of the Likert method, reliabili-
ties Of the two methods, and the need for a judging group.

Murphy and Likert31 contended that the attitudes of the
judging group may influence the scale values of items when
the Thurstone method is used. Studies by Hinckley,32

‘ seemed to indicate that the

Ferguson,33 Pinter and Forlano,3
attitude of the judging group was not a seriously disturbing
factor. Edwards and Kinney35 however, were not satisfied

with the evidence on this point as they felt that research so

far, had neglected ego—involved attitudes and the bearing they

might have upon scale values of items.

 

31G. Murphy and R. Likert, Public Opinion and the
Individual (New York: Harper, 1937), p. 26.

32E. D. Hinckley, "The Influence of Individual Opinion on
Construction of an Attitude Scale," Journal of Social Psychgl—
ggy, III (August, 1932), 294.

33L. W. Ferguson, "The Influence of Individual Attitude
on Construction of an Attitude Scale,“ Journal of Social
Psychology, VI (February, 1935), 117.

34R. Pinter and G. Forlano, "The Influence of Attitude
Upon Scaling of Items," Journal:of Social Psychology, VIII
(1937), 44. ‘

35Allen L. Edwards and Kathryn Claire Kenny, "A Compari-
son of the Thurstone and Likert Techniques of Attitude Scale
Construction," In Fishbein (Ed.) Readingsiin Attitude Theory
and Measurement (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967),
p. 255.

37

In regard to the simplicity of the Likert method, Hall,36
Rundquist and Sletto,37 and Edwards and Kinney38 agreed that
it is easier and less time-consuming to use than the Thurstone.
Bird, on the other hand, raised some Objections that the
Likert technique was less laborious.

Will the experimenter spend more time, too, in scoring
every item and summating them in these long scales than
another might spend determining the mean or median value
by the Thurstone technique? Then too, is it actually less
time-consuming to validate items in terms of selected
groups than to determine the Q values from a curve or a
distribution of scores? The claim of greater or lesser
laboriousness seems to have been put forward without due
regard for all processes in scaling techniques; but, in
the interest of constructing refined measuring instruments,
time can be neglected. There is much to be said in favor
of a psychologist's refining his instrument before actual-
ly applying it to experimental groups. The argument that
the method of summated ratings is less laborious limps
badly.39 ‘ ‘

In an age when computers can rapidly process large amounts
of data, choosing one technique over the other merely on the
basis of simplicity or time required makes little sense.

Ferguson has quoted Thurstone as reporting that the reli-
abilities Of scales constructed by the method of equal-appearing
intervals under his editorship, as being "all over .8, most of

them being over .9." In his own research using the same

 

36O. M. Hall, "Attitudes and Unemployment," Archiveg:of
Psychology, New York, 1934, No. 165, p. 6.

37E. A. Rundquist and R. F. Sletto, Personality in the
Depression.(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1936), p. 5.

38Edwards and Kinney, op. cit., p. 251.

39C. Bird, Social Psychology (New York: Appleton-Century,
1940), p. 161.

38

technique, Ferguson reported reliabilities ranging from .52

to .80 for the 20—item forms and from .68 to .89 for the

40

40-item forms. Taken as representative, they can be com-

pared with studies which used Likert—type scales. Studies
done by Hall,41 Murphy and Likert,42 Rundquist and Sletto,43
and analyzed by Edwards and Kinney indicated that there is no
longer any reason to doubt that scales constructed by the
Likert technique and containing fewer items will yield reli-
abilities as high Or higher as those constructed using the
Thurstone method.44

In reference to the need for a judging group, Edwards
and Kinney state:

It is true that Likert-selected items tend to be those
which would fall at one or the other extreme on the
Thurstone continuum, if scaled according to the Thur-
stone technique. But the implication of this finding is
more theoretical than practical as far as the need for
a judging group is concerned. The important problem is
whether scores obtained from the two differently con-
structed scales are comparable and the evidence at hand
indicates that they are. As far as we can determine
there is nothing of a practical nature to indicate that
a judging group, in the Thurstone sense, is a pre-

requisite for the construction of an adequate scale.45

 

4°L. W. Ferguson, "The Requirements Of an Adequate Scale,"
Psychological Bulletin, XXXVI (1939), 670.

“‘Haii, Op. cit., p. 19.

42Murphy and Likert, Op. cit., p. 48.
43Rundquist and Sletto, Op. cit., p. 110.
“Edwards and Kinney, Op. cit., p. 252.
‘5Ibid., p. 255.

<39

When all is said and done, the decision to use Likert
or Thurstone, as Edwards and Porter point out is, largely a
matter of personal choice.

.There is some evidence to show that if the same set of

items is used to construct attitude scales by both the

judgment and the response methods, scores on the two
scales will be highly correlated. Both types of scales
tend to have relatively high reliability coefficients
and choice of method is more or less arbitrary. -Both
types of scales provide for a relatively wide range of
scores, and consequently relatively good measures of

individual differences. 6

Although the Likert and Thurstone techniques are the
most frequently used, the Bogardus, Semantic Differential,
and Q—port techniques enjoy some measure of pOpularity and
thus descriptions of them are included.

The Bogardus scale47 is an attempt to measure social
distance or the closeness of the relationship to which an indi-
vidual is willing to admit members of designated social groups.
Bogardus, interested in looking at prejudicial attitudes, pro-
ceeded on the assumption that an individual's degree of*
prejudice toward a group could be measured by assessing the
social distance that an individual wished to keep between
himself and a given group. The scale consisted of seven
statements, each indicative of a certain "social distance".

The statements are:

1. Would admit to close kinship by marriage.
2. Would admit to my club as personal chums.

 

46Edwards‘and Porter, Op. cit.. PP. 128—129.

47E. S. Bogardus, "Measuring Social Distance," Journal
of Applied Sociology, IX (1925), 299-308.

4O

3. Would admit to my street as neighbors.

4. Would admit to employment in my occupation.

5. Would admit to citizenship in my country.

6. Would admit as visitors only in my country.

7. Would exclude from my country.

subjects taking this Scale were asked to mark, for each
ethnic group, the statement that best represented his feelings
toward the group.

One of the questions raised concerning the Bogardus scale
centers upon the psychological distance between statements.

Is the difference for example between 1 and 2 the same as the
difference between 2 and 3?“ Another question concerns the
ordering of steps along the continnum. Marking one number also
indicates acceptance of the statements below it. There are
instances however, when one might accept a person as a neighbor,
but not wish to have that person employed in the same occupa-
tion.

Because an attitude scale is essentially a one-dimensional
measure, it cannot readily represent complex attitudinal
systems. To overcome this limitation of an attitude scale,
Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum48 developed a multidimensional
approach called the Semantic Differential. It has gained wide-
spread popularity in recent years because constructing it
involves a minimum of time and effort. The Semantic Differen-

tial is an objective means for measuring the connotative

meaning an individual attaches to a concept. subjects rate a

 

48Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, Op. cit.

41

given concept on a series of seven-point bipolar adjectives.
Osgood identified three dimensions of meaning: evaluative—
whether individual views the concept favorably or unfavorably
(good-bad, fair-unfair), potency- the individual's perception
of the concepts's power (strong-weak, large-small), and activ-
ity (active-passive, fast-slow). Although the evaluative
dimension is the strongest, inclusion of potency and activity
dimensions provide more information about an individual's
attitude.

There may be little correspondence between the rating
of a concept on the different dimensions. While high scores
on the evaluative dimension reflect favorable attitudes, high
scores on the other dimensions may carry different meanings.
The procedure for constructing a Semantic Differential is as
follows:

1. Determine the concept(s) to be rated. The number
and type chosen will depend on the problem being
investigated.

2. Choose apprOpriate bipolar scales. (At least three
scales each from the'EValuative, Potency and Activity
dimensions are recommended.)

3. Design response sheets:

a. Use one page per concept to be rated.

b. List the concept at the tOp of the page. Concept
orders for different respondents may be randomized.

c. Place bipolar scales below the concept name.

1) Ordering of scales on consecutive pages remains
fixed.

2) A constant polarity direction for each scale
is maintained on consecutive pages.

3) Scales drawn from a single dimension are al-
ternated in polarity direction (e.g., goodebad,
worthless-valuable).

4) The order of scales representing different dimen—
sions is rotated.

42

Example

good __;__;__;__:__;__;__: bad
mild __;__;__;__;__;__;__; intense
active __:__:__;__;__:__:__: passive
interesting __;__;__;__;__;__:__: uninteresting
worthless __;__;__:__:__:__:__: valuable
strong __:_:_:_:_:_:___: weak
slow __;__;__;__;__;__;__: fast
colorless .__a__a__a__a__a__a__= colorful
fair ___g__g_yr__g__g__r__: unfair
shallow __;__:__;__;__;__5__; deep
restless __:__:__:__;__;__:__: quiet

4. Write instructions, to include:
a. General orientation to the task. .
b. The significance of the scale positions and how
to mark them.
c. Attitude toward the task (speed, first impressions,
independence of judgments). 9
In analyzing the data quantitatively, one can assign
values from -3 to +3 or from 1-7 to the rating intervals lying
between adjective pairs so that —3 or 1 is closest to the
adjective representing negative evaluation and +3 or 7 is
closest to the adjective representing positive evaluation.
Individual scores are assigned according to the scale positions
he has checked. By averaging his scores for the sub-group of
scales belonging to each dimension an individual's rating Of
the concept on each of the three dimensions is determined.

On a scale with weights from -3 to +3 an individual's score

might be evaluative 3, potency .5 and activity 2.1.50

 

49Edwards and Porter, op. cit., p. 132.

50Edwards and Porter, Op. cit., p. 133.

43

The Q-sort, develOped by Stephenson,51 is most frequently
used in personality assessment but may be used to assess
attitudes. Its purpose is to Obtain a picture of an individual's
unique View of the psychological object under consideration.

To Obtain this picture, an individual is asked to sort a large
number Of statements relevant to the attitude being assessed
into piles reflective of a range of Opinion. This procedure is
similar to the judging process used in the Thurstone technique
for constructing a scale. Following are the steps for con—
structing and administering a Q-sort:

1. Determine the criterion by which sorting is to take
place (e.g., degree to which the item describes the
sorter; agreement/disagreement with the item, etc.).

2. Collect items (sentences, phrases or words) relevant
to the task. Usually from 50-100 items are used.

3. Determine the number of categories or intervals into
which items will be sorted.

4. Determine the number of items to be placed in each
category such that the final distribution approximates
a normal curve. For instance, if 60 statements are
to be sorted into seven categories, the number of
items to be placed in each category would be assigned
as follows: '

Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Number of items ”3' 6 12 18 12 6 3

5. Give cards containing one item each to the subject,
with instructions for sorting according to l) the
criterion, 2) the number of piles, 3) the number of
cards to be sorted into each pile.

 

51W. Stephenson, The Study of Behavior: Q:technigue and
Its.Methodology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953).

52Edwards and Porter, Op. cit., pp..129-130.

44

Scores are assigned to the successive categories according to
the degree of favorableness of items to be sorted into each
of the categories. For example, if seven categories were
used the one containing the least favorable statements would
receive a score of 1 and the most favorable statements a score
of 7. Individual statements receive the score assigned to the
category into which they are sorted.

Q-sorts may be administered to an individual more than
once to assess changes in attitude that may have occurred over
a period of time or as a result of an experimental treatment

given between measures.

Guttman Scalogram Analysis

Although many techniques have been develOped for the
construction of scales to measure attitudes there is still
concern that the scales developed measure one and only one
attitude. In fact, Guttman states:

One of the fundamental problems facing research workers
in the field of attitude and public Opinion measurement
is to determine if the questions asked on a given issue
have a single meaning for the respondents. Obviously,
if a question means different things to different
respondents, then there is no way that the respondents
can be ranked in order of favorableness. Questions may
appear to express but a single thought and yet not pro-
-vide the same kind of stimulus to different peOple.

The responses, even to the-simplest question can differ
in.kind as well as in'degree.5

Scalogram analysis is quite different from the Thurstone,

Bogardus, Likert, Semantic Differential, and Stephenson

 

53Louis Guttman, Op. cit., p. 60.

45

techniques described previously. Actually it is not a method
for constructing or develOping an attitude scale.
In practice, scalogram analysis can perhaps be most
accurately described as a procedure for evaluating sets
of statements or existing scales to determine whether
or not they meet the requirements of a particular kind
of scale, set forth in some detail by Guttman. We shall
refer to this particular kind of scale as a Guttman
scale or a cumulative scale.54
The basic idea of the cumulative nature of Gottman scaling
is conveyed with an illustration suggested by Stouffer and

55 Picture a spelling

described by Newcomb, Turner and Converse.
test consisting of three words: catastrophe, cattle, and cat.
Because of the marked difference in difficulty, a certain kind
of consistency would be expected in the responses. If an indi-
vidual can spell catastrophe it is likely that he can spell

the two easier words too. If he can spell only two of the
words, we know which two they are: if he can spell only one
word we know which one that is.

It is not known in advance if a given set of attitude
statements will fall along a single attitude continuum from
imost to least favorable. If one starts with the hypothesis
that the statements do fall along a single attitude continuum,

it is the purpose of scalogram analysis to determine whether

the responses of the subjects to a set of statements are in

 

54Allen L. Edwards, Techniques of Attitude Scale Construc-
tion (Newaork: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1965), p. 172.

55Newcomb, Turner and Converse, Op. cit., p. 506.

46

accord with that hypothesis. If for example in a set of five
attitude statements it was found that all peOple who agree
with four statements do so with respect to the same four; that
all who agree with three statements do so with respect to the
same three and that those three are among the four statements
agreed with by those individuals who agree with four and

so on, then those results strongly indicate that the five
statements are unidimensional.

Besides a priori trying to select items along a single
attitude dimension, an attempt should be made to include
statements at both extremes of the attitude continuum.

As in the case of all attitude statements to be included

in a scale, an important test for each statement is

whether or not one can expect subjects with varying atti-
tudes toward the psychological Object to respond differ-‘
entially to the statements. If it can be inferred that
an "agree" (or disagree) response will be given by sub-
jects with more favorable attitudes and a "disagree"

(or agree) response by subjects with less favorable

attitudes, then a statement may be judged satisfactory.56

After the scale has been constructed weights are assigned
to the items as follows. If the items are dichotomous, the
'weights of 0 and l are assigned to the two categories. The l
is assigned to the response which indicates the more favorable
attitude toward the Object; the O is assigned to the response
indicating the less favorable attitude. In the case of tri—

>Chotomous items such as those with the response categories

agree, uncertain, and disagree, weights of 2, l, and O are

 

56Edwards, Op. cit., p. 178.

47

assigned. Again the largest weight is assigned to the most
favorable response, and the O to the least.

Scores are totaled for each.individual according to the
weights assigned to the responses he made. After the scores
are totaled individuals are ranked from high to low.

It may be said here that Guttman prefers ranking indi-
viduals rather than items because the ranking of items is
restricted to dichotomous items where an individual either
does or does not endorse a statement. If the items scale,
an individual who endorses an extreme statement should also
endorse all less extreme statements. However, if there are
more than two categories of a response such a consideration
breaks down because an "agree" for one item might be equiva-
-lent to or even less favorable than an "uncertain" to
another item. Ranking items then is a problem. According to
Guttman, the ranking of peOple:

... provides a more general approach to the problem of

scaling, since it turns out to be equivalent to the

ranking of items when all items are dichotomous, and it
also includes the case where items have more than two
answer categories.57

If a true scale exists for the attitude measure:

... a person with a more favorable attitude score than

another person must also be just as favorable or more

favorable in his response to every statement in the

set than the other person. When responses to a set of
attitude statements meet this requirement, the set of

statements is said to constitute a unidimensional scale.5

57Guttman, Op. cit., p. 62.

58Edwards, Op. cit., p. 172.

8

48

A perfect scale has perfect reproducibility. This means
that it is possible to reproduce the responses of the indi—
viduals to the various statements in terms of their total
scores alone. Guttman has stated though that, "Perfect scales
are not to be expected in practice."59

Since perfect reproducibility cannot be expected in
practice it is important to measure the degree Of repro-
ducibility possible for a given set of statements. To do this,
cutting points are established for the response categories of
each statement. A cutting point is:

... that place in the rank order of subjects where the

most common response shifts from one category to the

other.60
Guttman suggests two rules for establishing cutting points.
The cutting point should minimize error, and no category

1 In a set Of

should have more error in it than non—error.6
statements with perfect reproducibility, all responses above
the cutting point for a statement would fall in the same cate-
gory and all those below would fall in the other category.
When perfect reproducibility does not exist, some responses
fall outside of the category in which they theoretically belong
and are considered errors.

Errors are an indication that a given scale deviates

from a perfect scale. The degree to which a scale deviates

is measured by a coefficient of reproducibility. The

 

59Guttman, Op. cit., p. 64.

6°Edwards, Op. cit., p. 181.
61Ibid.

49

coefficient of reproducibility is determined by:
... counting up the number of responses which would have
been predicted wrongly for each person on the basis of
his scale score, dividing these errors by the total
number of responses and subtracting the results from 1.62
Simply expressed the formula for the coefficient of reproduci-
bility is:
number of errors

R = 1 - number of responses

For example if the attitude measure contained 20 items
and was administered to 20 people, the total number of
responses would be 400. If there were 40 scaling errors the

coefficient of reproducibility would be calculated thus:

40
400 z 1 "’ .10 = .90

R = l —
.90 reproducibility is the point most frequently cited in the
literature on Guttman scaling as the base for scalability.
This figure refers to the coefficient of reproducibility for
dichotomous items, however, and a figure of .85 is usually
considered acceptable for scales having items with three or
more response categories.

Care must be taken to avoid spurious coefficients of

reproducibility. To prevent a spuriously low coefficient Of
reproducibility, Guttman suggests that in establishing the

cutting point at which a pattern of response shifts, no

resultant response category should contain more error than

 

62Guttman, op. cit., p. 77.

 

50

non-error.63 In addition, Torgerson suggests that:
While it is desirable to have a considerable range of
marginals, items with extreme marginals tend to make
the value of Rep [reproducibility] spuriously high.
Hence, few, if any, items should have more than 80
percent Of the subjects in their most pOpular category.64
If all the items on an instrument are dichotomous and
analysis fails to indicate a sufficiently high coefficient Of
reproducibility the hypothesis that the measure is scalable
has to be rejected. If there are more than two response cate-
gories, however, and the criteria for scalability are not met
on the first trial, there may be an explanation for the failure
other than unscalability.
It has seldom been found that an item with four or five
categories will be sufficiently reproducible if the
categories are regarded as distinct. One reason for
this is the verbal habits of peOple. Some people say
"strongly agree" where others say "agree," whereas they
have essentially the same position on the basic con—
tinuum but differ on an extraneous factor of verbal
habits. By combining categories, minor extraneous
variables of this kind can be minimized.65
Collapsing is the term usually given to the combining of cate-
gories.
If in the original scalogram the recorded weights in a
given column appear to overlap considerably, the categories
Of response for these weights may be combined. The combined

categories then are reweighted.- Assume that in the original

 

63Louis Guttman, "The Cornell Technique for Scale and
Intensity Analysis," Educational and Psychological Measurement,
VII (Summer, 1947), 261.

6“Warren S. Torgerson, Theory and Methods of Scaling
(New York: ‘John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 324.

65Guttman, "The Cornell Technique of Scale and Intensity
Analysis," Op. cit., p. 256.

51

scalogram we had five response categories weighted 4, 3, 2,

l, and 0. If the categories of 4 and 3 were combined and the
categories of 2 and l were combined, a response of 4 and 3 to
the original statement would now be given a weight of 2 and

a response of 2 or 1 would now be given a weight of 1. The
original weight of 0 would remain 0. Papers would then be
rescored and a new ranking would probably occur. Hopefully,
an acceptable coefficient of reproducibility would now result.
If not, the process of collapsing response categories can be
repeated until all items have been reduced to dichotomies.66

Whenever the criteria for scalability are satisfied one can

accept the hypothesis he set out to test.

Attitude and Behavior

Attitudes are viewed as in some way being related to
behavior. The relationship is most Often viewed as being a
causal one. One's behavior depends upon or is at least
influenced by his-attitudes. If nothing else there should
at least be consistency between one's attitudes and one's
behavior. However, studies which have attempted to investi-
gate the relationship.between attitudes and behavior have
generally found a lack of correspondence between overt behavior
and verbally expressed attitudes. Due to inconsistent research
findings, some authors question the idea that there is a rela-

tionship.between attitude and behavior. Some attribute the

 

“Remmers, op. cit., p. 117.

52

inconsistency of findings to the measuring instrument (Cook
and Sellitzé7); others question the definition of attitude
(DeFleur and Westieéa). Still others such as Katz and
Stotland69 question both the measuring instrument and the
definition of the concept.

One of the first attempts to examine the relationship
between expressed attitude and behavior was the classic study
by LaPiere.7o LaPiere traveled throughout the United States
with a young Chinese couple. They stopped at many motels,
hotels and restaurants and in more than 250-instances, they
were refused service only once. In a follow-up study, LaPiere
sent questionnaires to the establishments they had visited
asking whether they would accept Chinese guests. 'Approximately
92% said "No" and except for one "Yes" reply the remainder
answered "Uncertain: depends upon circumstances." Similar
results were obtained from a control group of establishments
not visited by LaPiere and his friends. A comparable study by
Kutner, Wilkens and Yarrow71 found that many restaurant owners
who failed to answer a request for reservations for a group
including some Negroes did serve a group composed of two white

‘women and one Negro woman when they actually appeared in person.

 

67Cook and Sellitz, Op. cit., p. 37.
68DeFleur and Westie, Op. cit., p. 29.
69Katz and Stotland, Op. cit., p. 454.
7oLaPiere, op. cit., pp. 230-237.

71Kutner, Wilkens, and Yarrow, op. cit.

53

In many of the studies which looked at relationships
between attitudes and behavior, the authors mention_intervening
variables as possible explanations for the discrepancies.
Situational variables are the intervening variables most Often
identified. -Because of the recognized influence of situational
variables some authors conclude that what determines behavior
is not attitude but rather situational characteristics (e.g.,
Blumer,72 DeFleur and Westie,7"Raab and Lipset,74 and Rose75).

.However, rather than abandon the assumption that there
is a relationship between attitudes and behavior researchers
such as Insko,76 and Jahoda and Warren77 focus on the need
to reconceptualize the relationship, Rokeach,78 in his dis—
cussion of the nature of attitudes, rejects the notion that
attitudes and behavior are not related.

9

Rokeach, as he defines attitude,7 contends that a

person's attitude is organized around an object or a

 

72Blumer, "Research on Racial Relations in the United
States of America," op. cit., p. 427.

73DeFleur and Westie, Op. cit., p. 28.
74Raab and Lipset, Op. cit., p. 31.
75Rose, Op. cit., p. 174.

76Insko, Op. cit.

77Jahoda and Warren, Op. cit.

78Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes and Values, op. cit., pp.
127-128.

79"An attitude is a relatively enduring organization of
beliefs around an Object or situation predisposing one to
respond in some preferential manner." Ibid., p. 112.

54

0 It is this aspect of attitude that may come

situation.8
closest to explaining discrepancies between attitude and
behavior. In the first instance we refer to a static object
which may be concrete or abstract. The object may be an
individual, a group, an issue or an institution. The situa*
tion is an event or activity in which an individual has certain
beliefs about how to behave when the Object of the attitude is
encountered.

Rokeach points out that although the situation and object
are referred to in attitude definitions, researchers have been
(generally more interested in measuring attitudes toward objects,
across situations than in measuring attitude toward situations

1 Separation of attitude toward-situation

across Objects.8
from attitude toward-object has "resulted in a failure to ap—
preciate that an attitude object is always encountered within
some situation, about which we have an organized attitude.”82
It is Rokeach's thesis then that an attitude may be
focused on either an object (A0) or a situation (As) and that
behavior is a function of at least these two types of atti—

tudes.83 An implication regarding this thesis is worth

noting.

 

°°Ibid., p. 112.
81Ibid., p. 118.

82Milton Rokeach, "The Nature Of Attitudes," Op. cit.,
p. 452.

°3Ibid., p. 135.

55

... a given attitude-toward-object, whenever activated,

need not always be behaviorally manifested or expressed

in the same way or to the-same degree. Its expression

will vary adaptively as the attitude activated by the

situation varies with attitude-toward-situation facili—
' tating or inhibiting the expression Of attitude-toward-

Object, and vice versa.

Rokeach warns however, that it is not enough to merely
state that behavior is a function of two attitudes. To predict
behavior requires a model which takes into account the manner
in which the two attitudes will cognitively interact with each
other. Rokeach and Rothman85 have prOposed a belief-congruence
model to do this.

In the present context, two attitudes, A0 and As, are
activated whenever a person encounters an object in some situ-
ation. A comparison of the relative importance of A0 and As
is also activated. The two attitudes affect on behavior is in
direct prOportion to their perceived importance with respect
to one another. The more important A0 is perceived to be with
respect to As the more the behavioral outcome will be a func-
tion of A0. The converse is also true.86 Rokeach hypothesizes
that behavior can be predicted from knowledge of the outcome

of the cognitive interaction between A0 and As.

A study conducted by Kleijunas87 attempted to look at the

 

“Ibid.

85Milton Rokeach and G. Rothman, "The Principle of Belief
Congruence and the Congruity Principle as Models of Cognitive
Interaction," Psychological Review, LXXII (March, 1965), 128—
142.

8°Ibid., p. 137.

87Kleijunas, Op. cit.

56

relationship between attitudes and behavior in light Of
Rokeach's recent definition of the nature of attitudes and
their ability to predict behavior. Results showed that atti—
tudes, properly conceptualized and measured, can be accurate

predictors of behavior.

Attitude and the Variables of Sex
and Teaching Level

When attitudes of teachbrs and administrators are examined
with respect to the variables of sex and teaching level
evidence in the literature indicates that there are significant

8 in their study found that

differences. Lindgren and Patton,8
the attitudes toward children and toward current educational
theory of teachers in the lower grades were more favorable
than those of high school teachers. They also found that
female teacher's attitudes were more favorable than were male
teachers.

9 examined the Minnesota Teacher

Beamer and Ledbettere
Attitude Inventory (MTAI) scores Of 212 students enrolled in
graduate courses at North Texas State College. DevelOped in
1951 at the University Of Minnesota, the MTAI is one of the
most pOpular instruments for the measurement of teacher atti-

tudes. Its purpose is to measure those attitudes of a teacher

which predict how well he will get along with pupils in

 

88Lindgren and Patton, Op. cit., p. 85.

89Beamer and Ledbetter, op. cit., p. 665.

57

interpersonal relationships, and indirectly how satisfied he
will be with teaching as a vocation. The 212 students were
subdivided by sex, teaching level, and by experience. The
attitudes Of the elementary teachers were more favorable than
the attitudes of the secondary teachers. Female teachers had
more favorable attitudes than did male teachers.

A study by Leeds90 showed that generally speaking personal
factors of sex, grade-level, age, training, experience, and
subject taught bore little relationship to the attitudes of
teachers toward pupils as measured by a Teacher-Pupil Inventory.
Although not statistically significant the mean scores of
teachers of grades 1-6 were higher than those of teachers of
grades 7—12.

Wandt91 felt that assessment of teacher's attitudes toward
groups contacted in the school would provide information useful
for assessing the total personality. As part of the Teacher
Characteristics Study he:

1. Constructed scales for measuring teacher's attitudes

toward groups contacted in the school.

2. Studied the interrelationships of these attitudes.

3. Studied the relationship between attitudes and factors

such as experience and grade level.

4. Studied the relationship between verbalized attitudes

and overt behavior.

5. DevelOped disguised measures of teacher's attitudes.
The difference between elementary and secondary teachers was

significant with the elementary teachers having the more favor-

able attitudes.

 

9°Leeds and Cook, Op. cit., p. 159.

91Wandt, Op. cit., p. 117.

58

In the NEA Nationwide Study of the American Public School
Teacher,92 each teacher in the sample was asked to reveal his
attitudes toward teaching in five ways: 1) by estimating
teaching load, 2) by estimating degree of tension Or strain
felt in work, 3) by indicating willingness to again choose
teaching as a career, 4) by identifying sources of professional
satisfaction and encouragement, and 5) by describing any teach-
ing innovations or experiments initiated during the past year.
More men than women reported heavy or extremely heavy teaching
loads and more secondary than elementary teachers. Slightly
-higher percents of men and secondary school teachers than of
women and elementary school teachers reported feeling consider-
able strain. Women and elementary school teachers showed a
greater willingness to again choose teaching as a career.

.Published in 1960, the Teacher Characteristics Study
directed by Ryans93 included approximately 100 research projects
carried out over a six year-period. The study, involving more
than 6,000 teachers in 1,700 schools included classroom observa-
tions as well as paper and pencil inventories. The study was
guided by three major objectiVes.

.1. Identification and analysis of patterns of behavior
attitudes, viewpoints, and intellectual and emotional
qualities which may characterize teachers.

2. Development of paper and pencil inventories appro-

priate for estimating teacher's classroom behaviors
and personal qualities.

 

92Research Division NBA The American Public School
Teacher, Op. cit.

'93Ryans, Op..cit.

59

3. Comparison of various groups.94
Trends in the data-from the paper and pencil instruments which
assessed attitudes, verbal understandings, educational view-
points and emotional viewpoints were:

1. Attitudes of elementary teachers toward pupils,
administrators, fellow teachers and non—administrative
personnel were more positive than those of secondary
teachers. '

2. Educational vieWpoints of elementary teachers were
more permissive while secondary teachers vieWpoints
were more traditional.

3. Made teachers at both teaching levels were more
emotionally stable than female teachers.

Summary

Literature on the attitudes of teachers and administrators
toward various psychological objects with respect to the varia-
bles of sex and teaching level revealed a number of studies
Which indicated that the attitudes of females and elementary
school faculty are more positive than the attitudes of males
and.secondary school faculty. 'Although attitudes toward
instructional develOpment with respect to these variables have
‘yet to be assessed, the literature indicates that they are and
continue to be variables worth studying when assessing atti-

tudes.

94Ibid.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Introduction
The primary purpose of this study was to determine the
degree of difference in expressed attitudes toward instruc-
tional develOpment which existed within and across three
selected groups as a function of: 1) sex, and 2) teaching
level. In this chapter, the description of the pOpulation,
the procedures, the research hypotheses, and the method used

for statistical analysis are presented.

The Population
The pOpulation for this study was composed of participants'
in an Instructional DevelOpment Institute, students enrolled
in the Education 831A course in educational media taught during
the winter term of 1972 at Michigan State University, and a
group of educators from the East Lansing Public School System.
More specifically, the following three groups compose the
sample for this study:
1. The 46 students enrolled in Education 831A during
the winter term of 1972 at Michigan State University.
Education 831A is a graduate level course in educa-
tional media which focuses on the concept of instruc-

tional develOpment and,provides the students with
formal exposure to thefconcept.

60

61

2. Composition of the Instructional Development Institute
(IDI) group was predetermined with respect to size and
composition. .It included teachers, administrators
(principals and superintendents), policy makers (board
members), and specialists (curriculum, content, media).
These 31 persons participated in the Instructional
DevelOpment Institute program: a function of the
National Special Media Institute (NSMI). The IDI is,
"a validated training program in ten (10) units (ap-
proximately 40 hours) designed to provide teams Of
teachers, administrators, policy makers, and special-
ists (TAPS) with initial competencies and skills in
applying an instructional systems approach to the
develOpment of practical solutions to critical teach-
ing and learning problems."1 A consortium of four
institutions provide leadership for the IDI program.
They are: Michigan State University, Syracuse Univer-
sity, the University of Southern California, and
United States International University.

3. A control group of 33 educators was selected from the
East Lansing, Michigan Public School System. Those
selected for this group had received no prior formal
exposure to the instructional develOpment concept via
a course or in-service workshOp. The control group
was selected so as to approximate the size, personal
and professional characteristics of those in the IDI
group.

The results of this study will be generalizable to other
pOpulations only to the extent that other populations are
similar in characteristics to the population used in this

study.

Procedure

 

The procedure for this study was as follows:

1. Modification of, Attitude Toward Iggtructional Develgp-
ment, an attitude assessment scale produced under a
grant from the United States Office of Education,
Bureau of Libraries and Educational Technology, Divi-
sion Of Educational Technology.

 

1National Special Media Institute, What is an IDI?

62

2. Guttman Scalogram Analysis was employed to modify
the attitude scale. This procedure was used to
determine the unidimensionality or presence of a
single variable in the instrument.

3. Administration of the modified instrument to the
three selected groups.

Instrumentation

Attitude Toward Instructional Development was chosen for
use in this study because it is one of the few instruments
available designed specifically to assess individual's atti—
tudes toward instructional develOpment. .The instrument is a
fifty-item Likert—type questionnaire. Data concerning the
instrument's unidimensionality and/or validity was not avail-
able from NSMI, so the instrument was tested for unidimension-
ality and scalability.

Guttman Scalogram Analysis was used to determine uni-
dimensionality and scalability. Guttman Scalogram Analysis is
not a method for constructing or develOping an attitude scale
but is a procedure for evaluating an existing scale to see if
it is unidimensional and if the statements in the instrument
actually form a scale. As Shaw and Wright indicate, there is
a high probability Of a unidimensional scale being produced
when Guttman Scalogram Analysis is applied to an instrument.

... these scales are more likely to be unidimensional

than scales constructed by other procedures. The scalo-

gram method usually yields scales that are reliable and

valid according to the usual estimates of these attrib-
utes.

 

2Shaw and Wright, op. cit., p. 26.

63

Experimental‘Procedures

The 50—item Likert-type scale, Attitude Toward Instruc-
tionalyDevelopment (see Appendix A), was administered as a
pre-test to 43 students enrolled in Education 831A during the
fall term of 1971 at Michigan State University. Each statement
in the instrument had five possible responses: strongly agree,
agree, undecided, disagree and strongly disagree. Weights
from 1 to 5 were assigned to each of the response categories:
with a weight of l for the response reflecting the least favor-
able attitude toward instructional develOpment.

Scores were then summed for each individual and the re-
spondents were ranked on the basis of their total scores.

If an instrument scales, i.e., is unidimensional, a person
with a more favorable attitude (a higher cumulative score),
must be just as favorable or more favorable in his response to
every statement than a person whose total score indicates a
less favorable position. 'Since perfect scales are not to be
expected in practice, the closeness of the scale to perfection
must be detenmined.

To determine the degree to which a scale deviates from
perfection, the coefficient of reproducibility is calculated.
To do this, cutting points were established for the response
acategories Of each statement. .Those responses falling outside
the category in which they theoretically belong were considered
errors. Errors were summed and the reproducibility index for

the entire instrument was then calculated.

64

number of errors

 

R = l _ number of responses
' .549
R = l - 2156': 1 - .25 = .75

The reproducibility index of .75 for the original instrument
was well below the acceptable level of .85 specified by
Guttman. To eliminate a spuriously low coefficient of repro—
ducibility, items with response categories containing more
error than non-error were eliminated. To prevent a spuriously
high coefficient of reproducibility, items in which 80 percent
or more of the respondents fell into their most pOpular cate-
gory were also eliminated.

Twenty—four of the original 50 items now remained.
Analysis of the data indicated that the responses to the re-
maining items fluctuated between strongly agree and agree,
and between strongly disagree and disagree, so the categories
of response were collapsed and assigned new weights. Question—
naires were then re-scored and the individuals re-ranked
according to the cumulative scores based on the new weights.
The reproducibility index for the modified instrument was

calculated and found to be .85.

.155

R = 1 ' 1032

= 1 - .15 = .85

The modified instrument was then judged to be unidimensional.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were generated and tested to
determine the degree of difference in expressed attitudes which

existed between and within the three groups.

65

»l. Administrators at the~K-8 level will exhibit a more
positive attitude toward I.D. than will administrators
at the 9-12 level.

.2. Teachers at the K-8 level will exhibit a more positive
attitude toward I.D. than will teachers at the 9-12
.level.

Sub-hypotheses

2a. Teachers in the IDI group at the K-8 level will
exhibit a more positive attitude toward I.D.
than will teachers in the-IDI group at the 9-12
level.

2b. Teachers in the 831A group at the K-8 level will
exhibit a more positive attitude toward I.D. than
will teachers in the 831A group at the 9—12 level.

2c..Teachers in the control group at the K—8 level
will exhibit a more positive attitude toward I.D.
than will teachers in the control group at the
9-12 level.

3. There will be a significant difference in the expressed
attitudes of the three groups as a result of sex.
Females will exhibit a more positive attitude toward
I.D. than will males.

sub-hypotheses

3a. Females in the IDI group will exhibit a more posi-
tive attitude toward I.D. than will the males in
the IDI group.

3b. Females in the 831A group will exhibit a.more posi-
tive attitude toward I.D. than will the males in
the 831A group.

3c. Females in the control group will exhibit a more
positive attitude toward I.D. than will males in
the control group.

Analysis
Guttman Scalogram Analysis was used to analyze the atti-
tude scale for the pre-test and the modified instrument
administered to the three selected groups included in the
study. The modified scale was administered to the Education

831A-class during final examination week. The same scale was

66

administered to the IDI group at the end of the 40-hour work-
shop. Thescale was administered to the control group during
the final examination week although time was not a critical
factor as this group had had no formal exposure to the instruc-
tional development concept and no treatment was administered.
Univariate analyses of variance were used to determine
the differences which existed across and within the three
groups as a function of teaching level and as a function of

sex.

Summary

The population for this study consisted of three groups:
students in the Education 831A class, participants in the
Instructional Development Institute, and selected individuals
from the East Lansing, Michigan Public School System. A modi-
fied version Of Attitude TOward Ingtrpctional Development was
administered to the three groups. The instrument was modified
using Guttman Scalogram Analysis. A demographic sheet was
devised to obtain information relative to the variables being
inVestigated in this study. This data was gathered at the
time the attitude instrument was administered. Scores from
the attitude instrument were analyzed using univariate analy—

'Sis of variance.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

This chapter is divided into two sections. The first
section will contain the results of the application of
Guttman Scalogram Analysis to Attitude Toward Inptructional
Development, the instrument used in this study. The analysis
was done to determine the unidimensionality of the scale.
The second section will contain the results of the statistical

analysis Of the scores generated by the attitudinal measure.

Analysis of Attitudinal Scale

Before administering the instrument Attitude Toward
lpptructlonal Development to the pOpulation, it was necessary
to determine whether or not the instrument was unidimensional,
i.e., measuring a single variable. Guttman Scalogram Analysis
was used to analyze the attitude instrument. The coefficient
of reproducibility-for the original instrument was .75. It
will be remembered from the previous discussion of Guttman
Scalogram Analysis in Chapter 2 that .85 is the generally
accepted level for scalability for instruments containing items
with multiple response categories. The original instrument

was modified according to the procedures outlined by Guttman

67

68

and the coefficient of reproducibility of the modified instru-
‘ment was found to be .85.

The scale was judged to be unidimensional and was subse—
quently administered to the population. The attitude scores

were subjected to statistical analysis.

Statistlcal Analysis
A univariate analysis Of variance was used to test each

of the hypotheses and sub-hypotheses for significance.

Attitudes for Adminlpprators by Level
Hypothesis 1: Administrators at the K-8 level will
exhibit a more positive attitude toward I.D. than will
administrators at the 9-12 level.
Cell means for the administrators were as follows: K-8
was 90.86, and 9—12 was 72.20. As indicated in Table l, a
comparison of the scores of administrators at the K-8 level
with the scores of administrators at the 9-12 level yielded
an F-statistic of 6.80183 which is significant at the .05

level. Data supported this hypothesis.

Attitudes of Teachers by Level
Hypothesis 2: Teachers at the K-8 level will exhibit
a more positive attitude toward I.D. than will teachers
at the 9-12 level.
Table 2, contains the results of the analysis of variance
for teachers by level. Cell means were as follows: K-8 was

83.26, and 9-12 was 81.18. The comparison of scores between

teachers at the K-8 level and teachers at the 9-12 level

69

 

 

om mmmm.oomm Hmuoe

o¢a¢.~oa ma mmmm.o~ma mmauomoumo census

ooo. mmaom.o mmo~.omo m oaae.omme_ mmauomoumo cmozuom
aueaenmfloum Oeumeumum oumsum eooooum moumsom oosmwum>
mogmoqmecmem m cows. mo nooumoo mo.esm mo mousom

 

 

.HO>0H ma muoumuumeceEtm

“moguauum mom.

oosmwnm> mo

mammamce .5 names

70

 

 

mm emoa.-ama Hmuos

noma.mo~ om ao¢¢.oaoma moauoomumo queues

«mm. ..eaama. meom.~m m smma.moa mmauomonmo awesome
huwawnmnonm owunfiumum mumsom eooomum mmumsom OUGMHHM>
mocmowmwcmwm m com: «o momummn mo saw no mousom

 

 

.HO>0H an nuosomou

"oookuum now

oocmwum> mo

mamSHmaa .m mamas

71

yielded an F-statistic of .19714 which was not significant at
the .05 level. This hypothesis was not supported by the data.
Sub-hypothesis 2a: Teachers in the IDI group at the
K-8 level will exhibit a more positive attitude toward

I.D. than will teachers in the IDI group at the 9-12
level.

Table 3, contains the results of the analysis of variance
for attitudes of teachers in the IDI group as‘a function of
level. Cell means can be fOund in Table 4. Comparison of the
scores of teachers in the IDI group at the K—8 level with
those at the 9—12 level, yielded an F-statistic of .98770.
This figure was not significant at the .05 level.

Sub—hypothesis 2b: Teachers in the 831A group at the

K-8 level will exhibit a more positive attitude toward

I.D. than will teachers in the 831A group at the 9-12
.level.

As indicated in Table 5, a comparison of the scores of
teachers in the 831A group at the K-8 level with the scores
of teachers at the 9—12 level revealed an F-statistic of
2.68247 which was not significant at the .05 level. Cell
'means are given in Table 4.

sub-hypothesis 2c: Teachers in the control group at the

K-8 level will exhibit a more positive attitude toward

I.D than will teachers in the control group at the 9-12
level.

Table 6, contains the results of the analysis of variance
-for attitudes of teachers in the control group as a function
10f level. Cell means are given in Table 4. .The comparison of
scores between teachers at the K-8 level and teachers at the
9-12 level yielded an F-statistic of 6.46993 which was sig-
nificant at the .05 level. .However, the results indicated

significance in a direction Opposite that predicted.

72

 

 

m mmmv.nom Hmuoe

oooe.aaa m mmm.amm awesomoumo canons

pom. oaamm. mmmo.oa~ a ammo.oaa mmauommumo opossum
muwawnmnoum owumeumum shadow sooooum nmumsvm mocmeum>
mocmoewwcmwm m cmoz mo mmoumoo mo esm mo condom

 

 

.Ho>ma an AHQHV mumsomou

.mosuauum you

mosseum> mo

«Mohamed .m.mqm¢a

73

 

 

hm.om Nana Houusoo

h>.¢o mix muonomma Om

mh.am «Hum «Hmm

ma.mm mIM mumnomoa AN

oo.mn «dam HOH

mm.mm mix muonomoe mm

cmmz. Ho>0q dsouo nono£»Odhnlnsm

 

 

.Ho>oa was macho an ON tam

.nN .m~ nonmsuomhnlnsm.s0w memos HHOU .e flames

74

 

 

 

 

rm- ......"
mm oom>.¢¢mm Hmuoe
omea.mm~ mm enam.mmos moauomoumo segues
moo. a¢~mo.~ Nose.mmo N «mmm.omma moauommumo comsumm
maddenmnoum owumeumum mumsum eoomoum noumsom oosmwum>
oocmowwesmwm mo awesome «0 55m moxuonsom

my cum:

 

[iii

.Hopoa an Aaamwe mumsomou

"mosuwuum How masseum> mo

«someone. .m mamas

75

 

 

ma msmv.poam Hmuoa
meom.ama «a mmo~.mmam «venomoumo canvas
mmo. mmmo¢.o oaoa.~mm H osoa.mmm mmauomoumo opossum
huwawnmnoum Owuuwumum museum. sooooum anmsUm cosmeum>.
cosmowmwsmem m new: no mooumoo «0 sum HO mousom

 

 

.Ho>oa.hn AHOHusOOV mumnomou

.oosoauum pom,

moonwum> mo

mamxaaqa .6 names

76

Attitudes by Sex

Hypothesis 3: Females will exhibit a more positive
attitude toward I.D. than will males.

The results of the analysis of variance for attitudes
of males and females is contained in Table 7. The cell mean
for females was 84.25: for males, 81.09. Examination of the
.results reveals that an F-statistic of .84995 was Obtained.
This figure was not significant at the .05 level; thus data
does not support the hypothesis.

Sub-hypothesis 3a: Females in the IDI group will

exhibit a more positive attitude toward I.D. than

will the males in the IDI group.

Cell means are given in Table 8. Comparison Of the
scores of females in the IDI group with those of males in the
IDI group yielded an F-statistic Of 3.09912 as indicated in
Table 9. This figure was not significant at the .05 level.

Sub-hypothesis 3b: Females in the 831A group will

exhibit a more positive attitude toward I.D. than

will males in the 831A group.

As indicated in Table 10, a comparison of the scores of
females in the 831A group with the scores of males in the
831A group revealed an F-statistic of 2.34726 which was not
significant at the .05 level.

sub-hypothesis 3c: Females in the control group will

exhibit a more positive attitude toward I.D. than will

males in the control group.

Table 11, contains the results of the analysis of vari—
ance for attitudes of females and males in the control group.
The comparison of scores between females and males in the

control group yielded an F-statistic of .97405 which was not

significant at the .05 level.

77

| i ...l‘...r. J...—

 

 

 

 

moa Hmav.mmem~ Hmuoa

omom.mam moH ooa¢.o¢~mm moauomoumo ensues

mmm. momem. swam.~ma H Hmem.~ma moauomopmo omozuom
Mueaenmnoum Owuneumum nonmsUm eooooum monmsUm oocmeum>
mocmowmwsmem m cows. mo mooumon mo 25m mo mousom

.xmn "monueuum How mosmwum> mo memmdmsd .n mamas

78

 

 

em.mh mam:

m0 .fih 0HM§Uh HOHflGOU UM

om.mm was:

o>.mm mamemm «Hmm QM

mo.am mam:

o¢.mm sesame HQH mm

coo: xom macho mononuomwnlnsm

 

 

.xom mam msoum an on use .Qm

.mm monoswommnlnsn MOM memos HHOU .m mqmde

79

 

 

om mmmm.mmmm Hmuoe

hamm.mma mm omoa.a¢mm mmauomoumo cusps:

mmo. mammo.m. mmma.mhm a ommd.mnm mownomoumo somzuom
muwawnmnoum oaumeumum museum someone moumsum oosmwum>
mosmoemecmwm m cams. mo noonmoo mo 25m mo mousom

 

 

.AHQHV Non "mvzufluum How.

ouswwum> mo

osmsamcs .m mamas

80

 

 

mu Hmmm.mooOH

sauce

 

Hosa.mmm we emm~.ooooa moauomoumo census

mma. omawm.~ oooo.amm a oooo.amm moauomoumo noosumm
huwdenmnoum owuuwumum mumsom sooooum nmumsvm mosmwum>
mosmowmwsmwm m cmoz mo mooummo mo 85m HO mousom

 

 

.Addmmv flow

"monuwuum How masseum> mo

mammamqa .oa mamas

81

 

 

 

 

mm. omom.~mmo Hmuoe

memm.mam Hm m~¢~.oano moauomoumo queue:

Ham. mowam. mams.~a~ a mama.~a~ moauomoumo oomzumm
hueawflmnoum Oeumwumum mumswm eoooonh mmnmsum mossaum>
oosmuwmwsmwm m cams. mo nooummo we saw no OOHsOm

.AHOHHGOOV xom "mosuwuum How ousmwum> mo newhdmcd .HH mqm48

82

Summary

Guttman Scalogram Analysis was used to determine the
unidimensionality of the instrument Attitude Towgrd Instruc-
plonal Developmgpp. The original 50-item instrument did not
possess a sufficiently high coefficient of reproducibility.
Thus it was modified according to the procedures outlined by
Guttman with the resulting instrument containing twenty-four
items. The modified instrument was judged to be unidimen-
sional and was administered to the population. Scores for
each individual were summed and submitted to statistical
analysis.

One hypothesis was found to be significant when tested
at the .05 level using an analysis of variance. Administrators
at the K-8 level had significantly higher scores than did those
at the 9-12 level. Though one sub-hypothesis was significant
at the .05 level, it was significant in a direction opposite
that predicted. Teachers in the control group at the 9-12
,1evel had significantly higher scores than did teachers at the
Kw8 level. However, because of multiple tests, this result
must.be interpreted with caution. Table 12, contains a sum-
‘mary'of the results of the hypotheses and sub—hypotheses

tested.

83

 

 

Hhm. mono. Om

mha. mmw¢m.~ 9m

mmo. mammo.m mm

mmm. mmmem. m

MNo. mmmo¢.m ON

mmo. hemwo.~ an

ohm. Ohhmm. om

mmw. edema. N

000. mmaom.m a
”wwwmwmmmww oaumaumumum, mammsuoomsunom
OOGMUHmecmem HO memmnuommm

 

 

mosmowmesmflm psm

.oeumsumum m .ooummu nomosuOdmnlnsm

.muaasnmnoum
pom mononuomhm.

.NH MAM<B

CHAPTER V

SLMMARY AND CONCLUS IONS

The purpose of this study was to determine the difference
in expressed attitudes toward instructional development between
males and females, and between elementary and secondary school
teachers and administrators.

Literature on the attitudes of educators toward various
psychological objects with respect to the variables of sex
and teaching level revealed a number of studies which indicated
that the attitudes of females are more positive than the atti—
tudes of males and the attitudes of elementary school faculty
are more positive than the attitudes of secondary school
faculty. Although no studies were found which assessed atti—
tudes toward instructional develOpment with respect to the
variables of teaching level and sex, the literature indicated
that they are variables worth investigating when attitudes
are assessed.

The pOpulation for this study consisted of 31 partici-
pants in an Instructional DevelOpment Institute (IDI), 46
students enrolled winter term, 1972, in the Education 831A
course in educational media at Michigan State University, and

a group of 33 educators from the East Lansing Public School

84

85

System. .IDI participants (teachers, administrators, policy
makers, and specialists) had taken part in a 40-hour program
designed to provide them with initial competencies and skills
in applying an instructional systems approach to the develOp-
ment of solutions to teaching and learning problems.
Education 831A is a graduate level course which provides the

students with formal exposure to the instructional development

slim“ -' Yn‘ :3
U \
:2,

concept. The control group of educators from the East Lansing
Public School System had had no formal exposure to the in-

structional develOpment concept.

 

Prior to the administration of the modified instrument
to the population used in this study, the original 50—item
Likert-type instrument, Attitgdeplpward Instructional Develop-
pppp_was given as a pre-test to 43 students enrolled in
Education 831A at Michigan State University during the fall
term of 1971. The original instrument was modified according
to procedures of Guttman Scalogram Analysis and was found to
be unidimensional.

Univariate analyses of variance were used to determine
the differences which existed across and within the three
groups as a function of teaching level and also of sex.

Hypotheses were tested at the .05 level.

Conclusions
Data analysis supports the following conclusions:
1. The attitude toward instructional development of

administrators at the K-8 level was significantly more positive

86

than the attitude of administrators at the 9-12 level.

2. No significant difference in attitude toward instruc-
tional development was found between teachers at the K-8
level and teachers at the 9-12 level when compared irrespec-
tive of groups. When attitude toward instructional development
of teachers at the K—8 level was compared to the attitude of
teachers at the 9—12 level with respect to the groups the
teachers were in, one group showed a significant difference.
Teachers at the 9—12 level in the control group had signifi-
cantly more positive attitudes than did teachers at the K-8
level.

3. No significant difference in attitude toward instruc-
tional development was found when.males and females were
compared irrespective of groups. «When the attitude toward
instructional development of males was compared to that of
females with respect to the groups the individuals were in,

no significant difference was found.

Discusslon of Results
Although administrators at the K—8 level had significantly
more positive attitudes toward instructional development than
did administrators at the 9—12 level, no significant differ-
ences were found overall betwetn teachers at the K-8 level and
teachers at the 9-12 level. Teachers in the control group at
the 9-12 level were found to have significantly more positive

attitudes than teachers at the K-8 level. This finding should

 

 

87

be interpreted with caution however since no differences were
found overall between teachers at the two levels. .The dif—
ference found in the cOntrol group is probably attributable

to chance.

Recommendations

1. This study should be replicated using a sample
randomly assigned to treatment groups and selected from a
larger population.

2. In this study the experimenter had no control of the
treatment the subjects received. In a future study, the
experimenter could choose various methods of presenting the
concept of instructional develOpment to the subjects and then
randomly assign subjects to one of the methods chosen.

3. A study similar to this one but using a pre-test-
posttest design would not only reveal attitudes toward instruc—
tional development but would show shifts in attitude as well.
As Rogers has stated (See Chapter I), attitudes intervene
between knowledge about an innovation and the decision to adOpt
the innovation. If instruction in applying the instructional
development process is given to educators for the purpose of
encouraging them to apply the process to their own instruc-
tional problems, it is essential that their attitudes be known.
The assessment of attitudes could reveal whether or not°posi-

tive attitudes were being fostered.

88

4. Since Rokeach and Kleijunas (see Chapter II), have
found that behavior can. e predicted from attitudes when the
attitudes are assessed with respect to the situation in which
they occur, attitudes toward instructional development could
be investigated in the context of the educational setting of
which the subjects are a part.

5. Another attitude instrument might be developed which
would focus on specific aspects of the instructional develop-
ment process to determine whether or not there are any aspects
of the process to which peOple react negatively. Information
of this nature would be valuable to those attempting to
encourage educators to engage in the instructional development

process.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

B I BLI OGRAPHY

Allport, Gordon W. "Attitudes." In Fishbein (Ed.)
Readings in Attitude Theory and.Mea§urement.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967.

Anderson, L. R. and Fishbein,.M. "Prediction of an Attitude
from Number, Strength, and Evaluative Aspect of Beliefs
About the Attitude Object: A Comparison of Summation
and Congruity Theories."‘ Journal of Pergonallty and
Social Psychology, II (September, 1965), 437-443.

Barson, John. A Procedural and Cost Analysis Study of,Medl§
ln Instructional Systems Development. East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, 1965, Part A.

Beamer, G. C., and Ledbetter, Elaine W; ”The Relation Between
Teacher Attitudes and the Social Service Interest."
Journal of Educational Research, L (May, 1957), 655-666.

Bird, Charles. Social Psychology. New York: Appleton
Century, 1950.

-Bloom, Benjamin 8., Hastings, J. Thomas, Madaus, George F.
-gandpgpk of Fogmative and Summative Evaluation of
Student Learning. New York: .McGraw—Hill Co., 1971.

Blumer, Herbert. ”Attitudes and the Social Act." Social
Problems, III (OctOber, 1955), 59-64.

Blumer, Herbert. "Research on Race Relations in the United
States Of America." International Social Sclence
Journal, X (1958), 403-447.

Bogardus, E. S. "Measuring Social Distance." Journgl of
Applied Sociology, IX (1925), 299-308.

Cantril, H. "Attitudes in the Making." Undergtanding the
Child, IV (1934), 13:14.

Cook, S. W. and Sellitz, C. "A Multiple-indicator Approach

to Attitude Measurement." Psychological Bulletin,
LXVI (July, 1964), 36-55.

89

9O

DeFleur, M., and westie, F. "Attitude as a Scientific
Concept." Social Forceg, XLII (1963), 17-31.

Doob, Leonard W. "The Behavior of Attitudes." Psychological
Review, LIV (May, 1947), 135-156.

Edwards, Allen L. Techniques Of Attitude Scale Construction.
New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, Inc., 1965.

Edwards, Allen L., and Kenney, Kathryn Claire. "A Comparison
of the Thurstone and Likert Techniques of Attitude
Scale Construction." In Fishbein (Ed.) Readings in
Attitude Theory and Meapprement. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 1967, pp. 249-256.

Edwards, Allen L , and Porter, Bette C. "Attitude.Measure-
ment." In The Afgective Domaln: A Resource Book fog
Media Specialists. Washington, D. C.: Communication
Service Corporation, 1970, pp..115-134.

English, H. B., and English, A. C. A Comprehensive Dictlonary
Of Psycholpgicalgand Psychoanalytical Terms: A Gulde to
Usage. New YOrk: .McKay, 1958.

Paris, K. Gene. "Faculty DevelOpment--The Key to Instructional
Development." Viewpoints Bulletin: Journal O: the School
of Educatlon. Indlana University, XLVI, No. 2. (March,
1970), 131-133.

Ferguson, L. W. "The Influence of Individual Attitudes on
Construction of an Attitude Scale." Journal of Social

Psychology, VI (February, 1935), 115-117.

Ferguson, L. W. "The Requirementd Of an Adequate Attitude
Scale." Egychological Bulletin, XXXVI (1939), 665-673.

Fishbein, Martin. (Ed.) Readings in Attitude Theory and
Measurement. New YOrk: Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967.

Glaser, RObert. "Educational Technology as Instructional
Design." Educational Technology, VIII (January 15, 1968),

5-6.

Gustafson, Kent L. Toward a Definition of Instructional
Development. A paper presented to the Instructional
Development Division: Association for Educational Com-
munications and Technology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
(March, 1971).

 

Guttman, Louis. "The Basis for Scalogram Analysis." Reprinted
from Studles of Social Psychology in World War II, Volume
4 of Measurement and Prediction. Princeton University
Press, 1949. Bobbs-Merrill Reprint Series in the Social
Sciences, Print No. S—4l3.

91

Guttman, Louis. "The Cornell Technique for Scale and Intensity
Analysis." Educationalyand Psychological Meagurement.
VII (Summer, 1947), 247—249.

Hall, 0. M. "Attitude and Unemployment." Archives of
Psychology, New York, 1934, No. 165.

Hamreus, Dale. "The Systems Apporach to Instructional DevelOp-
ment." In The Contribution of Behavioral Science to
lpptrpctional Technology, edited by Jack V. Edling.
Monmouth, Oregon: Teaching Research Division of the
Oregon State System Of Higher Education, undated.

Hamreus, Dale G. Toward a Deflnition olyInstructional Develpp—
ment. A paper presented to the Instructional Development
Division: Association for Educational Communications and
Technology. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (March, 1971).

Hinckley, E. D. "The Influence of Individual Opinion on
Construction of an Attitude Scale." Journal of Social
‘Psychology, III (August, 1932), 283-296.

Insko, C. Theories ofyAttitude Change. New York: Appleton-
Century, 1967.

Jahoda, M , and Warren, N. (Eds.). Attitudes. Baltimore:
Penguin Books, 1966.

Katz, D., and Stotland, E. A. "A Preliminary Statement of
Attitude Structure and Change." In Koch (Ed.) Psychology:
A Study of Science, VOlume 3, Formulations of Person and
the Social Context. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. 423-475.

 

Kaufman, Roger A. "A Systems Approach to Education:
Derivation and Definition." Audiovisual Communication
Review, XVI, No. 4 (Winter, 1968), 415-425.

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations for Behavioral Research.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964.

Kleijunas, Peter T. Atpltude Toward Object and Attitude
Toward Situation agyPredlctogs of Behavior, Unpublished
Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1969.

Krech, D., Crutchfield,‘R. S., and Ballachey, E. L.
lndividual in Society. 'New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

Kutner, B., Wilkens, C., and Yarrow, P. R. "Verbal Attitudes
and Overt Behavior Involving Racial Prejudice." Journal
of Abnormal,andy§oclal ngchology, XLVII (1952), 649-652.

LaPiere, R. T. "Attitudes vs. Actions." Social Forceg, XIII
(December, 1934), 230—237.

92

Leeds, Carrol H., and Cook, walter W. "The Construction and
Differential Value of a Scale for Determining Teacher-
Pupil Attitudes." Journal of Egperimental Education,
XVI (December, 1949), 149-159.-

Lindgren, H. C., and Patton, Gladys M. "Attitudes of High
School and Other Teachers Toward Children and Current
Educational Methodology." Callfornia Journal of Educa—
tional Reggarch, IX (March, 1958), 80—85.

McGrath, J. E. SocialyPsychology: A Brief Introduction.
New York: .Holt, 1964.

Miller, Peggy L. "Innovation and Change in Education."
Educational Leadership, XXVII (January, 1970), 339-340.

Murphy, G., and Likert, R. Public Oplnion and the Individual.
New York: Harper, 1937.

Murphy, G., and Murphy L. B. Experlmental Social Psychology.
New York: Harper, 1931.

National Special Media Institute, What is an IDI?

Newcomb, Theodore, Turner, Ralph, H., and Converse, Philip E.
Social Psychology: The Study of Human Interaction.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., and Tannenbaum, P. H. The Measure-
ment pj’Meaning. urbana: The University of Illinois
Press, 1957.

Pintner, R., and Forlano, G. "The Influence Of Attitude Upon
Scaling of Attitude Items." Journalyof Social Psychology,
VIII (1937), 39-45.

Raab, E , and Lipset, S. M. "The Prejudiced Society." In
Raab (Ed.) American Race Relations Today. New York:
Doubleday, 1962.

Remmers, H. H. Introduction to Opinion and Attitude Measure—
ment. New York: Harper and Bros., 1954.

Research Division, NEA The Amerlcan Publlc School Teacher,
1960-61, Personal and Professional Characteristics,
Assignments, Attitudes, Research.Monograph, 1963eM2
(April, 1963).

Rogers, Everett M., with Shoemaker, F. Floyd. Commuplcation
of Innovatlons 2nd ed. New York: The Free Press, 1971.

Rokeach, Milton. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1968.

93

Rokeach, Milton. "The Nature of Attitudes.” In Sills (Ed.),
International EncyclOpedia of the Social Sciencep,
Volume I, Macmillan Co. and The Free Press, 1968.

Rokeach, Milton, and Rothman, G "The Principle of Belief
Congruence and the Congruity Principle as Models of Cog-
nitive Interaction." gpychological Review, LXXII (March,
1965), 128-142.

Rose, A. M. "Intergroup Relations vs. Prejudice: Pertinent
Theory for the Study of Social Change." Social Problems,
IV (1956), 173-176.

Rundquist, E. S., and Sletto, R. F Personality in the
Depregsion. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1936.

Ryans, D. G. Characteristics of Teachers: Their Descrlption,
Comparison, and Appraisal. Washington, D. C.: American
Council on Education, 1960.

Shaw, Marvin E., and Wright, Jack.M. Scales for the.Measure—
ment of Attitudes. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co.,
1967.

Sherif, Muzafer, and Sherif, Carolyn. An Outline of Social
Psychology, Rev. ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1956.

Stephenson, W. The Study of Behavior: Qetechniqueygnd Its
Mpthodolcgy. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press,
1953.

Stern, George S. "Measuring Non—Cognitive Variables in
Research and Teaching." In Gage (Ed.) Handbook 9;
Rpseagch on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.,
1963.

Thomas, W. I., and Znaniecki, F. The Polish Peasant in EurOpe
and America, Volume I. Boston: Badger Press, 1918.

To Improve Learning: A Report to the President and Congress
of the United States. (By the Commission on Instructional
Technology) United States Government Printing Office.
Washington, D. C.,-1970, p. 5.

Torgerson, Warren S. Theory and Methods of Scaling. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.

Wandt, E. "The Measurement of Teachers' Attitudes Toward
Groups Contacted in the Schools." Journal of Educational
Research, XLVI (October, 1952), 113—122.

94

Witt, Paul W. F. "Instructional Development: What? Why?
How? Who?" Paper presented at the Symposium on
Instructional Development, Michigan State University,
May 3, 1971.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

ATTITUDE TOWARD INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOHMENT SCALE

95

96

Check One Check One

Male [:] Teacher [:]

Female [3 Administrator - El
III

Specialist
ATTITUDE TOWARD INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT*

Definitions

Instructional Development or I.D. is a system approach to solv-
ing instructional problems. It involves a definition stage
where the problem and all related instructional elements and
resources, including management organization are identified; a
develOpment stage where the behavior necessary to solve the
problem is specified in measurable tenms and a prototype learn-
ing experience is developed which employs the most effective
methods and media that learning theory and practical experience
can suggest; and finally, it involves a testingpand appllcatlpp
stage where the prototype system is tried out and revised
repeatedly until some version(s) successfully teaches the de-
sired behavior. Only then is the resulting system used by
teachers who have been thoroughly trained to use it properly
with qualified learners.

Ingtructions

When you answer the following statements please try to express
the way ypp honestly feel about this idea of instructional
develOpment or I.D. Your answer is correct if it expresses
your true opinion. PLEASE ANSWER EVERY ITEM. In each case
encircle the letter which represents your own ideas as follows:

SA if you agree completely with the statement
A if you agree in general but wish to modify it somewhat
U if your attitude is undecided
D if you disagree but with certain modifications
SD if you completely disagree
*Produced under a grant from the U.S. Office of Education,
Bureau of Libraries and Educational Technology, Division of.
Educational Technology, Media Specialist Program. Produced for
the National Special Media Institutes by Jack V. Edling.
©Copyright, National Special Media Institutes, 1971.

Unit 10 Module 3

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

97

I.D. should be a part of the professional
preparation of all teachers.

I.D. places too much emphasis on program-
ming, media and technology.

I.D. makes one realize that you have to be
specific on problems and Objectives to com—
municate effectively.

I.D. really gives primary consideration to
the learner's needs.

I.D. is a waste of time.

I.D. is so significant that it is urgent
to promote its wide adOption.

I.D. allows each child to start from where
he is and progress as far as he is capable.

I.D. enables children to find capabilities
within themselves that they wouldn't have
been able to find without it.

I.D. is nothing new.

I.D. seems like a better solution to our
problems than anything else currently
being considered.

I.D. will be ineffective unless all members
of a team have a thorough understanding of
the system and are committed to it.

I.D. is a flexible approach that allows
for expansion and change.

I.D. is simply the old problem-solving
method.

I.D. is the most challenging idea in edu-
cation at the present time.

I.D. is the only really effective way to
evolve a relevant curriculum.

I.D. requires too many alternatives to
be practical.

I.D. enables the teacher to better see
the purposes of his instructional program.

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

‘SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

l8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

98

I.D. cannot be compared with traditional
approaches to improving instruction.

I.D. will work only when everyone directly
involved in instruction is favorable and
familiar with it.

I.D. requires concentrated effort at first
but it becomes less demanding as it becomes
better understood.

I.D. is something every educator can use.

I.D. enables people to better work to—
gether to meet the needs of students.

I.D. enables teachers to develop new and
more effective methods for meeting stu-
dent needs.

I.D. may have some advantages but I haven't
been sold completely on it.

I.D. is the most productive in—service
training that I can conceive.

I.D. is the best answer yet for teachers
who are looking for an Objective method
for attacking curriculum problems.

I.D. is a boring and uninteresting activity.

I.D. is the means to reduce the gap
between "what is” and "what should be.”

I.D. provides a means for ”getting a
handle" on the problems facing school
districts.

I.D. can be the change agent that will
elevate us from the morass of prOblems
that blind, confuse and befuddle us.

I.D. is fine but I couldn't do it by myself.
I.D. is right on target--there is no better
way or more Opportune time than to move on
it right now.

I.D. enables you to get the most effect
for the money available.

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

34.

35.
36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

99

I.D. has recognized and structured a
systematic way to resolve prOblems and
all educators should become committed to it.

I.D. is a giant step forward.

I.D. really makes one think about all as-
pects of the educational task.

I.D. provides a method to assess the goals
of an instructional program realistically
in terms of available resources.

I.D. has taken curriculum improvement from
the abstract to tangible evidence in deal-
ing with educational objectives.

I.D. is a procedure that will result in
the improvement of an instructional program.

I.D. is long overdue--think of how many
children we have failed and blamed them for
their failure.

I.D. is a "must" for every administrator
who assumes the role of instructional
leader.

I.D helps teachers who have had little
training on how to plan systematically.

I.D. and the resulting more systematic
instruction has become essential since
the educational process has become so
complex.

I.D. is not an end in itself, but simply a
means that educators can and.must use to
update schools.

I.D. is the best alternative we have to
accomplish the task at hand.

I.D. seems to be the way to go.
I.D. is essential to get the support so
Often refused because we‘re always deal—

ing with generalities.

I.D. is what we have been needing for
years.

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

100

49. I.D. will succeed because it places SA A U D SD
primary emphasis on the learner and
learning.

50. I.D. is the nearest thing we have to a SA A U D SD

panacea in education.

APPENDIX B

ATTITUDE TOWARD INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOHMENT.
MODIFIED SCALE

101

102

Please respond to each Of the following items in order to pro—
vide essential background data.

SEX: Male Female

AGE: Please circle the apprOpriate age range:

up to 24; 25-29; 30-34; 35-39; 40-44; 45-49; 50—54; 55-59;
over 60.

YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT: Please circle the apprOpriate range of
years of your employment in an educatlonal capacity.

None; 1-4; 5-9; 10-14; 15-19; 20-24; 25-29: 30—34: 35-39;

over 40.

PRESENT POSITION: Please check your present position(s) in
the following list and then indicate the number of years which
(you have held this position.

(Position) (years)

Teacher

Administrator (principal or asst., superintendent
or asst.)

Board member (Trustee, regent, etc.)
Specialist (counselor, media/library, curr.,
content)

If other, please list and explain:

 

 

CURRICULAR RESPONSIBILITY: Please list the subject(s) which
you now teach.

(1) , (2) I (3)

 

TEACHING AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL: Please circle the appro-
priate 1evel(s).

(K-8); (9-12); if other, specify:

 

DEGREE: Please circle your present degree level: (Bachelor's);
(Master's); (Doctoral).

103

ATTITUDE TOWARD INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOEMENT

DEFINITIONS:

Instructional Development or I.D. is a systems approach to
solving instructional problems. It involves a definition

stage where the problem and all related instructional elements
and resources, including management organization are identified:
a develOpmenthtage where the behavior necessary to solve the
problem is specified in measurable tenms and a prototype learn-
ing experience is develOped which employs the most effective
methods and media that learning theory and practical experience
can suggest; and finally, it involves a ppgting and applicatlpp
stage where the prototype system is tried out and revised
repeatedly until some version(s) successfully teaches the de-
sired behavior. Only then is the resulting system used by
teachers who have been thoroughly trained to use it properly
with qualified learners.

INSTRUCTlONS:
When you answer the following statements please try to express
the way you honestly feel about this idea of instructional
develOpment or I.D. Your answer is correct if it expresses
your true Opinion. PLEASE ANSWER EVERY ITEM. In each case
encircle the letter which represents your own ideas as follows:
SA if you agree completely with the statement

A if you agree in general but wish to modify it somewhat

U if your attitude is undecided

D if you disagree but with certain modifications

SD if you completely disagree

9.
10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

104

I.D. places too much emphasis on program—
ming, media and technOlogy.

I.D. really gives primary consideration to
the learner's needs.

I.D..is so significant that it is urgent
to promote its wide adOption.

I.D. enables children to find capabilities
within themselves that they wouldn't have
been able to find without it.

I.D. seems like a better solution to our
problems than anything else currently
being considered.

I.D. is the only really effective way to
eVOIVe a relevant curriculum.

I.D. requires too many alternatives to be
practical. -

I.D. requires concentrated effort at first
but it becomes less demanding as it becomes
better understood.

I.D. is something every educator can use.
I.D. is the best answer yet for teachers
who are looking for an objective method
for attacking curriculum problems.

I.D. is the means to reduce the gap between
"what is” and "what should be."

I.D. provides a means for "getting a handle"

on the prOblems facing school districts.

I.D. is right on target--there is no better
way or Opportune time than to move on it
right now.

I.D. has recognized and structured a sys-
tematic way to resolve problems and all
educators should become committed to it.

.I.D. is a giant step forward.

I.D. really makes one think about all
aspects of the educational task.

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

105

I.D. provides a method to assess the goals
of an instructional program realistically
in terms of available-resources.

I.D. has taken curriculum improvement from
the abstract to tangible evidence in deal-
ing with educational objectives.

I.D. is a procedure that will result in the
improvement of an instructional program.

I.D. is long overdue——think of how many
children we have failed and blamed them
for their failure.

I.D. is a must for every administrator
who assumes the role of instructional
leader.

I.D. and the resulting more systematic
instruction has become essential since the
educational process has become so complex.

I.D. is the best alternative we have to
accomplish the task at hand.

I.D.-seems to be the way to go.

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

HIGH

9 TAT

16 N s E UNIV. LIBRARIES
W W H WW"llHlWllHlIVIHIHI
9 1155764

£3112 £3103